Re: Team Update #1
 

An easy way to make springbots safe: Make the rule "springbots must be rigidly attached to the pole". There, no safety issue.

A design I was working on would literally be physically incapable of deploying until around a bar.

The problem is they're quite transparently pushing their robotics competition on every team in FRC, at the expense of the teams that do VRC now.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Probably because this is the first year we have done FIRST my team is rather excited but frustrated with the minibot. Rather than learning one system in a normal year but now we need to learn the FRC system and the FTC system.


It'll be nice though afterwords for demonstrations we could just have our pole dancing robot around to attract new members.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone thought that a launch-bot would be allowed under this game -- whether thrown onto the tower or placed and then launched upward.

A. If you paid attention during kickoff, you knew what the intent of the MINIBOT race was.

B. Several pounds of metal and other stuff being launched into the air (either by itself or by the robot 'deploying' it), if it missed the pole due to any variety of easily forseeable circumstances (poor alignment, getting hit -- accidentally of course -- while deploying), hard enough to go ten feet up and still put out .5 lbs of force on impact... Can you say <S01>, kiddies? I knew you could!

The umbrage at this "change" (which is merely a clarification for anyone who read the rules as advised -- in their spirit instead of as a rules lawyer) is pretty funny. Seriously funny. In a funny but serious sort of way.

Re: Team Update #1
 

With the amount of energy safely stored in our lift system last year we could put a minibot through the roof of whatever arena we were in (3x 250lbs gas shocks 16" stroke) but we wouldn't for the reason of the light has to be on the tower to indicate we won.

Soccer balls flying would also have similar kinetic energy safety wise.

'08 trackballs flying had significantly more and could easily knock people over, and those exited the field occasionally.

Doing a launched minibot safely was not a large challenge.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint. More than a few people have moaned that the expansion of the 60" cylinder to 84" reduces creativity. If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.

You have a specific power source and a specific pair of motors that you're allowed to use, and within those restrictions you must create something that's better than what everyone else made. You'll have to invent clever ways to reduce weight, minimize friction on your MINIBOT and maximize friction with the pole. You'll have to find ways to make your deployment fast and your robust, because every fraction of a second counts.

Come to think of it, the HOSTBOT also has to use a specific power source and specific motors. And I've yet to hear anyone complain in this thread how that limits innovation. Or look at FIRST LEGO League. You might think that since everyone has to use the same plastic building blocks, the same motors, and the same half-dozen sensors that all the robots would be pretty much the same. But you'd be wrong. It's the same with racing concrete-canoes, mousetrap vehicles, or stock cars. The constraints are severe and the limitations are often frustrating, but great ideas still emerge in the end.

I believe most of the frustration comes from the fact that for the last four days we've invested in our souls in some truly cool ideas which have now been thrown in the dumpster. It hurts, I know. But stand up and move on. This season is still going to have its share of good engineering challenges, and I can't wait to see the great ideas that emerge in the coming weeks.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Going 10 feet up and hitting with .5 lbs of force is "unsafe", while 165 pounds of robot flying across the field at 15 feet per second is? :)

Everything is relatively. I was pretty sure launching minibots was going out the window -- but I'm totally convinced it is possible to build a safe, mechanical powered minibot that would perform significantly better than the electric bots, and that would be more fun for the audience to watch. I'd still be annoyed if FIRST said we could only use a Vex controller and 2 Vex motors... I want a FIRST mousetrap car competition! :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Not unless you were aiming at as light as possible and completely wrapped around the pole. I had a feeling that projectiles would be illegal; however, I didn't think that if it was attached around the pole and moving really fast it would be illegal.

This is a very good point. Our robots are probably more of a safety hazard than a projectile.

I wouldn't have an issue with this rule change, if it wasn't such a key part of the game. I think what annoys me the most is the implications for all the teams who don't have A. and FTC kit, B. a team near them or C. the funds to drop on FTC parts since the minibots will take a few falls. Too bad we now have to pay to remain competitive.

Re: Team Update #1
 

You guys seem to be missing my point... What if you missed the pole when deploying your launched MINIBOT?

Aluminum block =/= big squishy trackball (or what-have-you). If you were hit/tipped so that it launched, say, at a 45-degree angle toward the crowd (despite your engineering), this would create an untenable safety hazard that FIRSTs lawyers would be certain to ixnay.

Re: Team Update #1
 

My response was merely an attempt to show that there might have been other reasons for the clarification rather than "forcing" FRC teams to use parts that Vex folks don't like or to "remove innovation and inspiration" from this game that we are about to play.

Re: Team Update #1
 

How incredibly disappointing on so many levels.

Our students were ready to meet the 60" rule head on - they were looking at things like the comparative benefits of elevators vs. various types of multi-jointed arms and everything in between. We even had a long discussion about Peaucellier-Lipkin linkages. Now there is little incentive for doing anything different than what we saw in 2007...

On the minibot topic, I hope that FIRST appreciates that minibot races will now be decided by:

1) Battery voltage.
2) Whoever deploys their robot at 10.1 or 10.2 seconds without the ref seeing/calling it (it's not a fun year to be a ref).

And I'm not even going to touch the political/financial aspect of it all...

Re: Team Update #1
 

You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying. In the removal of the 60" constraint, creativity is, arguably, being removed by letting teams basically build giant arms like in 2007.* By adding the constraint to the minibot construction, creativity is being removed because it limits your designs to basically making the same minibots. As stated elsewhere on CD, it has basically become an issue of who can make the lightest minibot. That's hardly a tough engineering challenge. This change also has some political implications, as well as an increased cost for many teams who do not have access to the FTC kit. That is more where my issue comes from--FIRST is now basically requiring everyone to use their flawed FTC system.

Additionally, teams have already spent the past four days brainstorming and designing and these are two very big changes, especially now that teams who don't have an FTC kit will need to find a way to borrow one or acquire their own. As stated, this can be quite costly for teams running on a very limited budget.

*I tend to disagree that this reduces the creativity, but I'm trying to help you see the other side.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Folks, I've read both threads, and 'yes' I can sense and in some ways feel your frustration. No, I can't relate to those areas of the country, or to our friends up North, that don't have access to an FTC team, either.

But after reading all the upset and I'm sure hurting comments (I'm not saying you are hurting others - I'm acknowledging that many of you feel betrayed and hurt), I have some thoughts that I think are important.

First, look down at many of your profile signatures. Many of you have very inspirational quotes. If you don't - look up at the spotlight quotes running across the top of the page. There are so many that deal with overcoming adversity. Overcoming barriers. Finding excellance in the midst of mediocrity. Going above and beyond. etc. etc.

Ask yourself some questions.
* If you are upset because you had a great idea about how to launch a minibox (since many of the ideas mentioned couldn't be called a minibot), now you get a real challenge.

* To those of you who have issues with funding, that it isn't in your budget, what about all those teams who post things like - we just lost our only sponsor - the school system just kicked us out of the building and took all our tools and grants - our lead mentor just left and we have no one to help. What do you all say to them? I've read many of your thoughts on what to do to find help, how you encourage them. Unfortunately, you now find yourself in a similar situation that teams find themselves in every year, and yet find a way to overcome that situation.

* To those who think it isn't fair that FIRST is competing with Vex. Why would you even think FIRST cares about what Vex is doing. Do you think McDonalds cares about Wendys when it builds a store right next door? Maybe it isn't politics - but classical business decisions. Capitalism at work. Now we get to teach how supply and demand works, maybe talk about what happens in a monopoly, how some countries place tarifs on others, etc...

So hopefully you have all had a chance to vent, to blow off some steam and tomorrow wake up and do what you all do best, figure out to make the best of a bad decision - and make the best robots you all know how to make!

Steve

Re: Team Update #1
 

Okay, so the key now is to make the minibot so light that it is disposable from match to match! Woah! That was the easiest design session ever! FRC is evolving. :rolleyes:

Re: Team Update #1
 

We like the removal of the 60" in favor of the 80" (sort of).

Where we are drawing the line is that the Minibots are restricted such that you have to get certain parts to have one, or borrow someone else's.

Those parts are expensive, and there are similar parts that are much cheaper, and some would say better quality (I've no experience with Tetrix, so I can't do the comparison)--but those are explicitly prohibited.

I would have had no problem with a pole-grasping minibot that launched from the base straight up the pole once it grasped. But by requiring teams to only use the motors, that set of minibot designs are trash.

Worse, a large number of teams that have zero or almost zero FTC resources (Israel, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Mexico(?), and quite a few in the U.S.) are being required to get those resources (see cost complaint earlier) to be competitive (see tube/minibot debate).

That, in a nutshell, is why a very large number of people do not like this particular ruling.

The other parts list--without FTC motors and battery, it's useless. And how do you get the motors and battery, if you missed the FIRST Choice supply/window? $$$$.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Coming off of the high of my first FIRST Regional Competition win, I have to say that there appears to be a difference in perspective that I can't quite grasp here.

This game is both exciting and terrifying because it isn't a matter of "who can build a robot to meet the challenge?" Every FIRST team can build a robot that can do the tasks asked of us in this year's game...

It is a matter of "who can build a robot that can meet the challenge better than the other teams who are doing the same?"

Hanging tubes on a rack = not hard.
Hanging tubes on a rack better than everyone else = hard.

Racing a MINIBOT up a pole = not hard.
Racing a MINIBOT up a pole faster than everyone else = hard.

----------------

We were confident last year because we knew we had nailed the strategy, and knew that we build a robot that could perform. We were confident that we were top tier. (This proved to be true on the regional level, but not at Championship -- we learned some lessons we are taking to heart!)

We are not at all confident this year because we know that we have the strategy nailed, but we're 100% positive that most teams do, too. We know how to build a bot to execute that strategy, but so do they...

Different decisions in task execution will result in gold and bronze medals, and gold vs. bronze will not be decided by chance.

To whit, building a light MINIBOT isn't hard. Building "the lightest" MINIBOT absolutely is. (FYI, I disagree with you a bit, too. While 'wheeled bots racing up the pole' will likely be the standard, there is a matter of gearing, wiring, traction, deployment, etc. to be considered. If this weren't a competition, it'd be easy. But it is, so it isn't.)