Re: Team Update #1
 

First off,

The GDC is trying to be proactive with these rules changes (something that I very much encourage ... considering last year). They are trying to create a game with a level playing field (of sorts).

My only disappointment with this update is that the mini-bot isn't allowed stored energy until deployment. I would have preferred 'The minibot may have no stored energy (other than the battery) before the start of the match'. JMHO

I will also state that complaining about the changes is a waste of time and energy. The required specifications has changed, but it's early in the design process, so instead of complaining about the changes, lets just get to work on creating the 'best' solutions.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I have been a quiet observer of this thread and feel the same emotions that many others do. When I first saw the minibot challenge at kickoff I was extremely excited, because it was a wide open challenge that was different from anything FIRST had done in the past. Like many we came up with numerous designs all of which are illegal at this point. A few things really strike me as wrong with this decision and it is not exactly the obvious ones that people are focusing on.


I have no problem with FIRST Limiting the motors required for the minibot, I have a problem with not giving those motors in the kit. Yes FIRSTchoice exists but many teams including mine logged on early in the AM on Monday to ensure we got the parts we wanted, like we were advised to do. Had this rule been defined in the manual to start with this would have been a lesser issue, but they still should have put at least 2 motors and a battery in the kit.

Cost of the components. My teams can afford these components so I am not complaining about that, but it is one thing to lock teams into a specific motor but you have to be fair with the value/price. WHY DOES THE TETRIX MOTOR COST MORE THAN THE CIM MOTOR? From a manufacturing perspective there is no way there is more (copper, casing, bearings, etc) in the textrix motor than any other motor in the kit. The cost of the motor is simple price gouging by lego/pitsco plain and simple.


The minibot competition will not be won by teams who use the Tetrix kit. Like many things in FRC the challenges are never level, but FIRST has been doing things the past decade to close the gaps between the haves and the have-nots (kitbots, allowances of COTS specifically designed for teams, etc) by forcing teams down a path the ones who have manufacturing abilities will use the aluminum, plastic, and other allowed components to build lighter and faster robots. I feel sorry for the FTC teams that FIRST is encouraging to build pole climbers and show up at competitions thinking they have a shot a winning. If FIRST's goals are to inspire students it doesn't seem right that they are setting kids up for failure.


To quickly address the argument going on in this thread about FTC and VEX..."It is what it is" Both programs have similar goals to get students interested in STEM. In my opinion there is one that does it better than the other but that is irrelevant for the conversation of the minibot.

I encourage everyone to vent your frustrations and then take the challenge they have given you and do your best at it, that's all anyone can do with anything in life.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I just have this question...
Of those of you who planned on using a launch method, did you consider the possibility of designs (yours or others) that actually took the top off the tower or misfired a mini into the crowd? Did you think that First really would have taken that step?

Re: Team Update #1
 

In all of this discussion, one thing I haven't heard is a mention of FLL. The young kids we have on our team who are right out of FLL (and those who mentor FLL) are more excited about the minibot than the team as a whole. I have a suspicion that our final design might just have switches, and no NXT "brain", but if we do use the NXT the FLL kids will be psyched.

I too am disappointed at the rules clarifications for the minibot, but I think that the idea that not allowing launching is going to make all of the robots clones is a little over-blown. If they had allowed launching, I think there would have been just as much "cloning" of designs. I do think that a lot of people are underestimated the engineering challenge of deploying the robots on the poles. You have to do it quickly, precisely and not so violently that it damages the minibot. Getting the minibot to attach to the pole quickly and reliably is not going to be a trivial engineering challenge given the time constraints. I also think it is likely we will end up using aluminum, PVC and polycarb rather than Tetrix pieces. But who knows?

I do think that FIRST should have given everyone two motors and a battery if they were going to require us to use the two motors and the battery to move the robot. This is definitely an issue they should address if they do anything like this in the future. I would rather have used Vex components since we have a lot of them (we don't compete in Vex but have used them in the classroom), and I don't think that the FRC competition or the FTC competition is diminished by allowed Vex components in addition to Tetrix. But it's a restriction. So we'll deal with it.

As for the 60" rule, I have mixed feelings myself. All weekend I was stressed out because of how brutal this restriction was. Then Monday arrived and Paul Ciopoli pointed out that the rule was printed as 60"(213.4 cm) and I didn't know what to think. On the one hand the more severe 60" restriction would force teams to think much more deeply about their designs. On the other, I think that the 84" rule means we will see a wider variety of mechanisms. And remember if you are complaining about wasted design time, if your robot doesn't violate the 60" rule then it won't violate the 84" rule. On the other hand, if you design in metric and were designing using 213.4cm all weekend and the GDC came out on Tuesday and said "Sorry, it's only 152.4 cm" you would be worse off. So I was looking forward to the restriction of 60", but I can live with 84". A couple of our new kids had a cool idea for an arm that wouldn't work with 60" and does with 84". So it may turn out that the 84" rule will help us.

A few of my students were a little frustrated today, so I told them this: There have been years when I really liked the challenge from the start (ex: Aim High), years when I really didn't like the challenge from the start (ex: Overdrive) and years when I was totally wrong about how interesting the challenge would be (ex: Triple Play). But I do know that I have never gone to a FIRST competition and had a bad time. Occasionally a stressful, frustrating time when the robot is breaking down or not working correctly, but always a good time. So if I have point, it's this: Go ahead, complain. Discuss. Suggest. Just remember to also have fun too.

Re: Team Update #1
 

When I looked on Monday, there were over 1200 FTC mini kits available. Considering the fact that there are still almost 600 available, I'm not sure availability is an issue.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Wait ... those duck races are THAT exciting?? :eek:

Re: Team Update #1
 

I don't see an issue here. I see that the hostbot cannot contribute to the vertical motion of the minibot. Fine, no problem. I'm seeing that you can't have stored energy in a spring, everything must use the motors. Again, no problem.

I'm not going to reveal why I don't see the problem yet. I want all of you to try and see what I am saying here. Try and calm down, step back from your infinite rage and look at this like an engineer would. You found a loophole that said you could launch the minibot from the hostbot, I see another loophole yet to be closed, if it ever will be.

::rtm::

Re: Team Update #1
 

Engineering still can't beat Physics! There's only some much weight to remove from the minibot, so it may eventually come down to, as someone pointed out, to whoever has the fullest battery or, completely ridiculous, who got lucky and received the slightly better spec'ed motor from the assembly line...

As for the fun of watching one robot beat the other by milliseconds, maybe I'm just weird, but the kick I get from 100m dashes is watching Usain Bolt crush records, not the other seven "regular" guys who all arrive at the same time - by the way, there's no photofinish at a (incredibly long and slow) marathon...

Re: Team Update #1
 

[quote]As for the fun of watching one robot beat the other by milliseconds, maybe I'm just weird, but the kick I get from 100m dashes is watching Usain Bolt crush records, not the other seven "regular" guys who all arrive at the same time - by the way, there's no photofinish at a (incredibly long and slow) marathon...[/quote/
As a track and cross-country coach, I have seen some long races change in the last second. I see the difference between launching and climbing with motors more like the difference between the 100 meter dash and the 4x400 meter relay, or the 1500 meter run.

More seriously, why is it more exciting to see which hostbot is a tiny fraction of a second faster at deploying the minibot and triggering a launcher?

Re: Team Update #1
 

This is the first design that our team thought of.

Based on the initial rules, we sort of inferred that the intent was that the MINIBOT was self-propelled, but not necessarily battery powered!

Re: Team Update #1
 

Joe I think you are correct...and I edited my post after checking with some folks ... I either originally saw it wrong or things went that fast....

Re: Team Update #1
 

I for one am thrilled at the lastest team update. During a match, while I am announcing I stand right next to the field...I didn't really like the idea of taking a 15 pound piece of metal to the squash because someones latch failed to activate and the spring misfired. Phew!

To anyone who thinks this will not be exciting, you are out of your mind! It is NOT like hanging first off. You did not get more points for hanging first as you do for finishing first with the minibot. That 10 point difference between 1st and second could be a huge make a break moment in an elimination match. To me, it doesn't get any better than that!

As for the design challenge...if you don't think there is a challenge in trying to get your minibot to go faster than everyone else, you are not thinking outside of the box enough in my opinion. Once again, instead of complaining, suck it up, think a little harder, and make the most of what you do have.

From what I can tell, there are ways around, or ways to alleviate all the complaints which people have posted here...all it takes is for a little hard work. Get on it!

My only actual question is this...who can register a minibot? An FRC team? An FTC team? A team of random mentors and students with no affiliation? A team of mentors with no affiliation? A volunteer? I don't see this clarified anywhere...it might be slightly important to know.

Good luck everyone!

Re: Team Update #1
 

The difference is that with hanging, there are a multitude of different designs and options. Between looking cool, going up fast, elevating past the buzzer, and otherwise, there is a lot of variety that is exciting to watch.

This game, the laws of physics pretty much dictate a maximum speed and there's maybe one or two ways to reach that speed - so it becomes a "race" in who deployed right at the 10.0 mark, or who got a lucky battery charge, rather than an actual demonstration of which team had a better engineered mini bot.

Re: Team Update #1
 

There is quite a bit of engineering and design work involved in objectively reaching that 10.0 mark that should not be tossed aside.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Don't forget: the difference between "wow, what a great deploy, first place" and "the refs have disabled your tower" is so infinitesimally small and so much more important than previous end games that I can see nothing good coming of it.

Either teams will release early and get away with it or teams will jump the gun and get their tower disabled based on a number the field cannot precisely display and that no one can see while simultaneously staring at the base of the tower.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I can't believe veterans here on CD are turning the Update into a VRC/FTC gripefest. This was a minibot challenge, not a PVC tube launching challenge. It's sickening that people are crying foul just because now they're forced to use a 'competing' or 'inferior' product. If you don't like the product because of principles, then don't do a minibot on principle. The rest of us who aren't strong-armed into one program or another will enjoy seeing the minibots make it to the top.

Karthik, Cory, if I didn't respect you two so much for your technical prowess and general logical GP practices I would be hard pressed to hold back the tirade I could type right now.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Jesse, even those of us who do neither FTC nor VEX and who are sitting out the FRC competition are complaining. It's turning a mousetrap car (with the option for FTC) into an FTC robot. That could be good, or it could be bad, but either way it's changing the rules in a major way.

There were a number of ways to eliminate unsafe launching and declare a minimum weight equivalent to the FTC battery. Minibots must contact the tower during the entire deployment, minibots must have a minimum weight of X, the list goes on. Instead of one that allows for stored-energy designs, they went with the most restrictive rule they could. After teams had already started their FIRST Choice ordering.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Eric,

You aren't really taking mechanism failure into account. Just saying that a robot has to be constantly touching the bar during ascent, doesn't mean that it will happen in actuality. When you consider vibration, massive collisions, robot failures, having a 15 pound spring loaded vehicle on your robot is incredibly hard to make safe, let lone the damage it could pose to your own robot's internal systems.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I agree this is an important question. TU1 includes one pertinent reference:
So we know that either FRC or FTC teams can present MINIBOTs for inspection.

Eligibility of walk-on MINIBOTs does not appear to be defined by the Manual.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The physics here are pretty straightforward. There's absolutely no stored energy allowed, besides the battery. You can only start using the energy in the battery after DEPLOYMENT. The only way of converting this to mechanical energy is through the provided motors, which have a peak power output of 8.4W. So it works out pretty simply:

Work = Force x Distance = (Mass x g) x Distance
Power = Work / Time
Time = (Mass x g x Distance) / Power

So, you want to minimize Time by fiddling with things on the right hand side:
g - acceleration due to gravity. Let's all please assume this is constant.
Distance - nearly constant. Serious teams will deploy as high as possible.
Power - Max available is ~16.8W. Make your minibot as efficient as possible, with little friction and appropriate gearing.

Mass is the only variable teams have any significant control over. There's two approaches here:
1. Build a stripped down "dragster" with 2 motors, 1 battery, (maybe) 1 controller, and the minimum frame, gearing, and wheels to make it all work. There's an obvious minimum here of 1 battery, 2 motors, and some wiring.
2. Leave the motor, batteries, and controller on the ground and send up something lighter to hit the trigger for you. This has the potential to be rather faster than option 1, what with the huge weight reduction. But this is only possible if minibots are allowed to expand outside the starting 12"x12"x12" box. Given the massive restrictions just implemented on minibots, do you really think the GDC is going to leave that avenue open?

As people have been saying, it's just about down to a pure physics problem at this point. He who builds lightest and best wins. Successful minibots will have optimal gearing, 2 wheels, and as little framing as possible.

Re: Team Update #1
 

It was hardly obvious Steve. It was a valid design constraint, albeit a big one. We were prepared to deal with it and now we'll be prepared to deal with a 84" cylinder.

The changes were anything but minor though.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Ummm, my posts in this thread have been about how 148 & 217 didn't have a hanger on their robots during the 2010 competition season. I also commented on how I enjoy Cory's blunt statements. ("I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less." I thought this was hilarious) Nowhere did I mention VEX, VRC, FTC, minibots, competing products or anything else. I've included links for your reference.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=22
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=35

So if you respect me so much, please consider not putting words in my mouth. I have no problem standing behind the words that I've actually spoken, I have a hard time doing the same with ones that are being conjured out of the over active imaginations of others.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Jesse it's not about FTC vrs VRC, I think FIRST's behavior and decisions fly's in the face of their stated mission of inspiration for purely selfish reasons. I (and judging form the many PM's I have received, many others) think they are acting in a very un-GP way.

Are you suggesting that I just not say anything and sit back and smile while the program that I love is corrupted?

Re: Team Update #1
 

You do realize that we have a several hundred dollar control system in charge of the robot, right? Give yourself a deployment arming button and start a timer as soon as the robot enters enabled teleop. If you're armed and the timer hits 110 seconds, fire the minibot. If you're depending on your driver's reflexes, you're wasting valuable time.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Find a post in this thread where either Karthik or Cory posted anything about Vex, VRC, or even FTC. You can't. That's not what they were complaining about at all.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'd be pissed if we had to use vex, mindstorms, an arduino, anything. Let teams decide what they want to use.

They made a substantial game play decision for political reasons, that's immature.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Okay everyone I think that this is going way too far! I've calmed down since last night a little and realized oh well, then we will make sure that we do whatever we can to save every ounce of weight and get up as fast as we can. Hey, someone has to be the first up that pole! So what if our design is no longer legal or our arm doesn't have to fit a 60" constraint. Let's move along with the season. Things like this happen all the time and how we deal with it determines character. This past weekend our store did inventory and I spent 2 hours counting thousands of packs of cigarettes. When we are about to finish up and every other employee is leaving my group is told that we were given the wrong format and that we need to start over and none of our numbers were valid. I was originally furious because all I had on my mind was the new challenge, but complaining didn't get it done or get me home faster. Hey, maybe Andy Grady is on to something. The minibots will be a very on the edge of your seat ending when it is all tied up and all four are neck and neck.

FIRST is making their decisions, we are not being forced to compete in FRC, get over the update, get over each other, and make your robot! :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Ah, I see what I did. I linked a Sandrag post to Cory due to the 254/968 alliance by mistake, and Karthik's comments added to it due to his relationship with IFI.

Karthik, sure, nothing was directly said. Yet your tone has always been pro-VEX and anti-FTC so I suppose I take everything you post regarding the two with that bias in mind. Regardless, I apologize.

Adam, your bias was present from your first post about the inferiority of FTC in this thread. Change of heart?

My own opinions -- 1-second PVC tube launches aren't challenging at all given the lack of restriction on materials for the FRC bot. And everyone's missed the fact that at least the GDC was prudent enough to realize the differences between the rules and the intent of the game on Day 3. Everyone (who's speaking against it) acts like this change is the worst thing since holes in Suisse Cheese. Given FIRST's political-play type history in other nuances within the organization, what makes Engineers think they should be exempt from that behavior just because it's a "technical challenge" (referencing the FTC-only rules).

The only thing that really NEEDS to be TETRIX on the minibot are the battery, motors and wheels. Given the allowed materials, everything else is custom metal. Heck, even the wheels could probably be custom made within the allowed parts.

Have I stirred up enough of a hornets nest here? It it even possible for Engineers to see something other than their own points of view?

Re: Team Update #1
 

Let me share a quick story.

While Alan Shepard was sitting at the top of his Mercury space craft waiting to be the first American into space, there had been several issues, the count-down had been stopped and restarted several times. At T- minus two minutes and forty seconds and counting, Shepard heard that dreaded word again, "Hold". Another problem had stopped the countdown, yet again. Getting frustrated, he yelled, "I've been in here more than three hours. I'm a h*** of a lot cooler than you guys. Why don't you just fix your little problem and light this candle?"

The countdown to the ship date is ticking. So let's all be cool, and

Light this candle!

:)

Re: Team Update #1
 

I have to say, this is probably my favorite post. The truth, the real bottom line. Things CHANGE. We are an organization of engineers or at-least engineer-like minds.....since when do things not change. Somebody tell me one robot they built that not one thing changed. Whether it be a controled factor or not.

It's a trade off. Bigger play radius, more contraints on the mini bot. I see nothing wrong with that.

P.S. FTC, VRC....can you say NASCAR vs IRL?

Both are the same "sport" both have their parts and their rules. We compete in the FIRST Robotics Competition, therefore I don't see it unreasonable to use FTC parts, if this were something different then I would make that claim later.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The one thing that I don not understand is peoples comments about "clone bots". If anything this team update got away from having everybody being a one pound box on a surgical tube slingshot that if everything went just right it would hit the top tower and not damage the field and if anything went wrong it would result in injuries to robots, the field, or people. Try not to get mad that everyone thought they found a 469 like loophole to the game and the GDC didn't let it go. There is still plenty of time for new concepts, if you didn't like a challenge like this you would not be a part of FIRST.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Just wondering but didnt they change vex/FVC to FTC? isnt Vex = First Tech Challenge? So people saying Karthik is pro-vex and anti-ftc is contradictory.

Re: Team Update #1
 

No, VEX became VRC, a separate competition, and FTC is now based on an alternate kit.

Re: Team Update #1
 

So FIRST has 5 different competitions(Jr.LL, LL, VRC, FTC, FRC)?

Re: Team Update #1
 

FIRST (the organization) no longer has anything to do with VRC.

Many FIRST teams do compete in VRC for historical reasons (they spent a lot of capital on Vex kits) and for perceived advantages of that program vs. or in addition to FTC.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Agreed. I liked the challenge of making a bot to fit into tight restrictions. I was hoping to see some really interesting workarounds for that.
I think we still have the '07 bot in storage. Hmm....

My thoughts exactly.

Re: Team Update #1
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Tech_Challenge

Not sure what to say about this, so do you guys?(read the first line)

Re: Team Update #1
 

FIRST created FVC as their mid-level program based on the Vex kit from IFI.

For reasons we don't need to go into here they decided to stop using the perfectly good Vex kit and create their own.

IFI then used the Vex kit to make their own competition VRC.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The difference I see between the two programs is IFI sees us as their customers. They try hard to make it simple for groups to host competitions and make it as easy as possible for anyone to participate. FTC does not.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Or don't know or are none of our business.

Jane

Re: Team Update #1
 

"Hey Chris, why'd you have to toss out those $2000 of Vex parts you bought for FTC last year?"

"None of my business, I guess"

Re: Team Update #1
 

Andy, I chose that as an example. Was it the best one? No. Was it the worst one? No. They could have just said, launching minibots that are not attached to the pole is an automatic safety violation, and any that are launched attached to the pole will be closely inspected for safety. Just one avenue they could have taken.

Jesse, I don't think Adam's post was a change of heart from his earlier one. FTC was simply named as the item of discussion at that time; the later post is simply an expansion.

I finally thought of a good comparison that may explain why everybody's mad: That healthcare bill the last Congress session passed, with the requirement to buy insurance. We're being required to put certain parts on the robot to be competitive--and they may or may not be inferior/superior, which isn't why we're annoyed. It's that we have to have them.

Mods, could this thread be given a 24-hour cooldown? I think we all need a break.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Yep. There are going to a be a TON of hard feelings this year when a robot clearly deploys a half second early and the refs miss it. Wouldn't it be a travesty if Einstein was decided that way?

Re: Team Update #1
 

JesseK, please slow down for a minute. If you're going to mention something someone said, please quote it. Thus far, I have made no mention of VRC in this thread. Also, please remember, a person's own views may or may not relate to their team's views. Additionally, please be careful in associating people with one another. We are all individuals, entitled to our individual opinions.

This is exactly the point that I believe many of the well-established and well-respected members of this forum have been trying to get across, but may not have explicitly stated.

With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom. In FRC, you can have multiple robots that are constructed entirely differently that all play the game equally well. Such is not the case with this new MINIBOT challenge.

Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.

I've thought more about it, and I don't have a fundamental problem with the new restrictions. Why? I don't think most teams have a solid enough grasp on the physics and engineering involved. Those who do will succeed. However, it still may become a game of luck (battery voltage, motor manufacturing tolerance, frictional variations, etc) between the top teams on Einstein.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Obviously, there is still a lot of anger, frustration, and resentment regarding the FVC program. Maybe it is good that it is bubbling to the surface in this thread and the other one - but, if I wanted to understand why the program that our team had invested/lost $2000 in - I would find a more direct path than the ChiefDelphi fora for investigating the cause and for trying to understand it. And, basically, that would be our team's business.
---
I'm headed to our first day of design presentations. Can't wait to see what the design teams have come up with.

Jane

Re: Team Update #1
 

With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.

I guarantee someone has already designed the best minibot this year. It will be something that other teams couldn't get to work or thought of but tossed the idea aside as impractical.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I agree with you in principle, but in this particular instance there is literally one way to do it. You need to convert as much electrical energy into mechanical motion as possible in as short a time as possible, and you are allowed exactly one way to convert it. One energy source, one energy output, one design.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The point I was making is that in the MINIBOT competition, I believe there is now roughly one best conceptual design, if you base it on conventional and correct physics and engineering principals. This is very different than FRC traditionally in which there is no best design necessarily, as they are heavily varied.

I'm not saying I have a problem with either. I'm just pointing out the differences.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I cant find the post from Al S. team 111, but to me, he said it best.
The minibot is an opportunity to get FLL, FTC, or even VEX students to get involved with an integral part of FRC.
Personally, we are a 7-12 school that does FLL, VEX, and FRC. We are getting the 7-8th graders to help design the minibot, and have ownership to whatever successes we might have this season.
What greater way to recruit the younger kids in getting involved with the FRC program.

Re: Team Update #1
 

A message to everyone QQing about FTC being pushed on you.



I think the GDC read your minds ahead of time :P

Re: Team Update #1
 

Please see my post above about physics. The fundamental issue here is that we're given exactly one method of converting stored electrical energy into mechanical energy. This method limits you to, at most, 16.8W of mechanical power. This gives you a hard and definite limit of just how fast you can lift X lbs to Y inches. If the GDC allows minibots to expand or detach parts, then there's discussion to be had on whether to fire up something light, or drag the entire minibot up the pole.

It looks pretty certain that the GDC ISN'T going to allow expanding minbots or detachable parts, so your only option is to haul the entire minibot up the pole. So you know right away the you're hauling 2 motors and a battery up the pole, and you want to absolutely minimize any wasted energy. You want every last erg you can get to go into lifting the bot. It really, really focuses your design.

What about the bot that spins around the pole as it goes up? Nope, all that rotational kinetic energy is a waste. Big honkin' wheels? Nope, more wasted rotational energy. Lots and lots of gears? And waste all that energy in friction in the bushings? Umm... maybe a flag to wave around at the top? Nope, don't have the grams to spare. These constraints pin you down to the absolute bare minimum necessary to get the job done. The most successful minibots will have the minimum necessary wiring, maybe one gear step up (yes, up), a battery, and the lightest frame possible. The only real question open to you is how you latch the minibot onto the pole as quickly and high as possible, within these other constraints.

So it's not the fun, crazy, creative kind of engineering we get to do on the rest of the robot. It's the focused, detailed, iterative kind of engineering that's rather less popular, but rather more common.

Re: Team Update #1
 

... is the kind that really matters.

It's the way we get to things that really work, really well, for a really long time. (Must think of some examples...)

Ah, here's one: Dave's other car.

Re: Team Update #1
 

As a teacher of conceptual, standard and AP Physics, I understand the principles behind most mechanical processes. I stand by my statement that you are already limiting yourself in your approach.

have anyone thought about this?:
Can you make a bare bones minibot that you can SAFELY remove from the tower in less than 1 minute?

Re: Team Update #1
 

Kevin,

I'm certainly no expert, but I believe that in past seasons there have been up to several seconds of variation in match length during FRC Regional matches.

Talk to a few folks (some FTAs maybe?) who can confirm or deny my fuzzy suspicion before putting too much faith in being able to legally deploy the mini-bots exactly 110 seconds after your robot reports (to itself) the match has been started.

Blake

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'm very excited about the 84'!! however i'm not as joyful bout the minibot ideas... this is going to hinder design work just a bit... should still be interesting thou!
:cool:

Re: Team Update #1
 

(emphasis mine) I'm not so sure that <R92> states that I cannot fabricate my own wheels from aluminum sheet and tube (for example). Just sayin'It may have helped that the entire contraption was built by the lowest bidder... :ahh: Exactly. So which team will be able to wring the most from their pinewood derby car minibot? The team that understands the design constraints best. Maybe it IS a competition to see who sucks least, but I for one welcome the opportunity to blow your doors off.:p

Bring it on.


.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Good luck with that Sir! Team 2389 is in full swing and is working nonstop to make this year the absolute Best!;)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Absolutely, this is not an engineering challenge.

I can easily think of several ways to get a bare bones bot off the pole safely in less than 30 seconds (and they don't involve a stick chainsaw as Dean demonstrated). After all, we're planning a sub-one second deployment. Why should it take up to a minute to retrieve the little critter?

Re: Team Update #1
 

I find this new contraint quite enjoyable. Then again, I'm not on a team.

There has always been talk from year to year about "standardizing" certain parts of the robot across teams to allow them to be able to be switched out at competitions. I think FIRST just laid a golden egg right in your lap to do something like this and make it actually happen (in fact, they are encouraging it).

Forget about the "lack of innovation" that has come from this rule, and think about how fun it'll be brainstorming with other teams in the pit to get their minibot to work with your hostbot.

Just my two cents.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I must agree! :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

...with?

Re: Team Update #1
 

I second this request. Hopefully this gets people to stop complaining and start working on their teams bots.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I was thinking the same thing. 24 hour rest. Reopening tomorrow evening.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Even with the massive constraints placed on the minibot design, it will still be difficult to create a final product that attaches to the pole, and has enough traction to adequately grip the pole. It's still going to be exciting to see which teams come up with novel ways to increase traction, novel methods of attachment, and creative ways to lighten the whole system.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Doesn't the blue box under section 4.13.15 technically allow an FTC team who is not registered for the competition to win the coopertition award?

Re: Team Update #1
 

Check in section 5.3.5.

Re: Team Update #1
 

5.3.5 Coopertition Score (CS)
Any borrowed MINIBOT which scores points by legally triggering the TARGET during the MATCH receives one (1) Coopertition point for the FRC TEAM registered for the event that is affiliated with the MINIBOT.
The total number of Coopertition points earned by a TEAM throughout the qualification matches will be their Coopertition score.

Re: Team Update #1
 

100% correct. So now let's think at the edge of the box.

My presumption is that if I were on an FTC team that had 4-8 Nobel Prize winning mini-bots that were as fast as Dave eating a Krispy Kreme and were also equipped with a universal Hostbot-interface for deployment and activiation; I would be able to walk into any FRC competition; do a demo on the practice field; and almost immediately become affilated with a new-best-friend FRC team.

I'll even bet that the FRC team would let me take home any Coopertition trophy that we earned together.

So long as "affiliation" doesn't have any special meaning beyond cooperating during the tournament's 3 days, then going stag sounds reasonable to me.

Blake

Re: Team Update #1
 

Just to keep everyone honest, at this point the universal interface is part of the HOSTBOT and so must be included in the 120 lb. weight.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Steve -- I think the problem here is that none of these after-school competition engineering programs have "dominant market share and destruction of our competitors" in their mission statements. One way or another, all of these programs (FRC, VRC, BEST, Botball, TSA, Skills, etc.) have a mission statement that comes down to "showing young people that science and technology is fun, and that you can go on to college and a career in the field." Once the mission statement becomes, "Build the cash reserves and dominate the market" they've already lost track of their purpose.

I work for the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation, the folks that run the VEX Robotics Competition, and it bugs me when a school chooses not to be part of our program. At some point, though, you need to suck it up, realize that more than 90% of all middle and high schools don't have ANY engineering/science challenge, and remember that a successful program in a school is a win for all of us.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Just one small note, Sam, starting with the 2010-2011 season, VRC is now produced by the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation (RECF) in partnership with IFI. The RECF is a 501(c)(3) educational foundation. The relationship between RECF and IFI is similar to that between FIRST and LEGO for FLL and FTC. VEX Robotics, Inc., a division of IFI, works in partnership with RECF to design and create a STEM competition program for youth and college students. RECF also supports other youth STEM programs on its Website at www.robotevents.com.

Just wanted to get that cleared up.

Re: Team Update #1
 

If you use more than one "universal" interface, both of them added together must be included in your 120 pounds. So you can't sometimes use an interface from FTC Team 1 and another time from FTC Team 2, unless you've got the weight allowance in your HOSTBOT that would cover both of them.

Replace the words "GAME PIECE manipulator" with "MINIBOT deployment device" and you will see that both devices must be included in your HOSTBOT weight.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Here is the sense in which I (try to) use the word "interface".

"An interface is a boundary between two things, not the thing on either side of the interface. Things meet at interfaces. The things on either side of the interface might have plugs, sockets, transmitters, receivers, tabs, alignment pins, etc. Those are the parts of the "things" that are exposed at the interface and conform to the interface, but are not the interface."

Debating this interpretation isn't necessary - I know others exist; and I see that I was sloppy when I said the mythical mini-bot would be equipped with an interface instead of saying that it would conform to the magic universal interface spec.

More interestingly, the discussion seems to be saying this: Minibots loaned to random Hostbots have to be properly deployed and activated somehow; and as folks have pointed out, if the Minibot rides in a carrier that gets left behind on the Hostbot, that carrier's weight and the weight of any/all carrier types/implementations that Hostbot uses throughout the entire regional need to be properly accounted for during inspection and subsequent preparation for all matches.

Using a Minibot carrier only once and I suppose its weight isn't on the Hostbot's books for the entire tournament; use three different carriers repeatedly, and you might need to pass inspection with all three on the scales.

Remember, I'm not the official Q&A.

Blake