Re: Team Update #1
 

Well when you choose the FTC mini kit @ FIRSTchoice right now you can see there are 612 left in stock. When I ordered one on Mon there were just under 700 or so I think?

Bottom line - way fewer FTC mini kits on FIRSTchoice than FRC teams. So, if you take into consideration the retail price of the kit - YIKES - and the idea that it may be likely that most FRC teams may eventually find it necessary to obtain the kit ... well then .... unless you have/can find an FTC team to donate the parts to you ... you'll see a significant expense incurred by teams.

As to why this kit wasn't in every KOP, then ... it would certainly seem like the supplier and/or FIRST just thought it was too costly to do so.

Hmmmmm.....

EDIT EDIT EDIT ..... that firstchoice inventory number may not be correct, thus my interpretation that there may not be enough for all teams could be wrong ..... I

Re: Team Update #1
 

Be honest with yourselves. Anyone who has been around fIRST and saw the launch had a 98% belief that we would not be able to launch Mini bots. As for the size restriction it was obvious that there had been a typo, it was a matter of which way it would go (published inch or metric size). Why are so many people astounded by these minor changes?

As for the FTC parts, limited funds + extra forced purchases (to be competetive) = less future teams in FRC.

As a well known personality in FIRST says "It's all about the math"

Re: Team Update #1
 

I wanted to believe! :D

In all seriousness, the rules as originally written had left the door so wide open for flinging a minibot (that is attached to the pole) up with some sort of HOSTBOT mechanism that I was almost convinced it was on purpose. Within seconds of seeing the minibot race, our team was already talking about ways to fire a "minibox" up in under a second, so I had a hard time believing that nobody on the GDC had the same idea.

But you're right, clearly FIRST wanted to see FTC robots on those poles...

Re: Team Update #1
 

I agree on the launched part, but why not let me wind some surgical tube around a pulley and let that drive the wheels up the pole? Restricting everyone to the same components makes this silly.

There are ways to re-write the rule to eliminate launching:

Ex: During deployment, the minibot must leave contact with the hostbost with a maximum vertical component of velocity of 0 m/s.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I feel I need to explain my position on the whole FTC/Vex/Minibot thing.

Please note I have nothing against FTC or the people involved, there are some great people in it and I have even refereed FTC at the Championship. It's not about money or expense, those have always been part of the challenge for FRC teams. My problem is with what I see as a totally non-GP attitude from FIRST.

FIRST didn't say "we want you to only use these FTC motors because we want to limit the power of the minibot to be a good design challenge or for safety.

They didn't say "here's an FTC kit we want to encourage teams to use them and maybe that will inspire them to start or support an FTC team"

What they did say was "teams with FTC experience or who seek out local FTC teams for help will have an advantage and to facilitate this you must use these parts."

That's not an attempt to encourage us to experience FTC, that would be OK. It's a blatant move by FIRST to force FTC on us.

To put it simply FIRST isn't seeing the growth they expected in FTC. The kits have never been popular, they are too expensive. They chose the wrong partner (don't get me started about my dislike of PITSCO.) They made a huge mistake when they changed from VRC, they should acknowledge that and maybe work with those of us who do Vex and not try to force FTC down our throat.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Thanks for your reply Sam. But I still have a question for those who are against these new mini bot rules: The only two things you are required to use are the motors and the battery. How is this different than the rules for an FRC robot? How is this cramming it down your throat?

Re: Team Update #1
 

Because First is forcing a cost to teams that is unneeded. Why did they choose FTC? All the FTC batteries are is c batteries. First lacks one major thing to end all this crap. COMPETITION. If First had a competitor then alot of the BS they do would not happen because they would lose teams. It would also force First to keep costs lower. Imagine the price FTC would be if VEX was not around. Also the FTC VEX battle shows that if teams prefer the VEX style more and i do not blame them.
Its cheaper to enter competitions even cheaper if you have more then 1 team
They have better parts
Their prices are cheaper for parts
If you run an event you get money for it
Championships are in Disney instead of the most dangerous city in the US

Re: Team Update #1
 

Very

For one, we are allowed several different types of motors, given us the flexibility of choosing which we will use and how we will allocate them to different functions and evaluating various trade offs.

Second, we are not restricted to motors to power all robot functions. We are allowed to use forms of stored energy other than the provided battery, we can use pneumatics, etc.

Re: Team Update #1
 

FIRST has quite transparently been pushing their "Gracious Professionalism" propaganda on every team in FRC, FTC, and FLL, at the expense of the teams that do BattleBots now. I haven't heard any complaints about that.

Absolutely 100% hit the mark. Well done sir.

In my mind I keep going back to a quote by a very prevalent and distinguished member of the FRC GDC (numbers are as of 2009 but the intent still applies):

We all know the competition. We all know the rules (pending clarification on some, i.e. capping the tower, etc). The changes made in TU1 were made three days after ship. Three days. Not after Week 1 regionals. I can't speak on how much the other people affiliated with FRC at various levels agreed with them, but Dean's remarks and his homework made his personal position quite clear. Nothing about the TU1 should be surprising.

Re: Team Update #1
 

It is different because teams were given 4 days to dream about an un-restricted design. The possibilities seemed too good to be true! This NEVER happens is FIRST. If the rules had been written like this from the start there would be a lot less people upset. Imagine FIRST came out with rules this year that didn't limit the motors or quantities. Imagine there was no limit on starting size. And then in update 1 realized the constraints were not there and put them in. Seems crazy but it is similar but different to what were were handed on day 1.

I do understand teams issues with saying you have to use FTC stuff but just using the motors and batteries is really not that different than using the CIM motors and MK batteries. Lego education has all of these parts if you are looking.

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.