Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

The one thought that comes to mind: Kit Bot = Stifled Creativity
Yes there are a percentage of teams that think out side of the kit. I applaud them. I understand those rookie teams who need the help. And I even understand teams who lack tools/mentors. But there are 8 year teams with good shops and talent that defer to the kit bot. FIRST is less of a competition because of it.
I remember this time last year the number of threads about transmissions and chassis designs. I spent months reading the wild ideas and dreaming up my own. Now I rarely visit the forum because those threads are few and replaced with mostly chit-chat. (Don't get me wrong I like a healthy dose of chit-chat.)

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

I couldn't agree with you more on every single one of those points. Yes it makes sense to make sure every team can drive well and if we can just get them over that hurdle by giving them a good drive system and frame, it eliminates a constant struggle for many teams. The kit chassis and tranny does have a good purpose in achieving a higher level of success as a whole, but I always liked the aspect of FIRST that is was not an "assembly from parts using instructions" competition. It was a "make your own parts make your own instructions" competition. Like you, I am saddened when I see 5th+ year teams not striving for more than what the kit gives them.

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

I'm inclined to agree--the kitbot is nice, but it might be too nice. Perhaps a slightly de-engineered kitbot (say, simply the bent aluminum with no holes) would raise the bar somewhat?

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

Nobody can ever be pleased with the kitbot. In 2004 it wasn't enough. This year it was too much. If a balance is reached, either everybody or nobody will be happy. I'm not sure if there is a "happy medium" in this case. This year we did use the kitbot, but we found a slight way to innovate. We ended up using it for 6WD. I don't know how relevant that is, but I decided to throw that in there anyways.

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

this year there was really no variaty, you had 2 choices:

pushing bot (defensive)

stacking bot (offensive)

those were basically the 2 things you could do to actually be a part of the game

last year there was a huge amount of variaty:

pushing bot(defensive)
transportation bot(offensive, to move balls in large quanities)
hanging bot(offensive)
goal moving bot(offensive and defensive, like pushing bot but specized in moving the goals efficently)
or a combo

ALSO many systems had variaty:

teams had arms that TELESCOPED or FOLDED

for the drive system teams used alot of things it wasnt just a stock gear box and small wheels with traction(to increase torque)

thems used:
skyway wheels
pnuematic wheels
pnuematic wheel chair wheels
big wheels
small wheels
custon wheels (with bling)
and my favorite is the coveted tri-wheels that my team perfected
or a combo

and to move bals teams had plows and baskets and lots of space in side, which made the robots bigger and expanding bots

this year al you needed was torque and arm and low center of gravity, when they presented the game for 2005 i was kinda disapointed because i knew there would be less variaty

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

In previous years, a lot of teams used the drill motor drive, though some got very creative. This year, there was still a lot of variety with wheel types. Belting, omni and mechanum wheels, pneumatic wheels. There just wasn't as much variety with gearboxes.

Re: Less Interest in Robots in the pits this year?
 

There were not just two choices. My team's robot was made for stacking, but was also very capable of pushing. Another thing that should be kept in mind is that pushing is not always defensive.

For example, in one round, our pneumatic system failed, totally disabling our arm. Although we had never practiced doing this before, we were able to push tetras around to the bottoms of the goals, which created a row in our home section. Even without our arm, we ended up winning that match, and we wouldn't have if we had decided to simply go play defence.