Re: Team Update #1
 

Not quite, see this thread

So you can theoretically make one go up in 5 seconds. Whoop de doo. I guarantee you would have seen sub one second climbs if stored energy systems were allowed.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Rather predictable changes, however appealing "launching" might be, it was bound to be corrected. I must say that I am also glad that the robot extension diameter has been increased, that extra two feet will be nice. Thanks for posting!

Re: Team Update #1
 

yeah we would see 1 second climbs but we would also see major damage to minibots and field elements and possibly even major damage to a ref, so i think it is better that rule is in existence now

Re: Team Update #1
 

Better now than in 2 to 3 weeks after full designs were done like in 2002.

Re: Team Update #1
 

well just threw all the windup toy minibot drawings in the trash. back to using ftc motors. was really hoping to have no ftc on the minibot

Re: Team Update #1
 

It's a bit of a frown town for me with the 84" rule, since 60" would've posed a challenge, and now that it's 84" this year is almost identical to 2007 (yes, the tubes are different and such, but I digress). The minibot change was predictable, FIRST definitely didn't want to allow any kind of projectile, as that could have caused field damage and/or a safety problem.

Also, something i found very interesting was this:
"MINIBOT use is independent of the ROBOT inspection. For example, any FTC team can bring a MINIBOT to an event, get it inspected, and if legal, that MINIBOT can compete with any FRC ROBOT (that has passed ROBOT inspection). There are legal HOSTBOTS and legal MINIBOTS; they are independent of each other regarding inspection."

Does this mean that FIRST is trying to get FTC teams to build minibots independent of FRC teams and bring them to events? This kind of FTC/FRC collaboration puts teams (like mine, 1507) at a disadvantage simply due to the fact that there isn't an FTC team around.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Re-quoted for truth. 60" was a good challenge, but a little bit too good.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Perhaps 148's hanger wasn't as exciting to you because they took it off prior to their first regional and never used in a match. I know if they did use it, I would have rather watched it than some rickety 19 second scissor lift. (Actually that's not true, scissor lifts are awesome...)

And this is why I make sure to read every post by Cory McBride.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The minibot aspect of this update is disappointing. As others have stated, it would have been a lot of fun to see the different ways minibots avoided using motors. It probably would have made the end game more exciting as well. I know my team was planning on using surgical tubing as a source of stored energy. Oh well.

By leveling the playing field in terms of energy sources, I think this just makes teams focus more on the deployment of the minibot. Teams have always managed to come up with fantastic solutions to all of the problems in each game, and I am guessing that this case will be no different.

That being said, I am glad the 60" diameter was expanded to 84". Yes, the 60" rule was a tricky and interesting limitation, but I think we'll see a lot more competitive strategies with the new rule.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I completely agree. What is the point in the minibot challenge to see what design works after week one and to copy it identically within a day? That's inspiring AND encourages innovation...

FTC is a failure in comparison to VEX and FIRST should cut their loses. MI hardly even supports FTC because it takes away from FRC, we have 0 competitions in MI and no one's making a big deal about it (at least that I know of).

Re: Team Update #1
 

It will and it will also help teams that already designed for being in that 60" envelope. There are so many ideas that are being tossed up and I am sure that teams will dominate regardless of being within the 60" or not.

Re: Team Update #1
 

this...

and this...

Really Disappointing FIRST...

I really liked the 60" cylinder rule, it made the game an actual design challenge rather then copying 2007 arms/manipulators.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Not to be mean, but this is the FRC competition, not the FTC competition. I want to have fun designing a minibot, not use someone elses.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Whoops, my bad. 217, not 148. Easy to get the two mixed up...

While 217's hanger was exciting to watch, after seeing it time after time again, if there was something else going on on the field, I was more likely to watch that. If it's 217 vs a team in their final match of their final event, they're hanger is working for the first time, and it takes 20 seconds to get up there, I'm watching that bot. There's a lot of overwhelming joy in seeing something succeed after multiple failures, for whatever reason. I'm not trying to say that a team like 217 isn't inspiring - they are. I am always impressed with the students from teams like that and what they have been able to accomplish. But I am also inspired by the other teams at the competitions who often get overshadowed by the extremely successful robots. Someone who is proud of what their robot can do, no matter how it compares to the competition, is always someone to provide inspiration.