SingVex 2019

I dont think it will be posted on robotevent.

Singvex is now an unofficial event - it won’t be listed in robotevents.

But i can try asking the EP if he minds passing me the data…


First thoughts on seeing this game played - Man this is going to be a super aggressive game at the highest levels.

But it is nice to see a lot of the ideas and concepts that my teams and I discussed actually being played out.


Yup… I can imagine it will be even fiercer by the time we reach worlds… especially during eliminations.

And this is exactly one of the main reasons why I still pushed my teams to go for singvex (even though it is unofficial event)… to jumpstart them for the new season, and also it is a rare opportunity to test out designs and strategy against some very high level teams :slight_smile:


I hope we’ll be seeing more matches posted soon from around the world. Would you say this Final is a decent representation of matchplay throughout the whole tournament?

I also noticed how a robot (I’m pretty sure it was 8059K) went through the other half of the field and defensively knocked down the pre-built stacks and the neat rows. I like that strategy, but it does have the obvious defensive flaws of not being able to stack whilst doing it. The small goal zone wasn’t visible, but it looked like only the auton stack was placed there.
Then again, 8059A had stacking pretty much under control with that massive tray. With such limited stacking space, I kind of expect that one robot will be pushed out to play defense or towers.

From this one- still early season- match, I totally expect to see the field regularly cleared before Worlds in some regions. Towers will decide matches at that point, so I’m glad we get to see that now instead of later.

Thanks again for sharing this!


I will be lying that all the matches were this standard.

There were quite a few new teams around as well, can’t really expect them to perform to this level.

But maybe I would say that the SF and Final were the same standard, and QF slightly lower in terms of intensity and aggression.
Sometimes you will get some good quality qualifying matches (when you had some good teams facing off).

As for crashing down the pre-built stack, it was part of the plan against vertical intake designs.
And the crashing through action was to “compact” the cubes together, again, hopefully we can made things a bit more difficult against the vertical intake robots.

The small goal for the blue alliance was already stacked with 5 cubes during the autonomous.
The team initially plan was to get 8059K to play defence against 8066 and score the multipliers, while leaving 8059A to do the big stack.

Think the match will be a lot closer if the stack didn’t topple.

But we know games against 8066 will always gonna be tight… regardless of what strategy we used. And I am sure 8066 will feel that same way too - the results can go both ways.


very intense match, way more action then I was expecting from this early in the season! very impressive bots all around.
I noticed many of the big stacks fell when placed, was that just a fluke, or was it a reoccurring issue? do you find that the rollers sometimes knock over the stack when backing away, or was it an issue with the tray?


It was definitely not easy to do the big stack.
But it was generally ok till the final.

Not verified - but after the final, one of the students actually found that the polycarbonate at the middle section of the tray popping in slightly, and probably that caused the stacks to keep falling.


You impressed us with your Ri3D too!!
8059A is a slight variation of your’s… with fixed side-rollers instead of attaching them to the arm.
At the end of their built… i remember telling my teams - your’s Ri3D design is actually a very efficient and clever approach to motor distribution - it can basically do almost everything required.

We will be aiming to send some teams to worlds… but again, the number of teams will be at the mercy of RECF.

Think there are 2 issues that we faced - one is of course making sure the cubes are placed down level (the barrier does create a bit of a problem when the robot is trying to place the stack all the way inside the goal… most of the time the wheels will need to be mounted on the barrier), and the higher the stack, the greater the effect due to the robot being not levelled when placing the stack down.

the 2nd issue is the difference in the number of cubes will make a small difference to how much the tilter needs to tile forward.

We do have some ideas for having a brace or cage for the tray… just that we ran out of time to try it out (it was meant to be a Ri1D).

Side-note… yes… that was exactly one of the videos (discobot in vexiq) that I showed my teams as well!!


This is the 3rd and 4th placing match between 8065A / 8059Z and 8066X / 8066D (i think :stuck_out_tongue: )

Thought this match will give another flavour to this season game - 8059Z is essentially a defensive robot (i.e. 62A-style of play).
Some of you might want to see the effectiveness of a defensive-bot in this game.

The view was blocked (in about 45sec)… but thats when 8059Z accidentally caused 1 cube to be descored.

After another quite long deliberation, the verdict was a DQ.


Those were way higher stacks than I anticipated.


I like what 8066X/D were doing, prioritizing green and purple cubes. Also it was neat to see how defense was played.


Let me first say that this DQ-rule was communicated to all the teams during drivers meeting and it was consistently applied throughout the tournament.

And the referees were just following SG3 closely - basically, nothing wrong with them issuing a DQ due to 8059Z accidentally descoring one cube from the stack.

But just to throw this out for discussion - Is SG3 (G) too harsh? Especially if it happens in a non-match affecting situation and it is not intentional?

By non-intentional I mean, for example - 2 opposing robots fighting to intake a cube near the small goal, and when the robot is turning around, it accidentally remove the cubes from the stack.

And by non-match affecting - the example will be in the singvex 3rd/4th placing match, a lone cube from the top of the stack fell, but the red actually won by a lot more than just that 1 cube.

And of course, we will also need to bear in mind that the more grey areas that the rules have, the more difficult it is for the referees to make any split-second decision = more disputes.

So as I said, it is not to discuss about the DQ in the 3rd/4th placing match, but rather the focus should be about this SG3 (G) ruling… and hopefully things can still change before the Aug manual updates.

Your thoughts?


Your students and club have inspired thousands of robotics students, coaches and mentors for years. Don’t stop being successful.
I have personally used your videos as examples of what we will see later in the season for a couple of years. This video is no different.


I think that it is important to draw the line somewhere for the sake of consistency so that no teams feel that they were treated differently by the refs I think it is ok to follow that rule to the line.


thanks for your encouraging words.
Good to know that the kids are making a difference to the vex community :slight_smile:

btw… mind sharing which team are you from? are you related to the legendary 44 ???
I miss visiting their pit and getting inspired by their videos!!

1 Like

hmm… the SG3(G) rule was implemented consistently throughout the tournament. thats not the issue.

but the question is whether should we request for a relook at the rule…?


Thanks for the kind words about our RI3D! I honestly played a much smaller role than a lot of the other people on the RI3D team, but the amount of community support we’ve gotten has been absolutely unreal. Thank you!

The automatic DQ does jump out as being pretty harsh, particularly early in the season when we’re just getting the hang of the game. I’ve never seen a team strategically do something illegal in front of a ref because they thought it wasn’t match affecting, so I wonder why the GDC thought it was necessary to auto-DQ teams for these particular violations? But it’s a new thing so they probably (hopefully?) had a good reason. Maybe @Jim_Crane or someone else on the GDC could shed some light on this?


well what was descored in this match you described? was it 1 cube from stack in goal zone? if so, is it the small goal zone?
you refered to SG3 (g), but that only pertains to Alliance Tower. (the colored cup in the front)

Cause a Cube which is Placed in the opposing Alliance
Tower to no longer meet the definition of Placed (i.e.
“remove it from the Alliance Tower”).

The SG3 in question (if it is the small goal zone) would be SG3b

Contact any Scored Cubes in either of opposing Alliance’s
Goal Zones.

which unless it was specifically contact then the causing the descore without contact would be ok. If it was descored through contact then it would be DQ if it was match affecting (or repeated violations).

On the other hand, if it was causing a cube to descore from the BIG goal zone. Then it would be a SG3(f) violation:

Cause Scored Cubes within the opponent’s Protected Zone
to no longer meet the definition of Scored (i.e. “knock over
their stack”).

Which would result in a DQ

As Meng said, what’s done is done. I am speaking strictly from how I would interpret the manual through reading and basing the situation off of what Meng as noted.

@siukongsit you are right… i was referring to the wrong rule, or rather, I misread alliance tower as the tower of cubes that was stacked… I know… it is a facepalmed situation for me. lol.

and looks like it was already answered in the official q&a…

for the small goal, it is only DQ-able if it is match affecting.
guess it is case closed…

1 Like

Goodness no, I am not part of the legendary 44. That would be cool though.