[FTC]: Unlimited raw materials. Welding. Wow!

[aklego]

FTC has released the robot portion of the game manual (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FTC/FTC_Documents/FTC-2012-2013_GameManual_Part1_Rev3.pdf).

Wow, those are some big changes! I'll be curious as to how it shakes out as to what constitutes a "raw material" and what does not. Off the top of my head, wooden robots would seem to be legit. As would robots machined out of an 18x18x18 billet of Aluminum. Or Steel. Or pretty much whatever.

And welding is no longer prohibited.

Wow.

Comments?

[sanddrag]

I don't know much about FTC, but wow, this is a big change indeed. I can see a lot of both good and bad that will come from this. Hopefully more good than bad. It'll be interesting to see if this change impacts program growth one way or another. One nice thing is that FTC has differentiated itself from Vex now in the sense that it's not "just a kit you put together" (as I've heard some folks say). I like Vex, but there is something to be said for making things from raw materials.

[Andrew Remmers]

There are also lazy susans and linear slides as COTS parts.

Also. Hang on. Am I reading this right? There is no dimensional constraints? _ At All!_ ?

And if thats true, we can use AL Block? :O This is going to be _so much fun_

[aklego]

Also. Hang on. Am I reading this right? There is no dimensional constraints? _ At All!_ ?

And if thats true, we can use AL Block? :O This is going to be _so much fun_

Excepting the starting size of the robot, that is what I'm seeing. The servo blocks (http://www.servocity.com/html/servoblocks.html) are also a nice addition.

[Andrew Remmers]

Excepting the starting size of the robot, that is what I'm seeing. The servo blocks (http://www.servocity.com/html/servoblocks.html) are also a nice addition.

Oh my.

Still I want steel gears inside our servos, not garbage plastic stuff.

[Chris is me]

I hate it. One of the best things about FTC back in the Vex days, and one of the highly emphasized portions of the competition, is that you only needed hand tools to build a competitive robot. A hacksaw and a file was literally all you needed to build an FTC robot that could win the World Championship - it was a pure "smarts" challenge and resources didn't come into play at all. This made it the perfect competition for schools without machine shops with basically no barrier to entry other than cost.

What is the program now? Certainly not that. In my mind, if you want advanced machining you go to FRC.

[Tristan Lall]

Since I'm not sure what FIRST has in mind for the future of FTC, I'm open to the possibility that the removal of materials restrictions is a good thing. It certainly does set FTC apart from VRC in a tangible way—and that may be just what FTC needs to stay relevant.

As for the rules, they're unfortunately ambiguous, self-contradictory and possibly redundant, particularly with regard to the way the numerous clauses of <R02> are to be interpreted (and reconciled with each other and <R01>).

And of course, since extruded aluminum is available in some rather hefty profiles, expect to see some fancy CNC-milled robots this year. We might also see some fun castings and composite layups, if teams are feeling especially creative.

[PhilBot]

I wonder what the ruling will be for using a Rapid Protyping machine (3D Printer) to fabricate parts. After all, the raw materials for our 3D printer is a spool of 1/16th diameter ABS "rod".

As to whether allowing machining and Rapid Prototyping would be a bad thing... We've built some VERY sophisticated metal robots just using drill press, jig saw and disk sander. Would a team that has access to more sophisticated tools automatially build a better robot than us? I think not.

Since the requirement is for these team's students to learn how to effectivly use these tools, and use CAD to design, I don't see how it's an automatic slam dunk. There is a lot of extra work required to use these tools effectivly. That learning is a VERY good thing.

Phil.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Though I don't dabble in FTC too much, I gotta agree with Chris. This just makes it look like a small FRC, and will give an advantage to those with the capabilities to abuse these new rules. I used to build VRC/FTC bots when I was younger just for fun, just with the kit. I hope this doesn't turn FTC into the small FRC I see it to be.

[PhilBot]

The big (HUGE) difference between FTC and FRC (I coach both) is that:

FRC is all about students working with Engineers and Manufacturing firms with the stated assumption that these firms will be providing manufacturing support so that the students can work side-by-side with these industry professionals in their normal environment. In several FRC kickoffs, Woodie has said that FRC Teams that insist that the students do everything without working closely with industry partners "aren't getting it".

Where as in FTC (and FLL) the students are meant to do all the work. That's why they have much more time to do it, and everything is scaled down. So unless the teams break the spirit of this difference, FTC won't turn into FRC.

I also think that there is this assumption that having better tools automatically makes a team's robot better. The reverse is true, better tools usually place higher demands on student and mentor training: eg: CAD to produce drawings, and student design ability to conceve of a part well enough to create an accurate drawing.

Sure, better tools will enable a good team to do even better. But based on many robots I've seen at competitions, many teams are struggling with even the most basic tools. Giving them a CNC machine would NOT help.

This is one reason what we've chosen to add a Robot clinic to the front of our FTC Qualifier this year, with the goal of ensuring that every team that attends has a solid working foundation, to build on during the remainder of the season.

Phil.

[Andrew Remmers]

While all these points are really good, I'd like to add something serious.

While FTC teams have slowly been getting the ability to use more than the standard kit parts very slowly over the last few years. I think that the reason is to allow for a larger range of designs that aren't limited to the insane constraints of tetrix parts. Because lets face it Tetrix kit can do amazing things as we all have seen that, but as a kit its very limited, and also very expensive as we all have seen as well. Allowing teams to have a range of materials to pick from allows them to find cheaper alternatives, I personally like this approach because it doesn't always break the bank.

Allowing flexibility to the materials last year did some insane things, 20 foot lifts? Thats astonishing. Teams did alot with what they were given, and alot of teams realized that precision machining was a serious option, if not a absolute option to have a lift that goes up 20 feet without falling over.

While there are pros and cons to the decision to allow such flexibility, I think I can stand safe by my words when I said that FTC will soon start having larger amounts of custom parts, and precision machining, its been worming its way in back since Hotshot at least.

But alas the decision has been made, and its something I can certainly live with.

- Andrew

[aklego]

Lots of thoughtful discussion. I remain baffled by the raw material definition:

"Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form."

A tree would seem to be a raw material but what about a 2 x 4? I can argue either way.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Lots of thoughtful discussion. I remain baffled by the raw material definition:

"Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form."

A tree would seem to be a raw material but what about a 2 x 4? I can argue either way.

2x4s are rarely sold in 18" lengths (or any other length that would fit within the starting box). You could get it cut at the store, but the receipt shows that you bought a 10 foot 2x4 (because you did). In other words, a 2x4 is not in a functional form until you cut and drill it to fit your specific application. At least that is how I interpret it.

[lemiant]

What about gear stock? That has to be cut and drilled. Or what about a gear without any whole patterns? There definitely needs to be more clarification about what "raw material" means.

[PhilBot]

Up until now, raw material seemed to imply a circular or rectangular cross section, with at least one dimension constraned to less than 1/8" or 1/16".

If the dimension restriction goes away, then we're left with any solid material with a circular or rectanglar cross section.

Of course lead-screw violates this, but I suppose it's an extension of the "Fastner" caveat,

but then.... what about angle, and tubular stock...

It does seem like it's going to be hard to know for sure what is a raw material.....

[JesseK]

This announcement is going to blur the lines alot more in the whole 'transfer of skills from mentor to student' paradigm. Yet it will allow a bit more creativity in robot design (so long as the game doesn't have ridiculous outcomes like the 2011-2012 game did...). Personally, given the choice I'll stick with FRC. Yet if I ever had to start a new team from scratch as a sole mentor, this announcement makes FTC much more attractive since FTC is more cost effective that FRC yet is still open-ended competition platform without the constraints of a kit.

It will be cool to see pure WCD's in FTC rather than the standard cobbled-together amalgamations that I've seen in the past. And given that (currently) there's no weight limit, I don't see why the lower frame rails can't simply be solid steel extrusions welded together in order to get a massive traction bonus. A 50-lb 8-motor box-on-wheels with a c.g. 1" off the ground, proper gearing and the LEGO tires that I (still!) only saw 2 teams with at champs this year?? I'd take that as a partner in FTC any day.

The big (HUGE) difference between FTC and FRC (I coach both) is that:
...
Where as in FTC (and FLL) the students are meant to do all the work. That's why they have much more time to do it, and everything is scaled down. So unless the teams break the spirit of this difference, FTC won't turn into FRC.

Funny you say that -- it does happen, and it does affect outcomes:
Under The Sun's 2010 FTC bot was completely adult programmed. The dad on the team admitted it outright to a couple of students who cornered him at the end of the VA competition. At champs, one of my snarkier students walked up to the guy and congratulated him on beating high school students. I think at that point he realized his mistake, because since then the kids on that team have become much more knowledgeable about the underlying code.

[jcarr]

Has anyone worked with the Matrix parts yet? With this rule change, you eliminate the mechanical restrictions (if you have a complete machine shop available). The electrical problems that plagued the robots last year may be addressed by Matrix motor controllers, but I haven't seen them go on sale or heard of anyone who actually used them.

Until they are battle-tested, we have no idea if they are suitable. Has any real FTC team worked with them? Has anyone put them on a real robot and smashed them around a field up against some Tetrix robots? Can the controllers handle high impact collisions or are we looking at another off-the-shelf low-cost assembly like the Samantha modules that will glitch every time you touch another robot?

[Andrew Schuetze]

The matrix motors and system is not the same voltage as the Tetrix system so you won't be able to mix and match controllers and motors between the two.

Electrical connections can be improved greatly with Anderson power pole type connectors that were added as allowed items last season.

Samantha units are still required no matter which kit of parts and controllers that you use.

[Enderbot]

I would say this rules has opened new opportunities, but also a Pandora's box. First off it does allow the use of material to be milled and machine in a way as general robotics field would. Though this can be weighted per team as it can create gap between a sponsored team and a regular fundraiser team. You can probably think of it as the difference of a CNC vs a Dremel. Another point seen here is the idea of what is the line for a raw material. Sure you can use aluminum blocks, plastic, etc, but what about glass, wood, ceramics, and rubber? Last thing I would to point out is the safety issue. Already a robot has a risk of crushing another team's product. Adding to that, the new materials could make it possible for more risk to other teams and audiences.

As much as I like this rule and it creates more ideas for my last year in FTC, it does create concerns and gaps between teams. The solution in my opinion would be to add limitations to material types and size of raw material blocks. Also the attachment rule is all, but disappeared. Which also allows people to possibly attach items in unsafe or non-quality ways.

[TRWSHSHLX]

One of the things that differentiates FTC and FRC is that it's less of a competition of resources - mentors with advanced machining skills, advance machines (from school or sponsors) and resources to get the materials.

This is great for creativity and I believe this will push TETRIX to improve their kit even more so that the teams would WANT to use the kits because it's easy, simply yet they can be innovative with it. At the end, hopefully it will be like the teams chose to go one route or another (TETRIX or all the raw materials) or a combination of both and all the choices' advantages and disadvantages will balance each other out.

[aklego]

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but one thing I'm concerned about is losing the creativity that comes from trying to solve a problem with limited resources. Think Apollo 13. Some of the highlights of my coaching experience come from watching the team brainstorm and figure out how to implement a seemingly impossible design from pretty limited materials.

[jcarr]

One of the things that differentiates FTC and FRC is that it's less of a competition of resources - mentors with advanced machining skills, advance machines (from school or sponsors) and resources to get the materials.

This is great for creativity and I believe this will push TETRIX to improve their kit even more so that the teams would WANT to use the kits because it's easy, simply yet they can be innovative with it. At the end, hopefully it will be like the teams chose to go one route or another (TETRIX or all the raw materials) or a combination of both and all the choices' advantages and disadvantages will balance each other out.

I strongly diasagree with the second part of the statement. I agree that FTC has not traditionally been about the team with the most resources, but this change completely reverses that. Now, only the wealthiest teams (which includes any FTC team that has a sister FRC team), can hope to compete at the state and national level. Any part you can make out of raw materials, you can use. Can you make a better wheel or a steel frame? I can't do that out of the equipment I have in my basement. That means teams that have access to machine shops, CNC machines, metal lathes, welding gear, etc have a shot. We saw that proven in last year's tournament. Only the people with custom lifts could compete. Setting up that kind of infrastructure is extremely expensive, unless you already have a 70-person FRC team funding the equipment. Even the raw materials are expensive - our lift cost close to $700 in raw materials, and that was the third lift we used. It will be the teams with the best toys who can build the best custom chasis and end-effectuator. It will not be about which team can use limited resources in the smartest way possible.

Only the wealthiest will win...

[JesseK]

Only the wealthiest will win...

While I generally agree with this statement about the future, perhaps it will be motivation to collaborate with sponsors or other teams in order to get at least the basic machines. If your FTC team were your small business, would you adapt or roll over? If you persisted and succeeded, how much more inspirational would that be to your students?

Also, consider this: FTC 354 (one of my umbrella teams) won the 2012 Championships with 95% TETRIX parts, 2% LEGO parts, and 3% custom fabrication parts. They had a TETRIX-based lift that went up 7-ish feet before it wobbled to the side and (50% of the time) fell over. I'd estimate that the bot's BOM cost was $1200 or so after motors, sensors and electronics. For them it was all about a fundamental strategy, and it turns out that it's one they can repeat on an even cheaper budget in the future with the rule changes, a drill press, sheet metal bend/brake, and a band saw (and maybe new drill bits every so often...).

[Barry Bonzack]

In several FRC kickoffs, Woodie has said that FRC Teams that insist that the students do everything without working closely with industry partners "aren't getting it".

Where as in FTC (and FLL) the students are meant to do all the work. That's why they have much more time to do it, and everything is scaled down. So unless the teams break the spirit of this difference, FTC won't turn into FRC.



This just makes it look like a small FRC, and will give an advantage to those with the capabilities to abuse these new rules. I hope this doesn't turn FTC into the small FRC I see it to be.


Focusing in on these two comments because these point to just a few of the misconceptions of what FRC participants believe FTC is and what it is not. Here are some others.

FTC is not:

FRC's little brother
The minor league to FRC major League (this analogy was once used near the creation of FTC to explain what it could be, but is no longer the case)
The JV to FRC's Varsity
A Student design and build competition like FLL


When explaining the levels of FIRST to the general public we need to be careful how choose to describe FTC. FTC IS modeled after FRC, not FLL, the purpose is to reach more high schools that can not afford an FRC team. FTC Today and its competitions are more advanced than what the original USFIRST competitions were in the early 90's.

Students should work along side professional engineering mentors, and the Connect award rewards teams that seek engineering help. The Innovate Award and Design Award do not punish robots that clearly had professional mentors aiding students in their inspiration of the design process.

Will teams this year still use Tetrix only parts? Yes. Will some teams fabricate their entire robot in machine shops? Yes. Will some teams choose to have 100% student designs, and others have mentor's CADding their teams robots before a single part is fabricated? Yes. Will this create a larger gap between the top tier and lower tier teams? Yes. Is this fair? Of course not, and it isn't supposed to be, just like FRC.

[JohnFogarty]

That rule change is my favorite revision to the FTC manual ever!
On the year that I have become the manual it shall be the best game ever!
(I'm the guy on the front cover/title page with my other (then GForce 3864) team members)

It brings a interesting twist to how the game might be played and how certain teams who know more about machining will immediately dominate the top. The whole reason I though FTC was successful in the way it was/is, is that there isn't a huge $$$ factor that can boost your team through the roof. Anyone who can build something good with the few parts you have access to, can win. This can also be a very good thing, with the proper educational resources teams can actually create more stable/functioning machines that will compete better in the competitions as well, making for a better lineup of teams at world. It's all based on what you do with the resources you are given access to, and now that FIRST has opened Pandora's box who knows what will come out of it.

On the point of Custom fabricated parts. The year Global Force won world (2010) over 80% of that robot was custom fabricated, not by machine but by hand.

[jcarr]

Focusing in on these two comments because these point to just a few of the misconceptions of what FRC participants believe FTC is and what it is not. Here are some others.

A Student design and build competition like FLL
[/LIST]

Will some teams choose to have 100% student designs, and others have mentor's CADding their teams robots before a single part is fabricated? Yes. Will this create a larger gap between the top tier and lower tier teams? Yes. Is this fair? Of course not, and it isn't supposed to be, just like FRC.

I will pull two comments where I have a different view as a long-time coach. I think that FTC is a student design and build competition, like FLL. The students do the work with the guidance of their mentors. Maybe it's a result of my team's origin as an FLL team, but we still hold this as a central tenet of our FTC program. We engage with engineers at outside companies and solicit advice and help. I think both the kids and the companies get a lot out of it, but the kids do the work.

The kids should also do the CADding. CREO is free to FTC teams and there is a lot of help available to get teams working with it. In NJ there are at least 5 different formal PTC classes offered to FTC teams. Other teams will also help the less experienced. There is no reason for the mentor to sit down and CAD the robot for the team.

FTC is not a contest between mentors to see who can design and build the best robot, it is between the kids.

I am afraid this rule change is moving it to the FRC realm where it is a contest between mentors and resources. If that happens, the phenominal growth rate will end. We have helped start a lot of FTC teams, and one of the selling points is that it is easy. The coaches don't have to be technical - they just have to manage the kids, parts, and practices. The kids get the kit and can figure out how to buld and program the robot with minimal outside startup help. With the rule change, you need to understand welding, part fabrication, metal bending, etc. It makes it harder to convince the local science teacher to start a team and that is a shame.

[Barry Bonzack]

I will pull two comments where I have a different view as a long-time coach. I think that FTC is a student design and build competition, like FLL.

FIRST gives its FRC and FTC teams the ability to choose what the right mix is for mentor/student involvement for their individual team. A rookie team, or a team where students have little technical background, will clearly need more direction than teams with students that have been on robotics teams for multiple years, or have an engineering program at their school.

Here is my bottom line, your team is welcome to have a 100% students design and build process if that is how your mentors believe will provide the most inspirational experience. However, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives this specific guidance, the same standard will not be held to other teams, and the judges will not punish other teams who choose not to.

If anyone would like more clarification or backup on this stance, please PM me. This discussion is about the new materials requirements, and I do not want to hijack the point of the thread.

[aklego]

FIRST gives its FRC and FTC teams the ability to choose what the right mix is for mentor/student involvement for their individual team. A rookie team, or a team where students have little technical background, will clearly need more direction than teams with students that have been on robotics teams for multiple years, or have an engineering program at their school.

Here is my bottom line, your team is welcome to have a 100% students design and build process if that is how your mentors believe will provide the most inspirational experience. However, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives this specific guidance, the same standard will not be held to other teams, and the judges will not punish other teams who choose not to.

If anyone would like more clarification or backup on this stance, please PM me. This discussion is about the new materials requirements, and I do not want to hijack the point of the thread.

Actually, there is guidance on this issue. Mostly it is in the mentor guide (http://www.usfirst.org/sites/default/files/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FTC/FTC_Documents/FTCMentorGuide_2012.pdf) and throughout it is stressed that the team does the work with the guidance of the mentor.

for example:

"...We do the work to get the job done with guidance from our coaches and mentors."

"...Allowing students to do as much of the work as possible."

"...Avoid the temptation to do the work or to deprive team members of the chance to discover the right the answer on their
own. Mentors should guide a team without directing it. This creates the best learning and growth experiences for team
members."

and, from the current game manual:

"FIRST Tech Challenge is a student-centered activity that is mentor supported and is about giving students
a unique and stimulating experience. We want students to learn the value of teamwork and to respect everyone’s ideas and contributions to the team. FIRST Tech Challenge allows high school students to work hand-in-hand with technical professionals to develop a solution to the annual challenge. The students do
a majority of the work, but the mentor is there to offer guidance, suggestions, and coaching to keep the students on task and successful."

Of course, these quotes were cherry picked but the mentor guide make it pretty clear that FTC is supposed to be student driven with the mentors(s) acting in a support and guidance role.

[Scott_4140]

Here is my bottom line, your team is welcome to have a 100% students design and build process if that is how your mentors believe will provide the most inspirational experience. However, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives this specific guidance, the same standard will not be held to other teams, and the judges will not punish other teams who choose not to.


Well, I wouldn't say there's nothing in the rulebook...

The FIRST Tech Challenge is a student-centered activity that is mentor supported and is about giving students a unique and stimulating experience. We want students to learn the value of teamwork and to respect everyone’s ideas and contributions to the team. The FIRST Tech Challenge allows high school students to work hand-in-hand with technical professionals to develop a solution to the annual challenge. The students do a majority of the work, but the mentor is there to offer guidance, suggestions, and coaching to keep the students on task and successful. FIRST values are about appreciating our differences and learning what those differences add to our lives. FIRST programs succeed most fully when team members bring the FIRST values they learn back to their communities.

Beyond that, the Mentor Guide is fairly specific.

A Mentor…
• Requires no special skills, but should have patience, dedication, and a willingness to learn alongside the team.
• Is any person who works with the team in his or her area of expertise, for at least one team meeting.
• Helps provide valuable one-on-one interaction and serves as a resource in his or her specialty.
• Directs the process the team follows to solve the yearly game challenge, without providing the solution him or herself.
• Is a confidant, supporter, Coach, teacher, motivator, and facilitator.

A Mentor’s role includes:
• Allowing students to do as much of the work as possible.

Twelve Basic Guidelines for Mentors
2. Avoid the temptation to do the work or to deprive team members of the chance to discover the right the answer on their
own. Mentors should guide a team without directing it. This creates the best learning and growth experiences for team
members.

The Mentor as a Facilitator
As a Mentor, it is important to be involved, but it is equally important to make sure the process is directed and completed by
students.

[jcarr]

However, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives this specific guidance, the same standard will not be held to other teams, and the judges will not punish other teams who choose not to.

.

I looked and was amazed to find that you are right, they took the FTC Core values out of the Game Manual and off the web site. They are still in the mentor guide (see below), but that is not part of the rules. Well, they say it's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that isn't so. I have been teaching those core values to both FLL and FTC kids and coaches for years now, but apparently they took them out of FTC without telling the coaches. My apologies.

From the FTC Mentor guide:

FIRST® Tech Challenge (FTC®) Core Values
Volunteers are integral to the FIRST® community. The FIRST Tech Challenge relies on Volunteers to run the program at many
levels, from managing a region to mentoring an individual team. FTC® Affiliate Partners coordinate the program in each region
or state. These FTC Partners fundraise, run tournaments, hold workshops and demonstrations, market FTC locally, handle public
relations, and recruit Volunteers and teams. They are a tremendous resource for Mentors, and FTC would not exist without them.
FIRST asks everyone who participates in FTC to uphold the following values:
• We act with integrity
• We are a team.
• We do the work to get the job done with guidance from our coaches and mentors.
• We respect each other in the best spirit of teamwork
• We honor the spirit of friendly competition.
• What we learn is more important than what we win.
• We behave with courtesy and compassion for others at all times
• We share our experiences with others.
• We display gracious professionalism in everything we do.
• We have fun.
• We encourage others to adopt these values.
FTC

[jcarr]

However, there is nothing in the rulebook that gives this specific guidance, the same standard will not be held to other teams, and the judges will not punish other teams who choose not to.
.

I looked and was amazed to find that you are right, they took the FTC Core values out of the Game Manual and off the web site. They are still in the mentor guide (see below), but that is not part of the rules. Well, they say it's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that isn't so. I have been teaching these core values to both FLL and FTC kids and coaches for years now, but apparently they took them out of FTC without telling the coaches. My apologies.

From the FTC Mentor guide:

FIRST® Tech Challenge (FTC®) Core Values
Volunteers are integral to the FIRST® community. The FIRST Tech Challenge relies on Volunteers to run the program at many
levels, from managing a region to mentoring an individual team. FTC® Affiliate Partners coordinate the program in each region
or state. These FTC Partners fundraise, run tournaments, hold workshops and demonstrations, market FTC locally, handle public
relations, and recruit Volunteers and teams. They are a tremendous resource for Mentors, and FTC would not exist without them.
FIRST asks everyone who participates in FTC to uphold the following values:
• We act with integrity
• We are a team.
• We do the work to get the job done with guidance from our coaches and mentors.
• We respect each other in the best spirit of teamwork
• We honor the spirit of friendly competition.
• What we learn is more important than what we win.
• We behave with courtesy and compassion for others at all times
• We share our experiences with others.
• We display gracious professionalism in everything we do.
• We have fun.
• We encourage others to adopt these values.
FTC

[Barry Bonzack]

I have created a new thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107736)to continue the discussion about mentor involvement in FTC, and have asked the mods to move posts specific to this topic. Please continue to only discuss the materials rules in this thread, and express any oppinions on the other topic in the new thread.

Didn't mean to hijack the thread, should have known my earlier post would hit a nerve amoung the community.

[chi-town-biker]

No one has mentioned this but FTC lacks an equivalent to FRC’s R18 which states “Robot elements designed or created before the Kickoff presentation, including software, are not permitted.” The implication is that FTC teams can reuse any parts they build for multiple years. It hasn’t been an issue until now because what you could build was so limited.

I don’t think the missing rule is necessarily bad. I wouldn’t suggest it for this season’s game but I could see a team building mecanum wheels from raw materials next summer and reusing them for several seasons. That would be an excellent way to teach everything from drive system theory to machining skills.

[Andrew Remmers]

No one has mentioned this but FTC lacks an equivalent to FRC’s R18 which states “Robot elements designed or created before the Kickoff presentation, including software, are not permitted.” The implication is that FTC teams can reuse any parts they build for multiple years. It hasn’t been an issue until now because what you could build was so limited.

I don’t think the missing rule is necessarily bad. I wouldn’t suggest it for this season’s game but I could see a team building mecanum wheels from raw materials next summer and reusing them for several seasons. That would be an excellent way to teach everything from drive system theory to machining skills.

I think they should allow teams to purchase parts from a third party company, now that the materials are unlimited. Someone could design and sell things like mechanum wheels and such to teams for teams who don't necissarily have those machining capablities, kinda like Andymark, and West Coast Products for FRC. That would be interesting. :)

[jcarr]

I think they should allow teams to purchase parts from a third party company, now that the materials are unlimited. Someone could design and sell things like mechanum wheels and such to teams for teams who don't necissarily have those machining capablities, kinda like Andymark, and West Coast Products for FRC. That would be interesting. :)

I think that is an excellent idea! Teams that don't have machine shops can buy parts that are closer to what they need than tetrix or matrix.

[jcarr]

Has anyone noticed that the link to Pitsco from FTC seems to have dissappeared? I wonder if we can still get discounted Tetrix parts or they are terminating their special relationship with FIRST due to the rule change and the support for Matrix?

[Scott_4140]

Has anyone noticed that the link to Pitsco from FTC seems to have dissappeared? I wonder if we can still get discounted Tetrix parts or they are terminating their special relationship with FIRST due to the rule change and the support for Matrix?

It’s still there.

Team Resources > FTC Toolbox > Purchase TETRIX spare parts and supplies

http://parts.ftcrobots.com/Default.aspx?bhcp=1

[emmell]

Has anyone noticed that the link to Pitsco from FTC seems to have dissappeared? I wonder if we can still get discounted Tetrix parts or they are terminating their special relationship with FIRST due to the rule change and the support for Matrix?

Well, http://parts.ftcrobots.com still exists and still offers discounted parts to FTC teams. I think it might just be an oversight.

[Scott_4140]

The link is still there too.
Team Resources > FTC Toolbox > TETRIX Resources > Purchase TETRIX® spare parts and supplies

[jcarr]

I had a different link. Thanks!

[NateJGardner]

I'm quite excited for the new raw materials rule. I don't think this gives teams with machine shops as big of an advantage as some might think. A simple base can win everything in this game.

I do miss the idea of a limited kit of parts, i.e. the challenge of doing what you want and still staying within the always slightly-annoyingly-right-below-what-we-need-to-make-it-work rules. Even so, I think the teams that spend their time working with what they have rather than taking a few weeks to machine new parts will succeed most. A few specialized parts will work great, but teams that cast down their buckets where they are and use the readily-available parts for the majority of their robots will have more time to strategize and refine their designs. The reason I prefer FTC to FRC is not because FRC teams can use so many raw materials, but because FTC is about strategy and design-refinement. FRC teams don't have as much time to refine and test their designs, so FTC robots are often more reliable. This isn't to say there aren't great FRC bots build entirely from raw materials, but I think kit robots and custom robots are on an even playing field.

There are, and always will be, diminishing returns on how many resources a team has. A team with the base $650 Tetrix kit can still be very competitive this season.

[Andrew Remmers]

I'm quite excited for the new raw materials rule. I don't think this gives teams with machine shops as big of an advantage as some might think. A simple base can win everything in this game.

I do miss the idea of a limited kit of parts, i.e. the challenge of doing what you want and still staying within the always slightly-annoyingly-right-below-what-we-need-to-make-it-work rules. Even so, I think the teams that spend their time working with what they have rather than taking a few weeks to machine new parts will succeed most. A few specialized parts will work great, but teams that cast down their buckets where they are and use the readily-available parts for the majority of their robots will have more time to strategize and refine their designs. The reason I prefer FTC to FRC is not because FRC teams can use so many raw materials, but because FTC is about strategy and design-refinement. FRC teams don't have as much time to refine and test their designs, so FTC robots are often more reliable. This isn't to say there aren't great FRC bots build entirely from raw materials, but I think kit robots and custom robots are on an even playing field.

There are, and always will be, diminishing returns on how many resources a team has. A team with the base $650 Tetrix kit can still be very competitive this season.

Going to be an interesting trade off to see where everyone decides to go with this. I know I will be taking it as a challenge to not use a single Tetrix or Matitx part (besides motors and such) simply because I like a good challenge, and I don't actually compete. But yet again, with Tetrix being so expensive you could very simply waterjet/laser your robot in less than a day (depending on complexity) after you put a lot of time into designing things precisely based on prototypes from tetrix/vex/matrix parts. It could also be cheaper, depending on the level of sponsorship you have.

Nonetheless, About 24 hours to go! This year will be fun.

- Andrew

[crollison]

Where in the manual did you see the rule about welding? I've been looking through it and I'm sure I'm missing it but where is it? I want to see it with my own eyes before I start getting excited. Thanks.

[chi-town-biker]

The manual doesn't explicitly allow welding. Rather, last year's rule R14.d which prohibited welding is missing from this year's manual.

[Nemo]

It will be cool to see pure WCD's in FTC rather than the standard cobbled-together amalgamations that I've seen in the past. And given that (currently) there's no weight limit, I don't see why the lower frame rails can't simply be solid steel extrusions welded together in order to get a massive traction bonus. A 50-lb 8-motor box-on-wheels with a c.g. 1" off the ground, proper gearing and the LEGO tires that I (still!) only saw 2 teams with at champs this year?? I'd take that as a partner in FTC any day.


Did these teams use the plastic hubs for the lego wheels or simply stretch the tire over a Tetrix wheel? I like the idea of using the nice rubber tire, but connecting to that plastic hub in a reliable way would be the challenge for me.

[TRWSHSHLX]

From what I know of the "special LEGO tires" JesseK is referring to, it fits snugly onto the 3'' TETRIX wheels. I personally saw them on 1885 (one of JesseK's teams) back in HotShot! and I track them down to utilize them the following year.

There's also another kind of LEGO tire when stretched and replaced the rubber tire on the 4'' wheels that fits perfectly also.

[maths222]

Can you tell me how such a heavy robot will turn?

We (3785) had a mostly tetrix robot last year (other than our scissor lift) that weighed 50 lbs. We had to use omniwheels for our back wheels so that the robot could turn.

[Andrew Remmers]

Can you tell me how such a heavy robot will turn?

We (3785) had a mostly tetrix robot last year (other than our scissor lift) that weighed 50 lbs. We had to use omniwheels for our back wheels so that the robot could turn.

This can not be given an overall answer. It entirely depends on how much motor power/ratio you have on your drivetrain. Yes there are a few other factors involved, wheel spacing, wheel drop, material on the wheels etc. To turn an FTC bot that wieghs 50 lbs is certainly possible, but with new material allowances why would you even want/even get close to 50 lbs?

[Derrick Maust]

Last year our robot was a little over 50 lb. We had 2 motors on each side of the drive train, we have four wheels on each side, two small omni wheels in front and two normal wheels on the back. It was geared 1 to 1, it turned and drove fine and we had no problems with it. It's a good idea to use double sided support, so the wheels don't fall off.

[Nemo]

From what I know of the "special LEGO tires" JesseK is referring to, it fits snugly onto the 3'' TETRIX wheels. I personally saw them on 1885 (one of JesseK's teams) back in HotShot! and I track them down to utilize them the following year.

There's also another kind of LEGO tire when stretched and replaced the rubber tire on the 4'' wheels that fits perfectly also.

Thanks for your response. This might be a great year to play with those treads since the rules seem to allow some tough defense at the scoring racks.