Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

No doubt this is a key factor, Jared. You and I both began in an era when many (if not most) FRC robots were two-motor two wheel drivetrains. Not too long ago teams looked at 4 motors in the drive as "expensive" in terms of money and allotment. Then came the CIM, and the first real kit gearbox ... and now the improvements and pricing make lots of teams think a 4 motor drive isn't "enough". Exciting times for sure and I wonder what my old team's 2007 bumper-less robot would have looked like at season's end with 2013 options and rules applied.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

After reading this and giving it a thought to our 2005, 2006, and 2007 robots all I can say to myself was, "Oh my God!" lol

Those robots would have been ridiculous. 2006 bot: 6 CIM drivetrain + 2 miniCIM for shooter = auto-victory.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Even with the higher CIM limits in 2013, 6-motor drivetrains are every bit as rare as they were in previous years. 1712 has encountered only one at each of our events (341 at Hatboro, 225 at Lenape). Most teams are still sticking with 2/4 CIM drivetrains.

Even more curious, imo, is how many teams didn't opt to go with high powered or high traction drives this year. Perhaps it was the relatively low contact nature of the 2012 game, but there are a number of teams (including some very good veterans) who opted for more finesse-oriented drives in 2013. 1712 has a relatively standard drive system by many years' FRC standards (4CIMs, 1-speed transmission, ~10fps, Versa wheels), yet we were among the strongest drivetrains at both districts we attended. We've only encountered two teams that were able to displace us, 225 and 2729 (and neither could do it quickly). A lot of teams seemed to forget what happens in "open field" games when designing their robot. Especially ones that also have chokepoints.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

For some reason, people feel that more maneuverability is demanded with an open field, weighing it higher than a drivetrain with power behind it. I think the logic behind this decision is with an open field, defense is more viable, so these teams wish to maneuver around the defense.

I've only seen 1 6 CIM DT at both events I attended, but plenty of two speed drivetrains, and certainly more 4 cim DT's than before.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I don't know about that. There was a maximum muzzle velocity in 2006, so putting more power on the shooter isn't going to increase your range. Keep in mind that the 2006 KoP also had Fischer Price motors and the Minibike CIMs, neither of which are available anymore. You could put just as much wattage in your drivetrain and shooter in 2006 as you could today, and there were plenty of teams who did.

What the greater CIM limit (and BAG and MiniCIMs) are really great for is applications that involve stalling motors. The greater durability of these motors has the potential to simplify arm/elevator/manipulator design for low and mid-level teams, in order to better avoid the stall conditions that cause failure in fan-cooled motors (Fischer Price, Banebots 550 and 775, RS-9015, etc.).

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I did not know that; my freshman year was 2007.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This is true, they will run the match without you, but it is not and has never been an automatic disqualification. Teams have run matches 3v2 for years, and if the Head Ref says you are disqualified unless three robots are on the field, that is a problem.

I think there was definitely less accessible available motor power in 2006. Your main option for an FP based shooter was a DeWalt transmission, which not everyone could modify. Otherwise, you had to use an extremely heavy motor up high (minibike) or you had to get rid of one of your 4 CIMs.

All of that aside, teams have access to more than 16 >200W motors this year. (6 CIM, 4 Mini-CIM, 4 550, 4? AM)

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

I really hope FIRST keeps the motor allocations the same in future years. It would not be fun to have to go back to 4 CIM drive.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Lets just play stack attack with the motors we have now, no bumper rules and see what happens. 6 cim drive with brecoflex belts here we come. Back on topic though, I think teams don't teach enough evasive driving. A good driver will beat a really good defensive robot most of the time. FIRST doesn't want to see any defense in these games anyway and writes the manual as such. They allow a few things to make it interesting but the intent over the past few years has been for a high scoring game. Which is what I agree FIRST competitions should be.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Given there was hardly a need for any high powered articulation in that game, might as well lob all 10 CIM/MiniCIMs into the drivetrain.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

This to me was the original point of the post. Correct me if I am wrong.
I have hesitated to post this for a long time and I will not reply to any comments posted after this.
I just want to preface the following comment by saying that I am a big fan of a rougher game, whether I am on the receiving end or giving end of the hit.
The problem was not on the field. It was clearly in the stands.

I will not repeat specific quotes or specific teams, but there were students, parents, and coaches all over the arena openly screaming for teams to knock over Team 225 in both the semi-finals and finals at Chestnut Hill. Here is a team that has never been in the finals in their history and everyone is openly cheering for them to be toppled. People were openly screaming "Knock them down", I know what I heard.

That is something I have not seen in 14 years of FIRST. It was a disgrace and there are some people in MAR that are in need of a serious "Gut Check".
Blast away if you wish.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Back in 2006 our bumper-less Tank Drive aluminum frame robot used a 6 motor drive (two large FP CIMs and 4 normal CIMs); We played lot of defense and offense (the advantage of the drive in either case being that you can push other robots out of your way).
The only time we ever had an issue with damage on the robot was one match where the front cross support got bent because the robot rammed into one of the ramp side guards too hard. We bent the beam back into place and played the rest of the matches without incident.

Frankly, IMO, robots were much higher quality back when they actually had to be designed to take a beating, and the matches were much more interesting with defense as a viable strategy.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

While certainly true this year, there was a robot specifically designed for flipping robots if you dig deep enough into FIRST History. The Rhode Warriors (121) built a robot with a flipping mechanism in 1997 (I think...) that spawned a lot of stories. And then intentional flipping was promptly made illegal the next year, and has been ever since.

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

Well 86 built a robot that flipped itself every match when it went over the burms in 2010; they didnt lose every match. :D

Re: The Dark Side of the 2013 game
 

From what I've gleaned robot tipping cannot be done as a strategy, so then the alternative is that it can be done as a knucklehead. But then this would be not in the spirit. So has anyone seen a case in 2013 when a robot was tipped by another and no technical foul was called? Stories?

Side note. I've noticed that the technical fouls seem to be 30 points, is this a modification from 20 in the glossary of the original publication?

I noted in one of my earlier posts that in another match a robot hit another robot, but since the second robot was top heavy... but it wasn't only that. The four wheels were almost to the frame perimeter. This plus the top heaviness and the robot slammed right over, boom. This happened right in front of us (on the stands) and I wasn't the only one who raised one brow. So to all of those who say you can't build a robot that will purposely tip, it can be done at least passively. There currently is no inspection test for some kind of minimum bumper hit.

OZ 341, I am in 225's district but I wasn't at Chestnut. I didn't hear any such calls at our last event but it is hard to hear on the floor (maybe the loud music is good shield!). This is my first year as mentor, driver couch, semi-finals where defense is escalated. I am trying to learn as much as I can in a short time span. What I can tell you is that I think the latter is becoming what might be described as 'hard ball', a real sport. There is a lot of pressure and I think thick skin in needed. It might be that once the audience sees all this bumping around that they get fired up. I doubt all of them know the rules, but would they have been asking their favored team to take a 30 point hit just because they can possibly counter it in offensive play?

How does this jive with the idea of 5.4.4 (about ties) "the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH", implying that fouling is, how should I say it politely, not clean? In basketball, is fouling part of the dark side of that game, or just strategy?