why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I am really disapointed in the lack of working robots this year. I think the reason why we see so many bad robots is because teams think they have to do everything. There is a saying jack of all master of none. Another reason why i think teams dont do well is they make the most complex robots i have ever seen K.I.S.S. I know there are a few good hybred robots out there. But there few and far between. I would love to see teams next year tackle one task first and then add another when the first one is finshed.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

not all teams have the best resources im sure all the teams have done the best they could i know you guys and my team are very lucky to have great sponsers from BMS and J&J, but more teams sould also try using K.I.S.S. it is the best way.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I haven't seen alot of bad robots that were bad because they tried to do everything, though I do not deny their existence. I've seen alot of bad robots because of a poor gripper, or a poor drivetrain. Usually, it has been a poor gripper. By poor gripper I mean slow grab, poor hold, slow release, awkward release onto the rack, holding the tube vertically or worse, etc. Also, there are a few that attempted to be ramps only, but failed, or ended with sub-par ramps.

I agree that there are alot of bad robots, but I disagree that there are more bad robots than normal.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I admit that, at first, my team did try to do arm and ramp but it was in the middle of the building process when we realized that it just wasnt happening so we became a SUPER COOL rampbot.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

It looks like quite a few teams have reused drivetrains from previous years, and ended up with a robot that has little ground clearance and can't climb a ramp. Or they clean sheet designed a robot that can't climb. The ramp bonus is so large that this pretty much eliminates those robots from challenging for nationals.

It's an interesting juggle this year, deciding where to best allocate the weight to design a robot that does at least one thing well. I dare say that most teams have to live with decisions made early in the 6 week build window and if the end result is not optimal, time and money constraints limit their ability to make improvements.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

"bad" is a relative term. If a team is young, having a robot that moves isn't "bad" for them. Remember, you were a rookie once too...

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I also think "Bad" is a bad word for it.
Many teams did try and go for both and it didnt work out. Our team had to decide on a type for us because we knew we didnt want to do everything. We decided to make a scorer because there would be many ramps. Teams always try to do the Jack of all trades but it doesnt work out most of the time

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Personal opinion: the word bad is appropriate, however, it shoudln't be applied to the robots out there, because they are pretty impressive.

It is more like bad luck... *shrugs*

-Joe

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'm not so sure there are that many 'bad' ones as compared to previous years. You being on team 25, you would've gone to championships, so your last memory of FIRST would have been the arbitrarily high quality at Atlanta, rather than the much more down-to-earth quality at regionals. Think to a regional last year: How many robots could shoot autonomous? How many robots couldn't shoot at all? How many teams did you see just setting ramming autonomous modes because they couldn't do any better?

So here's my theory:
I think more teams might be thought of as bad because there is only one way to score points this year within the non-endgame time, and it requires advanced manipulating. Last year, if your shooter didn't work, you could at least ram balls in the low goals. In 2005, you could push tetras under the towers. In 2004, you could, again, push balls into the low goals. In 2003, you could push bins across the playing field into your own zone. There is no way for a box-on-wheels to score this year other than to climb a ramp, and that's more of an end-game bonus that all previous years had anyway.

So the short version: There are just as many bad robots as last year, but this year's game has fewer opportunities for them to make lemonade from their lemons, unlike past games where there was always something 'simple' to do.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Instead of jumping on Shaun's choice of words, can we focus on the issue he's brought up? The FRC is much more exciting when there are more quality robots on the field. A drop in quality across the board is a serious issue. I believe there are a few factors.

- As pointed out, many teams have tried to do too much this year
- Not enough attention paid to manipulator design
- With the Banebot difficulties, teams had to spend more time on their drivetrains, especially at their initial event. (Installing new carrier plates)
- In past games we had full specifications for our task. Last year we knew there was a 4' foot ramp with a 30* incline. This year teams were forced to try and figure out what the specifications would be. This was a great challenge, and simulates a real world engineering decision. Unfortunately many teams made poor assumptions. (28" is wide enough for a ramp, we only need to climb 15*, etc.)

If you want to talk about why all robots are great and how "it's not about the robot", do it in a different thread. Let's leave this thread to discuss what's caused the drop in quality, and what we can do in the future to improve it.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Who has the right to say that another team tried to do too much? It really isn't any of our business. What they decided to build their robot to do is their choice... and unless somebody else payed their registration fee, their choice alone.

We can't do anything to improve the overall quality of robots, at least not like this. That is up to each and every team that chooses to compete. The way to improve the quality would be to provide guides, and to help the teams who came up with not-so-quality robots.

Instead of saying "Teams are building pieces of junk, they need to do better.", we should be encouraging people. If we want to effect the target group of teams, we shouldn't talk about them in a thread which details how crappy their robots are.We should be making whitepapers on effective robot design; telling them what some effective strategies for our teams have been. Each team is different, and what works for us may not work for the next guy.

All I'm saying is that we are all going about this wrong. We shouldn't be talking as if we are better than the teams in question. While some of us may be able to build a higher quality of robot, the teams that need help will not listen if it is put across this way.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

The carrier plate issue is the gift that keeps on giving; all these pictures on CD combined with what I've seen at two regionals just makes me skittish about using them on drive. (However, I do give props to the BaneBots gearboxes for making it easier than years past to go omnidirectional. If someone were to bring to market a reliable one-CIM gearbox with a gear reduction similar to the BaneBots, I think they'd make a buck or two next season.)

One other thing that might factor into the equation: the rack itself. It is, arguably, the most complex structure FIRST has ever put on the carpet. More importantly, it's a pain in the butt to really replicate short of building the whole thing. (I've noodled a bit with 1293's three-spider-leg mockup, and I've noodled a bit with the field-spec practice rack at Chesapeake. You can feel a difference.) Many teams with limited budgets or manpower didn't build a full rack; I don't know of one within an hour of Columbia. If you don't know how the rack will react, you can't be fully prepared for the rack--and I'm thinking this element might have caught some arm teams by surprise.

I don't think anybody's trying to hand out bottles of Haterade around here--they're simply trying to get a better appreciation for why the quality, real or perceived, of robots this season is off compared to past seasons. If we start noticing a trend, perhaps we can then work to address the ones that are clobbering a lot of teams.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Same reason there are bad robots every year.
-Lack of resources.
- Poor planning and use of time.
- Bad parts
-Trying to do too much
- Not thouroughly understanding the concept of the game or the rules.
We've had bad robots before and we'll have even more bad robots next year.
It's nothing new.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

With the similarity of this game to previous games, I can say I was a bit disappointed that more robots were not finished when the arrived at the event, and working well when they were placed on the field. I did notice a decline in the number of really good robots at the LA regional this year. We'll see hor San Diego goes.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I woud like to see FIRST award teams for the most complete use of the Kit of Parts... This might help those teams that do not have the precision machine shop sponsors or teams that have a lower budget. It would also help FIRST validate the generous donations of the sponsors.
In my 9 years of advising a couple of FIRST teams, #144 and #1038, I have seen robots evolve into extremely complex machines that are difficult to build and maintain within the constraints of a FIRST season.
We always try to keep it simple, sometimes we actually do. It seems to me that many teams think that designing a robot means to solve a problem with the most complex device possible when it should be to find an elegant simple solution...This leads to "bad" robots (over-designed or under-engineered) that can not begin or finish a competition weekend.
Although I haven't seen too many "bad" robots. As a matter of fact, all of the robots I saw in Pittsburgh were great creations from teams that wouldn't have had the experience at all without FIRST.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

To help address the manipulator lack of quality I have witnessed this year, I will be publishing a manipulator white paper titled, "The Mighty Four Bar: FIRST Robotics Applications". This paper will go through the different types of 4 bars and how the 4 bar is the greatest manipulator type that can be used in FIRST. Its lightweight and SIMPLE design make it really easy for arm operators to control and makes it easy to fix. It can also be combined with other mechanisms like linear slides, turrets, and other 4 bars to enhance capablility.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I think it's wrong to say there are "bad" robots this season.

Some teams just started off, their rookies, they might not know an "easier" way of something something and it's not like they have the money. The longer you've been a team the more knowledge you gain.

If they weren't a rookie team, maybe their robot wasn't really "bad." FIRST is a huge committment. It can be really hard to get there everyday to work. Maybe some teams just couldn't do that. And maybe some teams had ideas, it just didn't work as they had planned.

"bad robots in 07" wrong to say.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

First year here so i can't comment on the "drop in quality".
What we can do to improve the quality of 'bots in the future is much easier to deal with. SHARE what you know. Find the 2-3 rookie, or young, teams in your area and help them out. Share what you know about, drive trains, scoring devices and the rules of the game. Share your resources: mentors, programming and tools. This will help quality, nothing else.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

The enticement of pre-made wheels for exotic drives caused many teams with no experience with this kind of drive to give it a shot. Many discovered that it wasn’t as easy as it looked within a six week build time.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

You are right. Many veteran teams are willing to share their knowledge. Moreover, there are many resources on CD and FIRST websites.

However, this thread is discussing the drop in quality of robots overall through FIRST. There are not as many robots putting up tubes as tetras in the 2005 game.

Due to the variable nature of the tube and rack, I think it is harder for teams to adapt. The tube has been inflated out of FIRST specs at regionals, unintentionally. Some teams only designed their robots to work with the official specs. As we have seen through the years, if you design your robot to work with extreme precision of the game piece/object, you are going to be disappointed(most of the time, atleast). Another common trend is more than usual teams end up dropping their tubes because they are not gripped properly. And then, they try to put it on the rack and waste even more time because the tube will most likely drop on the floor anyway. Paul, I hope your white paper will address some of these concerns for teams interested.

The rack jerking around at times with no effort doesn't help either. It looks like many teams take a long time to get into position, and then if the rack moves, they have to reposition. Granted, the stingers are there for a reason and you can use them to your advantage to hold the spider leg in place. Many teams don't/cannot use it. As Billfred pointed out, it is also hard to replicate accurately. We have had to reprogram the heights of the spider legs at every regional - but that isn't so hard.

This is just my opinion. I had no intentions of offending anybody/team/robot.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This is a tough game! We spent a great deal more time brainstorming this year than in years past. Early on we thought we had all the angles covered but we used the old wood worker adage, "Measure twice...cut once" and reevaluated our design. It was a full week before we started even the smallest assemblies.

I like to think the planning paid off. With the help of Teams 60 and 1013, we won the Arizona Regional. We missed hanging the auto keeper only once in all our matches. We hung 7 ringers in one match. We lifted several robots 15" off the ground (we decided against a ramp.)

I think many teams under estimated this years game. They took it easy early and never caught up.

Ken

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

In FIRST, there are no bad robots. Just robots that offer different levels of challenges.

Instead of KISS, many teams work to the concept of MICE.

Make It Complicated Everytime.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I can think of a few reasons why our robot wasn't as good as it should have been.
1. Lack of experience. With half our team being rookies this year, they had little game or building experience. To make sure they were all part of the process and understood what was going on, we went slowly through the design (moreso than we should have).

2. Poor planning and follow-through. We should have taken notes on what we accomplished each day, and what was needed to finish each task. There was too much confusion, especially when key members were not there.

3. Game complexity. As was previously mentioned, this game is perhaps the most complex in terms of field elements. It took a while to get our heads completely wrapped around the intricacies of the game, and when we had built the Rack, we found it was even more difficult than we thought.

4. Lack of resources. Each part we had fabricated was done out-of-house by a gentleman kind enough to donate his time and materials (Fab2Order in Indianapolis - give him your business!). Unfortunately, this meant that there was a 2-3 day gap between part design and when we actually had the components in hand.

5. Trying to do too much. This being our third year, we really wanted to make a statement. Unfortunately, we stretched ourselves a bit too thin and wasted time on components that weren't worth it (the camera comes to mind)

6. Overestimating ourselves. We didn't do much testing; we had done a forklift in 05 and assumed we could do it again without difficulty. Wrong.

I do believe this is a worthwhile thread - by knowing our weaknesses, we can work on them and turn them into strengths. And we can be ready for them if and when they crop up again next year.
As a team, we've definitely progressed from 06 to 07. Although our robot did not perform as well as we would have liked, it gives us room to improve. Hopefully come IRI time the robot will show its potential.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

There is no such thing as a "bad" robot... There are always going to be some robots that can't do the task.. But one robot this year proved that anyone is capable of winning. Team 1516 realized early on that their gripper and their ramps weren't going to work out for them. So they scrapped them. Many teams would have lost hope in their robot if it was theirs or would think they wouldn't succeed in the regional. Well 1516 was basically a box with wheels with a pretty skilled driver and ended up winning the regional at SVR. I also think they only lost 1 match out of the whole thing (correct me if I'm wrong).. I admit at first I thought they were a bad robot (just a box with wheels that couldn't accomplish much) but I have much more respect for small teams that just put anything on the field. They were a better robot than us obviously (they won the regional we didnt) and we had one fo the top scorers at SVR. So that says a lot.

Im not quite sure if Im still proving my point, Im doing 3 things at once while writing this, but my point is you dont have to be good at scoring or have a good ramp to be a good robot. Just use 1516 as an example. They never scored one tube or had one robot ramped onto them but they were the 3rd seed and won the SVR regional.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Once again I'd like to emphasize Karthik's change of the word "bad".

I think that this year's game brought on both the "bad" robots and extensive defense. Both of this year's game objectives were very difficult. Trying to make a manipulator capable of lifting a ringer is quite the engineering feat with lots of little issues (getting the arm to move, making the gripper move as intended etc.) as does trying to make ramps. Since the ramps cannot be rampy on the field, you have to design something that deploys during the match. I've seen a lot of robots that either get 1 ramp to deploy, both ramps get stuck halfway... etc.

It's a good thing that FIRST is raising its expectations for us, that it's trying to make our robots better and more technical knowledge is required. But personally, I prefer something like last year, where an offensive move (such as low goal scoring) can still be effective, and even teams with few or less skilled engineers can create an offensive robot that can compete. Last year, that's all our robot did was low goal, and we could still be effective.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I agree, this year the design process was very important. We spent a couple weeks figuring out what the robot needed to do, and how to make it do that with as little complexity as possible. This required making a small mock up of the rack the day after kickoff, so we could see how hanging ringers worked from different angles....it turns out that we were able to score 7 ringers in one qualifying match also....with only one motor on the manipulator. We designed the arm to naturally hold the ringers at a nearly optimum angle, after picking them up off the floor.

The more complex the task, the more effort you need to put into refining the design. KISS means figuring out how to leave parts off the robot. It is not easy!

btw, all 34 robots were on the field at the AZ regional, there's nothing "bad" about that! And any non-scoring robot with a reliable drivetrain is still a valuable alliance partner.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Once again this year, numerous teams missed practice (and actual qualifying) matches. This was a problem last year as well (Check out this thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ctice+matches), but I think it was slightly worse this year (practice faired about the same; but at AZ there were a significant amount of more missed qualifiers than in 2006).

I think part of the robots not functioning as designed can be blamed on the little practice time teams have; many don't finish their robot until right before ship (quite common, I know this is typical for us), but in the past two years many have been missing all their practice matches and even a few beginning matches. In this case you have no practice time until your first actual competition match; if you find a problem with your design at that point, the quick match schedule required for FIRST events means you won't get a chance to fix it until Friday night at best, after 3/4 of your qualifiers have been played. Going hand in hand with missing matches, this is the first year I have ever seen teams not passed for inspection when competition started; close calls I've seen, but never actual missed matches due to this.

I think the point that you need to get as much practice with your robot as you can needs to be emphasized a little greater in the future. I did not see any robots that were poorly held together, asking to be broken, I just saw a lot that had a gripper that didn't work quite as well as hoped, or ramps that weren't able to deploy right in all situations. A team cannot expect to semi-finish with the FedEx guy at the door, then use all of the practice matches as time to finish the robot, then use Friday morning as inspection time, and do well at the competition (I've seen it sort of happen once this year... but it's not something you can expect to work).

And why wasn't alot of this been a problem in the past? I don't remember many missed practices in 2005 or 2004 (they happened, but it would just be 3 on 4 matches, not 1 on 0), and I certainly don't remember any missed qualifiers, with the exception of a robot being completely manhandled one match and missing the next one for it. Inspection never seemed to be as big an issue either.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'm surprised so many teams can actually accomplish what they do from scratch. We totally miscalculated the amount of time we needed to put into the pre-season and build season.

Being a rookie team with no experienced drivers, builders, programmers, or mentors, we tried KISS. Luckily the game design allowed us to quickly discard trying to do anything with the game pieces, but still be interesting. Even with KISS, we only got one of our two major goals in the time allotted, the ramp. The drive train was a disaster.

This game is very complex and subtle, and the design decisions are hard to get right. Even experienced teams seem to have miscalculated the need for speedy, firm/angled game-piece control, and the need for positioning under heavy defensive pressure either with an extendible arm or a drive train with low gear that can push them into position.

There is a wealth of information on everything except manipulators on this web site, so we are looking forward to anything you can contribute to that. Next year maybe we can figure out how to arm ourselves.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I was designing this crazy complicated ramp when the students came to me with a cardboard mock up of a simple two piece gravity deployed hinged ramp that would be easy to make and use. We build the whole thing in about two days. Simple, effective and it worked great.

KISS is the way to go.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I think FIRST should provide a crash course on drive train design class including but not limited to: proper mounting of motors, correct chains and sprokets to use, proper chain tensioners to use and mount.

This class would hopefully help all those so many teams with keeping their robot out on the field instead of their parts =). Just my .02.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

We learned this the hardway last year. This year 342 made a very simple arm and a drive train that could climb even narrow ramps. We were going to build a ramp, but we learned from our past. There is a reason that there are three teams on an allience, so don't kill yourself with every scoring option.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

There are many white papers and workshops at most kickoff's. Moreover, many veteran teams would be glad to help you put together a solid drive train. FIRST saw many teams had poor drive trains and created a kit-bot which could be assembled easily. The AndyMark gearboxes are also quite solid and many veteran teams use it. This sort of levels the playing field and makes it very easy for teams to at least make a working drive train.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Do one thing well --- I wish we could listen to our own advice.
Two weeks into the season another mentor and 1 along with three students visited our new rookie team 2165 in Bartlesville Ok. and there on about 5 tables in front of us was the kit of parts. No design and not really knowing where to start. We offered direction and advice. They accepted it and in KC the made it to the finals. They consistently place 4 ringers on the lower rack. they also had a fairly decent drivetrain. What allowed them to do so well? Dedicated mentors - I'm not sure but they had around 5 or so retired engineers guiding and helping them along the way. The critical need in FIRST is Mentoring support. We are starting way too many teams without good support network in place.
BTW we were beaten out by our mentees!!!! (Is that a word?)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

For those going to Atlanta, check out the FIRST Robotics Conference.

From the list of topics being presented regarding drive trains:

Robot Drive System Fundamentals presented by Ken Patton from FRC 65 and GM Powertrain, Paul Copioli from FRC 217 and Fanuc Robotics.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

ROFL. A solid defense is sometimes the best offence - if you can't do any better than the guy on the opposite alliance, but you can stop the other guy from scoring, it's perfectly valid to shut him down. Bumper-on-Bumper contact is very legal.

Watch the fun starting at time mark 1:50.
mms://sargasso-3.arc.nasa.gov/2006/first/lonestar/040106f3.wmv

BTW, we have much respect for team 118, last year at Lone Star they were completely dominant in autonomous. However, being the best of the best does have its downside, you have a lot of people who analyze you very thoroughly looking for a [narrow opening] in the armor. When someone finds it, you should see it as reverence - someone has been thinking about you over the course of 2-3 days more than you've probably thought about yourself!

-Danny

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

A lot of you are saying this game is quite the engineering challenge. But in 05, we lifted 8 pounds (or even 12 lbs I think it was for the "vision" tetras) and a good distance out, and a good height too. And almost every robot did it, and did it fairly well. These rings weigh hardly anything. (less than 1 lb). I'm not sure where we've gone wrong here. Was the end game bonus so exciting that everyone forgot about the importance of a good arm and gripper, and then failed at ramps too, and was left with nothing? I don't know. tTo me, ball gathering and shooting and climbing 30 degree ramps (aim high) seems more complicated than this game, and a lot more teams had very successful and impressive robots last year. I just don't get it.

Personally, I would like to see a whitepaper just on quality. What it is. Why it is important. Examples. How to achieve it.

However, I fear it would do no good. There are already so many whitepapers out there that no one ever reads. A lot of teams don't even read the rules. They show up without team numbers, bill of materials, rockwell distribution blocks, or illegal parts. They don't even know that Chief Delphi exists.

What I'm seeing is an increase of the number of teams in which FIRST is something they do, not who they are. They make it a two day per week 6 weeks out of the year program. It is meant to be more than that. It is about getting the industry professionals in there, meeting often and long, putting a lot fo thought into it, and delivering a product that meets the engineering challenge.

Yes, many teams have tried to build a robot beyond their means. And I applaud them for trying. But, the amount of "do nothing" or "drive and bash" robots has REALLY got to come down. We aren't moving forward here. Design within your means to build. Then you should be able to build it effectively, and put on a good show on the field.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This year my team ended up as a "drive and bash" robot. I must disagree with sanddrag though, in our case it was definitely not from lack of trying. We attempted to create a lift robot that would allow other robots to drive on a fairly flat platform and then lift them up. Our lift method was a worm gear winch powered by 1 Minibike motor. Despite my objections a number of our mentors were convinced that this had enough power to lift the required load. We met nearly every day for the whole six weeks and the lift mechanism was completed, it just couldn't manage the required weight. Due to a design/weight compromise the lift only worked with relatively balanced weights, but it did not end up having the power to lift 2 robots.

We did have a VERY simple arm that did score the only tube we attempted with it in our first qualifying match. We found that playing defense was the most effective thing our robot could do at that point.

We ended up as the highest seeded rookie team and took our alliance to the finals where we lost.

I think our biggest issue was the realization that although the numbers may crunch, the design may not work. The mentors seemed to expect a very high efficiency out of the system and the actual efficiency was quite a bit lower. Our design was close to working, it managed to get the proper weight up about an inch, it just needed more power.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

A couple of thoughts on robot quality this year. The first is that a LOT of teams lost a LOT of time to the weather. I know that if we had gotten even 1 or 2 of the days we lost back we would have been much better off on the first day and as a result through the whole competition. For example, we had good code to make the robot track and move to the light, but never got a chance to get the arm working with the tube to make trying to score in autonomous worth the risk.

The second is that this game was, from a game theoretic standpoint, much harder than Triple Play. Everyone trying to score on the same object and any interaction with that object making it tougher to score. In Triple Play there were nine places to score so it was much easier to get out of the way of defenders. Also, a lot of the "scoring many tetras" phenomenon was due to the fact that you could carry multiple tetras.

The structure of the field this year made it much easier to team up in defense. And the fact that some bots were ramp only bots made it even easier to play defense. If you only have 1 or 2 opponents trying to score ringers defending is easier. At Pittsburgh it became apparent that there was a HUGE advantage to having two scoring bots (no matter what height at which they could score) because it complicated defense.

I do think that too many teams tried to do too much. But it seemed like we also had a bigger percentage of rookie teams at Pittsburgh than usual. I guess from the numbers, there were close to 300 rookies this year? Is that more than usual? We fell into the "did too much" category somewhat, although we tried to have ramps and an arm because we have a pretty large team and it gave more people something to do. When we were over weight at the regionals, we ditched the ramps and put on some ballast, exactly as our contingency plan dictated. And we didn't lose any build time because of the ramp.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I have an idea! Let's put a salary cap on fundraising for teams, then all the money they make beyond that goes into a general fund to support other teams with less money, after all they do it in sports. Then after we balance all the budgets we'll distribute machinery and mentors to all the teams (after being selected randomly of course).

Will what I just said even be considered? No. Because there are the have's and the have not's. Some teams have the capability to CNC their entire robot, some teams have a hard time getting access to just a drill press. Others have many mentors with a lot of know-how and knowledge, others have one, maybe two. The kit chassis and drivetrain is given to teams to help balance the playing field a bit, and it does. Some teams need a little more than just the chassis and drivetrain, and until those who do get it (or figure out a way around it), FIRST won't have a ultra-competitive playing field. This year what many teams to not be competitive on the field was what they had or (more often) didn't have.

If only FIRST was a professional sport......

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

i agree. i think FIRST should enforce some sort of cap that a team can receive from sponsors. I know of some teams that receive an enormous amount of money from sponsors. some teams can't find good sponsors and then have to make and earn everything themselves. that gives the "rich" teams an edge over everyone rigth off the bat. i'm not saying sponsors are bad, i think they're great, i just think there should be a limit a team can get total each build season.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

There is a limit. $3500. That's how much you can spend in parts for your robot. The rest is money for equipment, travel, events etc. Some teams are "lucky" to have good sponsors, machine shops etc while others don't. I do not think money is as much of an issue because there are always ways to find equipment and resources. When building a successful robot, it is the engineering mentorship/knowledge that comes in handy. However, more money is always good.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I don't really think that there has been an increase in the number of poor quality bots versus the past year. The difference has been made slightly more visible by the lack of secondary scoring in this year's game, resulting in more bots that play pure defense. But I feel that there are just as many teams that struggled last year. The number of teams with poor arms this year is about the same as the amount of teams with poor shooters. Heck, last year, all you had to do for a minimally successful autonomous was drive forward, then release your starting supply of balls (and if your robot wasn't designed to do that, you could shoot them out at a low speed towards the corner goal and still hit a couple, look at 1541), yet a vast quantity of teams couldn't do that.
Then why do we see less teams capable of placing tubes on the rack than we did capable of placing tetras? Several reasons:

• Tubes are much harder to manipulate than tetras. Even though a tube is much lighter, to properly grip a (round, soft) inflated object with slightly varying sizes is much harder than lifting a fairly uniform solid object. In addition, the margin of error of the tubes for placing them on the rack is much smaller and requires a lot more precision than placing a tetra.
• There is another feasible design objective, ramp/lift bots. In 2005 there was only one real way to score. The positioning points were smaller and only required a drive-train, making virtually every team focus on scoring tetras (whether under or on top). In 2007, ramps are worth more and require contributions other than a drive.
• The rack is dynamic.
• The rack is central, making if further from the drivers than some of the goals in 2005, and closer to all the other robots.
• New size/weight rules. You could build 5 ft 120lb. in 2005, now you can't.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Well said, but in '05 there was really no other option, you made a bot that could score a tetra or you made a "bash bot". Thus more of those bots seem to be able to score.

In '06, ball gathering and shooting was very tough, much tougher than this year's design. How many 'bots could actually collect balls and shoot at the high goal real well - not many at the regionals we went to.

Some of us are getting spoiled and we need to take a look back at '02, '01, and before. They gave no kit frames or ready to use transmissions. Just getting a robot to be a bash bot was tough back then.

I see this as the effect of FIRST getting into more schools where there is little or no mentor support. This is OK, it's just that the learning curve is a bit lower. I'm a HS teacher with a science degree not an engineering degree. It took 3 years for us to get to the point where we feel somewhat competitive, from an engineering point of view. If we had some engineers mentoring us in the beginning, our learning curve would be faster. But after 7 years of this, we now have recruited engineers from our community and trained some along the way and now FIRST is who we are not just what we do.

Show some patience and encourage all the teams to grow and develop.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I think that if you're talking about their being too many "bad" robots in the competition this year, you most likely think that your robot is a "good" robot.

Now, with that established, what did you do to make this years robot so good? Some people have already mentioned things in this thread (such as time management, knowledgeble mentors, etc.) With those things said, you must know the magical secrets to building a great robot.

So, the problem is, its not being shared directly with the other teams. If you think you have a "good robot", then I think that all the teams in your local area should have a "good robot" as well.. Why? Because you know how to get it done, and your team, should be sharing that knowledge with the teams around you.

From what I've noticed, not a whole lot of veteran teams check off the little "willing to be mentored" box, but thats not to say that they couldn't use some extra help. Even just sessions where ideas are shared may prove to be beneficial. Maybe, your team has experience with using tread systems and another team has experince with telescoping arms.

I think it was Mike who made a comment earlier about how FIRST should show teams how to build drive systems properly. I think, if you know how to do those things, why don't you organize an info session? Everyone goes to the competitions and is able to point out flaws and ways to fix it in certain designs. Imagine how good the robots would be if those flaws were pointed out before they were shipped in the crate?

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

One of the biggest problems my team had in previous years that hindered us the most at competitions was bad drivetrains.

1st year - used #25 chain and it broke every round
2nd year - used 4wd with the pneumatic wheels, it literaly jumped when it turned
3rd year - used kit bot with 2wd in the center, its max speed was too fast and it didnt go straight.

After being the driver on our 3rd year I decided to design a better drivetrain, and used some of Paul Copioli's advice and go for the 6wd. Our drivetrain was our strongest part of the robot last year, and it brought us to the elimination rounds for the first time. This year I made sure we focused a little on the drivetrain again to make sure it was driveable.

With a good drivetrain, it is much easier to score even if your arm is nominal, and if you cant score then you can at least defend well. I think many teams do what my team did the first 3 years and dont put much thought in how the drivetrain will actuly drive and preform.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

A couple of thoughts:

1) trying to propagate "a outrance". I mean, if you want to have a first team in every high school in the US, the quality of the average highschool will diminish.

2) some hybrid robots were successful. I am obviously thinking about my team (469), but also 27, 47, 503, ... I would not want to discourage any team for setting the bar very high for themselves. Aim Higher was the moto last year: try to always do more than you think you can. You might not succeed, but the higher you aim, the higher you'll reach. (if that made any sense)

3) help IS available, it is however not easy to access/get aware of.

4) i do not like the title of this thread. There is no such thing as a "bad robot", unless its written for yourself only in your scouting sheets.

5) i actually think many teams did a surprisingly good job. I've seen very young team come up with audacious scorers. Last year was more veteran oriented than this year in my opinion.

Anyhow... only throwing ideas around as usual

Francois.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This one is going to be long -
What is going to stay the same as FIRST continues to grow, evolve, and mature:
- veteran teams with a lot of experience
- middle aged teams that continue to acquire experience
- rookie teams formed by former mentors of other teams
- rookie teams formed by college mentors who are high school alumni of former teams
- rookie teams who have very little experience/knowledge of FIRST

All teams contend with students entering and leaving in a cyclical manner. Teams that rely heavily on students for development of the team usually go through a rebuilding phase when significant numbers graduate, leaving behind a less experienced group.

There are teams who rely heavily on mentors for development and this can be consistent or inconsistent, depending on the team's ability to retain the mentors. Some teams have retained the same mentors for many seasons, some can not obtain mentors and some can not keep mentors - for a variety of reasons.

Veteran teams and all teams are susceptible to changes in sponsors and/or amounts donated/obtained
Not all teams have ready access to corporate sponsorship and have to get creative
Not all teams have ready or easy access to materials
Weather plays a role
The yearly challenge plays a role
The materials play a role

Even through changes, each of the teams will continue to improve as they continue to develop and mature. I sometimes think of this as a moving spiral. When I think of the spiral, there are always teams at the bottom, in the middle, and at the top of the spiral. Depending on the circumstances of the season, some will move upward more quickly than others and some may even fall from the top.

As far as a competition, we build robots to compete. Build and compete go together. Building robots and building people go together. Veteran teams and rookie teams find ways to compete together in the same competition, together. That has been the FIRST I know. Things may be getting a little slack in the time management before crating and for many of the reasons stated, thus shipping robots that aren't as prepared as they could be at the time of uncrating - but in many parts of this, I think the problems still fall within the norm.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

But isn't this the point of FIRST. If the goal is to prepare students for the real world via hands-on experience in engineering, etc, then FIRST has accomplished this goal.

Take a look: not every team has the same resources, funding, mentorship, etc. Some teams have more, some less, some are willing to share, some are not--but in any scenario, the kids are in real-life scenario.

Say you start out at a pharmaceutical company such as Palatin, a small NJ based company with little funding, but many great ideas. In working there you may not have all the resources in the world, but you are still getting your hands dirty--and you're still making the best out of what you have.

Now say later in your life you move onto working for Pfizer, one of the world's largest 'bigPharma' companies. Now with access to all the resources the world has to offer, are you that much better off? Who knows?

But in real life you'll always be faced with challenges--and that is what FIRST set out to emulate..the challenges of everyday, real - world design scenarios. Many of the smaller companies allow for more creative freedom, and that explains what so many of those smaller companies are being bought out by bigger ones for their intellectual property. Both sides have their advantages--in a smaller company your ideas may be given more of a chance to develop (and in a smaller or team with less resources, you may have a bigger flow of more creative ideas), but in the bigger company, you might have much more resources, funding, and publicity (just as with a bigger team or more well funded team).

In the end, as many of my mentors have taught me before, FIRST is not about the robots, it's about the kids. It's about inspiring us to go into the fields of science and technology and to help develop us into the leaders of tomorrow. Now regardless of whether the students are a part of a big or small team, a poorly or well resourced one, or one with 100% or 50% student involvement in construction, etc, if the message is being carried across, then FIRST and that team have achieved their goals--to inspire and recognize science and technology.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

My idea of a 'bad' robot is one that has a low performance level to what it was designed to do. If it was designed for a certain task or tasks and it does not perform them well, than it's a 'bad' robot in my opinion.

Therefore...I believe that robots arn't getting their chances to work to their performance because of the defense that is necessary. Pushing robots > Aiming Arms. That makes robots that could do well fail because of their inability to get their chance.

This year is a headache. There is so much aggravation and annoyances that is involved in this year that you just want to scream and punch a wall. You have to watch for the moving rack, you have to watch for the defenseive powerhouses, you have to wait through a 15 second 'waiting' period, you have to get lifted by a robot with ramps that are mostly huge and clunky, rules and rulings are tossed around...it can drive people crazy. It translates into robots that can't preform to their standards.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

A couple thoughts:

Is it possible that the scheduling algorithm is partially to blame for a "perceived" higher level of "bad" robots? If you are paired with a "bad" bot for one isolated match, you probably will forget about it the day after the regional. It is quite another matter to be paired with the same "bad" or "no show" partner for more than half your matches. Also, there have been reports of these "bad" bots rising to the high profile Alliance Captain position thanks their schedule.

Rack n Roll and Triple Play despite a few similarities, are very different games (as others have mentioned in this thread)

Rack n Roll
Rack n Roll is inherently defensive and it is difficult to score tubes. In this game defense is even a part of offense. In order to make long rows, you need to stop your opponents from placing tubes that break up your rows.
Look at what you have to do to score a tube effectively:

• "Grab" (with a moving mechanism) a tube firmly.
• Precisely position yourself around a often defended central structure.
• Place it onto a (rapidly) moving target.

Triple Play
Triple Play was inherently offensive and it was easy to score tetras. In that game the best defense was a good offense. In order to breakup your opponent's rows, just cap over their tetras and make your own rows.
Look at what you had to do to score a tetra effectively:

• HP place a tetra on simple hook (like a pvc T)
• Drive to 1 of 9 goals spaced out across the field.
• Lower the self-righting tetra over the goal and release.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

What happened here is called a win-win situation. Mentoring a rookie team is awesome. Having them beat you is a testament to your mentoring ability. Either that or K.I.S.S. has been validated once again!!!!


I fully expect (hope) to see 2073 doing quite well at the Davis/Sacramento regional. Why? A rookie team that stuck to K.I.S.S. (I know, predictions predictions....):)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Welcome to the real world. If we were able to live our lives in a bubble, things would be very different. However, you always have things pushing and pulling you in every direction, forcing you to look over your shoulder and having to watch out for that guy about to blindside you because they took the "easy" route and decided to just shut you down. Life is difficult, life is unfair, life sometimes doesn't give you a chance to show the world what you really have to offer. Life is about starting from nothing or starting with everything, and making your way to the top. Life is about making alliances and using those to your advantage to help better yourself and/or those around you. In many ways robotics mirrors life. In many ways it does not.

But, most of all, life/robotics is what you make of it.

-Danny

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Something that messed up my team and I think many others was the thought that this game would be less defensive than previous years due to the yellow flag rule. And so we planned for a robot that was nimble but not very good at dealing with defense :(

In addition we went too simple with our manipulator which depends entirely on gravity which is hard to work with when getting knocked into :(

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

no offense to any of the other teams out there, but my team actually had some problems and we made it out fine. It was late in (i think) the fourth week and we still hadn't figured out a final robot design. Luckily we pulled it off and we did pretty well under the circumstances.

anyways, what I was getting at was what people before me had mentioned. Robots aren't exactly "bad" they just don't function as well as others. I know it may sound kinda corney, but we all are winners. Building a robot in six weeks is a huge accomplishment and i'm surprised at how many teams have succeeded in at least getting moving robots, but I would have to say that time management is key and there will always be a certain factor of "luck" in building a robot.

it's like my friend said (when we were talking about my team's lifters), the way we lift is an art because we originally never tested this idea and it just began working at the competition. it was not science, because through science we would have figured out the statistics for each lift and it would have worked only that certain % of the time. In other words, we were lucky in being able to do what we did at LA.

just my 2 cents.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

IMHO I think that it isn't the fault of the teams for bad robots.. but as was said before, I think the game this year was a lot more complecated then people first thought it was. its a simple concept sure, but the little details involved in it matter a great deal. I believe overall vetreans and rookies alike that people missed tiny details when brainstorming or prototyping, and when we all actually realized the details we missed we hurried and rushed together a "quick fix" which ended up not working in most cases.

I also believe, as was said as well, that moat people are comparing to years before, where this year you have fewer opitions then most other games. I mean
2005: put pyramids on top or below other pyramids to creat a tic tac toe game and race back to home zone for bonus
2006: shoot balls into scoring zones ethier high or low, race onto a fixed ramp for bonus
2007: 6 robot brawl in the middle for control over movable spider legs, race back to homezone and climb a movable ramp that you have absolutly no specs on for bonus.

This game may seem simple at first but it is definatly harder then the last one I was at, and I think the main problem is that people saw how easy it looked, and didn't look deep enough into to it at the early stages of the build.

Again this is just IMHO

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

yes this is the real world. but using that statement, how can you complain about the lack of quality in robots? It is the real world, we are a bunch of high school students, and in the real world there a lot of bad things that people live with. Sure it is the real world and you have to get use to bumps in the road, bt FIRST is about having other peopl to help smooth out that road for you, so if you are thinking in the real world stop complaining about the quality of others ;)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Don't be dissing on the vertical tube handling, man. As soon as there's video of 868's robot online, I'll show you how much vertical tube handling rocks.

But yeah, I'll agree that I've seen a lot of terribly inefficient grabbers. Seems like it takes most robots 10-15 seconds to pick up a tube.
Grabber mistakes I've seen:
2 flat, parallel pincers - The tube flies out when you turn
Grab from the top - You have to aim in 2 directions now
Nothing on the robot to help align the tube - makes the driver aim more
No positional control on the arm (Potentiometers are cheap, people.) - Makes the operator's job incredibly difficult
Lack of tube sensors - Makes the driver react, rather than the robot.

A few sensors and a bit of programming goes a long way. It also helps quite a bit if you plan ahead and design so that sensors are possible.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

well I have seen a few robots that can score this way quite nicely, and thursday will be our test to see if we can too, I'm not too sure what you mean by aiming in two directions, but thankfully we can grab from whatever part of the tube we see fit :p but our main way is from over top, so our claw doesn't get caught on the spider foot.. we will have to see I guess

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Well I will complete this saying with "Jack of all trades, master of none. Though many times better than a Jack of none.".

I may have a bias simply because our robot is a both bot, but I don't feel that trying to do too much is the biggest problem this game presents. The problem is there is no sub task or easier part of the scoring method we have seen in years past... 2004 it was herding balls, 2005 you could simply push your tetras into the bottom of the goals, 2006 corner goals. We don't have that this year, which makes it hard for rookie teams and teams that are struggling. other problem is the lack of teams that can climb mediocre ramps. And last not enough work put into manipulators. This problem comes up every year, but FIRST normally allows (as Bongle said) a box on wheels to still compete. Not the case this year.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

There are no bad robots.

There are some robots that occasionally display bad behavior.

We should all try to be kind and try to understand them, and help them to be better robots in the future.;)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Rack n' Roll is not a defensive game. It BECAME a defensive game due to the robots that were built.

Triple play is not a offense game. It BECAME an offense game due to the robots that were built.

Defense robots that are powerful as defense worked better in Triple play than in Rack 'n Roll and the Offensive robots from Triple play would do just as good in Rack n' Roll. The game takes on an entirely different type depending on the full range of robots built.

Rack n' Roll is defensive because of the number of ramp-only robots and robots that would be of better use to block than to score.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

RacknRoll seems to be designed so that either scoring ringers, or defending the rack and scoring bonus points, are valid strategies. I can't help but think that defense was a big part of the plan from the beginning. Robots were built to play the game according to the rules, and the rules do favor strong defense.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

What makes a game purely defensive ro purely offensive? There are two sides to a game. It just happens that this year being defensive is more effective. There is always a way to beat a defensive team, it's just finding the right strategy to do so. I think this years game is slightly less offensive as last year, but if you look at the final scores of matches it would appear like there is plenty of offense going on. And who is to say you can't fight fire with fire. If you notice that your alliance has a good ramp bot along with the other alliance, why cant you (you being an offensive robot) not try to score in a round and play defense then nail the ramps at the end. Thats what we had to do one match and it made it a much closer game than it would have been. I think we lost by 2 points... My point is if defense is hurting your team it will hurt the other team just as badly. Why not use it against them?

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I look at defense as point prevention. I see it as having both active (ie physical blocking a robot) and passive (ie strategically blocking rows) components. The primary difference between the 2 games is how the rows are scored. In Triple Play the last tetra placed temporarily counted for rows, in Rack n Roll it is the first tube permanently counts. The placed tube owns that spot and there is no way for your opponent to reclaim that spot so it is a permanent (passive) defensive action as well as an offensive one. Unless a tube makes a row of 5 or more, all placed tubes actually permanently prevent more points than they score. For example, when Redabot puts the first red tube on the rack it is scoring 2 pts for red and preventing 132 (128 + 4) pts from blue.

In Triple Play all passive defensive actions of a placed tetra were not permanent and could only negate previously scored points (like a spoiler that score points for your alliance). Tetras usually scored more points than they negated.

So how do you make these long rows of tubes and score lots of points?
You must prevent your opponents from scoring tubes that breaking up your rows while you are making those rows. This often requires active (physical) defense to be played on your opponents for more for offensive purposes (allowing you to score 256 pts) than defensive ones (preventing 2 pts). The "ideal" tube bot actively defends opponents from scoring while scoring itself.

The bonus "ramp" points only make an already defensive game more defensive. It allows alliances to focus solely on defense for the majority of the match and get enough points at the end to win.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

team 461 based our robot off of the K.I.S.S. theory, and as a result, we can put up ringers, take down and move spoilers, play defence, and get two robots off of the floor (we have wide, 14" high platforms w/ ramps). our ramps have only one electrical component: a servo. we flip a switch, the servo pulls a pin, surgical tubing is released, our ramps unfold, feet pop out, and our platforms fall down on the feet, resting 14" off the ground, giving us an extra two inches incase a robot's wheel is off of the edge or something. other than that (it takes two seconds for our ramps to deploy), it's just a simple matter of taking the time to line up your robot and drive up straight so you don't go off the edge (even though the ramps are wide, the allience pays for it if you fall off)

here's a vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHA3U7INUVI


the only reason why we haven't seeded in the top eight from qualifying matches is because of the system used to assign alliences. a veteren team, a rookie team, and a misc. team. i HATE that system! we're a veteren team, and at boilermaker we had to play our first two qualifying matches w/ only one other robot on our allience


anyway, we tend to ignore overly complicated robots durning our scouting meetings, unless the robot works exceptionally well

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

We wanted to do a triple threat again, and we had the lifts CADDed, designed, and build. But when it came down to it, we realized we should just be a drivetrain with an arm. That, and we mounted the lifts on wrong :P.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

We used the "K.I.S.S." method and we only had one malfunction so far this year.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Too many teams are attempting to play defense, ramp, and rack. It all can't be done. Pick one and be good at it.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

we don't try to do everything in one match, what we do depends on the strategy we're using

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Keeping it simple is not the Team 190 way.
I look at robots that tried to everything and am heartened that there are souls brave enough to do that. It's one legitimate strategy to construct a robot to do everything the game asks for. It's another perfectly fine strategy to devote all your resources to one part of the game.
The reason there are more robots not fulfilling the game goals this year is because there's a lot more wiggle room in this year's game compared to the last couple years.
2005: The tetras were an exact size. They fit over the base tetras the same, the base tetras never moved. The heights remained pretty much exactly the same.
2006: Aside from the vision system, there wasn't anything that really changed from what you expected. The goal stayed the same size and height, the corner goals the same tiny slot. The ramps were constant.
2007: The rack moves. The stingers aren't perfectly the same. The tube vary in inflation. In the middle of the game, the spider leg you're best at scoring on might be filled. You might be trying to get up on a platform with a couple slanted lips, or a 30* ramp with slits in the middle of it.

There is a lot more (built in) inconsistency in the field this year. I like that idea, but it makes for a tougher job as far as design is concerned.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

FIRST is not about robot building, it's about the engineering experience and spreading that fun experience with science and technology to the community.

Robots are simply the vessel which FIRST works through...

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'll admit that I haven't been impressed with that many robots this year, of the 90 I've seen this year only around 20 really got me excited. I believe that the problems is that too many teams tried to make their robot look fancy, and didn't spend enough time trying to make it work. I can't think of any of the top of my head but as someone who acts as a pit representitive I've heard dozens of teams bragging about a bunch of cool things on their robot but when I see them in action they usually only score a ringer or two. I think teams should care more about making their robot work then making it fancy, the most impressive thing is a robot that works!!!

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

well, when your have the other alliences constanly playing defence (GOOD defence) on you, it's a bit hard to score more than that

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I'm talking about teams that weren't being defended and were just bad at scoring.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This whole thread is just soooo odd. I though designing a robot last year was soooo much harder. We actually had our easiest build season for a couple of good reasons.
1. Building a ramp and arm doesn't take a genius to do it. If you use the KISS method.......
2. Unlike triple play, your robot isn't picking up something as heavy as a tetra.
3. The entire playing field is level other than going up a possible ramp, lifter, etc.
4. You dont have to score on the top rack since all points are worth the same on the rack, individually.
5. The game provided outs for teams who just wanted to focus on defense and bonus point scoring.

The scoring may not be as high this year, including autonomous, because the target moves also, unlike triple play. BUT, that doesn't mean it was a tough build season.

We are not trying to be arrogant, we are just saying that last year was the toughest for us, yet we saw so many teams with unreal, great designs. It seems like everyone had a great design out there last year....:D

When we started the poll on being "realistic" about scoring ringers in a round, we chose 6. We found out in competition, we could do 7 or 8 three times, including practice. However, the polls had so many teams choosing more than 6. Yet, when you watch competition play, many could not do that even by themselves on the field.

I personally still am amazed at how fun "aim high" was and how great the hundreds of designs we saw and watched last year. We were soooo certain that the poll we created and saw the results for was a true reflection of what we were going to see. I guess it goes to show, the easier it is, the harder we make it!!!!!!!

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I agree the challege last in my opinion was harder and turned out alot of great robots.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Team 1985 is a rookie team and chose to build a hybrid, but why should that automatically mean that this is a bad robot? We all understand the concept of being great at one thing, but we chose to be versatile. We have been able to score consistently at all three levels during matches where our alliance needed us. In other matches, we have chosen to stop scoring early and drop our ramps, providing that our alliance robots could continue to score. We have actually been double teamed occasionally which allowed our alliance partners more room to score.
I agree that not every team should be a hybrid. But just because you are a rookie and a hybrid, doesn't mean everyone should assume you have a bad robot. We have managed to finish in the quarter finals at St. Louis and in the semi-finals at Boilermaker. In some matches we put up 4 or 5 ringers. In others we lifted two robots at the end. Personally, I was thrilled that we finished our robot on time, made weight and are competing and learning from all of these great teams. Please don't judge our robots until you have seen them. :)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

There's nothing wrong with that, what I'm taking about is teams that put uniqueness above quality. If you want to make a fancy robot then that's cool, just make it work or else the fact that its got alot of unique features doesn't matter

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

I was actually very shocked by the amount of poorly functioning robots at Buckeye and it has nothing to do with the size of their number niether. 2010 and 2252's robots were exquisitie works of art while there were many veteran teams that had robots that strangely seemed just adequete when they had previously built award winning machines before. That why teams like 503, 1213, 70 and 494 were seeding lower than expected. They were getting hooked up with robots that couldn't keep up with them.
This game was much tougher to design for than first aniticipated.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

But who would have anticipated the need for an extra 30 points, and then built a drive that could go up a modest ramp? :rolleyes:

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Apparently 90% of the teams.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

ya.. SPAM is definitely a M.I.C.E. team..haha

from the words of the Woody Flower's award mentor Warren Boudreaux, "Make it complicated EVERYTIME!"

haha

=)

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Post-Buckeye opinion:

There were some real bad ones, and some real good ones. 48 was one of the goodies, doing what we attempted to do yet better I concede. That was awesome. :cool:

Also amongst the goodies were teams that just did tubing. Those bots did it with a simple machine and elegant motion. It was a real good sight to see.

Impressive are the ones that did both and found a way to integrate them well. There was one that had somewhat of a shaky arm, but no matter how much turbulence it was going through, it held on to its tube, and eventually scored. Just plain amazing.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

Also...

some of the problems may come from mistakes in the KOP.

Teams thought they had the right fisher price motor, they didn't know they didn't, they get to competition and now they can't run their arm because their fisher price motors are illegal. They get spares or something, they spend the time replacing them, they find out that (for some strange reason, anything could happen) their arm doesn't work with the new motors.

Carrier plates: Same story, just with a different name.

Maybe there's issues with the school where they can't get to their shop enough to finish their robot? Maybe issues with a major sponsor? There's a whole raft of reasons outside of a team's control that cause robots to simply become a robot that does nothing more than drive.

Re: why sooo many bad robots in 07
 

This was a problem which affected many FIRST teams, including ours. We ended up building a robot with a great gripper/arm, but we also had a ramp. It was sort of an afterthought, which we added for "just in case"... turns out we never used it because other teams who focused more on the ramps had better ramps than we did. Plus, our arm worked really well. The only time it broke (which was actually at the scrimmage), we went into defense mode rather than use our ramps. We probably should have used the weight that went into the ramps to make other parts of the robot even better, which is why I keep reminding our team that doing everything isn't necessarily the best way to go.