About our recent service interruption: We appreciate your patience during the downtime and will be continuing to monitor our servers to avoid similar interruptions in service. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused and we appreciate your understanding. We encourage users editing the Wiki to retain records of their edits in the event of another unexpected interruption.×
ODoyleRules wrote:
First of all a servo with only 2.5 kg of torque will not have enough torque at the base to put a battery in the north goal. Especially if it is built by your average student.
Also if the torque of putting the battery in the north goal is an issue (but not east or west) you could always pull the north goal closer thus releaving the amount of torque necessary to then place the battery in it.
chalker wrote:We had time as a tiebreaker last year in the trial event rules, but deliberately removed it. Anytime you require timing for an event it puts a burden on the event supervisors in terms of manpower needed, and we had feedback that there was already too many things the supervisors were having to watch out for during the competition. We can reconsider it for next year, but personally I'd rather find something else that rewards practice but doesn't burden the judges.
Please put time back in as a tie breaker. As an event supervisor for this event, I can't see how this would have made things more difficult. I already have a stopwatch running for three minutes. If the team tells me they are done or does something that would stop the time, I would just stop the stopwatch.
Given the problems the frequency of perfect scores messed up scoring Junkayrd (with 4-5 perfect scores at REGIONALS, let alone states or nationals) a couple of years back on junkyard, don't expect the time to increase or number of items to decrease. The idea is to separate teams by skill/effort, NOT make it possible for every team (or ANY team) to get a perfect score. In fact my view is events where perfect scores are possible are flawed in some sense.
The fact that I'm hearing about perfect scores already at regionals means we need more objects/less time, not the reverse.
One thing we struggled with this year was how to make a scoring system open ended like towers or helicopters so ties were unlikely to impossible. I tried adding an efficiency measure, but was overruled on the divisor I proposed and we couldn't find another logical one. Any ideas?
As to costs, given some of the reliably reported expenditures on sumo last year (in the thousands) I don't see the extremes reported so far in Robot Arm as that far out of range.
Keep in mind, the discussion going on reinforces a fundamental fact of life. To accomplish something takes resources, this includes money, materials, expertise and MANPOWER (time). There is often an optimal range of resources to accomplish something well that allows tradeoffs between those, and that's what I hear being discussed. The chalkers are talking more expertise/manpower less money. Vex based approaches (or other reuse) are using available materials. Some teams are using money. All can work, what works best depends on local circumstances. Personally I like the expertise/manpower approach, the point is to teach the kids something and for them to learn how to learn. Oh, and if you are using lots of ALL resources, could be your approach is less than optimal.
So, the discussion should be on how to minimize RESOURCE need while still allowing all students to learn and the best to shine.
Sorry, soapbox moment. Let me focus on my key points. How do we structure robot events so perfect scores are not likely? How do we reduce the need for resources overall (or point more at student effort)?
Why not have time as an actual part of the score, and not a tie-breaker? There could a formula to calculate efficiency, like (number of objects)/(time). So the team that scores the most objects in the shortest amount of time does best. There's no perfect score that's possible in this situation.
illusionist wrote:Why not have time as an actual part of the score, and not a tie-breaker? There could a formula to calculate efficiency, like (number of objects)/(time). So the team that scores the most objects in the shortest amount of time does best. There's no perfect score that's possible in this situation.
This is an option, but fast motors and strong motors are very expensive and all the sudden this event becomes a competition for who spends the most again....
National event supervisor - Wright Stuff, Helicopters
Hawaii State Director
Slight disagreement. Back to my soapbox. ANY efficiency measure will require more resources, money is again only ONE way to make things faster.
But in flying and bridge/tower events these resources tend to be student time/effort and coach resources (which is a complaint we often hear about those events, can't win). How do we push that bias instead of the money bias to solve the problem?
How's this for an idea.
Those building events I mentioned tend to bias towards effort not money because its not hard to find top quality materials for little cost. More money spent (unless you HIRE an expert coach or something) does not significantly improve results. Heck, we allowed any material for copters this year and I haven't seen anything exotic or expensive yet.
Could we do something like standardize on cheap motors & servos & control devices (this last seems hard to me, but what about you experts?) and require basic structure and linkages to be home made out of fairly common materials? Good results would then come from thinking, not buying. Course that then becomes a challenge to the rules writers to make sure the challenge is solvable with materials allowed, but we're used to that. Hmm, now how to word all that so there are no clarifications...
I had no intention of starting a huge discussion on the cost of Robot Arms. I just noticed the big difference and wanted to suggest, in future years and future events, the estimated cost of all of the new events be added together to try and keep a number as low as possible. This will encourage more schools to join the Science Olympiad "family". Robot arm is a unique event and needs it's time to develop.
Now, for actual suggestions to try and make the rules for Robot arm a little better next year (especially for the small schools with limited money).
1) change the working so the object is out of play only if it goes completely outside the box. This will allow those teams with less precise (and cheaper) robot arms to continue to try and pick up the objects even when half of it goes out. The scoring would need to allow points only if the item is completely in the scoring zone. It would also make it easier to judge. Determining exactly when something goes out is the hardest part of the current rules.
2) allow the robot to lose parts without penalty. This will permit permanent magnets to help pick up some of the items and thse can then be dropped into the containers with the items.
3) change the batteries from D to C size. These are much lighter and will require less motor power to pick up.
I think the above would be some of the many ways to make the event more "even" between the teams who have varying budgets.
illusionist wrote:Actually, according to chalker(7?)'s unofficial response to a PM, a team is allowed to drop a magnet, so long as time stops as soon as it falls.
But time wouldn't be stopped if the magnet started in the robot's gripper as opposed to on the Arm Square, right?
ornithology, forestry, entomology, triple E, green generation, water quality, dynamic planet (lakes & rivers), awesome aquifers, meteorology, robot arm, write it do it. :)
A cone of depression occurs when you drop your scoop of ice cream on the ground on a hot summer day.
illusionist wrote:Actually, according to chalker(7?)'s unofficial response to a PM, a team is allowed to drop a magnet, so long as time stops as soon as it falls.
But time wouldn't be stopped if the magnet started in the robot's gripper as opposed to on the Arm Square, right?
illusionist wrote:Actually, according to chalker(7?)'s unofficial response to a PM, a team is allowed to drop a magnet, so long as time stops as soon as it falls.
But time wouldn't be stopped if the magnet started in the robot's gripper as opposed to on the Arm Square, right?
The bottom line is if anything comes detached from the robot, time stops, regardless of whether it was originally attached or picked up.
Oh, alright. So this would overrule any state clarification about the issue?
ornithology, forestry, entomology, triple E, green generation, water quality, dynamic planet (lakes & rivers), awesome aquifers, meteorology, robot arm, write it do it. :)
A cone of depression occurs when you drop your scoop of ice cream on the ground on a hot summer day.
