Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[F22Rapture]

I would hope that it isn't, however FIRST is expanding and they may well be trying to cut down on materials costs by reducing the size. It's also possible that it's a one-time thing due to the dynamics of this year's game. Thoughts?

[connor.worley]

Small robots cost less and are easier to transport. We haven't had any issues with designing for a smaller size this year, so I like the new rules.

[Shu]

I don't think it would be fair to change the size now that teams have developed strategies and designs based on the current requirements. I'm just talking about this year's game.

[Bryce Paputa]

I like the new rules. They allow for more creativity and pose a challenge of a smaller robot. However, what I like even more is that the weight is still the same.

[waialua359]

Small robots cost less and are easier to transport. We haven't had any issues with designing for a smaller size this year, so I like the new rules.

How much less though?
With respect to registration fees, travel costs, and the actual field and game elements not significantly smaller, I find it much more difficult to design a robot vs. the "savings" made from a smaller robot.:rolleyes:

[Akash Rastogi]

How much less though?

I believe the savings are pretty negligible in regards to material costs.

[Nuttyman54]

I don't think FIRST will see a particular cost savings from the robot size, although theoretically it may give them a reason to reduce the pit space slightly to allow for more teams at an event.

I feel that the decision was made to force teams to choose between a good climber and a good shooter. The additional restrictive playing configuration size limitations make it difficult, if not impossible, to fit both mechanisms onto a single robot. I believe it was a conscious decision by the GDC to diversify the robot capabilities and force teams to focus on doing one aspect of the game well, or a few aspects mediocre.

[EricH]

I think that the size change was FIRST's way of giving notice: Anything can and will change at any time.

Before this size change, the size has stayed the same* since 2005. Before that, the size stayed the same for several years; I don't remember when it became 30"x36"x60" so I can't say anything about how long. Teams have locked into--and to some extent assumed--a constant size. A number of offseason drives have been prototyped, at the 28"x38" size. Maybe one or two offseason drives snuck into the competition. (Note: I do not include the extension limits as part of the size here; those changed every year.)

The size change changes all that. It forces teams to adapt--or engineer--their designs. It also opens the design up a bit, making the competition harder. And, it's really, really easy to tweak in future. Just change one number, and watch the wheels in 20,000 heads start turning.

Incidentally, when I competed in SAE Aero Design's Regular Class, there was a similar limit to aircraft size: length+width+height<=X, and X could change year to year. We tended to build to a long wingspan. Other teams built more to the long tail or tall height sides of the spectrum. In different years, with somewhat different rules, different long dimensions did better.

I think the size change will be semi-permanent. That is, the change in how dimensions are calculated is probably here to stay for several years; the actual number will probably vary year-to-year.


*Barring 2007's varying height, which did not affect the perimeter size, but was rather popular in public opinion.

[apalrd]

Small robots cost less

We have yet to save any money due to the smaller footprint and extension limits. The metal itself is a small portion of our robot cost.

We have saved a lot of robot money in speed controllers and in many mechanical parts due to the new low-cost Vex Pro and reduced price AndyMark components. The savings from these two alone is far larger than reducing the robot size by 10", likely several orders of magnitude larger.

I am not a fan of the 54" cylinder including the bumper, but I don't mind the footprint rules.

[s_forbes]

I love the new method of sizing robot frames by using the perimeter. It encourages teams to put more thought into the design of the robot compared to the "these are our max dimensions, let's use all of it" approach. There should be some more interesting frame designs this year compared to the last 6 years. I'm also hoping that we'll see more light, zippy robots this year instead of a fleet of 120lb rectangles.

Best of all, we finally got rid of that darn sizing box!

[Ian Curtis]

I love the new method of sizing robot frames by using the perimeter.

Me too! Airplane people are all about trade-offs. This method of sizing forces teams to consider many more trade offs instead of just building to a typical size and putting a mechanism in their somehow. OTOH, the Frisbees take up a significant footprint in the robot, so it will be harder for some teams to design working mechanisms.

IMO, it makes it a little harder to be overweight as well. On the flip side, it'll make robots more tippy. :eek:

[NotaJoke]

I think that lifting the robot onto the field caused potential issues. The smaller robots fit through the opening better.

I like the idea of having a perimeter limit, but I don't like that it's so small =P

[MARS_James]

I look at it like this:

2007: Weight/Height Classes (only lasted one year)
2008: No Defense (only lasted one year)
2009: Required Design Aspect (only lasted one year)
2010: Not Allowed To Pick Up Game Pieces (only lasted one year)
2011: Minibot (only lasted one year)
2012: Huge CoOpertition Effect, or Kinect (Both only lasted one year)

So this is either the continuation of these or the next step in FIRST like all technology, it gets smaller as time goes on

[Ido_Wolf]

Right now, robots are way too big for the average end-user, and their utilization is extremely limited especially with that horrible cRIO firmware v3.1. But in like 15 years, when it's 2010, we'll probably see little portable robots with a 10" long arm that can do so much more than our current mechanical arms!

/lame-attempt-at-being-funny-with-a-poor-analogy

[Billfred]

I think FIRST made the change to make this game harder. At 28x38, this game would be much, much easier. (More room to index, more room to put a hanger.)

I'm personally quite happy with the change, as it does stand to make robots more transportable. (My car BARELY fit a 28x38 robot on its side.) Easier transportation is nice both in-season and for demos.

Which brings me to another point: FIRST has really given us some games that lend themselves to demos. I know we plan to keep our 2012 robot Incocknito together, and hopefully get it back to operational in the off-season.

[Alan2338]

I know our team would rather have the larger size, and we are running into a lot of space problems this year. I think the large size should be ok to use, but maybe suggest that new teams don't build big unless they can handle it. Whether constraint be time, money, resources, etc.

[PayneTrain]

A tangible benefit to the smaller robot sizes is not having to shove a bumper-mounted, bagged and tagged, 28"x38" robot through a standard door.

In the competition, this will cause much larger variety in design and strategy, something one could say was sorely needed after the last 3 or 4 years.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Please note that bumpers are no longer required to be bagged. However, as pointed out above, 28" dimensions have ruled in the past to allow robots to move through standard 32" doors. If the GDC had wanted to make smaller robots, reducing the weight would have helped achieve that in many teams. Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.

Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not build to 28 x 28 and expect the frame perimeter to end up less than or equal to 112". Experienced teams will be building at least 1/4" less in every dimension to insure no problems during inspection.

[Bill_B]

I think the size reduction this year has more to do with reducing the possibility of robots being able to legally impede the passage of the other alliance's robots as they seek to get past the pyramids. Couple the perimeter limit with the 54" cylinder to see why I think so. Also the creation of the update which shows the pyramids surrounded by a graphic boundary gives more support for my flow restriction theory.

[Andy A.]

Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.


My impression was that the new perimeter rule was at least partially driven by a desire to eliminate the sizing box as a choke point in the inspection process. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The cynical part of me thinks the 'string around the 'bot' method has some room for error and ambiguity the sizing box did not. You're advice about designing well under the spec is hopefully heeded.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

[MrForbes]

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

Sounds good, until you are inspecting rookie robots Thursday morning that weigh 30 pounds too much, instead of just ten pounds too much :p

[Calvin Hartley]

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.

[waialua359]

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

I'm not sure I would like such a rule change.
Given that the field size is still the same, robot parts in general aren't going to be lighter, and the already smaller footprint.....its tough enough as it is trying to make weight.

[TD78]

Smaller robots might mean more robots on the field at the same time. Something for the future?

[billbo911]

I think the smaller size is directly related to this year's challenge.

Think about it, if we had a 28" X 38" limit this year, 180 deg shooters would be easy to design and mount. Disk pickup and manipulation through the robot would not be nearly as challenging. Lifting systems would be just as much of a challenge, but still would have more room to work within.

The GDC did an amazing job with this year's challenge.
Honestly, I see no reason to keep a 112" perimeter limit in the future.... unless it makes the game a real challenge.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Andy,
The sizing box was no more of a choke point than weighing. It also was a rather visual declaration to other teams that your robot made size. It either fits or it doesn't just like it is either 120 lbs or it is too heavy.

Cal,
While it may work for your team now, a smaller drive person may really struggle in the future. Realistically, we are asking students to lift 75 lbs. about 26 times minimum over a three day period. Pulled muscles and back pain is a real result. I have been concerned about the weight for a while and I only lift it a few times during build.

[Gary Dillard]

Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not build to 28 x 28 and expect the frame perimeter to end up less than or equal to 112". Experienced teams will be building at least 1/4" less in every dimension to insure no problems during inspection.

Yes, but this year if you're 1/4" over you only need to take 1/4" off of a corner (actually only .707*1/4"), not an entire side of a robot. It's much easier to run up to the limit.

(As long as you can make the 1" bumper support at each end somehow - still haven't figured out how that works for sides that are <8", a chamfered corner, for example)

[MrForbes]

Yes, but this year if you're 1/4" over you only need to take 1/4" off of a corner (actually only .707*1/4"), not an entire side of a robot.

I'm glad someone else noticed that :cool:

[Andy A.]

I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.

As Al already pointed out the robot weight is nothing to sneeze at. A self imposed weight limit would simply put you at a disadvantage in the game, so it really isn't at all the same as a game rule.

I've worked in a warehouse setting and 80lbs was the most you were ever expected to lift on your own. That was, effectively, for grown men accustomed to lifting heavy loads. That's a pretty typical number from what I've seen, and workplace injuries from lifting heavy loads are still common (why OSHA hasn't set some regulations on this is beyond me).

150lbs has got to be the upper limit. Any higher and a robot simply can not be safely borne by two highschool students, and I suspect FIRST already recognizes this. A return to the ~130lb loaded weight would be a big step in the right direction. Since FIRST won't go back to no bumpers, and realistically the battery isn't going to change, that weight would have to come out of the robot. Oh well. Teams are always going to be busting the weight cap no matter where you set it, and will always complain that if only they had X more lbs to play with they could have done Y.

I'd just be happier if the dressed robot didn't weigh more then 90% of my teenage students, is all.

[Tristan Lall]

My impression was that the new perimeter rule was at least partially driven by a desire to eliminate the sizing box as a choke point in the inspection process. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The cynical part of me thinks the 'string around the 'bot' method has some room for error and ambiguity the sizing box did not.
Getting rid of the inspection box may well free up a bit of extra pit space in the more tightly-packed venues (the Waterloos of the world), and simplifies inspectors' logistics. But I suspect that the decision was also driven by the design of the boxes themselves.

The tolerancing on the sizing boxes was done incorrectly from the outset. They should have been designed and constructed with a geometric tolerance that inherently passes all legal robots, even given the degree of dimensional uncertainty in manufacturing the box.

Instead, the sizing boxes as delivered to events were occasionally undersized in places. Although FIRST's eventual change from the ratcheting strap on the shipping cart (which caused the front frame of the sizing box to bend like an hourglass), to a locking hard case saved them from wear and tear, in the first few years of those sizing boxes, on more than one occasion, the inspectors had to use brute force and/or fabricate gussets to expand the sizing box to an acceptable plus tolerance. (I believe the worst one I ever dealt with was about 0.15 in undersized in one corner, and 0.20 in undersized right down the middle.) All so that teams that built their robot with an ill-advisedly fine minus tolerance could (correctly) pass inspection with a minimum of delay.

All things being equal, it's better to risk passing a slightly oversized (illegal) robot than to risk failing a slightly undersized (legal) one. After all, the inspection apparatus are the embodiment of FIRST's rules; if the boxes are not designed to ensure that every legal robot will pass, teams will lose confidence in the apparently lackadaisical attention to specifications, and believe that the size restrictions are suggestions rather than hard limits. That makes the job harder for the inspectors, and in the long run, harder for FIRST as well. Next time they need a sizing box (or similar), they should consult with an engineer who works in gauge design for manufacturing.

The point of that anecdote is to illustrate why I suspect that FIRST decided that the sizing boxes were an unsustainable investment. They're probably worth well over $1 000 each, and you need one in good repair for every field set (of which there are probably 15 by now). Even if you realize that some of them are out of spec, it's hard to justify the cost of replacing them all. If you only fix the dimensions on the new ones, then some regionals get differently-enforced rules. This decision saves FIRST money in the long run, and saves them the headache of treating the sizing boxes like precision gauges.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Andy,
OSHA has a standard but the limit is specified for repeated lifting over an eight hour work shift. As such it is not applicable to intermittent lifting of 75 lbs. Don't quote me as I researched this a few years back. I think it was something like repeated 45 lbs. max without assistance.

[wireties]

I believe the savings are pretty negligible in regards to material costs.


Definitely - especially when you consider the costs of motors, gears, electronics etc.

[Jon Stratis]

I keep going back and forth on the size change.

Pro: Helps to stimulate innovation and create a diverse field of competing robots.

In other words, by defining the robot footprint the way they did this year, it allows a lot more flexibility and creativity. Hopefully, we'll see robots with wildly varying dimensions this year.

Con: Getting the kitbot with a belt drive train this year really doesn't work well with the new size limit.

The belts are designed for specific spacing, which means you need to build your drive train to one of two dimensions, depending on if you're going 2 wheeled or 3 wheeled. This seems to be directly contrary to the main benefit of the new size rules.


So, if you're a team that opted for the voucher, you're sitting real nice - You can build to whatever dimensions you want (within the limitations of the rule), and build a custom drive train.

But if you got the kitbot chassis, you have a choice to make: Build to the specific dimensions the belts for the drive train dictate you build to, or spend more money for new belts (or chains and sprockets) in order to get the same flexibility teams with the voucher have.

It just feels like these two changes shouldn't have been introduced in the same year, or that we should have had some sort of advanced notice about the size change so we could really make an informed decision when it came to the kitbot chassis.

Then again, maybe I'm just being a bitter old man after being stuck obtaining chains and sprockets when the belts wouldn't work with our design.

[Justin Shelley]

I would like to see the size changes permanent. I enjoy the challenge ;)

[WizenedEE]

I'm hoping it's permanent so perhaps next year we can over 15 revisions of our system-level volume allocation drawing (we're at revision 9 now, although luckily now it's just getting more specific and not so much changing). We've also had the discussions "Can is PLEASE be 26x30? It's hard to do odd numbers in CAD..."

[wilsonbiggs]

I think it's a good idea; like stated earlier, it forces teams to be creative to make it smaller. The weight not changing also makes sense; like architects say (I'd assume), you can still build up rather than sideways. About its permanence, however– perhaps it should change every year. It would be a good idea to challenge teams each year by mixing it up.

[flargen507]

I am personally very excited about the new frame perimeter rules. I agree with many other posts that the smaller size will create more specialized robots, which I am looking forward to seeing. Another point that I don't think has been brought up is the shape of the robot. Geometrically, the new rules put a larger push on non-rectangular robots, particularly six or eight sided. This gives you more area for your 112 in perimeter (although it may not be as usable). While before the box pushed all teams to the standard rectangle to maximize area, this weights it the other direction. I haven't seen a non-rectangle robot at my regional or nationals since 2010 (not that they weren't there, but I didn't see them). I am curious to see how this may affect the 6/8 wheel tank drive or mecanum drives most commonly seen. I expect to see more omni directional drives and swerve modules, which I think could be very exciting.

[ksafin]

Part of me was upset because despite the fact that FRC robots are still large, it's really the size of just two FTC robots side by side (in one dimension, at least).

FRC was always known as the big step up with big bots, big challenges, and big ideas. That hasn't changed much but the big bots got less big :)

Part of me loved big bots because they just "looked" more impressive in terms of luring in new potential members - not saying a smaller bot isn't impressive, but I feel as though it's easier to make a bigger bot look more impressive.

The other side of me is happy because its much easier to stay within weight limit w/ the new size restriction.

[Sandvich]

I think FIRST thinks that smaller robots will make teams more likely to build single-function robots dedicated to a specific task rather than building big multibots that can do everything. They want more variety and specialization. Hence the ability to make a robot any shape as long as it's got a small enough perimeter (compared to the rigid 28" x 38" rule from past seasons).

[pfreivald]

I agree that smaller bots will force a lot of teams to compromise functionality (especially with a VERY tiered end game) -- I know it did with us!

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of having the bots get much smaller than they have been historically, because laypeople see small robots as toys, and large robots as ZOMGROBOTS! That this just isn't true doesn't matter when we're talking about public perception and recruitment of sponsors, mentors, and students.

[catacon]

I hope they keep it for a few years and then maybe go back to large bots or some different form factor. I think it's good to change things up every few years. I do agree that they shouldn't be too small, though. Leave small bots to FTC. :P

[Astrokid248]

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

Hey now, it's awesome exercise!

[toastnbacon]

I like the new rules! We can finally fit our robot through our slightly smaller than usual front door!

[nahstobor]

I have a feeling this topic will be the most talked about item on the end of the year survey.

The new frame perimeter rules ares fantastic, but lets increase the maximum frame perimeter to 132 inches.

[HumblePie]

I agree wholeheartedly that the change in sizing requirements has made this year very interesting and highly challenging. I think, at various points in this process, we've all just wished for a little more room to make things fit. I too expect that the size requirements will change year to year to prevent veteran teams from just re-using chassis engineering from prior years.

The genesis for this change may have been early during the LogoMotion build season when a few veteran teams posted photos of their Rack n Roll robots with the caption "Done". As always, I look forward to the monkey wrenches that FIRST will throw at us next year.

[pfreivald]

Two teams showed up to FLR with 28x38 robots! :ahh:

[AlecMataloni]

Two teams showed up to FLR with 28x38 robots! :ahh:

Pshh, who needs to read the manual? :rolleyes:

That's honestly one of the most depressing things I've read on here in a while.

[pfreivald]

Pshh, who needs to read the manual? :rolleyes:

That's honestly one of the most depressing things I've read on here in a while.

Both got a lot of help and ended up competing, hopefully with a great big lesson learned!

[Duncan Macdonald]

Two teams showed up to FLR with 28x38 robots! :ahh:

I believe one was closer to 38x38 (Built the kitbot without cutting anything). On the plus side their electrical system fit beautifully.

[Ivan Malik]

From a non-build perspective, the change in frame perimeter this year kinda made more robots look like, well robots. Teams used the space allotted a lot more efficiently and as a result many bots have a shock factor to them, the whole "I didn't expect that to come out of there!" effect. In my opinion it makes many bots more exciting to watch because they can now be seen as efficient robots meant to complete a specific task(s), as opposed to giant hulks of machines that did everything and still had space to spare. While the bigger sizes of the past had an "I don't want to get in front of that thing" aspect to them, the newer smaller sizes offer a robots working alongside humans aspect because they are less scary... minus the discs being shot at high speeds aspect.::safety::

The new size forced teams to not only design how to do a task, but how to do it as simply as possible, as there is not much room for overly complicated mechanisms. The new size also forced teams to think about accessibility for servicing. This was huge in 2010, but was kinda lost in other years when you look FRC wide.

I hope the sizes are here to stay. They are just big enough to be considered advanced machines, but just small enough to not be caged up, pun intended. Goldilocks would be happy.

[bduddy]

Two teams showed up to FLR with 28x38 robots! :ahh:And those are presumably veteran teams... I worry about any rookie international teams, one mis-translation or mis-interpretation of a rule and they could show up with something totally unworkable...

[Steven Donow]

One thing I noticed Week 1 was how crowded the space in front of the pyramid and the space in between the pyramids seemed to get at some times. This could just be from streaming angles, but I can't imagine what it would have been like with larger robots, it would have been significantly more crowded, meaning more G30s.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

One thing I noticed Week 1 was how crowded the space in front of the pyramid and the space in between the pyramids seemed to get at some times. This could just be from streaming angles, but I can't imagine what it would have been like with larger robots, it would have been significantly more crowded, meaning more G30s.

I drive for 1058, and at least a BAE/GSR, G30's were not being called at all. We committed G30 penalties and they were committed on us without call. I don't know if that's just because they weren't being seen or if they're actually being ignored.

[Grog_Maelstrom]

With regard to the size change, I am all for it. One of the things I enjoyed most about it was that it allowed teams to still have the 120 pound weight requirement, allowing for denser robots. The design changes in place to accord for a more flexible perimeter did not affect many teams, including ours, assuming that everyone read the rulebook. I do know of robots at regionals who have been unable to play due to being 28x38. I hope they keep it, our robot this year fit really well, and we are doing a west coast drive, which freed up space. It took some stagnant ideas and methods and brought new innovation by restriction, and, we even overcompensated, and, for the first time I have seen on our team, we were underweight, allowing for heavy manipulation of the centre of gravity, which I hope will play to our teams advantage.

TL;DR
Keep it, please

[savage]

The size limit does not bother me its those bumpers that I dont like, But that might just be that I was so used to having not having them on the bots.

[themccannman]

I really like the idea of a maximum frame perimeter, much more room for customization, hexagonal, or even circular robots are do-able (and practical) this year whereas before every single one was the same 28x38 rectangle. Allows many more adaptations to better fit the requirements of the game such as if an extremely wide and skinny robot was for some reason advantageous.

[Qcom]

This year was the first year in recent memory that 2996 did not have to drill weight holes. We managed to get everything in under the size constraints pretty well, and the fact that everyone else has to be smaller levels the loss of size, of course. Thumbs up from me for the size change! :)

[pfreivald]

This year was the first year in recent memory that 2996 did not have to drill weight holes. We managed to get everything in under the size constraints pretty well, and the fact that everyone else has to be smaller levels the loss of size, of course. Thumbs up from me for the size change! :)

Oddly enough, this is the first time since 2006 that 1551 hasn't been easily under the weight limit!

[rick.oliver]

I like the use of perimeter and that the footprint is smaller. Is this a step toward four team alliances?

[Tom Line]

I drive for 1058, and at least a BAE/GSR, G30's were not being called at all. We committed G30 penalties and they were committed on us without call. I don't know if that's just because they weren't being seen or if they're actually being ignored.

They are being called, and we actively pursue their being called.

We line up with our side against a pyramid bar. It is hard for refs to see that we are touching the pyramid, so we let them know (and show them) that we are.

Hard defense is welcome - but smashing teams up against the pyramid will cost you a whole lot of points.

Our robot got it's first 30 point climb last weekend without ever leaving the ground :yikes:

[mott]

The size limit does not bother me its those bumpers that I dont like...

This.

With the new flexibility being granted in determining frame configurations, it would be nice to see similar flexibility in the frame perimeter bumper coverage rules.

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

This would allow you to create an extremely long or short frame edge and still NOT have to completely cover that side with bumpers.

[Mark Sheridan]

The perimeter rule created headaches for me this year, but I would imagine next year I would be better prepared for it. What drove me nuts was that the bumpers counted toward the 54" cylinder. Next year either don't count the bumpers or change the cylinder to a square prism. We kept changing our perimeter to better fit in the cylinder, it delayed our build by a week.

I would prefer if the perimeter was a little bit bigger next year at 120" but I think I could deal with the current dimensions.

[ablatner]

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

[Bill_B]

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

With bumpers on?

My first reaction to the smaller size was that the intent was to reduce the ease with which the pyramid to side wall passage could be blockaded. With a more open field, we may return to former robot sizing. I like the perimeter rule though. Just increase or decrease to fit the years' floorplan.

[Mark Sheridan]

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.

Thats the smartest thing I heard all day, that totally must be the reason.

[EricH]

One possible reason for limiting the perimeter to 112" is that at least one dimension will be 28" or less, allowing it to fit through doorways.
Only if you have a rectangular robot. A circular robot could be 35" in diameter. A triangular robot, if equilateral, could be 37" on a side.

If the perimeter were increased in the future, I think the answer to "How do you fit a robot through a doorway?" will be the same as the answer to "How do you fit a 6' robot in a 5.5' crate?" back in 2007: Plan ahead.

[MrForbes]

We shipped our robot to Champs today. A compact little crate, with everything needed to operate and maintain the robot included inside (tools, spare parts, cart, bumpers, operator console, batteries, chargers, etc) and it only weighed 370 pounds including the crate!

[Bill_B]

We shipped our robot to Champs today. A compact little crate, with everything needed to operate and maintain the robot included inside (tools, spare parts, cart, bumpers, operator console, batteries, chargers, etc) and it only weighed 370 pounds including the crate!
point of curiosity - was it in a bag too?

[MrForbes]

Yes, the robot is locked up in it's bag, inside the crate. And the lockup form is in a protective sleeve, taped to the outside of the bag.

[Zuelu562]

I liked the perimeter restriction on the whole. I don't like the current number, and as many have pointed out, is likely a very specific rule for this game. The rule of the perimeter restriction allows more diverse robots, because you aren't in "lets use every last inch they give us" mode.

For my team (and several others I saw at WPI), the creative usage of space, especially for electronics, was a cool side effect. Our robot had 3 hinged lexan panes with electronics on them!

I'm personally anticipating the GDC's next move here. I'm of the mind that the NUMBER is the rule that leaves. I think the perimeter measuring rule is here to stay.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

Mike,
Could that allow a team to not have bumpers on the corners making that part of the frame a weapon? One of our tests for bumpers is being able to punch the corner and not feel anything hard. The whole point in bumpers is to prevent robot damage.

[EricH]

Mike,
Could that allow a team to not have bumpers on the corners making that part of the frame a weapon? One of our tests for bumpers is being able to punch the corner and not feel anything hard. The whole point in bumpers is to prevent robot damage.

I think that what he's trying to say could be better expressed as:

"Each side of each corner of the frame perimeter shall be covered by bumpers with a length at least 8" or 25% of the length of the side, whichever is less."

Example: A team has a 16" side, for whatever reason. It is next to a 36" side (I'm not assuming any particular bumper perimeter length). The 16" side, under current rules, needs to be entirely covered by bumpers; the 36" side is slightly less than half covered by bumpers. The rule change suggested would allow the 16" side to use 4" bumper lengths on each end, rather than 8". However, the 36" side would still be constrained to 8" minimum length bumpers, as 25% of 36" is 9". Any bumper less than 4" long on the 16" side, or less than 8" long on the 36" side, is a violation of the rule.

BTW, Al, if you have any input into this: I'd LOVE to see the frame perimeter measurement kept as the size rule. Changing the size is relatively simple, and it opens up a lot of odd frame shapes.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This.

With the new flexibility being granted in determining frame configurations, it would be nice to see similar flexibility in the frame perimeter bumper coverage rules.

For example, a better way to regulate bumper coverage might be something like: "each end of a frame perimeter side must be protected by bumpers covering no less than 25% of the total length of that side or 8 inches, whichever is less" (or something like this).

This would allow you to create an extremely long or short frame edge and still NOT have to completely cover that side with bumpers.

... And what about a circular robot (has no 'end' or 'side')? ;)

The difficulty in these rules is not with the standard shaped robots, but in the 'out of the box' designs.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Erik and Daniel,
Previous rules did not put a serious restriction on shape or really dimension. The 28" limit that all year's rules have included is simply to insure that robots can make it through a standard door opening. This is an issue many people forget. Many venues have large overhead doors but those are generally not open for use during the event. Some venues that have large openings require building staff to be present to operate the door. That is often cost prohibitive for the event. (imagine paying a building engineer overtime for 12 hours on a Saturday)

[NobleActual]

I personally like the size requirements being narrowed, it really provides a new type of challenge for teams, and in some instances helps level out the player field. Teams generally had to make a choice between a good climber or shooter. Of course, there are those teams that manage to do everything very well, but they are far and few between. I also think the designs have been incredibly varied because of the weight limit, which is great because looking at other team's robots and ideas, I find myself amazed at what some teams come up with. All in All, I support the size change, and would like the robots to stay similar sizes in the future

[Jacob Bendicksen]

I feel like they did it this year in order to make teams choose between a shooter and a climber. I sure hope it doesn't stick, since there isn't a single inch inside of our robot where there isn't a chain!

[Rynocorn]

I think a good and easy rule for bumpers would be to give the inspectors a stick (probably around 12-14 inches or so) and make sure that at all times the stick in a horizontal orientation can only touch bumpers and not frame.

Just thinking about it in my head it seems like it would be a simple easy way to do it and still have the robots protected from collisions. Just my thought as bumpers have always given us trouble like when we had to rebuild them in the pits last year because there was only 7 7/8 of wood on a single one of the pieces (And we has already passed an inspection at anger regional before that).