Team Update #1

[s_forbes]

Baaaww...

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

I also like how the FTC folks are able to get involved with the FRC process this year, but it's always a bit of a let down when you're told you can't launch things into the air.

The 84" rule is a good change, too. I don't think we'll need it, but it will be nice to see more robots running around with long arms sticking up in the air. It makes for entertaining matches.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I want to have fun designing a minibot, not use someone elses.

That is your choice and I don't think you were being mean.

[smistthegreat]

Originally Posted by Karibou

Whoops, my bad. 217, not 148. Easy to get the two mixed up...

While 217's hanger was exciting to watch, after seeing it time after time again, if there was something else going on on the field, I was more likely to watch that. If it's 217 vs a team in their final match of their final event, they're hanger is working for the first time, and it takes 20 seconds to get up there, I'm watching that bot. There's a lot of overwhelming joy in seeing something succeed after multiple failures, for whatever reason. I'm not trying to say that a team like 217 isn't inspiring - they are. I am always impressed with the students from teams like that and what they have been able to accomplish. But I am also inspired by the other teams at the competitions who often get overshadowed by the extremely successful robots. Someone who is proud of what their robot can do, no matter how it compares to the competition, is always someone to provide inspiration.

Hmm, not to be Johnny Raincloud but I'm fairly sure 217 removed their arm as well, at least I seem to remember them not having it at FLR. Hmm.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

No, you aren't the only one, Al. Perhaps you are using some of that 'rational passion' that Dr. Flowers was talking about. This is a 20 year celebration; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is a big moment for FIRST, celebrating its achievements. 3 of its achievements are FRC, FTC, and FLL. In the past twenty years, other programs have sprung up and developed and that's great but this is FIRST's game.

Jane

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

We are fortunate in that we sponsor 9 FTC teams, including the reigning FTC Hot Shot World Champs - so our perspective is this is a good thing, but I can certainly understand every one elses frustration, if you don't have that kind of access to an FTC team. We are inviting all of our FTC teams, plus all the other FTC Teams in our region to a competion we are hosting in 3 weeks. The winning team will be traveling with us to both Manchester and to our "home" regional in Baltimore. We are hopeful we can bring more than one with us, so they can help other FRC teams.

Steve

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by smistthegreat

Hmm, not to be Johnny Raincloud but I'm fairly sure 217 removed their arm as well, at least I seem to remember them not having it at FLR. Hmm.

No worries Mr. Raincloud, you are correct.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

I would agree if there were more than a handful of FTC teams around here.

Wouldn't it have been greater to have the 50 or more Vex teams in this area inspired and in demand?

I think FIRST needs to find a dose of the gracious part of GP 'cause they seem to have forgotten.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Cory

minibots will now be completely and totally boring.

What's more inspiring, a 1 second minibot or waiting to see who reaches the pole first to deploy their minibot that takes 7 seconds to reach the top?

This.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

FIRST. You made a horrible call, you took what was potentially a good engineering design challenge, and turned it into a last ditch effort to save their inferior (to vex) FTC design competition.

It's now a challenge of who can make the SAME minibot lighter. Yay.

And especially this.

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I know everyone is rejoicing about the 84" cylinder, but I personally loved the 60" as an actual engineering challenge.

And this. 60" cylinder was enough space to make it a decent challenge. 84" just makes it easy.


I've done FRC for almost a decade now. These rule changes are of 2002 tether-rule in magnitude. I'm not thrilled.

It's a case of taking a challenge that is complex and engaging with multiple solutions, and dumbing it down.

[BrendanB]

Does this mean FRC teams can compete in FTC next year? I really don't want to make a minibot now if it is now a battle of weight! Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed. I would have loved to make a projectile, now we can't. Wanted to then make one with surgical tubing and motors used in unison, now we can't.

I really think this is a very poor choice. It is like a rat race!

[cpeister]

I was looking forward not only to designing a launching minibot, but also to watching them in competition. Slow, motor driven minibots will be much less exciting to watch

As for the cylinder rule, 84" certainly gives more room for arms and such, but I liked the challenge that 60" presented.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Karthik

No worries Mr. Raincloud, you are correct.

Wow. I guess I'm really way off. I'm not even sure who I was thinking of now, but thanks for the correction. Sorry about all of that :/

[Brandon Holley]

Mixed feelings on this update. The switch to 84" makes the tube grasping problem much easier. I was looking forward to some of the more creative ways to get tubes off the ground in the limited footprint.

Obviously minibots had potential to be a lot better than what it now is. I can see why so many people are disappointed in the GDC's clarification.

At least now we know...

-Brando

[Radical Pi]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed

For the most part I agree with your post, but I'd like to point out that surgical tubing has more uses than just launching up the pole. Stored energy is perfectly legal if it is not used to generate upward motion. You could (for example) have surgical tubing create a spring-loaded door around the pole.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Does this mean FRC teams can compete in FTC next year? I really don't want to make a minibot now if it is now a battle of weight! Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed. I would have loved to make a projectile, now we can't. Wanted to then make one with surgical tubing and motors used in unison, now we can't.

I really think this is a very poor choice. It is like a rat race!

FRC teams have been competing in FTC games since Face Off. Why is it so odd that FIRST would combine their two high school programs together for their 20th year? I think folks need to "chill-lax" (to all my students: I hope I used that word correctly...). Dean was very clear that this is FIRST and we are all FIRST teams. What is the problem with that?

BTW: a rat race, I believe, was intended not ballistic minibots. The GDC has a vision of what the game will look like. I'm sorry they didn't have the same idea as you did.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

FIRST. You made a horrible call, you took what was potentially a good engineering design challenge, and turned it into a last ditch effort to save their inferior (to vex) FTC design competition.

It's now a challenge of who can make the SAME minibot lighter. Yay.

My thoughts exactly. For a second I thought that was an intentional allowance - you can either use FTC or think outside the box!

But no. FIRST isn't happy until overpriced, crap Tetrix parts are in the hands of every single FIRST team whether they like it or not.