Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Possibly, but people have been predicting stairs ever since Dean's wheelchair first made an appearance...

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Please let it be a larger playing field.

This allows room for all the mid-field obstacles from earlier four robot games that really became kind of impractical with six machines crammed on to the field.

But, sigh... I do know space is limited in some of the smaller FRC venues, so we're not likely to see that.

Perhaps, however, we might have strict limits on energy consumption... efficiency is always a good thing. Maybe each robot will be fitted with an ammeter to measure total current flow, and it will report back to the field control system how much power each robot is drawing. Alliances will then have "power consumption points" deducted from their final score.

Or maybe the combined total power consumed by all three robots in on an alliance will be monitored... so if robot one is in a pushing match and needs to pour on the juice, robots two and three need to dial back their consumption a bit. THAT would be a real challenge for drivers!

Jason

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Smaller robots would give the same effect.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Smaller robots + the non-compactness of our existing control system = major pain in the neck

The cRIO (and it's auxiliary hardware) is far too bulky to make the robots significantly smaller. We've had very wide open fields the past couple of year (2006, out side of the ramps was wide open / 2007, fairly wide open except near the rack / 2008, pretty wide open unless there was lots of traffic generated / 2009, wide open). Putting more elements on the field or creating obstacles would be kind of nice...

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Based on the box Wayne mentioned, it seems like the legnth of the robot is unlikely to change. They could require a narrower width, but that would still leave significant space consumption issues based purely on the 38" dimension.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

There is not going to be a curve ball this year just a kick but game...

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Dunno about that one, Sean. If they do like they did in 2007 with the height/weight classes (which didn't return the next year for some unknown reason), there could well be a number of smaller robots. Or they changed the size after the kit frame material was made and teams have to do the cutting down.

Sure, it's likely to be the same, but there's no reason for it to be, based on a single box dimension. (Not to mention the fact that said box could very well be a pre-built lift system that must be on the robot, not a KOP frame...)

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

They made a similar last minute dimensional change in 2005 to adjust to our current dimensions from 30x36 (I think, it's been a while) to through a last minute change at us from what the envelope had been for the previous 4 or 5 years. This was done after the kit bot, new that year, had been designed. I have heard about this from several people involved in the original kitbot design.

That said the size of the robots is really about getting through standard doors and staying on standard shipping palates so I would not expect much change.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Good point on not using the box size to guess at robot size... and I agree that smaller robots, while difficult to build, and more difficult for specators to watch, would allow more room on the playing field.

I do want to point out, however, a few practical maximum dimensions... the robot has to be able to fit through a doorway, and the 28" dimension works pretty well for that once bumpers are added. (Wouldn't it be cruel to increase the max width to 38" and see how many 38"x38" robots are stuck in their build rooms on ship day?)

The max weight is also limited, I understand, by American health and safety regulations that limit loads lifted by hand to 150 pounds.

So I doubt the robots will be any bigger....

Jason

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Bigger robots will always be a problem as long as DOORS remain the same size. (There are rumors that in the early years some teams found they couldn't get their 'bots out of the workshop ...)

Personally I'd LOVE to see an obstacle to climb over again. Those were fun days.

And I've said it before, but this thread looks like a good place to repeat myself. Consider the following points:
- In 2006 the tetras were 8 lbs apiece
- The GDC is always looking for a readily available, fairly inexpensive game piece

My vote for the curve ball is ... bowling balls! :ahh:

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

2005 :)

But yes, bowling balls would be cool.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

48 without a sweet drivetrain? That'll be the day.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

Isn't this the year of the water game? haha

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

And those tetra being flung around by robots were a hazard I don't think the GDC considered until the game was actually payed. I can't imagine anything like that again.

I too would love to see some ramps or something to climb again. The floor has been flat for too long.

Re: The 2010 Curve Ball
 

I too would love to see the return of ramps like in 2006 or platforms like in 2004 or some other fun field obstacle but I just don’t see it happening for one simple reason: BUMPERS. Ever notice that about the time bumpers came along the field got flat? At first bumpers were optional but for the last couple of years they have been mandatory. I suspect he GDC has a fondness for bumpers for good reason. I well remember watching a 2004 Newton match when two opposing robots charged out of the gate at the beginning of autonomous and met mid field in the hardest, fastest, head on robot impact I have ever seen. I can’t remember for sure what the team numbers were but I want to say 254 was one of them. In any case, neither robot moved from the point of impact for rest of the match. Bumpers are designed to reduce the effects of such violent robot impacts. I think I read somewhere that the CRIO is rated to 50g. While 50g is nothing to sneeze at I bet those two robots on Newton back in 2004 felt much more. The recent bumper rules are the way they are for many good reasons. Heck, last year nobody was ever able to get enough traction to get going anywhere near what we have in the past but we had the most stringent bumper rules to date. As long as bumpers are deemed necessary by the GDC in anywhere near the same manner that we have become used to (bumper perimeter requirements, bumper zone, non-articulating, etc., etc. etc.) I predict that the field will remain relatively flat. Bumpers add to the safety factor and, well, we all know FIRST is all about safety and rightfully so. It is a litigious society we live in after all.