pic: Size comparison.
 

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I really hope size restrictions of this year are lifted for next year. While some incredible problem solving has been accomplished, FRC just won't feel the same without 28x38 robots. We have the smallest drive train we have ever used this year and wiring it has been near impossible

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I miss big robots :(

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

As much as I like the flexible size, I really hope that we can have big robots again. FRC does just need to be big, I don't want it to turn into Vex or FTC.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

Its gonna be a year full of 254s and 968s from 2008. lol

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I am excited for the emptier field. Mostly I hope they did this to ensure there will be ample field space for next year's game -- FIRST FRENZY: Re-Raising the Bar.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I really wish we would have sprung for the newer, smaller cRIO chassis.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

The 28x38 standard has only been around since 2005. Prior to that we never seemed to keep a size restriction more the a couple years in a row. I know most teams only know that size but this is going back to when we assumed anything could change any year.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

Smaller robots = more room for robots on the field.

More room for robots on the field = more matches at a single Regional and/or more obstacle-style field elements

Smaller robots aren't a bad thing.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I really can't understand why everyone's complaining about their robot having to be smaller. Every year I've been on the team (w/ the exception of 2007 which was a bad idea) we've built the frame 2" undersized; 36"x26".
This year, our frame is STILL 36"x26".

Kudos to the first person who figures out how we managed to build a 36"x26" frame while still obeying all rules.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I'm gonna guess tapered corners.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

If there are more than 6 robots in a match.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I'm guessing a triangular design. Having one leg 26" and one leg 36" gives you a hypotenuse of about 44", and a total frame perimeter of 106". You'd need an interesting drive train to make this work... 3 wheel swerve?

Of course, more realistically you cut off each corner about 6" in from each side. This would replace 12" of frame perimeter with 8.4 in each corner, for a total savings of about 14", reducing the frame perimeter from 124" to 110". Your drive train might get a little cramped by cutting off the corners, but it's not unrealistic.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

I can think of a number of ways to do this: A flop bot would be relatively easy to implement I believe, if weren't for the pesky bumpers at starting config, but it could still be done. You could have one side of the drive fold out, but that would be inefficient space wise and probably wouldn't give you the best performance--unless you designed somehow to get around that. OR, on the same train of thought here, if you had 2 sides of your frame connected in the middle with heavy duty linear sliders, you could just slide the base farther apart. That would be pretty cool to see, but I feel like it would give you structural issues. The reason people complain about the design is because the simplest solution is to just build a smaller bot (unless you know something I dont).

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

Now when an outsider sees match video, instead of saying, "How cool!", they'll say, "How cute!"

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

How does that make any sense? Changing the size of the robot doesnt change the fact that every match is 3v3.

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

Sounds like the mini-CIM/Bag motors all over again. I said "How cool!", my entire team said "How cute!"

Re: pic: Size comparison.
 

In the rules it says you can have up to an 8 inch gap in the frame. It never specified how many gaps you can have. I'm guessing you utilized that like we did.

I admit...I'm spatially challenged. How does a gap in your frame reduce the perimeter measurement?