View Full Version : Team Update #1
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Robotics_Programs/FRC/Game_and_Season__Info/2011_Assets/Team_Updates/Team%20Update_01.pdf
A synopsis:
No minibot launching.
One minibot per robot.
We get an 84" diameter cylinder instead of a 60" diameter cylinder.
We can use NXT sensors and cables on the minibot.
Andymark addressed some KoP errors.
thefro526
11-01-2011, 19:54
Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder. :D
Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder. :D
agreed!!!
Stephen of REX
11-01-2011, 20:21
Awwww, the minibot rules just got stricter. Goodbye surgical tubing powered jumping minibot.
Joe Ross
11-01-2011, 20:24
And this is why we don't do design until after Team Update #1 (and usually Team Update #2).
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?
davidalln
11-01-2011, 20:24
The OP does not state this but, in addition to no launching, MINIBOTS cannot hold stored energy. All movement must come from the motors.
SteveGPage
11-01-2011, 20:28
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 is much more exciting! Instead of 1 second rocket launches, think of the suspense, the drama - oh, the humanity. It is like going to the county fair and watching the duck races. Will they make it or not?
:rolleyes:
Steve
Vikesrock
11-01-2011, 20:32
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?
Agreed. They should be relabeled to deployment races. It's now really whoever can jam their minibot into the pole fastest without destroying it.
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?
That sounds like hanging last year. With a few exceptions (27, 33, 148, 1114, and others), watching robots hang was very suspenseful. Would they pull themselves up in time? Are they JUST over the top of the tunnel? While 148's ability to hang was amazing, it was consistent, and less keep-me-on-the-edge-of-my-seat exciting than a slower hanging bot.
AdamHeard
11-01-2011, 20:40
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.
XaulZan11
11-01-2011, 20:48
I also think it would have been really exciting to see a mini-bot launch to the top in 1 second. I also think this will lead to many teams copying (or getting inspired by)* sucessful mini-bot designs. It will be alot easier to change a mini-bot than change the mini-bot and the robot that launches it. This game is quickly losing the ways to differentiate the great and elite teams.
*Note: I have no problems with teams doing this, just that is leads to alot of similar robots and thus less exciting matches with diverse robots.
That sounds like hanging last year. With a few exceptions (27, 33, 148, 1114, and others), watching robots hang was very suspenseful. Would they pull themselves up in time? Are they JUST over the top of the tunnel? While 148's ability to hang was amazing, it was consistent, and less keep-me-on-the-edge-of-my-seat exciting than a slower hanging bot.
I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.
h1n1is4pigs
11-01-2011, 20:53
waiting to see who reaches the pole first to deploy their minibot that takes 7 seconds to reach the top
actually if you run a 4inch diameter wheel at the maximum the motors move(152rpm) it will only take 3.5 sec and even if it is running at 120rpm it will only take about 5 sec to reach the top of the pole
Michael Corsetto
11-01-2011, 20:56
I know everyone is rejoicing about the 84" cylinder, but I personally loved the 60" as an actual engineering challenge. What about this game is different than 2007 again? Minibots? OK, cool.
actually if you run a 4inch diameter wheel at the maximum the motors move(152rpm) it will only take 3.5 sec and even if it is running at 120rpm it will only take about 5 sec to reach the top of the pole
Not quite, see this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88680&highlight=minibot+time)
So you can theoretically make one go up in 5 seconds. Whoop de doo. I guarantee you would have seen sub one second climbs if stored energy systems were allowed.
Navid Shafa
11-01-2011, 20:59
Rather predictable changes, however appealing "launching" might be, it was bound to be corrected. I must say that I am also glad that the robot extension diameter has been increased, that extra two feet will be nice. Thanks for posting!
h1n1is4pigs
11-01-2011, 21:02
Not quite, see this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88680&highlight=minibot+time)
So you can theoretically make one go up in 5 seconds. Whoop de doo. I guarantee you would have seen sub one second climbs if stored energy systems were allowed.
yeah we would see 1 second climbs but we would also see major damage to minibots and field elements and possibly even major damage to a ref, so i think it is better that rule is in existence now
rees2001
11-01-2011, 21:06
Better now than in 2 to 3 weeks after full designs were done like in 2002.
well just threw all the windup toy minibot drawings in the trash. back to using ftc motors. was really hoping to have no ftc on the minibot
smistthegreat
11-01-2011, 21:14
It's a bit of a frown town for me with the 84" rule, since 60" would've posed a challenge, and now that it's 84" this year is almost identical to 2007 (yes, the tubes are different and such, but I digress). The minibot change was predictable, FIRST definitely didn't want to allow any kind of projectile, as that could have caused field damage and/or a safety problem.
Also, something i found very interesting was this:
"MINIBOT use is independent of the ROBOT inspection. For example, any FTC team can bring a MINIBOT to an event, get it inspected, and if legal, that MINIBOT can compete with any FRC ROBOT (that has passed ROBOT inspection). There are legal HOSTBOTS and legal MINIBOTS; they are independent of each other regarding inspection."
Does this mean that FIRST is trying to get FTC teams to build minibots independent of FRC teams and bring them to events? This kind of FTC/FRC collaboration puts teams (like mine, 1507) at a disadvantage simply due to the fact that there isn't an FTC team around.
DonRotolo
11-01-2011, 21:15
Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder. :DRe-quoted for truth. 60" was a good challenge, but a little bit too good.
That sounds like hanging last year. With a few exceptions (27, 33, 148, 1114, and others), watching robots hang was very suspenseful. Would they pull themselves up in time? Are they JUST over the top of the tunnel? While 148's ability to hang was amazing, it was consistent, and less keep-me-on-the-edge-of-my-seat exciting than a slower hanging bot.
Perhaps 148's hanger wasn't as exciting to you because they took it off prior to their first regional and never used in a match. I know if they did use it, I would have rather watched it than some rickety 19 second scissor lift. (Actually that's not true, scissor lifts are awesome...)
I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.
And this is why I make sure to read every post by Cory McBride.
The minibot aspect of this update is disappointing. As others have stated, it would have been a lot of fun to see the different ways minibots avoided using motors. It probably would have made the end game more exciting as well. I know my team was planning on using surgical tubing as a source of stored energy. Oh well.
By leveling the playing field in terms of energy sources, I think this just makes teams focus more on the deployment of the minibot. Teams have always managed to come up with fantastic solutions to all of the problems in each game, and I am guessing that this case will be no different.
That being said, I am glad the 60" diameter was expanded to 84". Yes, the 60" rule was a tricky and interesting limitation, but I think we'll see a lot more competitive strategies with the new rule.
Mike Schreiber
11-01-2011, 21:30
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.
I completely agree. What is the point in the minibot challenge to see what design works after week one and to copy it identically within a day? That's inspiring AND encourages innovation...
FTC is a failure in comparison to VEX and FIRST should cut their loses. MI hardly even supports FTC because it takes away from FRC, we have 0 competitions in MI and no one's making a big deal about it (at least that I know of).
rcmolloy
11-01-2011, 21:31
That being said, I am glad the 60" diameter was expanded to 84". Yes, the 60" rule was a tricky and interesting limitation, but I think we'll see a lot more competitive strategies with the new rule.
It will and it will also help teams that already designed for being in that 60" envelope. There are so many ideas that are being tossed up and I am sure that teams will dominate regardless of being within the 60" or not.
Jonathan Norris
11-01-2011, 21:37
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.
this...
I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.
and this...
Really Disappointing FIRST...
I really liked the 60" cylinder rule, it made the game an actual design challenge rather then copying 2007 arms/manipulators.
Al Skierkiewicz
11-01-2011, 21:39
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.
Grim Tuesday
11-01-2011, 21:42
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.
Not to be mean, but this is the FRC competition, not the FTC competition. I want to have fun designing a minibot, not use someone elses.
Perhaps 148's hanger wasn't as exciting to you because they took it off prior to their first regional and never used in a match. I know if they did use it, I would have rather watched it than some rickety 19 second scissor lift. (Actually that's not true, scissor lifts are awesome...)
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.
s_forbes
11-01-2011, 21:44
Baaaww...
http://a.imagehost.org/0412/baw.png
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
11-01-2011, 21:45
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
11-01-2011, 21:46
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
11-01-2011, 21:48
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
11-01-2011, 21:51
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
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. :P
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
11-01-2011, 21:58
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.
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.
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
11-01-2011, 22:02
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
11-01-2011, 22:04
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.
No worries Mr. Raincloud, you are correct. :P
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
11-01-2011, 22:05
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
11-01-2011, 22:08
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
11-01-2011, 22:10
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
11-01-2011, 22:10
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.
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.
Even if a bunch of Vex teams did make super fast mini bots, thats only about 1/4 of the race. The real challenge is making one that can go on every sort of robot. They would need to design not only a minibot, not only a deployment system, but figure out a way to attach it to many different robots in a variety of ways. Basically, there is no way a Vex team built mini-bot will ever outpreform a decent FRC team's specific-to-them one. Vex teams will have to trade a lot of speed in deployment for a universally attaching Minibot and deployer. As long as the FRC team's mini bot isn't terribly slow it'll pretty much win because they will be able to make it deploy faster.
BrendanB
11-01-2011, 22:15
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.
What I meant to say is that should an FRC team not registered for FTC plan on participating in an FTC game? It is an honest statement. I understand that we are all FIRST teams, but all I have to ask is WHY? It will just be "fun" watching 4 robots drive up a pole and see who makes it up the fastest. Hey, we can place bets each match! :p
Even if a bunch of Vex teams did make super fast mini bots, thats only about 1/4 of the race. The real challenge is making one that can go on every sort of robot. They would need to design not only a minibot, not only a deployment system, but figure out a way to attach it to many different robots in a variety of ways. Basically, there is no way a Vex team built mini-bot will ever outpreform a decent FRC team's specific-to-them one. Vex teams will have to trade a lot of speed in deployment for a universally attaching Minibot and deployer. As long as the FRC team's mini bot isn't terribly slow it'll pretty much win because they will be able to make it deploy faster.
you kinda totaly missed the point, :)
wilsonmw04
11-01-2011, 22:24
you kinda totaly missed the point, :)
Would you be as so kind as to tell me what IS the point? Right now all I see are several people whining (quite loudly) about the decision of the GDC on the rules of a game that they made.
Wait, never mind. What makes that any different than any other year? Carry on!
JaneYoung
11-01-2011, 22:27
What I meant to say is that should an FRC team not registered for FTC plan on participating in an FTC game? It is an honest statement. I understand that we are all FIRST teams, but all I have to ask is WHY? It will just be "fun" watching 4 robots drive up a pole and see who makes it up the fastest. Hey, we can place bets each match! :p
This may have to do with opportunities to develop partnerships between and among the programs. There is also an opportunity to use some of the new mentoring initiatives that have been put in place for FRC. It may require a little bit of flexible thinking to be open to the possibilities and opportunities that are available. What I took away from the Kick Off was that it would be beneficial to think about these opportunities rather than to dismiss them too quickly.
Jane
pfreivald
11-01-2011, 22:28
I understand that we are all FIRST teams, but all I have to ask is WHY?
Why not?
I have, about sixty miles from my (middle of nowhere) school, a small consortium of FTC teams (five, I believe), all sponsored by the same company (Corning Glass). None of these schools do FRC.
Now that I know that they can build minibots, I am contacting them and letting them know about the opportunity to participate in the festivities. The more people coming to FRC competitions, the more people are being exposed to FRC. This includes school administrators, parents, sponsors, students, teachers, etc, etc, etc.
I hope they decide to get involved. I hope they build awesome FTC Minibots and show up and loan them out. I hope they put '1551' on them... :D
Norman J
11-01-2011, 22:44
I have heard in the past that constraint encourages ingenuity, in a way. As people get more limitations placed on them, they can think more creatively within the bounds of those constraints.
An example is Mad libs. If you tell someone to write a funny story, most people can't come up with something good. If you ask people "Give me a funny adjective, a funny noun and a funny verb." You can get pretty creative answers.
So basically, while I am still slightly disappointed by the lack of launching ability, I am still confident that a strong, innovative team will be able to produce a minibot that can outperform most others and come up with a cool solution despite the limitations.
Good engineering involves working with constraints, not complaining about them.
Chris Fultz
11-01-2011, 22:57
I just want to want to make one clarifying point -
If you compete in VEX, you are only allowed to use official VEX parts, with just a few exceptions.
pfreivald
11-01-2011, 23:01
Good engineering involves working with constraints, not complaining about them.
This should be stickied at the top of every thread...
Joe Schornak
11-01-2011, 23:06
Meh.
Despite the new 84" dimension cylinder, there are still incentives for teams to build compact arms. Like not having it spectacularly ripped off in a collision, for one. We probably won't significantly change our arm design. Maybe the gripper, if it's beneficial.
I've never really liked the FTC kit. My team tried FTC as an exercise in 2008/2009 before the FRC season started. None of the components fit together particularly well, and I can never get pieces to line up or attach in a sturdy fashion. The whole system seems limiting, since there are only a number of ways to attach things like wheels and gears, which subsequently never fit where I want them too. For some reason I never have this problem with Legos.
In our brainstorming sessions, my team never seriously considered taking the launching minibot route. One of our mentors proposed it, and everyone chuckled as we thought of pneumatically firing the FTC battery pack into the sensor (so as to be entirely legal, of course). We expected that particular loophole to be closed in the first update, as has clearly happened.
Under this update, could a minibot use the battery pack and motors but not the NXT? I assume this to be the "associated, appropriate circuity" in <G19>. Forgive me if this question has already been beaten to death in Minibot Thread #41.
ahollenbach
11-01-2011, 23:07
I'd like to remind everyone that they are on their FIRST robotics teams for a reason. And yes, while you are entitled to your opinion, respectfully keep it to yourself or a very small group of your peers, rather than making yourself sound like a fool on a forum that the GDC will not listen to.
The two major issues people have been having:
60" -> 84"
If you are so hell-bent on having this wonderful engineering challenge, then have it! Anyone who disagrees with the expansion of the cylinder parameters, I have personally changed the rules, so only your teams must be inside a 60" diameter. Problem solved :P
P.S. A lot of you are contradicting yourselves - you are angry that the minibot is being stripped of its creativity, but expanding the cylinder expands options, thus enabling creativity.
Which brings us to the next big issue:
The MINIBOT
Yes, the parts are expensive, and *maybe* they are limiting your creativity, but who cares? I think the suspense will make it worth it...And as we saw in kick-off, a minibot can easily make it up in ~7 seconds. So whoever has been estimating 14 and 16 seconds for these things...well I don't know what you had planned, but hopefully you go back to the drawing board. ;) As for those who want the engineering challenge - many have previously mentioned, the challenge is designing a minibot that can go on any robot with barely any modifications.
Remember, you are doing FRC (and posting on this forum) because you like your FIRST robotics team. Some of you are beginning to sound more like trolls than engineers :P
Chris is me
11-01-2011, 23:07
I just want to want to make one clarifying point -
If you compete in VEX, you are only allowed to use official VEX parts, with just a few exceptions.
But if you compete in VEX, they don't make you use VEX in all the other robotics competitions you enter.
FIRST went so far as to change the rules of this other competition midseason to eliminate a viable design that didn't use enough of the Tetrix product.
skimoose
11-01-2011, 23:13
I'm not happy with this decision mostly from one standpoint that has not been stated yet. MONEY!
If you're a struggling team, $275 for FTC registration, then $749 for a FTC kit. An extra $1000 just to create your own minibot. Oh but wait, if I spend even more money and compete in an official FTC event, I can get $500 off my FRC registration next year... now that's some incentive. Oh and I'd have to buy more FTC hardware or dismantle my minibot to build an FTC robot. It just keeps getting better.
Secondly, has anyone thought about what the minibot costs will do to their $3500 robot budget?!?! Robot = Hostbot + Minibot, remember that in the rules. The minibot is not exempted from your BOM budget as the rules currently are written unless I missed it. FIRST, how do I deal with budgeting a foreign FTC team's (not my own FRC team's) minibot, and if my local FTC teams are still competing or are eligible to go to St. Louis, they're going to take their FTC robot apart to make a Minibot for my team. I doubt it.
wilsonmw04
11-01-2011, 23:15
But if you compete in VEX, they don't make you use VEX in all the other robotics competitions you enter.
FIRST went so far as to change the rules of this other competition midseason to eliminate a viable design that didn't use enough of the Tetrix product.
I thought they did it for the safety of the volunteers, staff and teams.
On a side note: I don't think your vex response makes any sense. Vex doesn't have any other competitions as far as I know. What's the problem with FIRST limiting you on the parts you use for the minibot? They do it every year in FRC in one way or another.
artdutra04
11-01-2011, 23:24
Team Update #1 was just FIRST's attempt at maintaining their record of always creating one nearly universally-hated rule every year.
Originally we were planning on a sub-one-second time from breaking the Tower plane to hitting the trigger, but now G19 and physics says that's impossible. Good bye innovation. Good bye inspiring designs. Hello clone bots with identical performance.
At this rate, Team Update #2 should just eliminate the Minibots and replace it with the drive team captains playing rock-paper-scissors to determine the bonus points.
I thought they did it for the safety of the volunteers, staff and teams.The energy required to safely and efficiently launch a Minibot would have been a fraction of what most teams had last year in their kickers. Teams managed fine last year, so I don't see how somehow they are incapable of designing safe devices this year.
Besides, rampant strategies (such as teams firing things at the trigger than aren't completely wrapped around the pole) could have been avoided by adding a rule disabling the tower if the Minibot hits the carpet.
Chris is me
11-01-2011, 23:29
I thought they did it for the safety of the volunteers, staff and teams.
An easy way to make springbots safe: Make the rule "springbots must be rigidly attached to the pole". There, no safety issue.
A design I was working on would literally be physically incapable of deploying until around a bar.
On a side note: I don't think your vex response makes any sense. Vex doesn't have any other competitions as far as I know. What's the problem with FIRST limiting you on the parts you use for the minibot? They do it every year in FRC in one way or another.
The problem is they're quite transparently pushing their robotics competition on every team in FRC, at the expense of the teams that do VRC now.
KleinKid
11-01-2011, 23:31
Probably because this is the first year we have done FIRST my team is rather excited but frustrated with the minibot. Rather than learning one system in a normal year but now we need to learn the FRC system and the FTC system.
It'll be nice though afterwords for demonstrations we could just have our pole dancing robot around to attract new members.
pfreivald
11-01-2011, 23:33
Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone thought that a launch-bot would be allowed under this game -- whether thrown onto the tower or placed and then launched upward.
A. If you paid attention during kickoff, you knew what the intent of the MINIBOT race was.
B. Several pounds of metal and other stuff being launched into the air (either by itself or by the robot 'deploying' it), if it missed the pole due to any variety of easily forseeable circumstances (poor alignment, getting hit -- accidentally of course -- while deploying), hard enough to go ten feet up and still put out .5 lbs of force on impact... Can you say <S01>, kiddies? I knew you could!
The umbrage at this "change" (which is merely a clarification for anyone who read the rules as advised -- in their spirit instead of as a rules lawyer) is pretty funny. Seriously funny. In a funny but serious sort of way.
Aren_Hill
11-01-2011, 23:33
I thought they did it for the safety of the volunteers, staff and teams.
With the amount of energy safely stored in our lift system last year we could put a minibot through the roof of whatever arena we were in (3x 250lbs gas shocks 16" stroke) but we wouldn't for the reason of the light has to be on the tower to indicate we won.
Soccer balls flying would also have similar kinetic energy safety wise.
'08 trackballs flying had significantly more and could easily knock people over, and those exited the field occasionally.
Doing a launched minibot safely was not a large challenge.
I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint. More than a few people have moaned that the expansion of the 60" cylinder to 84" reduces creativity. If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.
You have a specific power source and a specific pair of motors that you're allowed to use, and within those restrictions you must create something that's better than what everyone else made. You'll have to invent clever ways to reduce weight, minimize friction on your MINIBOT and maximize friction with the pole. You'll have to find ways to make your deployment fast and your robust, because every fraction of a second counts.
Come to think of it, the HOSTBOT also has to use a specific power source and specific motors. And I've yet to hear anyone complain in this thread how that limits innovation. Or look at FIRST LEGO League. You might think that since everyone has to use the same plastic building blocks, the same motors, and the same half-dozen sensors that all the robots would be pretty much the same. But you'd be wrong. It's the same with racing concrete-canoes, mousetrap vehicles, or stock cars. The constraints are severe and the limitations are often frustrating, but great ideas still emerge in the end.
I believe most of the frustration comes from the fact that for the last four days we've invested in our souls in some truly cool ideas which have now been thrown in the dumpster. It hurts, I know (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65363). But stand up and move on. This season is still going to have its share of good engineering challenges, and I can't wait to see the great ideas that emerge in the coming weeks.
Ian Curtis
11-01-2011, 23:43
Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone thought that a launch-bot would be allowed under this game -- whether thrown onto the tower or placed and then launched upward.
A. If you paid attention during kickoff, you knew what the intent of the MINIBOT race was.
B. Several pounds of metal and other stuff being launched into the air (either by itself or by the robot 'deploying' it), if it missed the pole due to any variety of easily forseeable circumstances (poor alignment, getting hit -- accidentally of course -- while deploying), hard enough to go ten feet up and still put out .5 lbs of force on impact... Can you say <S01>, kiddies? I knew you could!
The umbrage at this "change" (which is merely a clarification for anyone who read the rules as advised -- in their spirit instead of as a rules lawyer) is pretty funny. Seriously funny. In a funny but serious sort of way.
Going 10 feet up and hitting with .5 lbs of force is "unsafe", while 165 pounds of robot flying across the field at 15 feet per second is? :)
Everything is relatively. I was pretty sure launching minibots was going out the window -- but I'm totally convinced it is possible to build a safe, mechanical powered minibot that would perform significantly better than the electric bots, and that would be more fun for the audience to watch. I'd still be annoyed if FIRST said we could only use a Vex controller and 2 Vex motors... I want a FIRST mousetrap car competition! :)
BrendanB
11-01-2011, 23:44
Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone thought that a launch-bot would be allowed under this game -- whether thrown onto the tower or placed and then launched upward.
A. If you paid attention during kickoff, you knew what the intent of the MINIBOT race was.
B. Several pounds of metal and other stuff being launched into the air (either by itself or by the robot 'deploying' it), if it missed the pole due to any variety of easily forseeable circumstances (poor alignment, getting hit -- accidentally of course -- while deploying), hard enough to go ten feet up and still put out .5 lbs of force on impact... Can you say <S01>, kiddies? I knew you could!
The umbrage at this "change" (which is merely a clarification for anyone who read the rules as advised -- in their spirit instead of as a rules lawyer) is pretty funny. Seriously funny. In a funny but serious sort of way.
Not unless you were aiming at as light as possible and completely wrapped around the pole. I had a feeling that projectiles would be illegal; however, I didn't think that if it was attached around the pole and moving really fast it would be illegal.
With the amount of energy safely stored in our lift system last year we could put a minibot through the roof of whatever arena we were in (3x 250lbs gas shocks 16" stroke) but we wouldn't for the reason of the light has to be on the tower to indicate we won.
Soccer balls flying would also have similar kinetic energy safety wise.
'08 trackballs flying had significantly more and could easily knock people over, and those exited the field occasionally.
Doing a launched minibot safely was not a large challenge.
This is a very good point. Our robots are probably more of a safety hazard than a projectile.
I wouldn't have an issue with this rule change, if it wasn't such a key part of the game. I think what annoys me the most is the implications for all the teams who don't have A. and FTC kit, B. a team near them or C. the funds to drop on FTC parts since the minibots will take a few falls. Too bad we now have to pay to remain competitive.
pfreivald
11-01-2011, 23:48
You guys seem to be missing my point... What if you missed the pole when deploying your launched MINIBOT?
Aluminum block =/= big squishy trackball (or what-have-you). If you were hit/tipped so that it launched, say, at a 45-degree angle toward the crowd (despite your engineering), this would create an untenable safety hazard that FIRSTs lawyers would be certain to ixnay.
wilsonmw04
11-01-2011, 23:48
Doing a launched minibot safely was not a large challenge.
My response was merely an attempt to show that there might have been other reasons for the clarification rather than "forcing" FRC teams to use parts that Vex folks don't like or to "remove innovation and inspiration" from this game that we are about to play.
Jared Russell
11-01-2011, 23:49
How incredibly disappointing on so many levels.
Our students were ready to meet the 60" rule head on - they were looking at things like the comparative benefits of elevators vs. various types of multi-jointed arms and everything in between. We even had a long discussion about Peaucellier-Lipkin linkages. Now there is little incentive for doing anything different than what we saw in 2007...
On the minibot topic, I hope that FIRST appreciates that minibot races will now be decided by:
1) Battery voltage.
2) Whoever deploys their robot at 10.1 or 10.2 seconds without the ref seeing/calling it (it's not a fun year to be a ref).
And I'm not even going to touch the political/financial aspect of it all...
Alexa Stott
11-01-2011, 23:52
I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint. More than a few people have moaned that the expansion of the 60" cylinder to 84" reduces creativity. If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.
You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying. In the removal of the 60" constraint, creativity is, arguably, being removed by letting teams basically build giant arms like in 2007.* By adding the constraint to the minibot construction, creativity is being removed because it limits your designs to basically making the same minibots. As stated elsewhere on CD, it has basically become an issue of who can make the lightest minibot. That's hardly a tough engineering challenge. This change also has some political implications, as well as an increased cost for many teams who do not have access to the FTC kit. That is more where my issue comes from--FIRST is now basically requiring everyone to use their flawed FTC system.
Additionally, teams have already spent the past four days brainstorming and designing and these are two very big changes, especially now that teams who don't have an FTC kit will need to find a way to borrow one or acquire their own. As stated, this can be quite costly for teams running on a very limited budget.
*I tend to disagree that this reduces the creativity, but I'm trying to help you see the other side.
SteveGPage
12-01-2011, 00:00
Folks, I've read both threads, and 'yes' I can sense and in some ways feel your frustration. No, I can't relate to those areas of the country, or to our friends up North, that don't have access to an FTC team, either.
But after reading all the upset and I'm sure hurting comments (I'm not saying you are hurting others - I'm acknowledging that many of you feel betrayed and hurt), I have some thoughts that I think are important.
First, look down at many of your profile signatures. Many of you have very inspirational quotes. If you don't - look up at the spotlight quotes running across the top of the page. There are so many that deal with overcoming adversity. Overcoming barriers. Finding excellance in the midst of mediocrity. Going above and beyond. etc. etc.
Ask yourself some questions.
* If you are upset because you had a great idea about how to launch a minibox (since many of the ideas mentioned couldn't be called a minibot), now you get a real challenge.
* To those of you who have issues with funding, that it isn't in your budget, what about all those teams who post things like - we just lost our only sponsor - the school system just kicked us out of the building and took all our tools and grants - our lead mentor just left and we have no one to help. What do you all say to them? I've read many of your thoughts on what to do to find help, how you encourage them. Unfortunately, you now find yourself in a similar situation that teams find themselves in every year, and yet find a way to overcome that situation.
* To those who think it isn't fair that FIRST is competing with Vex. Why would you even think FIRST cares about what Vex is doing. Do you think McDonalds cares about Wendys when it builds a store right next door? Maybe it isn't politics - but classical business decisions. Capitalism at work. Now we get to teach how supply and demand works, maybe talk about what happens in a monopoly, how some countries place tarifs on others, etc...
So hopefully you have all had a chance to vent, to blow off some steam and tomorrow wake up and do what you all do best, figure out to make the best of a bad decision - and make the best robots you all know how to make!
Steve
BrendanB
12-01-2011, 00:01
Okay, so the key now is to make the minibot so light that it is disposable from match to match! Woah! That was the easiest design session ever! FRC is evolving. :rolleyes:
We like the removal of the 60" in favor of the 80" (sort of).
Where we are drawing the line is that the Minibots are restricted such that you have to get certain parts to have one, or borrow someone else's.
Those parts are expensive, and there are similar parts that are much cheaper, and some would say better quality (I've no experience with Tetrix, so I can't do the comparison)--but those are explicitly prohibited.
I would have had no problem with a pole-grasping minibot that launched from the base straight up the pole once it grasped. But by requiring teams to only use the motors, that set of minibot designs are trash.
Worse, a large number of teams that have zero or almost zero FTC resources (Israel, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Mexico(?), and quite a few in the U.S.) are being required to get those resources (see cost complaint earlier) to be competitive (see tube/minibot debate).
That, in a nutshell, is why a very large number of people do not like this particular ruling.
The other parts list--without FTC motors and battery, it's useless. And how do you get the motors and battery, if you missed the FIRST Choice supply/window? $$$$.
pfreivald
12-01-2011, 00:05
As stated elsewhere on CD, it has basically become an issue of who can make the lightest minibot. That's hardly a tough engineering challenge.
Coming off of the high of my first FIRST Regional Competition win, I have to say that there appears to be a difference in perspective that I can't quite grasp here.
This game is both exciting and terrifying because it isn't a matter of "who can build a robot to meet the challenge?" Every FIRST team can build a robot that can do the tasks asked of us in this year's game...
It is a matter of "who can build a robot that can meet the challenge better than the other teams who are doing the same?"
Hanging tubes on a rack = not hard.
Hanging tubes on a rack better than everyone else = hard.
Racing a MINIBOT up a pole = not hard.
Racing a MINIBOT up a pole faster than everyone else = hard.
----------------
We were confident last year because we knew we had nailed the strategy, and knew that we build a robot that could perform. We were confident that we were top tier. (This proved to be true on the regional level, but not at Championship -- we learned some lessons we are taking to heart!)
We are not at all confident this year because we know that we have the strategy nailed, but we're 100% positive that most teams do, too. We know how to build a bot to execute that strategy, but so do they...
Different decisions in task execution will result in gold and bronze medals, and gold vs. bronze will not be decided by chance.
To whit, building a light MINIBOT isn't hard. Building "the lightest" MINIBOT absolutely is. (FYI, I disagree with you a bit, too. While 'wheeled bots racing up the pole' will likely be the standard, there is a matter of gearing, wiring, traction, deployment, etc. to be considered. If this weren't a competition, it'd be easy. But it is, so it isn't.)
...
Vex doesn't have any other competitions as far as I know. ...
Similar to the proper clarifying point Chris made. Let me remind everyone that Vex is a product line and is used in some TSA competitions, BEST competitions, some PLTW activities, and in the RECF's VRC and VRCC competition programs (did I forget any?).
"Vex" isn't a competition.
The RECF is the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation.
Blake
PS: I think Justin hit the nail on the head here http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=997624&postcount=29
Astrokid248
12-01-2011, 00:17
Honestly, I didn't even know what an FTC robot looked like until last year. My area (Clear Lake/League City) does VEX. The VEX game is usually more exciting than FTC's, and I don't know about the kits, but VEX is fairly easy to work with. The implication (given by Kamen at kick off) that the only way to do well in this competition is to join with an FTC team is a little...unrealistic, and even a little rude. Is it really for inspiration and recognition of science and technology, or is it for inspiration and recognition of Dean Kamen and FIRST? I think by making the minibot rules so rigid (and so bent towards FTC) it is becoming the latter.
Alexa Stott
12-01-2011, 00:25
* To those of you who have issues with funding, that it isn't in your budget, what about all those teams who post things like - we just lost our only sponsor - the school system just kicked us out of the building and took all our tools and grants - our lead mentor just left and we have no one to help. What do you all say to them? I've read many of your thoughts on what to do to find help, how you encourage them. Unfortunately, you now find yourself in a similar situation that teams find themselves in every year, and yet find a way to overcome that situation.
The lack of funding for those teams was brought upon them by others, not by FIRST itself. This is FIRST basically telling the already financially strapped teams that they might have to spend even more money on equipment for this year's competition. This is different.
Nawaid Ladak
12-01-2011, 00:27
Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder. :D
Agreed: To all the people arguing that 2007 designs will be copied. some of those designs may have issues now thanks to different bumper rules now compared to 2007
Somebody should really do a poll on this: i thin the FIRST community is split on weather the 84" rule is a good or bad thing.
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.
Quoted for Truth
I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.
my thoughts exactly. I have no desire to watch a football game involving two bad teams, even if that game may end up having the most suspense that week.
a lot of those consistent hangers would still make the match exciting. Instead of going for the hang with 20 seconds left, the would go for it with 5 or 7 seconds left
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 00:35
I am all for everything in this update.
Makes me wonder if they changed it to 87" because of the fact we caught their mistake and they are going to give us the wider spread for their fault, or they actually wanted it to be 87". I mean...87" is such an odd number...Wonder why 87"....
84" is 7 feet.
sanddrag
12-01-2011, 00:45
For years, many items have been included in the kit that many teams never used for anything. This is still the case with several items. My team has piles of them. However, this year, they require some very specific parts to compete in a significant component of the game, yet they aren't included in the kit. Go figure...
Why was it even on FIRST Choice, if it's not a choice to use those parts or not? I don't see simply not attempting a MINIBOT as a choice. At least not to be competitive. It should have just been included in the kit for everyone if they insist on requiring those specific parts.
Radical Pi
12-01-2011, 01:18
Why was it even on FIRST Choice, if it's not a choice to use those parts or not? I don't see simply not attempting a MINIBOT as a choice. At least not to be competitive. It should have just been included in the kit for everyone if they insist on requiring those specific parts.
There are probably larger forces at work here than just it being needed for competition. What about those teams who have FTC teams already and have no use for a set like that (although I personally would get it anyways). What if they just couldn't acquire enough of them prior to KOP ship date? There's always a reason for this stuff.
Hawiian Cadder
12-01-2011, 01:21
this may be completely stupid, but has anyone considered building a solenoid driver? they have significantly more "initial launch" force and with magnets as well as 24 gauge wire a relatively crude one could be constructed.
this may be completely stupid, but has anyone considered building a solenoid driver? they have significantly more "initial launch" force and with magnets as well as 24 gauge wire a relatively crude one could be constructed.I think that would probably violate both <R46-B> and <G19>.
Note: before you complain to me about there not being a rule <R46-B>, it's a separate paragraph from <R46-A>. I think that the GDC just forgot to put a B there.
Justin Montois
12-01-2011, 01:43
I've read this entire thread and I can see the points people are trying to make and i'm still on the side of "Both rule changes are pretty poor decisions"
The minibot challenge has been greatly diminished. I see a similar thing happening anyway though, whether you had 3 minibots that can all make it under a second and it come down to whoever can hit the button the fastest or it takes all the minibots about 6 seconds and it comes down to whoever can hit the button the fastest. Same challenge, I just would have really liked to see the minibot mechanisms that launch these things.
The 60" to 84" is a mind blower. I have a hard time believing that it was a typo, so even though they have been working on this game since June, all of a sudden a few days into build season 60 jumps to 84....Seems strange. I see the successful teams in 2007 being successful again. Yes I know the bumper rules are different but When you already know your mechanism and arm, tweaking it to fit around the bumper isn't really a challenge at all.
This game went from being a potential favorite to a potential disaster. I say potential because I withhold final judgement until I see it on Einstein. The way these games are meant to be played.
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 01:53
The 60" to 84" is a mind blower. I have a hard time believing that it was a typo, so even though they have been working on this game since June, all of a sudden a few days into build season 60 jumps to 84....Seems strange. I see the successful teams in 2007 being successful again. Yes I know the bumper rules are different but When you already know your mechanism and arm, tweaking it to fit around the bumper isn't really a challenge at all.
The bumper actually makes one design in particular drastically different than it was in 2007. Can't say which, but your team had it. :)
I believe most of us saw the Minbot rule revision coming.
And many of us have competed in Pinewood Derby Races. I consider this challenge very similar. And think about how exciting the pinewood races were.
In fact, if I was on GDC, I'd have also considered specifying a minimum weight for the minibots.
Now let's just hope we don't have to put bumpers on them....... ;)
Justin Montois
12-01-2011, 01:55
The bumper actually makes one design in particular drastically different than it was in 2007. Can't say which, but your team had it. :)
Hahahaha :) Well ONE of our teams that year had it. The other one is looking mighty tempting....
Hawiian Cadder
12-01-2011, 02:08
I think that would probably violate both <R46-B> and <G19>.
Note: before you complain to me about there not being a rule <R46-B>, it's a separate paragraph from <R46-A>. I think that the GDC just forgot to put a B there.
ahhh, i forgot that applied to the mini-bot as well.
waialua359
12-01-2011, 04:26
For years, many items have been included in the kit that many teams never used for anything. This is still the case with several items. My team has piles of them. However, this year, they require some very specific parts to compete in a significant component of the game, yet they aren't included in the kit. Go figure...
Why was it even on FIRST Choice, if it's not a choice to use those parts or not? I don't see simply not attempting a MINIBOT as a choice. At least not to be competitive. It should have just been included in the kit for everyone if they insist on requiring those specific parts.
Id have to agree with this on the minibot kit as it was my thoughts initially as well.
Why not have it in every KOP? :confused:
Rich Kressly
12-01-2011, 06:47
Id have to agree with this on the minibot kit as it was my thoughts initially as well.
Why not have it in every KOP? :confused:
Well when you choose the FTC mini kit @ FIRSTchoice right now you can see there are 612 left in stock. When I ordered one on Mon there were just under 700 or so I think?
Bottom line - way fewer FTC mini kits on FIRSTchoice than FRC teams. So, if you take into consideration the retail price of the kit - YIKES - and the idea that it may be likely that most FRC teams may eventually find it necessary to obtain the kit ... well then .... unless you have/can find an FTC team to donate the parts to you ... you'll see a significant expense incurred by teams.
As to why this kit wasn't in every KOP, then ... it would certainly seem like the supplier and/or FIRST just thought it was too costly to do so.
Hmmmmm.....
EDIT EDIT EDIT ..... that firstchoice inventory number may not be correct, thus my interpretation that there may not be enough for all teams could be wrong ..... I
Be honest with yourselves. Anyone who has been around fIRST and saw the launch had a 98% belief that we would not be able to launch Mini bots. As for the size restriction it was obvious that there had been a typo, it was a matter of which way it would go (published inch or metric size). Why are so many people astounded by these minor changes?
As for the FTC parts, limited funds + extra forced purchases (to be competetive) = less future teams in FRC.
As a well known personality in FIRST says "It's all about the math"
Jared Russell
12-01-2011, 07:44
Be honest with yourselves. Anyone who has been around fIRST and saw the launch had a 98% belief that we would not be able to launch Mini bots.
I wanted to believe! :D
In all seriousness, the rules as originally written had left the door so wide open for flinging a minibot (that is attached to the pole) up with some sort of HOSTBOT mechanism that I was almost convinced it was on purpose. Within seconds of seeing the minibot race, our team was already talking about ways to fire a "minibox" up in under a second, so I had a hard time believing that nobody on the GDC had the same idea.
But you're right, clearly FIRST wanted to see FTC robots on those poles...
Chris Hibner
12-01-2011, 07:54
Be honest with yourselves. Anyone who has been around fIRST and saw the launch had a 98% belief that we would not be able to launch Mini bots. As for the size restriction it was obvious that there had been a typo, it was a matter of which way it would go (published inch or metric size). Why are so many people astounded by these minor changes?
As for the FTC parts, limited funds + extra forced purchases (to be competetive) = less future teams in FRC.
As a well known personality in FIRST says "It's all about the math"
I agree on the launched part, but why not let me wind some surgical tube around a pulley and let that drive the wheels up the pole? Restricting everyone to the same components makes this silly.
There are ways to re-write the rule to eliminate launching:
Ex: During deployment, the minibot must leave contact with the hostbost with a maximum vertical component of velocity of 0 m/s.
I feel I need to explain my position on the whole FTC/Vex/Minibot thing.
Please note I have nothing against FTC or the people involved, there are some great people in it and I have even refereed FTC at the Championship. It's not about money or expense, those have always been part of the challenge for FRC teams. My problem is with what I see as a totally non-GP attitude from FIRST.
FIRST didn't say "we want you to only use these FTC motors because we want to limit the power of the minibot to be a good design challenge or for safety.
They didn't say "here's an FTC kit we want to encourage teams to use them and maybe that will inspire them to start or support an FTC team"
What they did say was "teams with FTC experience or who seek out local FTC teams for help will have an advantage and to facilitate this you must use these parts."
That's not an attempt to encourage us to experience FTC, that would be OK. It's a blatant move by FIRST to force FTC on us.
To put it simply FIRST isn't seeing the growth they expected in FTC. The kits have never been popular, they are too expensive. They chose the wrong partner (don't get me started about my dislike of PITSCO.) They made a huge mistake when they changed from VRC, they should acknowledge that and maybe work with those of us who do Vex and not try to force FTC down our throat.
wilsonmw04
12-01-2011, 08:53
I feel I need to explain my position on the whole FTC/Vex/Minibot thing.
... not try to force FTC down our throat.
Thanks for your reply Sam. But I still have a question for those who are against these new mini bot rules: The only two things you are required to use are the motors and the battery. How is this different than the rules for an FRC robot? How is this cramming it down your throat?
nuggetsyl
12-01-2011, 09:18
Thanks for your reply Sam. But I still have a question for those who are against these new mini bot rules: The only two things you are required to use are the motors and the battery. How is this different than the rules for an FRC robot? How is this cramming it down your throat?
Because First is forcing a cost to teams that is unneeded. Why did they choose FTC? All the FTC batteries are is c batteries. First lacks one major thing to end all this crap. COMPETITION. If First had a competitor then alot of the BS they do would not happen because they would lose teams. It would also force First to keep costs lower. Imagine the price FTC would be if VEX was not around. Also the FTC VEX battle shows that if teams prefer the VEX style more and i do not blame them.
Its cheaper to enter competitions even cheaper if you have more then 1 team
They have better parts
Their prices are cheaper for parts
If you run an event you get money for it
Championships are in Disney instead of the most dangerous city in the US
Thanks for your reply Sam. But I still have a question for those who are against these new mini bot rules: The only two things you are required to use are the motors and the battery. How is this different than the rules for an FRC robot? How is this cramming it down your throat?
Very
For one, we are allowed several different types of motors, given us the flexibility of choosing which we will use and how we will allocate them to different functions and evaluating various trade offs.
Second, we are not restricted to motors to power all robot functions. We are allowed to use forms of stored energy other than the provided battery, we can use pneumatics, etc.
The problem is they're quite transparently pushing their robotics competition on every team in FRC, at the expense of the teams that do VRC now.
FIRST has quite transparently been pushing their "Gracious Professionalism" propaganda on every team in FRC, FTC, and FLL, at the expense of the teams that do BattleBots now. I haven't heard any complaints about that.
I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint.
Absolutely 100% hit the mark. Well done sir.
In my mind I keep going back to a quote by a very prevalent and distinguished member of the FRC GDC (numbers are as of 2009 but the intent still applies):
I have said it before, and I will say it again: If between them FIRST, IFI, BotBall, BEST, and PLTW are collectively dedicating even a single neuron firing to the contemplation of how to beat the "other guys," then collectively they are all fools.
Let's look at some reality. TSA will reach 150,000 students this year[1], the FIRST Robotics Competition will reach an estimated 41,000 students[2], Project Lead The Way manages to contact 500,000 students[3], BotBall touches approximately 5,000[4], and the VEX competitions add about 6,000 more[5]. That is a grand total of about 700,000 students involved in these programs today.
As of 2007, there are an estimated 16,400,000 high school students in the U.S.[6]. So collectively, these guys are affecting a grand, whopping, huge 4.2 percent of the U.S. high school student population. That is right – 4.2 percent. Over 95% of the current high school students in the United States are not engaged by any of them.
Given a potential market that is 25 times larger than the entire population currently served by these programs – and remembering that it has taken nearly 20 years for them to grow just to this point – the ONLY focus that anyone should have is how to reach that larger market.
The publicly-stated goal of each of these organizations is to provide inspiration and education on STEM topics to those that have not yet "seen the light." You don’t do that by trying to convince those already converted that your particular phrasing of the message is better. You do it by reaching out to those that have never heard the message in the first place. A little less time spent on turf wars, and a little more time spent on reaching the 95% of students who are oblivious to your existence, might be wise.
-dave
We all know the competition. We all know the rules (pending clarification on some, i.e. capping the tower, etc). The changes made in TU1 were made three days after ship. Three days. Not after Week 1 regionals. I can't speak on how much the other people affiliated with FRC at various levels agreed with them, but Dean's remarks and his homework made his personal position quite clear. Nothing about the TU1 should be surprising.
rees2001
12-01-2011, 09:35
Thanks for your reply Sam. But I still have a question for those who are against these new mini bot rules: The only two things you are required to use are the motors and the battery. How is this different than the rules for an FRC robot? How is this cramming it down your throat?
It is different because teams were given 4 days to dream about an un-restricted design. The possibilities seemed too good to be true! This NEVER happens is FIRST. If the rules had been written like this from the start there would be a lot less people upset. Imagine FIRST came out with rules this year that didn't limit the motors or quantities. Imagine there was no limit on starting size. And then in update 1 realized the constraints were not there and put them in. Seems crazy but it is similar but different to what were were handed on day 1.
I do understand teams issues with saying you have to use FTC stuff but just using the motors and batteries is really not that different than using the CIM motors and MK batteries. Lego education has all of these parts if you are looking.
Daniel_LaFleur
12-01-2011, 09:41
First off,
The GDC is trying to be proactive with these rules changes (something that I very much encourage ... considering last year). They are trying to create a game with a level playing field (of sorts).
My only disappointment with this update is that the mini-bot isn't allowed stored energy until deployment. I would have preferred 'The minibot may have no stored energy (other than the battery) before the start of the match'. JMHO
I will also state that complaining about the changes is a waste of time and energy. The required specifications has changed, but it's early in the design process, so instead of complaining about the changes, lets just get to work on creating the 'best' solutions.
Greg Needel
12-01-2011, 09:41
I have been a quiet observer of this thread and feel the same emotions that many others do. When I first saw the minibot challenge at kickoff I was extremely excited, because it was a wide open challenge that was different from anything FIRST had done in the past. Like many we came up with numerous designs all of which are illegal at this point. A few things really strike me as wrong with this decision and it is not exactly the obvious ones that people are focusing on.
I have no problem with FIRST Limiting the motors required for the minibot, I have a problem with not giving those motors in the kit. Yes FIRSTchoice exists but many teams including mine logged on early in the AM on Monday to ensure we got the parts we wanted, like we were advised to do. Had this rule been defined in the manual to start with this would have been a lesser issue, but they still should have put at least 2 motors and a battery in the kit.
Cost of the components. My teams can afford these components so I am not complaining about that, but it is one thing to lock teams into a specific motor but you have to be fair with the value/price. WHY DOES THE TETRIX MOTOR COST MORE THAN THE CIM MOTOR? From a manufacturing perspective there is no way there is more (copper, casing, bearings, etc) in the textrix motor than any other motor in the kit. The cost of the motor is simple price gouging by lego/pitsco plain and simple.
The minibot competition will not be won by teams who use the Tetrix kit. Like many things in FRC the challenges are never level, but FIRST has been doing things the past decade to close the gaps between the haves and the have-nots (kitbots, allowances of COTS specifically designed for teams, etc) by forcing teams down a path the ones who have manufacturing abilities will use the aluminum, plastic, and other allowed components to build lighter and faster robots. I feel sorry for the FTC teams that FIRST is encouraging to build pole climbers and show up at competitions thinking they have a shot a winning. If FIRST's goals are to inspire students it doesn't seem right that they are setting kids up for failure.
To quickly address the argument going on in this thread about FTC and VEX..."It is what it is" Both programs have similar goals to get students interested in STEM. In my opinion there is one that does it better than the other but that is irrelevant for the conversation of the minibot.
I encourage everyone to vent your frustrations and then take the challenge they have given you and do your best at it, that's all anyone can do with anything in life.
Al Skierkiewicz
12-01-2011, 10:47
I just have this question...
Of those of you who planned on using a launch method, did you consider the possibility of designs (yours or others) that actually took the top off the tower or misfired a mini into the crowd? Did you think that First really would have taken that step?
mathking
12-01-2011, 10:47
In all of this discussion, one thing I haven't heard is a mention of FLL. The young kids we have on our team who are right out of FLL (and those who mentor FLL) are more excited about the minibot than the team as a whole. I have a suspicion that our final design might just have switches, and no NXT "brain", but if we do use the NXT the FLL kids will be psyched.
I too am disappointed at the rules clarifications for the minibot, but I think that the idea that not allowing launching is going to make all of the robots clones is a little over-blown. If they had allowed launching, I think there would have been just as much "cloning" of designs. I do think that a lot of people are underestimated the engineering challenge of deploying the robots on the poles. You have to do it quickly, precisely and not so violently that it damages the minibot. Getting the minibot to attach to the pole quickly and reliably is not going to be a trivial engineering challenge given the time constraints. I also think it is likely we will end up using aluminum, PVC and polycarb rather than Tetrix pieces. But who knows?
I do think that FIRST should have given everyone two motors and a battery if they were going to require us to use the two motors and the battery to move the robot. This is definitely an issue they should address if they do anything like this in the future. I would rather have used Vex components since we have a lot of them (we don't compete in Vex but have used them in the classroom), and I don't think that the FRC competition or the FTC competition is diminished by allowed Vex components in addition to Tetrix. But it's a restriction. So we'll deal with it.
As for the 60" rule, I have mixed feelings myself. All weekend I was stressed out because of how brutal this restriction was. Then Monday arrived and Paul Ciopoli pointed out that the rule was printed as 60"(213.4 cm) and I didn't know what to think. On the one hand the more severe 60" restriction would force teams to think much more deeply about their designs. On the other, I think that the 84" rule means we will see a wider variety of mechanisms. And remember if you are complaining about wasted design time, if your robot doesn't violate the 60" rule then it won't violate the 84" rule. On the other hand, if you design in metric and were designing using 213.4cm all weekend and the GDC came out on Tuesday and said "Sorry, it's only 152.4 cm" you would be worse off. So I was looking forward to the restriction of 60", but I can live with 84". A couple of our new kids had a cool idea for an arm that wouldn't work with 60" and does with 84". So it may turn out that the 84" rule will help us.
A few of my students were a little frustrated today, so I told them this: There have been years when I really liked the challenge from the start (ex: Aim High), years when I really didn't like the challenge from the start (ex: Overdrive) and years when I was totally wrong about how interesting the challenge would be (ex: Triple Play). But I do know that I have never gone to a FIRST competition and had a bad time. Occasionally a stressful, frustrating time when the robot is breaking down or not working correctly, but always a good time. So if I have point, it's this: Go ahead, complain. Discuss. Suggest. Just remember to also have fun too.
Joe Ross
12-01-2011, 10:51
Well when you choose the FTC mini kit @ FIRSTchoice right now you can see there are 612 left in stock. When I ordered one on Mon there were just under 700 or so I think?
Bottom line - way fewer FTC mini kits on FIRSTchoice than FRC teams. So, if you take into consideration the retail price of the kit - YIKES - and the idea that it may be likely that most FRC teams may eventually find it necessary to obtain the kit ... well then .... unless you have/can find an FTC team to donate the parts to you ... you'll see a significant expense incurred by teams.
As to why this kit wasn't in every KOP, then ... it would certainly seem like the supplier and/or FIRST just thought it was too costly to do so.
Hmmmmm.....
When I looked on Monday, there were over 1200 FTC mini kits available. Considering the fact that there are still almost 600 available, I'm not sure availability is an issue.
It is like going to the county fair and watching the duck races. Will they make it or not?
:rolleyes:
Steve
Wait ... those duck races are THAT exciting?? :eek:
nitneylion452
12-01-2011, 11:25
I don't see an issue here. I see that the hostbot cannot contribute to the vertical motion of the minibot. Fine, no problem. I'm seeing that you can't have stored energy in a spring, everything must use the motors. Again, no problem.
I'm not going to reveal why I don't see the problem yet. I want all of you to try and see what I am saying here. Try and calm down, step back from your infinite rage and look at this like an engineer would. You found a loophole that said you could launch the minibot from the hostbot, I see another loophole yet to be closed, if it ever will be.
::rtm::
As for those who want the engineering challenge
If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.
Engineering still can't beat Physics! There's only some much weight to remove from the minibot, so it may eventually come down to, as someone pointed out, to whoever has the fullest battery or, completely ridiculous, who got lucky and received the slightly better spec'ed motor from the assembly line...
As for the fun of watching one robot beat the other by milliseconds, maybe I'm just weird, but the kick I get from 100m dashes is watching Usain Bolt crush records, not the other seven "regular" guys who all arrive at the same time - by the way, there's no photofinish at a (incredibly long and slow) marathon...
mathking
12-01-2011, 12:01
[quote]As for the fun of watching one robot beat the other by milliseconds, maybe I'm just weird, but the kick I get from 100m dashes is watching Usain Bolt crush records, not the other seven "regular" guys who all arrive at the same time - by the way, there's no photofinish at a (incredibly long and slow) marathon...[/quote/
As a track and cross-country coach, I have seen some long races change in the last second. I see the difference between launching and climbing with motors more like the difference between the 100 meter dash and the 4x400 meter relay, or the 1500 meter run.
More seriously, why is it more exciting to see which hostbot is a tiny fraction of a second faster at deploying the minibot and triggering a launcher?
pathew100
12-01-2011, 12:22
I agree on the launched part, but why not let me wind some surgical tube around a pulley and let that drive the wheels up the pole? Restricting everyone to the same components makes this silly.
There are ways to re-write the rule to eliminate launching:
Ex: During deployment, the minibot must leave contact with the hostbost with a maximum vertical component of velocity of 0 m/s.
This is the first design that our team thought of.
Based on the initial rules, we sort of inferred that the intent was that the MINIBOT was self-propelled, but not necessarily battery powered!
Rich Kressly
12-01-2011, 12:27
When I looked on Monday, there were over 1200 FTC mini kits available. Considering the fact that there are still almost 600 available, I'm not sure availability is an issue.
Joe I think you are correct...and I edited my post after checking with some folks ... I either originally saw it wrong or things went that fast....
Andy Grady
12-01-2011, 12:32
I for one am thrilled at the lastest team update. During a match, while I am announcing I stand right next to the field...I didn't really like the idea of taking a 15 pound piece of metal to the squash because someones latch failed to activate and the spring misfired. Phew!
To anyone who thinks this will not be exciting, you are out of your mind! It is NOT like hanging first off. You did not get more points for hanging first as you do for finishing first with the minibot. That 10 point difference between 1st and second could be a huge make a break moment in an elimination match. To me, it doesn't get any better than that!
As for the design challenge...if you don't think there is a challenge in trying to get your minibot to go faster than everyone else, you are not thinking outside of the box enough in my opinion. Once again, instead of complaining, suck it up, think a little harder, and make the most of what you do have.
From what I can tell, there are ways around, or ways to alleviate all the complaints which people have posted here...all it takes is for a little hard work. Get on it!
My only actual question is this...who can register a minibot? An FRC team? An FTC team? A team of random mentors and students with no affiliation? A team of mentors with no affiliation? A volunteer? I don't see this clarified anywhere...it might be slightly important to know.
Good luck everyone!
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 12:48
To anyone who thinks this will not be exciting, you are out of your mind! It is NOT like hanging first off. You did not get more points for hanging first as you do for finishing first with the minibot. That 10 point difference between 1st and second could be a huge make a break moment in an elimination match. To me, it doesn't get any better than that!
The difference is that with hanging, there are a multitude of different designs and options. Between looking cool, going up fast, elevating past the buzzer, and otherwise, there is a lot of variety that is exciting to watch.
This game, the laws of physics pretty much dictate a maximum speed and there's maybe one or two ways to reach that speed - so it becomes a "race" in who deployed right at the 10.0 mark, or who got a lucky battery charge, rather than an actual demonstration of which team had a better engineered mini bot.
The difference is that with hanging, there are a multitude of different designs and options. Between looking cool, going up fast, elevating past the buzzer, and otherwise, there is a lot of variety that is exciting to watch.
This game, the laws of physics pretty much dictate a maximum speed and there's maybe one or two ways to reach that speed - so it becomes a "race" in who deployed right at the 10.0 mark, or who got a lucky battery charge, rather than an actual demonstration of which team had a better engineered mini bot.
There is quite a bit of engineering and design work involved in objectively reaching that 10.0 mark that should not be tossed aside.
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 12:57
There is quite a bit of engineering and design work involved in objectively reaching that 10.0 mark that should not be tossed aside.
Don't forget: the difference between "wow, what a great deploy, first place" and "the refs have disabled your tower" is so infinitesimally small and so much more important than previous end games that I can see nothing good coming of it.
Either teams will release early and get away with it or teams will jump the gun and get their tower disabled based on a number the field cannot precisely display and that no one can see while simultaneously staring at the base of the tower.
I can't believe veterans here on CD are turning the Update into a VRC/FTC gripefest. This was a minibot challenge, not a PVC tube launching challenge. It's sickening that people are crying foul just because now they're forced to use a 'competing' or 'inferior' product. If you don't like the product because of principles, then don't do a minibot on principle. The rest of us who aren't strong-armed into one program or another will enjoy seeing the minibots make it to the top.
Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.
Jesse, even those of us who do neither FTC nor VEX and who are sitting out the FRC competition are complaining. It's turning a mousetrap car (with the option for FTC) into an FTC robot. That could be good, or it could be bad, but either way it's changing the rules in a major way.
There were a number of ways to eliminate unsafe launching and declare a minimum weight equivalent to the FTC battery. Minibots must contact the tower during the entire deployment, minibots must have a minimum weight of X, the list goes on. Instead of one that allows for stored-energy designs, they went with the most restrictive rule they could. After teams had already started their FIRST Choice ordering.
Andy Grady
12-01-2011, 13:22
There were a number of ways to eliminate unsafe launching and declare a minimum weight equivalent to the FTC battery. Minibots must contact the tower during the entire deployment, minibots must have a minimum weight of X, the list goes on. Instead of one that allows for stored-energy designs, they went with the most restrictive rule they could. After teams had already started their FIRST Choice ordering.
Eric,
You aren't really taking mechanism failure into account. Just saying that a robot has to be constantly touching the bar during ascent, doesn't mean that it will happen in actuality. When you consider vibration, massive collisions, robot failures, having a 15 pound spring loaded vehicle on your robot is incredibly hard to make safe, let lone the damage it could pose to your own robot's internal systems.
Richard Wallace
12-01-2011, 13:22
...
My only actual question is this...who can register a minibot? An FRC team? An FTC team? A team of random mentors and students with no affiliation? A team of mentors with no affiliation? A volunteer? I don't see this clarified anywhere...it might be slightly important to know.
I agree this is an important question. TU1 includes one pertinent reference:
A Blue Box has been added to Section 4.3.15:
MINIBOT use is independent of the ROBOT inspection. For example, any FTC team can bring a MINIBOT to an event, get it inspected, and if legal, that MINIBOT can compete with any FRC ROBOT (that has passed ROBOT inspection). There are legal HOSTBOTS and legal MINIBOTS; they are independent of each other regarding inspection.So we know that either FRC or FTC teams can present MINIBOTs for inspection.
Eligibility of walk-on MINIBOTs does not appear to be defined by the Manual.
Kevin Sevcik
12-01-2011, 13:23
I don't see an issue here. I see that the hostbot cannot contribute to the vertical motion of the minibot. Fine, no problem. I'm seeing that you can't have stored energy in a spring, everything must use the motors. Again, no problem.
I'm not going to reveal why I don't see the problem yet. I want all of you to try and see what I am saying here. Try and calm down, step back from your infinite rage and look at this like an engineer would. You found a loophole that said you could launch the minibot from the hostbot, I see another loophole yet to be closed, if it ever will be.
::rtm::
<G19>After DEPLOYMENT, MINIBOTS must remain completely autonomous and move up the POST solely through electric energy provided after DEPLOYMENT by the permitted, unaltered battery and converted to mechanical energy by the permitted unaltered motors (and associated, appropriate circuitry).
The physics here are pretty straightforward. There's absolutely no stored energy allowed, besides the battery. You can only start using the energy in the battery after DEPLOYMENT. The only way of converting this to mechanical energy is through the provided motors, which have a peak power output of 8.4W. So it works out pretty simply:
Work = Force x Distance = (Mass x g) x Distance
Power = Work / Time
Time = (Mass x g x Distance) / Power
So, you want to minimize Time by fiddling with things on the right hand side:
g - acceleration due to gravity. Let's all please assume this is constant.
Distance - nearly constant. Serious teams will deploy as high as possible.
Power - Max available is ~16.8W. Make your minibot as efficient as possible, with little friction and appropriate gearing.
Mass is the only variable teams have any significant control over. There's two approaches here:
1. Build a stripped down "dragster" with 2 motors, 1 battery, (maybe) 1 controller, and the minimum frame, gearing, and wheels to make it all work. There's an obvious minimum here of 1 battery, 2 motors, and some wiring.
2. Leave the motor, batteries, and controller on the ground and send up something lighter to hit the trigger for you. This has the potential to be rather faster than option 1, what with the huge weight reduction. But this is only possible if minibots are allowed to expand outside the starting 12"x12"x12" box. Given the massive restrictions just implemented on minibots, do you really think the GDC is going to leave that avenue open?
As people have been saying, it's just about down to a pure physics problem at this point. He who builds lightest and best wins. Successful minibots will have optimal gearing, 2 wheels, and as little framing as possible.
As for the size restriction it was obvious that there had been a typo, it was a matter of which way it would go (published inch or metric size). Why are so many people astounded by these minor changes?
It was hardly obvious Steve. It was a valid design constraint, albeit a big one. We were prepared to deal with it and now we'll be prepared to deal with a 84" cylinder.
The changes were anything but minor though.
I can't believe veterans here on CD are turning the Update into a VRC/FTC gripefest. This was a minibot challenge, not a PVC tube launching challenge. It's sickening that people are crying foul just because now they're forced to use a 'competing' or 'inferior' product. If you don't like the product because of principles, then don't do a minibot on principle. The rest of us who aren't strong-armed into one program or another will enjoy seeing the minibots make it to the top.
Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.
Ummm, my posts in this thread have been about how 148 & 217 didn't have a hanger on their robots during the 2010 competition season. I also commented on how I enjoy Cory's blunt statements. ("I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less." I thought this was hilarious) Nowhere did I mention VEX, VRC, FTC, minibots, competing products or anything else. I've included links for your reference.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=997449&postcount=22
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=997505&postcount=35
So if you respect me so much, please consider not putting words in my mouth. I have no problem standing behind the words that I've actually spoken, I have a hard time doing the same with ones that are being conjured out of the over active imaginations of others.
I can't believe veterans here on CD are turning the Update into a VRC/FTC gripefest. This was a minibot challenge, not a PVC tube launching challenge. It's sickening that people are crying foul just because now they're forced to use a 'competing' or 'inferior' product. If you don't like the product because of principles, then don't do a minibot on principle. The rest of us who aren't strong-armed into one program or another will enjoy seeing the minibots make it to the top.
Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.
Jesse it's not about FTC vrs VRC, I think FIRST's behavior and decisions fly's in the face of their stated mission of inspiration for purely selfish reasons. I (and judging form the many PM's I have received, many others) think they are acting in a very un-GP way.
Are you suggesting that I just not say anything and sit back and smile while the program that I love is corrupted?
Kevin Sevcik
12-01-2011, 13:50
Don't forget: the difference between "wow, what a great deploy, first place" and "the refs have disabled your tower" is so infinitesimally small and so much more important than previous end games that I can see nothing good coming of it.
Either teams will release early and get away with it or teams will jump the gun and get their tower disabled based on a number the field cannot precisely display and that no one can see while simultaneously staring at the base of the tower.
You do realize that we have a several hundred dollar control system in charge of the robot, right? Give yourself a deployment arming button and start a timer as soon as the robot enters enabled teleop. If you're armed and the timer hits 110 seconds, fire the minibot. If you're depending on your driver's reflexes, you're wasting valuable time.
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 13:50
Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.
Find a post in this thread where either Karthik or Cory posted anything about Vex, VRC, or even FTC. You can't. That's not what they were complaining about at all.
AdamHeard
12-01-2011, 14:00
I can't believe veterans here on CD are turning the Update into a VRC/FTC gripefest. This was a minibot challenge, not a PVC tube launching challenge. It's sickening that people are crying foul just because now they're forced to use a 'competing' or 'inferior' product. If you don't like the product because of principles, then don't do a minibot on principle. The rest of us who aren't strong-armed into one program or another will enjoy seeing the minibots make it to the top.
Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.
I'd be pissed if we had to use vex, mindstorms, an arduino, anything. Let teams decide what they want to use.
They made a substantial game play decision for political reasons, that's immature.
BrendanB
12-01-2011, 14:04
Okay everyone I think that this is going way too far! I've calmed down since last night a little and realized oh well, then we will make sure that we do whatever we can to save every ounce of weight and get up as fast as we can. Hey, someone has to be the first up that pole! So what if our design is no longer legal or our arm doesn't have to fit a 60" constraint. Let's move along with the season. Things like this happen all the time and how we deal with it determines character. This past weekend our store did inventory and I spent 2 hours counting thousands of packs of cigarettes. When we are about to finish up and every other employee is leaving my group is told that we were given the wrong format and that we need to start over and none of our numbers were valid. I was originally furious because all I had on my mind was the new challenge, but complaining didn't get it done or get me home faster. Hey, maybe Andy Grady is on to something. The minibots will be a very on the edge of your seat ending when it is all tied up and all four are neck and neck.
FIRST is making their decisions, we are not being forced to compete in FRC, get over the update, get over each other, and make your robot! :)
Ah, I see what I did. I linked a Sandrag post to Cory due to the 254/968 alliance by mistake, and Karthik's comments added to it due to his relationship with IFI.
Karthik, sure, nothing was directly said. Yet your tone has always been pro-VEX and anti-FTC so I suppose I take everything you post regarding the two with that bias in mind. Regardless, I apologize.
Adam, your bias was present from your first post about the inferiority of FTC in this thread. Change of heart?
My own opinions -- 1-second PVC tube launches aren't challenging at all given the lack of restriction on materials for the FRC bot. And everyone's missed the fact that at least the GDC was prudent enough to realize the differences between the rules and the intent of the game on Day 3. Everyone (who's speaking against it) acts like this change is the worst thing since holes in Suisse Cheese. Given FIRST's political-play type history in other nuances within the organization, what makes Engineers think they should be exempt from that behavior just because it's a "technical challenge" (referencing the FTC-only rules).
The only thing that really NEEDS to be TETRIX on the minibot are the battery, motors and wheels. Given the allowed materials, everything else is custom metal. Heck, even the wheels could probably be custom made within the allowed parts.
Have I stirred up enough of a hornets nest here? It it even possible for Engineers to see something other than their own points of view?
SteveGPage
12-01-2011, 14:18
Let me share a quick story.
While Alan Shepard was sitting at the top of his Mercury space craft waiting to be the first American into space, there had been several issues, the count-down had been stopped and restarted several times. At T- minus two minutes and forty seconds and counting, Shepard heard that dreaded word again, "Hold". Another problem had stopped the countdown, yet again. Getting frustrated, he yelled, "I've been in here more than three hours. I'm a h*** of a lot cooler than you guys. Why don't you just fix your little problem and light this candle?"
The countdown to the ship date is ticking. So let's all be cool, and
Light this candle!
:)
Okay everyone I think that this is going way too far! I've calmed down since last night a little and realized oh well, then we will make sure that we do whatever we can to save every ounce of weight and get up as fast as we can. Hey, someone has to be the first up that pole! So what if our design is no longer legal or our arm doesn't have to fit a 60" constraint. Let's move along with the season......
FIRST is making their decisions, we are not being forced to compete in FRC, get over the update, get over each other, and make your robot! :)
I have to say, this is probably my favorite post. The truth, the real bottom line. Things CHANGE. We are an organization of engineers or at-least engineer-like minds.....since when do things not change. Somebody tell me one robot they built that not one thing changed. Whether it be a controled factor or not.
It's a trade off. Bigger play radius, more contraints on the mini bot. I see nothing wrong with that.
P.S. FTC, VRC....can you say NASCAR vs IRL?
Both are the same "sport" both have their parts and their rules. We compete in the FIRST Robotics Competition, therefore I don't see it unreasonable to use FTC parts, if this were something different then I would make that claim later.
CassCity2081
12-01-2011, 14:46
The one thing that I don not understand is peoples comments about "clone bots". If anything this team update got away from having everybody being a one pound box on a surgical tube slingshot that if everything went just right it would hit the top tower and not damage the field and if anything went wrong it would result in injuries to robots, the field, or people. Try not to get mad that everyone thought they found a 469 like loophole to the game and the GDC didn't let it go. There is still plenty of time for new concepts, if you didn't like a challenge like this you would not be a part of FIRST.
Just wondering but didnt they change vex/FVC to FTC? isnt Vex = First Tech Challenge? So people saying Karthik is pro-vex and anti-ftc is contradictory.
Just wondering but didnt they change vex/FVC to FTC? isnt Vex = First Tech Challenge? So people saying Karthik is pro-vex and anti-ftc is contradictory.
No, VEX became VRC, a separate competition, and FTC is now based on an alternate kit.
No, VEX became VRC, a separate competition, and FTC is now based on an alternate kit.
So FIRST has 5 different competitions(Jr.LL, LL, VRC, FTC, FRC)?
Jared Russell
12-01-2011, 14:53
So FIRST has 5 different competitions(Jr.LL, LL, VRC, FTC, FRC)?
FIRST (the organization) no longer has anything to do with VRC.
Many FIRST teams do compete in VRC for historical reasons (they spent a lot of capital on Vex kits) and for perceived advantages of that program vs. or in addition to FTC.
JohnHorton
12-01-2011, 14:54
I know everyone is rejoicing about the 84" cylinder, but I personally loved the 60" as an actual engineering challenge. What about this game is different than 2007 again? Minibots? OK, cool.
Agreed. I liked the challenge of making a bot to fit into tight restrictions. I was hoping to see some really interesting workarounds for that.
I think we still have the '07 bot in storage. Hmm....
...Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed...
My thoughts exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Tech_Challenge
Not sure what to say about this, so do you guys?(read the first line)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Tech_Challenge
Not sure what to say about this, so do you guys?(read the first line)
FIRST created FVC as their mid-level program based on the Vex kit from IFI.
For reasons we don't need to go into here they decided to stop using the perfectly good Vex kit and create their own.
IFI then used the Vex kit to make their own competition VRC.
FIRST (the organization) no longer has anything to do with VRC.
Many FIRST teams do compete in VRC for historical reasons (they spent a lot of capital on Vex kits) and for perceived advantages of that program vs. or in addition to FTC.
The difference I see between the two programs is IFI sees us as their customers. They try hard to make it simple for groups to host competitions and make it as easy as possible for anyone to participate. FTC does not.
JaneYoung
12-01-2011, 15:15
For reasons we don't need to go into here they decided to stop using the perfectly good Vex kit and create their own.
Or don't know or are none of our business.
Jane
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 15:28
Or don't know or are none of our business.
Jane
"Hey Chris, why'd you have to toss out those $2000 of Vex parts you bought for FTC last year?"
"None of my business, I guess"
Andy, I chose that as an example. Was it the best one? No. Was it the worst one? No. They could have just said, launching minibots that are not attached to the pole is an automatic safety violation, and any that are launched attached to the pole will be closely inspected for safety. Just one avenue they could have taken.
Jesse, I don't think Adam's post was a change of heart from his earlier one. FTC was simply named as the item of discussion at that time; the later post is simply an expansion.
I finally thought of a good comparison that may explain why everybody's mad: That healthcare bill the last Congress session passed, with the requirement to buy insurance. We're being required to put certain parts on the robot to be competitive--and they may or may not be inferior/superior, which isn't why we're annoyed. It's that we have to have them.
Mods, could this thread be given a 24-hour cooldown? I think we all need a break.
Tom Line
12-01-2011, 15:35
How incredibly disappointing on so many levels.
Our students were ready to meet the 60" rule head on - they were looking at things like the comparative benefits of elevators vs. various types of multi-jointed arms and everything in between. We even had a long discussion about Peaucellier-Lipkin linkages. Now there is little incentive for doing anything different than what we saw in 2007...
On the minibot topic, I hope that FIRST appreciates that minibot races will now be decided by:
1) Battery voltage.
2) Whoever deploys their robot at 10.1 or 10.2 seconds without the ref seeing/calling it (it's not a fun year to be a ref).
And I'm not even going to touch the political/financial aspect of it all...
Yep. There are going to a be a TON of hard feelings this year when a robot clearly deploys a half second early and the refs miss it. Wouldn't it be a travesty if Einstein was decided that way?
sanddrag
12-01-2011, 15:38
Ah, I see what I did. I linked a Sandrag post to Cory due to the 254/968 alliance by mistakeJesseK, please slow down for a minute. If you're going to mention something someone said, please quote it. Thus far, I have made no mention of VRC in this thread. Also, please remember, a person's own views may or may not relate to their team's views. Additionally, please be careful in associating people with one another. We are all individuals, entitled to our individual opinions.
Engineering still can't beat Physics! There's only some much weight to remove from the minibot, so it may eventually come down to, as someone pointed out, to whoever has the fullest battery or, completely ridiculous, who got lucky and received the slightly better spec'ed motor from the assembly line...
This is exactly the point that I believe many of the well-established and well-respected members of this forum have been trying to get across, but may not have explicitly stated.
With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom. In FRC, you can have multiple robots that are constructed entirely differently that all play the game equally well. Such is not the case with this new MINIBOT challenge.
Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.
I've thought more about it, and I don't have a fundamental problem with the new restrictions. Why? I don't think most teams have a solid enough grasp on the physics and engineering involved. Those who do will succeed. However, it still may become a game of luck (battery voltage, motor manufacturing tolerance, frictional variations, etc) between the top teams on Einstein.
JaneYoung
12-01-2011, 15:42
"Hey Chris, why'd you have to toss out those $2000 of Vex parts you bought for FTC last year?"
"None of my business, I guess"
Obviously, there is still a lot of anger, frustration, and resentment regarding the FVC program. Maybe it is good that it is bubbling to the surface in this thread and the other one - but, if I wanted to understand why the program that our team had invested/lost $2000 in - I would find a more direct path than the ChiefDelphi fora for investigating the cause and for trying to understand it. And, basically, that would be our team's business.
---
I'm headed to our first day of design presentations. Can't wait to see what the design teams have come up with.
Jane
wilsonmw04
12-01-2011, 16:50
With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom...
...Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.
With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.
I guarantee someone has already designed the best minibot this year. It will be something that other teams couldn't get to work or thought of but tossed the idea aside as impractical.
Chris is me
12-01-2011, 16:59
With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.
I agree with you in principle, but in this particular instance there is literally one way to do it. You need to convert as much electrical energy into mechanical motion as possible in as short a time as possible, and you are allowed exactly one way to convert it. One energy source, one energy output, one design.
sanddrag
12-01-2011, 17:10
The point I was making is that in the MINIBOT competition, I believe there is now roughly one best conceptual design, if you base it on conventional and correct physics and engineering principals. This is very different than FRC traditionally in which there is no best design necessarily, as they are heavily varied.
I'm not saying I have a problem with either. I'm just pointing out the differences.
waialua359
12-01-2011, 17:13
I cant find the post from Al S. team 111, but to me, he said it best.
The minibot is an opportunity to get FLL, FTC, or even VEX students to get involved with an integral part of FRC.
Personally, we are a 7-12 school that does FLL, VEX, and FRC. We are getting the 7-8th graders to help design the minibot, and have ownership to whatever successes we might have this season.
What greater way to recruit the younger kids in getting involved with the FRC program.
Grim Tuesday
12-01-2011, 17:36
A message to everyone QQing about FTC being pushed on you.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Get_Over_It.png
I think the GDC read your minds ahead of time :P
Kevin Sevcik
12-01-2011, 17:45
With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.
I guarantee someone has already designed the best minibot this year. It will be something that other teams couldn't get to work or thought of but tossed the idea aside as impractical.Please see my post above about physics. The fundamental issue here is that we're given exactly one method of converting stored electrical energy into mechanical energy. This method limits you to, at most, 16.8W of mechanical power. This gives you a hard and definite limit of just how fast you can lift X lbs to Y inches. If the GDC allows minibots to expand or detach parts, then there's discussion to be had on whether to fire up something light, or drag the entire minibot up the pole.
It looks pretty certain that the GDC ISN'T going to allow expanding minbots or detachable parts, so your only option is to haul the entire minibot up the pole. So you know right away the you're hauling 2 motors and a battery up the pole, and you want to absolutely minimize any wasted energy. You want every last erg you can get to go into lifting the bot. It really, really focuses your design.
What about the bot that spins around the pole as it goes up? Nope, all that rotational kinetic energy is a waste. Big honkin' wheels? Nope, more wasted rotational energy. Lots and lots of gears? And waste all that energy in friction in the bushings? Umm... maybe a flag to wave around at the top? Nope, don't have the grams to spare. These constraints pin you down to the absolute bare minimum necessary to get the job done. The most successful minibots will have the minimum necessary wiring, maybe one gear step up (yes, up), a battery, and the lightest frame possible. The only real question open to you is how you latch the minibot onto the pole as quickly and high as possible, within these other constraints.
So it's not the fun, crazy, creative kind of engineering we get to do on the rest of the robot. It's the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering that's rather less popular, but rather more common.
Richard Wallace
12-01-2011, 17:59
...the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering ... ... is the kind that really matters.
It's the way we get to things that really work, really well, for a really long time. (Must think of some examples...)
Ah, here's one: Dave's other car (http://marsrover.nasa.gov/home/).
wilsonmw04
12-01-2011, 18:43
As a teacher of conceptual, standard and AP Physics, I understand the principles behind most mechanical processes. I stand by my statement that you are already limiting yourself in your approach.
have anyone thought about this?:
<G59> TEAMS must retrieve MINIBOTS from the TOWER quickly and safely after each MATCH. Violation: The FIELD crew will retrieve the MINIBOT if the TEAM does not. A second violation may result in a YELLOW CARD.
Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?
You do realize that we have a several hundred dollar control system in charge of the robot, right? Give yourself a deployment arming button and start a timer as soon as the robot enters enabled teleop. If you're armed and the timer hits 110 seconds, fire the minibot. If you're depending on your driver's reflexes, you're wasting valuable time.
Kevin,
I'm certainly no expert, but I believe that in past seasons there have been up to several seconds of variation in match length during FRC Regional matches.
Talk to a few folks (some FTAs maybe?) who can confirm or deny my fuzzy suspicion before putting too much faith in being able to legally deploy the mini-bots exactly 110 seconds after your robot reports (to itself) the match has been started.
Blake
I'm very excited about the 84'!! however i'm not as joyful bout the minibot ideas... this is going to hinder design work just a bit... should still be interesting thou!
:cool:
DonRotolo
12-01-2011, 20:09
The only thing that really NEEDS to be TETRIX on the minibot are the battery, motors and wheels. (emphasis mine) I'm not so sure that <R92> states that I cannot fabricate my own wheels from aluminum sheet and tube (for example). Just sayin'Getting frustrated, he yelled, <snip>It may have helped that the entire contraption was built by the lowest bidder... :ahh: With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. Exactly. So which team will be able to wring the most from their pinewood derby car minibot? The team that understands the design constraints best. Maybe it IS a competition to see who sucks least, but I for one welcome the opportunity to blow your doors off.:p
Bring it on.
.
Good luck with that Sir! Team 2389 is in full swing and is working nonstop to make this year the absolute Best!;)
skimoose
12-01-2011, 20:16
have anyone thought about this?:
Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?
Absolutely, this is not an engineering challenge.
I can easily think of several ways to get a bare bones bot off the pole safely in less than 30 seconds (and they don't involve a stick chainsaw as Dean demonstrated). After all, we're planning a sub-one second deployment. Why should it take up to a minute to retrieve the little critter?
I find this new contraint quite enjoyable. Then again, I'm not on a team.
There has always been talk from year to year about "standardizing" certain parts of the robot across teams to allow them to be able to be switched out at competitions. I think FIRST just laid a golden egg right in your lap to do something like this and make it actually happen (in fact, they are encouraging it).
Forget about the "lack of innovation" that has come from this rule, and think about how fun it'll be brainstorming with other teams in the pit to get their minibot to work with your hostbot.
Just my two cents.
Alexa Stott
12-01-2011, 21:09
I must agree! :)
...with?
Nawaid Ladak
12-01-2011, 21:11
Mods, could this thread be given a 24-hour cooldown? I think we all need a break.
I second this request. Hopefully this gets people to stop complaining and start working on their teams bots.
I was thinking the same thing. 24 hour rest. Reopening tomorrow evening.
548swimmer
17-01-2011, 17:58
Even with the massive constraints placed on the minibot design, it will still be difficult to create a final product that attaches to the pole, and has enough traction to adequately grip the pole. It's still going to be exciting to see which teams come up with novel ways to increase traction, novel methods of attachment, and creative ways to lighten the whole system.
bassoondude
17-01-2011, 20:32
Doesn't the blue box under section 4.13.15 technically allow an FTC team who is not registered for the competition to win the coopertition award?
ATannahill
17-01-2011, 20:36
Doesn't the blue box under section 4.13.15 technically allow an FTC team who is not registered for the competition to win the coopertition award?
Check in section 5.3.5.
Al Skierkiewicz
18-01-2011, 07:20
5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.
5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.100% correct. So now let's think at the edge of the box.
My presumption is that if I were on an FTC team that had 4-8 Nobel Prize winning mini-bots that were as fast as Dave eating a Krispy Kreme and were also equipped with a universal Hostbot-interface for deployment and activiation; I would be able to walk into any FRC competition; do a demo on the practice field; and almost immediately become affilated with a new-best-friend FRC team.
I'll even bet that the FRC team would let me take home any Coopertition trophy that we earned together.
So long as "affiliation" doesn't have any special meaning beyond cooperating during the tournament's 3 days, then going stag sounds reasonable to me.
Blake
Al Skierkiewicz
18-01-2011, 12:06
Just to keep everyone honest, at this point the universal interface is part of the HOSTBOT and so must be included in the 120 lb. weight.
Rick TYler
18-01-2011, 12:46
* To those who think it isn't fair that FIRST is competing with Vex. Why would you even think FIRST cares about what Vex is doing. Do you think McDonalds cares about Wendys when it builds a store right next door? Maybe it isn't politics - but classical business decisions. Capitalism at work. Now we get to teach how supply and demand works, maybe talk about what happens in a monopoly, how some countries place tarifs on others, etc...
Steve -- I think the problem here is that none of these after-school competition engineering programs have "dominant market share and destruction of our competitors" in their mission statements. One way or another, all of these programs (FRC, VRC, BEST, Botball, TSA, Skills, etc.) have a mission statement that comes down to "showing young people that science and technology is fun, and that you can go on to college and a career in the field." Once the mission statement becomes, "Build the cash reserves and dominate the market" they've already lost track of their purpose.
I work for the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation, the folks that run the VEX Robotics Competition, and it bugs me when a school chooses not to be part of our program. At some point, though, you need to suck it up, realize that more than 90% of all middle and high schools don't have ANY engineering/science challenge, and remember that a successful program in a school is a win for all of us.
Rick TYler
18-01-2011, 13:19
The difference I see between the two programs is IFI sees us as their customers. They try hard to make it simple for groups to host competitions and make it as easy as possible for anyone to participate. FTC does not.
Just one small note, Sam, starting with the 2010-2011 season, VRC is now produced by the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation (RECF) in partnership with IFI. The RECF is a 501(c)(3) educational foundation. The relationship between RECF and IFI is similar to that between FIRST and LEGO for FLL and FTC. VEX Robotics, Inc., a division of IFI, works in partnership with RECF to design and create a STEM competition program for youth and college students. RECF also supports other youth STEM programs on its Website at www.robotevents.com.
Just wanted to get that cleared up.
GaryVoshol
18-01-2011, 15:27
Just to keep everyone honest, at this point the universal interface is part of the HOSTBOT and so must be included in the 120 lb. weight.
If you use more than one "universal" interface, both of them added together must be included in your 120 pounds. So you can't sometimes use an interface from FTC Team 1 and another time from FTC Team 2, unless you've got the weight allowance in your HOSTBOT that would cover both of them.
Example: A team has decided to design their ROBOT such that, before any given MATCH, they may change the configuration of the ROBOT based on perceived strengths or weaknesses of an opponent. The team accomplished this by constructing a basic drive train platform plus two versions of a GAME PIECE manipulator, each manipulator being a quick attach/detach device such that either one or the other (but not both) may be part of the ROBOT at the beginning of a MATCH. Their ROBOT platform weighs 107 lb, version A of the manipulator weighs 6 lb, and version B weighs 8 lb. Although only one version will be on the ROBOT during a MATCH, both manipulators (and all components of the manipulators that would be used during the MATCH) must be on the scale along with the ROBOT platform during weigh in. This would result in a rejection of the ROBOT because its total weight comes to 121 lb.Replace the words "GAME PIECE manipulator" with "MINIBOT deployment device" and you will see that both devices must be included in your HOSTBOT weight.
... equipped with a universal Hostbot-interface for deployment and activation; ...BlakeHere is the sense in which I (try to) use the word "interface".
"An interface is a boundary between two things, not the thing on either side of the interface. Things meet at interfaces. The things on either side of the interface might have plugs, sockets, transmitters, receivers, tabs, alignment pins, etc. Those are the parts of the "things" that are exposed at the interface and conform to the interface, but are not the interface."
Debating this interpretation isn't necessary - I know others exist; and I see that I was sloppy when I said the mythical mini-bot would be equipped with an interface instead of saying that it would conform to the magic universal interface spec.
More interestingly, the discussion seems to be saying this: Minibots loaned to random Hostbots have to be properly deployed and activated somehow; and as folks have pointed out, if the Minibot rides in a carrier that gets left behind on the Hostbot, that carrier's weight and the weight of any/all carrier types/implementations that Hostbot uses throughout the entire regional need to be properly accounted for during inspection and subsequent preparation for all matches.
Using a Minibot carrier only once and I suppose its weight isn't on the Hostbot's books for the entire tournament; use three different carriers repeatedly, and you might need to pass inspection with all three on the scales.
Remember, I'm not the official Q&A.
Blake
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.