my 2 cents
 

OK, honestly, I think Battle Bots is cool. I (like many other posts i have read in this thread) think that it is just presented in a horrible fashion. Comedy Central doesnt show you what its like in the pits, or what the competitiors attitudes towards opponents really are. It seems to be a lot like FIRST, except there are any build time limits, so it gives you a chance to design and build a better robot (in some cases, I have seen FIRST robots that seem to be better deisgned/ built than some battle bots).

There is one thing i dont like. Most people seem to get this frame of mind that Battle Bots is what robotics is all about. Everytime someone walks in on a meeting, or sees the robot, or even just hears me mention robotics, they instantly ask me if I do Battle Bots. Then I say no and they suddenly loose all interest. Thats the only thing I dont like about Battle Bots, otherwise I think it is cool

There's only 1 goal, no real intellectual challenges.

Agree.

Whole thing behind BB:

Build, smash, collect rolyalties.

Agree.

Whole thing behind BB:

Build, smash, collect rolyalties.
---------------------------------------

....which does absolutely nothing to address why 95% of the builders lose A LOT of money (mostly through travel and hotel costs), never get on TV, and never see any royalties.

This also doesn't explain why the same people who competed in BattleBots are now starting small regional events. No prospects of royalties or toy deals here. Just some guys getting together to talk about their favorite hobby and share their work.

Dan

But the love of something doesn't equal up to a better comatiton. There are a lot of people setting up fake wrestling matches a la WWE, but is it better than golf?

The object to the game still remains the same: Bash, destroy. No intelectual input whatsoever.

The object to the game still remains the same: Bash, destroy. No intelectual input whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------

No intellectual input? How does the simplicity of the task reflect the difficulty or amount of "intellectual input" required?

The goal of NASCAR is simple; drive a lot of laps faster than the others. NASA's goal was simple; put a man on the moon and then get him back.

Athletes on TV make their sport look easy and perhaps BattleBots is no different. I suggest you open up your mind beyond FIRST a little.

Consider how much MORE difficult engineering is when you don't have the safety of a kit and materials restrictions. What if you had to choose between hundreds of motors and batteries and controllers and hundreds of alloys of metals with various heat treatments?

Since you feel building a BattleBot is so intellectually trival; I highly suggest you make one. You will be at a considerable advantage since most people have great difficulty with it.

Dan

PS be careful, misspelling "intelectual" is a dangerous irony

Franky, most people know that my spelling ability is about as good as Gore remembering the forieng countrys.

Now lets look at the intellectual level of BB.

Sure, lots of robots have some good designs. But un-like in FIRST, good designs are usually just trashed by some bot that can move fast. Look at the huge worm one (can't remember name). It had one of the best programing and some complicated functions, but was beaten by the average robot. The run-of-the-mill shover.

I have and can look beyond FIRST. This isn't the first time that someone has said this to me about anything. But from what I've seen, when people say this, it's usually because they can't.

As for building my own bot, well, two big problems arise. Money and location. Richmond, VA and about $100 isn't going to cut it.

It depends on what your definition of good design is. As a robot to fight snake was a horrid design to use but as a creative display of engineering I agree it was a good design. What I consider a good design are robots like warhead that actually have some pracitical weapons and look good.

Might as well jump in and keep beating the dead horse.

First off, I like both competitions. I went to the Las Vegas Battlebots competition (as an audience monkey, but I still saw quite a bit), and I've been on FIRST, like almost all of you here. Yes, there are some pretty "vanilla" designs in Battlebots. But before we go off the deep end and talk about how FIRST is so much cooler and unique, allow me to summarize the standard first designs I've noted over my 2 years experience:
1. Goal Grabbers
2. Ball-grabbers
3. Generalists (those that can grab goals and balls)

These 3 types of robots make up 99.5% of any of the robots you'll see in a FIRST competition. If you're at the right regional, you might see one or two robots that uniquely buck the standard classifications listed above. Now, if a FIRST competition is so much deeper than a Battlebots competition, how is it that we 600-ish robotics teams can seemingly churn out only 3 different types of robots?

Also, I'm not sure where this "compete in Battlebots, make loads of money" mentality came in. The champion award for the superheavies, last time I checked, was about 5,000 dollars. Subtract from this to all the stuff BSMFIRST listed, and assuming your robot rolls through like an invincible juggernaut of death (not likely), you're not going to make much. The only robots I can think of that are the ones that paid for themselves are Ziggo and Biohazard (and the fact that their drivers are also quite skilled plays a part).

Asking why people compete in Battlebots is kind of like asking why we compete in FIRST. Education aside folks, the regionals are a fancy way of saying "look what my team built!" We use thousands of pounds of metal and wire to make robots that run around and pick up/move things around, simply for the sake of showing that we can. Aside from those who we pay for parts/arenas, FIRST does not benefit anyone, at least not right away, and neither does Battlebots.

However, robotic competitions are set to become to robotics like racing is to cars. Some of the best technological innovations have come out of racing. What's to say that some Battlebots/FIRST monkey, having tinkered with a part for 20 hours straight, couldn't potentially come up with the equivalent of the Holy Grail for robotics? Yes, a lot of advancements will come out of a lab. But keep in mind a working airplane came from a couple of bikemakers in Ohio.

I'm sure Mr. Kamen is a nice person, and has a lot of great qualities. However, he seems to have a chip on his shoulder. While he's earned it, he seems to pull it out whenever he talks about other robotic competitions. I've done a parody on his dislike of combat robotics, but I'm not sure what makes him so angry about it. Hell, some Battlebots competitors have even helped some FIRST teams. Think about it: these guys have designed robots that can hold together, and we're teaching kids how to build robots that hold together. What a great concept! And, like so many people have stated before me, these combat robotics competitions have good sportsmanship. Yes, you're going to have your Gage Cauchois's. But, you're also going to have a lot of decent people who just enjoy tinkering with things.

Why do people build things that are going to get broken? Folks, they do it for fun too. Have we become so locked on "YOU ARE HERE TO LEARN" that we forget that you can do it just to screw around? RA is a good example. In its fight vs. El Diablo (2nd season, didn't make TV), the robot was pushed under the hammer and smashed to pieces. It left the arena in a trash bag. Its owner allowed the beating to continue far beyond what would have been allowed. Why? Because he saw everyone was having a good time. He didn't seem to care about losing: he had a blast, and that was all that mattered (it's interesting to note that he brought the outside tire shell into the melee. Everyone was rooting for it).

The area Battlebots could improve in, however, is that it never shakes anything up. Every year, the arena maybe has 1 or 2 new hazards that don't really do anything. Titans like Ziggo and Biohazard are almost guaranteed "you lose" matchups.

Yes, Battlebots is different from FIRST. But just because it's different from what we prefer (and how much Kamen throws a hissy fit about it) doesn't mean it's bad by default.

-Reed
"It's long, rambling, and has no point...PERFECT!"

While we thurn out only '3 differnt styles', the problem is that unlike BB, FIRST changes every year. Goals are almost ALWAYS used. If you were here in previous years, you would know that many other things beside balls were used. Floppies and possible weights this year. On the other hand, BB never changes and has a greater possiblity of more diverse robots.

Which brings me back to my original point: if FIRST inspires more creativity than Battlebots does (and BB apparently requires no intellectual input), why is it that Battlebots tends to churn out more unique robot ideas than FIRST does with the game changing every year? Restriction on parts plays a part, to be sure, but that in and of itself does not solely explain this phenomenon.

The robotics team I'm on has been at it at least 2 years before I came aboard. The problem is that the last two years have been somewhat similar, with the exception of how the scoring works and some field modifications. You can't fault FIRST for this: they're trying to save money during a time in which corporations are looking to maintain the bottom line. However, the problem is that for the past two years they haven't changed the competition dramatically enough to break from the aforementioned 3 different kinds of robots. Yes, there's a difference between a 2001 and a 2002 goal grabber. However, a 2001 goal grabber could've been given a quick retrofit and been just as competent as a 2002 goal grabber built from scratch.

The games change, but they haven't changed dramatically enough to really cause any massive change in the three main groups of robots. The years before I came on the team were obviously dramatically different. Still though, it's been "take x object, put high up, deposit (if applicable)" with a few bells and whistles attached. Even then, that doesn't really get much attention: the balls on the field are worth so little in almost every competition that there's almost no incentive for a team to build a robot to pick them up. Of the ones that tried that I saw, only the Sea Dogs' robot (I believe) had any sort of success picking up balls.

Finally, Battlebots and FIRST are plagued with the same problem: the metal on wheel bots. At least in Battlebots wedges have some weaknesses: if you want to be a champion in FIRST, just slap some wheels on a chassis, a goal grabber or two, hold the goals in the end zone for 2 minutes (last year) and you'll win almost every time. Folks, I've seen it happen a lot. If alternate methods aren't worth the effort you put into them, than people aren't going to be very creative about their robot designs.
Simple as that.

yeah
 

Since I am way too lazy to read all the posts, I am not sure if this was mentioned.
At the end of the battlebots credits. FIRST is listed.......... hmmmm any connection?????

subliminal messageing

No, really, some participants use the Innovation FIRST controller.

Nah First and First are totally unreleated companies. This has been brought up before.
Yup thats pretty much it.:) Except its a really broad challenge and so simple. Also there is more time.

Ah, the simple life!
 

Life is so simple when you are young! 6 weeks of building FIRST, a couple days of compettion, and 40 some weeks of bashing others!

Maybe this year will be the year that the FIRST competition gets some TV time, and some of this jealousy will dissipate.