P-02 / Robotics

FTC Team 16255 Minerva Warriors

Contributed to competition robot hardware and integration, then iterated across mechanical, electrical, and autonomous-system interactions under event constraints.

CompletedContribution evidenceRecruiter summaryRobot hardwareElectro-mechanical integrationAutonomous testingRapid iteration

Organization: FIRST Tech Challenge · Team 16255
Engineering problem: Integrate reliable competition robot hardware for rapid specimen handling under strict match-time and field constraints.
My role: Hardware Captain contributing to robot hardware, electro-mechanical integration, iterative testing, and competition diagnosis.
Verified result: Team developed a five-specimen autonomous routine and a system capable of up to 17 cycles; ranked approximately #43 worldwide during the relevant period.

INTERACTIVE / ARCHITECTURE

Trace the system.

N-01Game objective

Acquire, position, and score specimens within a timed match.

N-02Robot mechanism

Physical subsystems manipulate and transport game elements.

N-03Electrical integration

Power and control connections support coordinated hardware.

N-04Autonomous routine

A five-specimen sequence coordinates robot actions.

N-05Cycle testing

Repeated runs expose timing and interaction failures.

N-06Competition result

System-level iteration supported a high-performing team result.

Note — Functional architecture based on the currently documented project scope.

MORE DETAIL AVAILABLE / ENGINEERING VIEW

Open the technical investigation.

Trace the project’s physics or control logic, subsystem interactions, failure modes, and evidence boundaries.

Project Overview

FTC robots compress mechanical design, electrical integration, controls, autonomous behavior, and field strategy into one system. As Hardware Captain, Ben contributed on the hardware and integration side while working within a larger team.

My Role

Contributed to robot hardware and system integration, helped iterate the system under competition constraints, and diagnosed interactions between mechanical, electrical, and autonomous behavior. Team-wide results are identified as team accomplishments rather than individual ownership.

Testing and Validation

Repeated autonomous and cycle runs were used to find interaction failures. Diagnosis considered whether a miss originated in mechanism behavior, electrical reliability, timing, or the interface between subsystems.

Results

The team developed a five-specimen autonomous routine, demonstrated a system capable of up to 17 cycles, and ranked approximately #43 worldwide during the relevant competition period.

What I Learned

Competition robotics developed a systems view: a mechanism is only successful when it is electrically reliable, controllable, testable, and fast to repair under event pressure.

Media and Documentation

The case study is prepared for robot photography, labeled mechanism views, autonomous-run video, and a concise test log. No generic robot imagery is substituted for actual evidence.

Next case studyFPGA Traffic-Light Intersection Controller