Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

From the picture on the website, It looks like just 4 independent circuits inside one large 3d printed case (instead of 4 single cases). I would imagine you could remove a burnt out one, buy a single replacement, and do a drop-in.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Ditto for us in 2015.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I think that many teams face enough of a design challenge just fielding a robot without adding more restrictions to motors.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I'd argue that the teams who have trouble fielding a robot are definitely not running into the motor power limit.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I agree with Knufire. WARNING: You just woke up a geezer!

[geezer]Back in my day, we didn't have no stinkin' 775 motors! Didn't have more'n TWO, count 'em, TWO, CIMs! Unlimited motors? HAH! We was lucky ta get more'n two of any one motor! And we didn't have all this selection of controllers either--all we had were Victor 884s! And Spikes! And don't get me started on the gearboxes! You think more restrictions means harder challenge, you're darn right, maybe it's ACTUALLY a challenge now! You young whippersnappers these days...[/geezer]

All right, back to seriousness... You get two drill motors, two CIM motors, two Fischer-Price motors, two Globe motors with attached gearbox, two window motors, and one van door motor. Build a robot that can play Recycle Rush. I can do it with two drills, one CIM, and one van door motor (and a couple of pneumatic cylinders). Won't be very fast, but I'm pretty sure that it'd be a second-rounder for consistency. (Hint: I've done it--2003.) By the way, that's the actual motor list from around '03-04 timeframe--we didn't get the second pair of CIMs until '05 and lost the drill motors to get it. And somehow, everybody showed up with a robot that--at least in general--ran, and most of them actually ran pretty well.

This whole "unlimited high-power motor" thing has been kind of... well, I don't know. It is what it is, but I'm thinking that it was about time for it to end. Maybe we'll get some contact back next year with the power dialed down...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Remember, they are trying to get more people into FRC. A big part of this is making the viewing experience intense and/or exciting. While a more difficult challenge may make for interesting and complex designs, the last thing I would want to do to a game like RR is slow down the speed with which teams can make stacks. People want to see robots not only working, but continuing to work faster and faster until they are making record pace. People want to see these robots doing things that humans can't (or at least that's what we are always asked to show at demos and such.) Limiting motors limits robots capacities to accomplish these feats, and while some teams will be able to work around these constraints, a majority of teams will just have another constraint pushing them towards having mediocre rather than competitive robots.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

The roboRIO brownout schedule isn't harsh enough for you?

I wouldn't be surprised if we see flywheels on the top teams' robots next year to provide that eleven* when the roboRIO and bumpers are in the same game.

* - reference to the movie Spinal Tap. Though the Poofs and Simbotics and RoboWranglers are likely to get around seventeen.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Limiting motors does not limit a robot's capacity to perform any feat (at least, in FRC it does not--in the real world, it probably would).

The REAL limitation on the robot's capacity is the TEAM that builds it saying "we don't have X, that means that we can't do Y like we usually do, maybe we shouldn't do Y" instead of saying "we don't have X, we are going to have to find some other way to do Y that doesn't involve X". There are usually quite a few ways to accomplish the exact same goal, and this is particularly true in FRC. (Unless you count driving in '09.)


Go watch some of those older game videos. See just how good these teams were with what they had back then--and remember, they did what they did with a prohibited materials list that was longer than the allowed materials list, a far more restrictive motor/speed controller set, and in many cases virtually no pneumatics (those were limited too!). Even in '06, there was a pretty strict motor limitation--sure, BB supplied some gearmotors, and sure there was an extra type of CIM (the Big CIM), and sure 4 CIMs were legal--but can you argue that that wasn't an exciting game? There were still some pretty limited motors that year...

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Can't feel too bad about the 550s as long as the AM 9015 is still available. The loss of the 775 18v is saddening though; they were my go-to motor for shooters and powerful manipulators. Now I have to switch to the 3x as heavy minicim for my stuff, not to mention their much larger size.
I have seen videos of many old games, and I have to say that the newer styles would knock the old ones out of the park. Today's 254 or 1114 or 148 (etc) could beat entire championships alliances of back then from what I can see. It was definitely a slower game back then.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Bag motors are awesome in terms of durability. In fact we swapped out our 550 and later 775 with a bag motor on our 2014 catapult, because the bag motor can handle comparatively long periods at stall without giving up the magic smoke. We swapped all our intake mechanisms to bag motors that year too.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I can appreciate what you're saying-- especially with people who have been around a while, I think adding more challenge is an appealing thing. If I was working with a different team, I might even be of the same opinion.

I realize this may be me being a "youn'in" but loose motor restrictions help lower resource teams build better robots. The robot 2667 built this last year wouldn't have been possible for the team to build before the 6-CIM era-- and the team did not have the technical knowledge to apply a different motor to the same tasks we used a CIM for (drive motors and an elevator).

While I'm currently working with my team to start building up a better knowledge of technical subjects, there are plenty of teams that are in that boat every year (probably mostly rookies and not nearly 7-year veterans, but still). I understand the argument that applying more motor constraints would force these teams to learn more, but people learn at far different paces and teams without major technical mentors have serious difficulties building up a knowledge base for the things that people on Chief Delphi and moderately successful teams take for granted.

Coming from the other end... frankly I don't really care to put limits (that generally seem quite arbitrary and can be worked around) on what teams like 254 and 1114 can do with their robots. I like to see robots that move and do things quickly, and the public generally finds those kids of robots more exciting. More motors (and no power limit) helps make that possible for more teams.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

There's still the miniCIM and several COTS gearboxes that can be mounted and interface with components in nearly the same way a CIM can. One even comes with a very easy-to-read guide on how to use it without breaking it.

I understand what you're saying about lowering the technical barrier of entry for teams, but I don't think that motor allotment is something that greatly affects this barrier, especially with the availibity of COTS products that will let you use almost any legal motor in any scenario. There's so many legal motors right now that a reduction in what's allowed will only affect the top level of teams; a team like 2667 would simply swap two CIMs for miniCIMs or another motor in a gearbox and be on their way. A team running a swerve drive and 3-4 additional mechanisms now requires a much bigger design change.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

Remember that the likes of 254 and 1114 have always found their way around any such limitations. Those two teams, in 2010 when motor rules were still rather strict, built more sophisticated drive gearboxes with a power takeoff to power their climbing mechanisms, and still achieved very fast drives and climbers with the limits that were imposed. Other teams came up other ingenious ways around the rules to get high performance (gas shocks, etc.). Lower level teams don't have the fabrication capabilities or engineering help to compete with this.

This sort of argument comes up quite a bit. In general, relaxing the rules gives lower level teams more options to do what the high level teams were doing anyway, sometimes at great cost.

Re: FRC Blog - 2016 Motor Controllers
 

I think we're defining lower level teams differently; a team that is attempting to compete with the top tier but without quite as many financial or machening resources is what I would call a mid-tier team. I concur that relaxing motor rules does allow this level of teams to compete at a higher level than they previously would by giving them the "throw more power at it until it's fast enough" solution.

When I think lower level teams, I think of the 10-12 kid teams who's single mentor is their shop teacher. These team aren't greatly affected by motor rule changes as they generally have a kitbot + 1-2 simple mechanisms.