Team Update #1
 

http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles...0Update_01.pdf

A synopsis:
No minibot launching.
One minibot per robot.
We get an 84" diameter cylinder instead of a 60" diameter cylinder.
We can use NXT sensors and cables on the minibot.
Andymark addressed some KoP errors.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder. :D

Re: Team Update #1
 

agreed!!!

Re: Team Update #1
 

Awwww, the minibot rules just got stricter. Goodbye surgical tubing powered jumping minibot.

Re: Team Update #1
 

And this is why we don't do design until after Team Update #1 (and usually Team Update #2).

Re: Team Update #1
 

minibots will now be completely and totally boring.

What's more inspiring, a 1 second minibot or waiting to see who reaches the pole first to deploy their minibot that takes 7 seconds to reach the top?

Re: Team Update #1
 

The OP does not state this but, in addition to no launching, MINIBOTS cannot hold stored energy. All movement must come from the motors.

Re: Team Update #1
 

This is much more exciting! Instead of 1 second rocket launches, think of the suspense, the drama - oh, the humanity. It is like going to the county fair and watching the duck races. Will they make it or not?

:rolleyes:

Steve

Re: Team Update #1
 

Agreed. They should be relabeled to deployment races. It's now really whoever can jam their minibot into the pole fastest without destroying it.

Re: Team Update #1
 

That sounds like hanging last year. With a few exceptions (27, 33, 148, 1114, and others), watching robots hang was very suspenseful. Would they pull themselves up in time? Are they JUST over the top of the tunnel? While 148's ability to hang was amazing, it was consistent, and less keep-me-on-the-edge-of-my-seat exciting than a slower hanging bot.

Re: Team Update #1
 

FIRST. You made a horrible call, you took what was potentially a good engineering design challenge, and turned it into a last ditch effort to save their inferior (to vex) FTC design competition.

It's now a challenge of who can make the SAME minibot lighter. Yay.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I also think it would have been really exciting to see a mini-bot launch to the top in 1 second. I also think this will lead to many teams copying (or getting inspired by)* sucessful mini-bot designs. It will be alot easier to change a mini-bot than change the mini-bot and the robot that launches it. This game is quickly losing the ways to differentiate the great and elite teams.


*Note: I have no problems with teams doing this, just that is leads to alot of similar robots and thus less exciting matches with diverse robots.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.

Re: Team Update #1
 

actually if you run a 4inch diameter wheel at the maximum the motors move(152rpm) it will only take 3.5 sec and even if it is running at 120rpm it will only take about 5 sec to reach the top of the pole

Re: Team Update #1
 

I know everyone is rejoicing about the 84" cylinder, but I personally loved the 60" as an actual engineering challenge. What about this game is different than 2007 again? Minibots? OK, cool.

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.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Baaaww...



I also like how the FTC folks are able to get involved with the FRC process this year, but it's always a bit of a let down when you're told you can't launch things into the air. :)

The 84" rule is a good change, too. I don't think we'll need it, but it will be nice to see more robots running around with long arms sticking up in the air. It makes for entertaining matches.

Re: Team Update #1
 

That is your choice and I don't think you were being mean.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Hmm, not to be Johnny Raincloud but I'm fairly sure 217 removed their arm as well, at least I seem to remember them not having it at FLR. Hmm.

Re: Team Update #1
 

No, you aren't the only one, Al. Perhaps you are using some of that 'rational passion' that Dr. Flowers was talking about. This is a 20 year celebration; it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is a big moment for FIRST, celebrating its achievements. 3 of its achievements are FRC, FTC, and FLL. In the past twenty years, other programs have sprung up and developed and that's great but this is FIRST's game.

Jane

Re: Team Update #1
 

We are fortunate in that we sponsor 9 FTC teams, including the reigning FTC Hot Shot World Champs - so our perspective is this is a good thing, but I can certainly understand every one elses frustration, if you don't have that kind of access to an FTC team. We are inviting all of our FTC teams, plus all the other FTC Teams in our region to a competion we are hosting in 3 weeks. The winning team will be traveling with us to both Manchester and to our "home" regional in Baltimore. We are hopeful we can bring more than one with us, so they can help other FRC teams.

Steve

Re: Team Update #1
 

No worries Mr. Raincloud, you are correct. :P

Re: Team Update #1
 

I would agree if there were more than a handful of FTC teams around here.

Wouldn't it have been greater to have the 50 or more Vex teams in this area inspired and in demand?

I think FIRST needs to find a dose of the gracious part of GP 'cause they seem to have forgotten.

Re: Team Update #1
 

This.
And especially this.
And this. 60" cylinder was enough space to make it a decent challenge. 84" just makes it easy.


I've done FRC for almost a decade now. These rule changes are of 2002 tether-rule in magnitude. I'm not thrilled.

It's a case of taking a challenge that is complex and engaging with multiple solutions, and dumbing it down.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Does this mean FRC teams can compete in FTC next year? I really don't want to make a minibot now if it is now a battle of weight! Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed. I would have loved to make a projectile, now we can't. Wanted to then make one with surgical tubing and motors used in unison, now we can't.

I really think this is a very poor choice. It is like a rat race!

Re: Team Update #1
 

I was looking forward not only to designing a launching minibot, but also to watching them in competition. Slow, motor driven minibots will be much less exciting to watch

As for the cylinder rule, 84" certainly gives more room for arms and such, but I liked the challenge that 60" presented.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Wow. I guess I'm really way off. I'm not even sure who I was thinking of now, but thanks for the correction. Sorry about all of that :/

Re: Team Update #1
 

Mixed feelings on this update. The switch to 84" makes the tube grasping problem much easier. I was looking forward to some of the more creative ways to get tubes off the ground in the limited footprint.

Obviously minibots had potential to be a lot better than what it now is. I can see why so many people are disappointed in the GDC's clarification.

At least now we know...

-Brando

Re: Team Update #1
 

For the most part I agree with your post, but I'd like to point out that surgical tubing has more uses than just launching up the pole. Stored energy is perfectly legal if it is not used to generate upward motion. You could (for example) have surgical tubing create a spring-loaded door around the pole.

Re: Team Update #1
 

FRC teams have been competing in FTC games since Face Off. Why is it so odd that FIRST would combine their two high school programs together for their 20th year? I think folks need to "chill-lax" (to all my students: I hope I used that word correctly...). Dean was very clear that this is FIRST and we are all FIRST teams. What is the problem with that?

BTW: a rat race, I believe, was intended not ballistic minibots. The GDC has a vision of what the game will look like. I'm sorry they didn't have the same idea as you did.

Re: Team Update #1
 

My thoughts exactly. For a second I thought that was an intentional allowance - you can either use FTC or think outside the box!

But no. FIRST isn't happy until overpriced, crap Tetrix parts are in the hands of every single FIRST team whether they like it or not.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Even if a bunch of Vex teams did make super fast mini bots, thats only about 1/4 of the race. The real challenge is making one that can go on every sort of robot. They would need to design not only a minibot, not only a deployment system, but figure out a way to attach it to many different robots in a variety of ways. Basically, there is no way a Vex team built mini-bot will ever outpreform a decent FRC team's specific-to-them one. Vex teams will have to trade a lot of speed in deployment for a universally attaching Minibot and deployer. As long as the FRC team's mini bot isn't terribly slow it'll pretty much win because they will be able to make it deploy faster.

Re: Team Update #1
 

What I meant to say is that should an FRC team not registered for FTC plan on participating in an FTC game? It is an honest statement. I understand that we are all FIRST teams, but all I have to ask is WHY? It will just be "fun" watching 4 robots drive up a pole and see who makes it up the fastest. Hey, we can place bets each match! :p

Re: Team Update #1
 

you kinda totaly missed the point, :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Would you be as so kind as to tell me what IS the point? Right now all I see are several people whining (quite loudly) about the decision of the GDC on the rules of a game that they made.

Wait, never mind. What makes that any different than any other year? Carry on!

Re: Team Update #1
 

This may have to do with opportunities to develop partnerships between and among the programs. There is also an opportunity to use some of the new mentoring initiatives that have been put in place for FRC. It may require a little bit of flexible thinking to be open to the possibilities and opportunities that are available. What I took away from the Kick Off was that it would be beneficial to think about these opportunities rather than to dismiss them too quickly.

Jane

Re: Team Update #1
 

Why not?

I have, about sixty miles from my (middle of nowhere) school, a small consortium of FTC teams (five, I believe), all sponsored by the same company (Corning Glass). None of these schools do FRC.

Now that I know that they can build minibots, I am contacting them and letting them know about the opportunity to participate in the festivities. The more people coming to FRC competitions, the more people are being exposed to FRC. This includes school administrators, parents, sponsors, students, teachers, etc, etc, etc.

I hope they decide to get involved. I hope they build awesome FTC Minibots and show up and loan them out. I hope they put '1551' on them... :D

Re: Team Update #1
 

I have heard in the past that constraint encourages ingenuity, in a way. As people get more limitations placed on them, they can think more creatively within the bounds of those constraints.

An example is Mad libs. If you tell someone to write a funny story, most people can't come up with something good. If you ask people "Give me a funny adjective, a funny noun and a funny verb." You can get pretty creative answers.

So basically, while I am still slightly disappointed by the lack of launching ability, I am still confident that a strong, innovative team will be able to produce a minibot that can outperform most others and come up with a cool solution despite the limitations.

Good engineering involves working with constraints, not complaining about them.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I just want to want to make one clarifying point -

If you compete in VEX, you are only allowed to use official VEX parts, with just a few exceptions.

Re: Team Update #1
 

This should be stickied at the top of every thread...

Re: Team Update #1
 

Meh.

Despite the new 84" dimension cylinder, there are still incentives for teams to build compact arms. Like not having it spectacularly ripped off in a collision, for one. We probably won't significantly change our arm design. Maybe the gripper, if it's beneficial.

I've never really liked the FTC kit. My team tried FTC as an exercise in 2008/2009 before the FRC season started. None of the components fit together particularly well, and I can never get pieces to line up or attach in a sturdy fashion. The whole system seems limiting, since there are only a number of ways to attach things like wheels and gears, which subsequently never fit where I want them too. For some reason I never have this problem with Legos.

In our brainstorming sessions, my team never seriously considered taking the launching minibot route. One of our mentors proposed it, and everyone chuckled as we thought of pneumatically firing the FTC battery pack into the sensor (so as to be entirely legal, of course). We expected that particular loophole to be closed in the first update, as has clearly happened.

Under this update, could a minibot use the battery pack and motors but not the NXT? I assume this to be the "associated, appropriate circuity" in <G19>. Forgive me if this question has already been beaten to death in Minibot Thread #41.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'd like to remind everyone that they are on their FIRST robotics teams for a reason. And yes, while you are entitled to your opinion, respectfully keep it to yourself or a very small group of your peers, rather than making yourself sound like a fool on a forum that the GDC will not listen to.
The two major issues people have been having:
60" -> 84"
If you are so hell-bent on having this wonderful engineering challenge, then have it! Anyone who disagrees with the expansion of the cylinder parameters, I have personally changed the rules, so only your teams must be inside a 60" diameter. Problem solved :P
P.S. A lot of you are contradicting yourselves - you are angry that the minibot is being stripped of its creativity, but expanding the cylinder expands options, thus enabling creativity.
Which brings us to the next big issue:
The MINIBOT
Yes, the parts are expensive, and *maybe* they are limiting your creativity, but who cares? I think the suspense will make it worth it...And as we saw in kick-off, a minibot can easily make it up in ~7 seconds. So whoever has been estimating 14 and 16 seconds for these things...well I don't know what you had planned, but hopefully you go back to the drawing board. ;) As for those who want the engineering challenge - many have previously mentioned, the challenge is designing a minibot that can go on any robot with barely any modifications.

Remember, you are doing FRC (and posting on this forum) because you like your FIRST robotics team. Some of you are beginning to sound more like trolls than engineers :P

Re: Team Update #1
 

But if you compete in VEX, they don't make you use VEX in all the other robotics competitions you enter.

FIRST went so far as to change the rules of this other competition midseason to eliminate a viable design that didn't use enough of the Tetrix product.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I'm not happy with this decision mostly from one standpoint that has not been stated yet. MONEY!

If you're a struggling team, $275 for FTC registration, then $749 for a FTC kit. An extra $1000 just to create your own minibot. Oh but wait, if I spend even more money and compete in an official FTC event, I can get $500 off my FRC registration next year... now that's some incentive. Oh and I'd have to buy more FTC hardware or dismantle my minibot to build an FTC robot. It just keeps getting better.

Secondly, has anyone thought about what the minibot costs will do to their $3500 robot budget?!?! Robot = Hostbot + Minibot, remember that in the rules. The minibot is not exempted from your BOM budget as the rules currently are written unless I missed it. FIRST, how do I deal with budgeting a foreign FTC team's (not my own FRC team's) minibot, and if my local FTC teams are still competing or are eligible to go to St. Louis, they're going to take their FTC robot apart to make a Minibot for my team. I doubt it.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I thought they did it for the safety of the volunteers, staff and teams.

On a side note: I don't think your vex response makes any sense. Vex doesn't have any other competitions as far as I know. What's the problem with FIRST limiting you on the parts you use for the minibot? They do it every year in FRC in one way or another.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Team Update #1 was just FIRST's attempt at maintaining their record of always creating one nearly universally-hated rule every year.

Originally we were planning on a sub-one-second time from breaking the Tower plane to hitting the trigger, but now G19 and physics says that's impossible. Good bye innovation. Good bye inspiring designs. Hello clone bots with identical performance.

At this rate, Team Update #2 should just eliminate the Minibots and replace it with the drive team captains playing rock-paper-scissors to determine the bonus points.

The energy required to safely and efficiently launch a Minibot would have been a fraction of what most teams had last year in their kickers. Teams managed fine last year, so I don't see how somehow they are incapable of designing safe devices this year.

Besides, rampant strategies (such as teams firing things at the trigger than aren't completely wrapped around the pole) could have been avoided by adding a rule disabling the tower if the Minibot hits the carpet.

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.)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Similar to the proper clarifying point Chris made. Let me remind everyone that Vex is a product line and is used in some TSA competitions, BEST competitions, some PLTW activities, and in the RECF's VRC and VRCC competition programs (did I forget any?).

"Vex" isn't a competition.

The RECF is the Robotics Education and Competition Foundation.

Blake
PS: I think Justin hit the nail on the head here http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...4&postcount=29

Re: Team Update #1
 

Honestly, I didn't even know what an FTC robot looked like until last year. My area (Clear Lake/League City) does VEX. The VEX game is usually more exciting than FTC's, and I don't know about the kits, but VEX is fairly easy to work with. The implication (given by Kamen at kick off) that the only way to do well in this competition is to join with an FTC team is a little...unrealistic, and even a little rude. Is it really for inspiration and recognition of science and technology, or is it for inspiration and recognition of Dean Kamen and FIRST? I think by making the minibot rules so rigid (and so bent towards FTC) it is becoming the latter.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The lack of funding for those teams was brought upon them by others, not by FIRST itself. This is FIRST basically telling the already financially strapped teams that they might have to spend even more money on equipment for this year's competition. This is different.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Agreed: To all the people arguing that 2007 designs will be copied. some of those designs may have issues now thanks to different bumper rules now compared to 2007

Somebody should really do a poll on this: i thin the FIRST community is split on weather the 84" rule is a good or bad thing.

Quoted for Truth

my thoughts exactly. I have no desire to watch a football game involving two bad teams, even if that game may end up having the most suspense that week.

a lot of those consistent hangers would still make the match exciting. Instead of going for the hang with 20 seconds left, the would go for it with 5 or 7 seconds left

Re: Team Update #1
 

84" is 7 feet.

Re: Team Update #1
 

For years, many items have been included in the kit that many teams never used for anything. This is still the case with several items. My team has piles of them. However, this year, they require some very specific parts to compete in a significant component of the game, yet they aren't included in the kit. Go figure...

Why was it even on FIRST Choice, if it's not a choice to use those parts or not? I don't see simply not attempting a MINIBOT as a choice. At least not to be competitive. It should have just been included in the kit for everyone if they insist on requiring those specific parts.

Re: Team Update #1
 

There are probably larger forces at work here than just it being needed for competition. What about those teams who have FTC teams already and have no use for a set like that (although I personally would get it anyways). What if they just couldn't acquire enough of them prior to KOP ship date? There's always a reason for this stuff.

Re: Team Update #1
 

this may be completely stupid, but has anyone considered building a solenoid driver? they have significantly more "initial launch" force and with magnets as well as 24 gauge wire a relatively crude one could be constructed.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I think that would probably violate both <R46-B> and <G19>.

Note: before you complain to me about there not being a rule <R46-B>, it's a separate paragraph from <R46-A>. I think that the GDC just forgot to put a B there.

Re: Team Update #1
 

I've read this entire thread and I can see the points people are trying to make and i'm still on the side of "Both rule changes are pretty poor decisions"

The minibot challenge has been greatly diminished. I see a similar thing happening anyway though, whether you had 3 minibots that can all make it under a second and it come down to whoever can hit the button the fastest or it takes all the minibots about 6 seconds and it comes down to whoever can hit the button the fastest. Same challenge, I just would have really liked to see the minibot mechanisms that launch these things.

The 60" to 84" is a mind blower. I have a hard time believing that it was a typo, so even though they have been working on this game since June, all of a sudden a few days into build season 60 jumps to 84....Seems strange. I see the successful teams in 2007 being successful again. Yes I know the bumper rules are different but When you already know your mechanism and arm, tweaking it to fit around the bumper isn't really a challenge at all.

This game went from being a potential favorite to a potential disaster. I say potential because I withhold final judgement until I see it on Einstein. The way these games are meant to be played.

Re: Team Update #1
 

The bumper actually makes one design in particular drastically different than it was in 2007. Can't say which, but your team had it. :)

Re: Team Update #1
 

I believe most of us saw the Minbot rule revision coming.

And many of us have competed in Pinewood Derby Races. I consider this challenge very similar. And think about how exciting the pinewood races were.

In fact, if I was on GDC, I'd have also considered specifying a minimum weight for the minibots.

Now let's just hope we don't have to put bumpers on them....... ;)

Re: Team Update #1
 

Hahahaha :) Well ONE of our teams that year had it. The other one is looking mighty tempting....

Re: Team Update #1
 

ahhh, i forgot that applied to the mini-bot as well.

Re: Team Update #1
 

Id have to agree with this on the minibot kit as it was my thoughts initially as well.
Why not have it in every KOP? :confused:

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.