Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm not so dense that I fail to understand it happens in VEX (and FTC, I guess?) but this is not the VEX Robotics Competition; this is the FIRST Robotics Competition. We have gone in year-in and year-out with strategic design convergence happening in FRC. The venn diagram of "teams with the resources to fly out to an event and copy a robot" "teams that actually need just that one key to be any more competitive than they are already" does not have a large cross-section. Last I checked, VRC robots did not cost thousands upon thousands of dollars and be built with a custom structure like all of the teams you just mentioned.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Ditto. Even when potential "game-breaking" strategies, such as the 11 page thread on CD from 2010 describing, to the letter, 469's game breaking strategy that year: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=80202. I think that teams like to be independent, so they are inclined to come up with their own strategies, just like how we rarely see duplicate bots anymore.
The one issue with no-bag that I can really be scared of is that a team will not finish their robot by their first event, and because there is no bag time they won't be able to fix the problem.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

There are plenty of teams that build multiple robots that aren't currently powerhouses. I can think of 20+ off the top of my head that are relatively mediocre (regional quarterfinalist/semifinalist) robots that would have the resources to build and copy another robot. And lets be honest, all you need is a few copies of a very powerful robot for people to be upset. (triplets flashbacks?)

Or like I said, don't build anything but an adjustable drive train till week 1. Build one robot and just copy someone. Or at least take heavy inspiration from them. Heck people could have build a wooden 2014 254 clone and been way more competitive than they were with their actual robot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

A team that would wait until week 2 of regionals and copy a robot like 1114 isn't going to be good enough to actually get the details right. How many 1114 clones were there in 2014 that were anywhere near as good as 2008 1114? And that was with 6 years of hindsight to utilize.

This just isn't a valid concern, IMO. Teams could probably make something that visually looks like 1114 (or insert powerhouse team here), but it's just not going to perform out on the field. The only teams capable of copying them are making robots that are already as good as them.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Chuck,

Thank you so much for sharing your team's experience this season. I love the modular approach. I'm sure your students are learning a ton from the experience this season, for us it's been like managing a small production line!

We elected to not bag two of our three robots. Too much code, practice and iteration to do over the next two months for just one robot. We didn't get a picture with all three out of the bag, which was definitely a mistake! ;)

Regarding the withholding allowance:

Even if withholding allowance was gone, we would find ways to make the parts we need at the event within the allowable rules (we could bring in copies of each part and match drill all holes at the event to be within the zero withholding allowance rule).

Question for the group:

There used to be a clause in the rules about bringing in "functionally equivalent parts" or something like that. This allowed teams to have spares of parts in their pit without gaining a significant advantage. Anyone know why that rule isn't around anymore? These last couple of years I wished we could bring spares in, it would make me a whole lot less nervous about our robot snapping in half! :ahh:

-Mike

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It happened 7 years ago when 33 rebuilt their entire scoring mechanism to copy 67s at practice day of the championship. Of course teams would try it with all the additional resources available to teams.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Then why the hell didn't anyone do that? Surely it would not have weighed more than 45 pounds (in 2014) or be easy to replicate at a venue/through unbag time? Why didn't I do it? Why didn't 4476 do it?

Through the current district system a team in Indiana can register for 3 districts and their DCMP=4 events for $10000 and get 120 pounds of withholding and 24 hours of unbag time after "STOP BUILD DAY". Someone needs to call up 234 or 1024 or 5188 to scrap their whole machine now and start copying Arsenal because the opportunity already exists.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Of course, it won't be as competitive as the original robot, eg, 1114 will likely always be better than any copy that anyone could make.

I don't really think the 2008/2014 1114 clone analogy is that great. They are different games. 2008 all their robot had to do was get over a specific height, 2014 was much more of a precise shot. I'm fairly certain that if you made some 2014 1114 clones play the 2008 game, you would see a relatively close competitiveness level. Quite simply I don't think they would be unable to shoot the ball over a bar reliably. EG these robots could truss quite well. Just not score in the highgoal.

Because it's not easy to do within the time constraints/withholding allowance as opposed to a fully unbagged robot that you can do whatever you want to the robot. And evidently not every team is going to do that. I'm not familiar with 5188 in 2014, or 422. But the other three i'm fairly certain are more competitive/equally competitive as a wooden 254 copy.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I would love to know the answer to this too. Did withholding allowance end up killing this? I can't remember if both were in effect at the same time (ignoring the year that withholding allowance got added last minute).

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Then give us an analogy that would fit this situation.

And bin grabbers from 2015 and minibot/minibot launchers from 2011 dont count.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I think that's the point. Right now it's not realistic to just copy a robot because of bag day. Removing bag day may make it more feasible.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

So because there isnt any proof of this happening, it means that it would happen if the rule changed?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Why stop at just 4 events? Barring schooling issues, you could go to all three Indiana events, an out of state district, and the state tournament. If you bag all your withholding allowance for each event, you could theoretically have enough configurations of your robot by champs to overcome just about any challenge your opponent throws at you.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Could you explain to me why you don't think those "count"?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Yes. No bag day would mean it is more realistic to copy entire robots/subsystems of robots. I am relatively confident that at least shooters/pickups/hangers/whatever will be copied on a much larger scale due to it just being easier to do. Thus upping general competitiveness and lowering design diversity.