Re: Next Year's Game?
 

OK, I'm going to swim upstream a bit here. (No, this is not a bid for a water game.) So if you don't agree with my opinion, then we are agreed to disagree.


1) I hope bumpers do stay.

They offer really good protection. No, they are not prefect, but when they are implemented properly, they add considerable durability.
I feel it is an utter shame to see a team spend more than $6000 and hundreds of hours building a robot only to see it ruined in seconds because of a lack of protection. I prefer ::safety:: to ::ouch::
Like the water game, if you want to see a Robot demolition type of competition, there already is a one for that.

My main point is:
2) Bumpers are just another design criteria that needs to be met.

When the Jaguars were introduced, I read literally dozens of complaints about their size. Yet, practically every team found a way to use them. Yes I know, some teams chose to use all Victors. That was a valid design option this year, but it may not be in the future.
If you don't read the rules completely and design a robot and bumper scheme that doesn't comply, don't blame the rules. Every year there a multiple design challenges, bumpers just happens to be one of then.

Now food for thought. How about allowing bumpers to be movable so they could be incorporated into a game piece gathering system?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

1) You make a good point, if we want to see robots get destroyed there are competitions for that. My issue is not that I want to see robots get destroyed but that I don't like seeing students not exposed to designing a robust system.

2) Yes bumpers are just another design criteria but would more not be learned by allowing them to be optional? If you use bumpers you may lose some flexibility in design but you gain an additional weight advantage perhaps. Allow teams to decide if the additional weight is beneficial.

Im saying that mandatory bumpers are like mandatory wheels, or mandating that we all have to use 6 wheel drop center with the kitbot frame and a Cim on each side. You know, it is JUST a design requirement, there is nothing wrong with that right? Give teams some flexibility, if we decide that bumpers are beneficial to our play style and our design we can use them, if not then we should have the option of taking a beating.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I'd also like to see bumper's as optional or done away with. Were robots really that badly damaged all of the time before bumpers? Teams just need to build robust robots.

Something I'd like to see in the future, though maybe not next year, is a game involving two robots for each team. One is the normal sized bot we currently build, and another is a smaller vex-sized bot. The big bot deploys the little bot to a sub-field (such either located on a platform above the field or off to the side) and the little bot performs some function to facilitate more scoring for the big bot.

I'd also like to see a unique end game brought back, even if it is just ramps again. Though having to climb a ladder, climb a rope, get on top of a box, or fit into a confined space would be cool.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

The worst damage that I can remember 330 taking was in 2004. It wasn't from falling off the bar, either. It was the next match, when we drove our own lift down when it was already down all the way. Broken cable and bent lift resulted. We got it fixed in time for our next match. And yes, we did get into it with other robots a bit.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Yes, some where, I don't have any pictures but if we consider a 120 lb (54 kg) mass moving at 12-15 fps (3.6-4.6 mps) we can find how much energy a single robot has (1/2 *m *v ^2) The numbers aren't small. I recall a couple years ago 68 had their auton reversed and they moved the whole field... These things have a lot of power behind them and can be dangerous.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Team 365 in 2002. 'Nuf said.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/14423

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

The first thing that I thought of as well.

In 2002 and 2003, robots routinely got absolutely demolished. Teams like 365 and 71 (2002) and 312 (2003) really paid a price for their dominant machines.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

It's hard to tell in that picture, but it looks like their arm/manipulator got bent up. If all of the robots involved in that match had bumpers, would this have turned out differently?

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

If contact had been limited to the bumper zones and all robots had bumpers, damage like this could have been avoided. Even last year (Overdrive) damage was limited a lot from previous years with the emphasis being that robot-to-robot contact was to take place only in the bumper zone. It was enforced through penalties and lots of people complained.

I feel that the restriction placed on teams this year was less about an interesting design challenge and more about protecting robots. <R08> had some sections that were directed at making a sturdy robot - I'm thinking the one that required the bumper to be fully supported on the back side was a nudge towards making a REALLY sturdy chassis.

While I agree that teams should start out from a strong chassis on their own, there are some that feel that aggressive defense to the point of damaging another robot shouldn't be part of the game. Until there is some sort of agreement between teams, FIRST is handling the dispute by implementing rules that protect everyone as best as possible. This means that rookies build sturdy frames from the start and veterans that need some additional challenges need to accomplish whatever task they are aiming to hit with the additional design burden of the bumper zone.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

I seem to recall in the past few years there have been rules about ramming other robots, but this year not. Would you rather have mandatory bumpers, or refs deciding whether or not your driving was acceptable?

Also there was plenty of robot damage this year...the frame piece above the front ball harvester on many robots got bent repeatedly. Our plywood one suffered a crack at a regional, but the oak reinforcement added at champs held up fine.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Yeah, our harvester was also damaged in one of our matches, though it managed to keep working. To be honest I'd rather have restrictions on driving. Allowing teams to build how they want at bumper zone level could lead to some interesting designs (like harvesting from all sides of the bot) and ramming isn't all the amusing to me at least.

That said, I think the worst part about the bumper rules this year was their strictness and inflexibility. The fact that there was the trailer hitch and the non-bumper covered areas surrounding it meant that, no matter what your design was, you lost some area on the front of the bot to bumpers as well. Last year we had no bumpers on the front of the bot and the sides were also somewhat short as we only had to have part of the robot covered.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

This is a great point. With the bumper rules we have now, robot to robot contact is measured objectively. This is great because it takes a lot of the refereeing out of the game that we had in the past with regards to pinning, ramming, and entanglement.

The games in the past that involved reaching and extending were awesome (2000, 2002, 2004) and I hope the GDC considers an environment close to that for 2010.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

How about the game piece being a tetra made out of aircraft aluminum? The teams could make practice ones from PVC pipe.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

Next year's game should have things that won't be discontinued. Maybe even bring back a few parts and the IFI for lightness and no more digital sidecard malfunctions. Maybe even the van door motor could come back.

Re: Next Year's Game?
 

i'd like to see the game back to the robot limitations on size like the 2008 season of just starting size rules. the height limitations are what made it hard for teams to "think outside the box" when they had to fit inside of one.