Part 11 taught the robot to drive 36 inches, turn right 90 degrees, then drive another 24 inches. This lesson asks whether it can finish at the same place again and again. Students collect evidence before changing the robot.
Agree on a reference point. Mark one point on the robot chassis and square it at the same taped start for every trial. With x forward and y right from that start, the target endpoint is (36, 24) inches; the target heading is −90° for this robot setup.
Keep conditions comparable. Use the same floor, wheels, motor-power settings, and start orientation. Record the settings on the worksheet.
Run three baseline trials. Complete the full POWERING ON sequence each time. Record where the chassis point stops, the final heading, and whether the OpMode completed or timed out. Do not omit a failed run.
Measure only after DISABLED. Record actual forward distance x and rightward distance y. For each run, calculate endpoint error in inches as sqrt((x − 36)² + (y − 24)²). A calculator is fine.
Find the pattern. Similar misses suggest a consistent error; widely spread results suggest checking setup, loose hardware, traction, or sensor readings. Do not use the L-path endpoint alone to recalibrate wheel distance: a turn error can move that endpoint too.
Make one justified change and retest. Predict what it should improve, then repeat the full safety sequence for at least two trials. Compare the average endpoint error and how closely the results group.
Ask your team: Did the robot get closer to the finish, become more consistent, both, or neither? What measurement supports your answer?
Build on this lesson
Servos will add controlled mechanisms, sensors will add new measurements, and AprilTags will add camera observations. A repeatable autonomous route gives the team a baseline for judging whether those additions improve the robot.