Team Update 4
 

http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Rob..._Update_04.pdf

Good: Passing tubes in the air is legal! Woo hoo! This is seriously cool and I'm really glad this happened.

Bad: Mini bot rules AGAIN. FIRST craftily outlaws "prepunched" aluminium and overtly states that supporting FIRST means giving money to Lego:

Oh well. Win some, lose some.

Re: Team Update 4
 

"<G39> ROBOTS and FEEDERS may not SCORE on opponent's PEGS or de-score opponent's GAME PIECES." LOL thought that was kinda a given.
And "<G49> ROBOTS may not attempt to POSSESS a GAME PIECE that is being POSSESSED by an opponent another ROBOT." Seems to me you cant hunt people down for tubes anymore, well back to the drawing board :mad:

Re: Team Update 4
 

What makes you say this?

Re: Team Update 4
 

You can have a robot play Quarterback and pass to other alliance members. I've personally been looking into an efficient shooting system myself.

Re: Team Update 4
 

yea we get to throw tubes my team already been practicing just in case this happend

Re: Team Update 4
 

"<G49> ROBOTS may not attempt to POSSESS a GAME PIECE that is being POSSESSED by an opponent another ROBOT."

We've always been able to throw, the trick had been close-proximity passing between robots. Previously <G49> outlawed any two robots possessing the same game piece; now it's just between opposing robots. (You can hand-off, just not steal.) We were hoping this'd happen!

Tangent: still no maximum force on the minibot target. Still a little worried they're going to regret that...

Re: Team Update 4
 

This rule already existed, just before it applied to your partners as well.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Its Funny how a sIngle statement can make you lose any and all respect you once had for a group or entity. Just sayin', interpret that as you wish.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Woops, totally misunderstood/misread Chris's comment.

Nvm,
Sunny

Re: Team Update 4
 

Apparently because I prefer to support a different mid-level robot program I no longer support FIRST. Thanks GDC for clearing that up.

I will continue to support FRC but I won't be supporting FIRST anymore.

Please tell Dean that I will not be calling my team a FIRST robotics team.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I guess I will no longer be running for a Chairman's award either because the thought of starting (hypothetical situation here) 20 VRC teams in India and the Philippines instead of FTC would apparently get me nowhere!! Yay! These types of things are good to know before I waste my time promoting science and technology through any media possible. Very excited to finally have a concrete idea of where FIRST stands on these types of issues though. /sarcasm.

Excuse the language or not, but that is a load of BS. This'll be my last comment on this issue though. Call me a fanboy or over exaggerating if you want too.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Its the "and their kits" part that gets me. We're supposed to use the money we've raised to buy kits for a completely different program just to make sure the producer of said kits stays profitable?

Re: Team Update 4
 

Well, if the score gap was really large, and you had some extra pieces left in your feeder station, you could have (before the ruling, of course) thrown the game pieces over the feeder station wall onto one of the nearest opposing alliance's pegs to shorten the scoring gap.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I completely agree with you there!

Re: Team Update 4
 

I would like to convey my disgust, but I think IndySam or Akash's statements are enough.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I dont get how that was on topic at all....

Re: Team Update 4
 

I'm surprised it took FIRST so long to issue this clarification, it had seemed to me like FTC or raw materials was the intent all along.

That said, I think FIRST really missed their own "culture change" boat with the FTC limitation. As Dave wisely said,

Making FRC teams buy FTC kits sells maybe 1000 FTC kits, and ultimately doesn't change the status quo. Chances are most teams that want to help with other robotics competitions are already involved with things like FLL, FTC, Vex, Botball, BEST, etc. I would be willing to bet that most FTC teams are associated with FRC teams. On the other hand, most Vex, Botball, BEST, etc teams probably aren't. Wouldn't it have been neat if part of the challenge had been to reach out to one of those other competitions, and get them involved in the FRC challenge? If you've ever done an FRC robot demo at an FLL/Vex event, there are so many kids who are fascinated by the "big robots." It would've been awesome to reach out to those teams. I understand there might be difficulties implementing this... there are always are! Who knows... FIRST might've even got a couple new FRC teams!

2 cents. As always, you've gotta keep rolling with the punches. :)

Re: Team Update 4
 

Words cannot fully express my disgust at the real reason for the Minibots.

Don't get me wrong. I love the concept. The execution? Well, I'd say something, but most of what I'd probably say falls under the "unprintable" category.

Re: Team Update 4
 

EDIT: Most of what I have been thinking has already been said and will leave it at that.

Though I do wonder at how the minibots supposed to expand the FTC program. The build season is certainly not the time to help start an FTC team, so teams either already have local FTC teams to work with, or they will be building their own minibot with their own materials. Either way, I see no expansion in the program.

Re: Team Update 4
 

It really disgusts me that I'm forced to use the crappy music player on my Droid X...why couldn't Motorola just use Apple's player in their code instead?

You get the point...

Re: Team Update 4
 

The updated clarification of <R49> is a breath of fresh air for the controls community. Kudos to Kevin Sevcik for bringing it up this morning and for the GDC to make a common sense clarification.

Re: Team Update 4
 

No offense gang, but aren't we getting a bit carried away here?
The minibot is an opportunity, a part of this year's game, a part of FIRST, and most importantly, a way to involve younger kids in this program we call FRC.

The Chairman's Award and other such FIRST initiatives include outreach and spreading not just the idea of FIRST, but STEM education as a whole.

Is the complaint about money? Or the fact that some of you including us are heavily invested, using VEX/IFI components as a vehicle for your other competitions? What about 2009 when we had to buy glassline FRP for just one season, so far?

Re: Team Update 4
 

Many teams that I know and am aware of, are familiar with and participate in some of these other programs. Let's not make assumptions about teams and other programs, esp. in areas/regions where there is an abundance of options to select from. Some teams spend their fall semesters competing in and supporting other programs.
--
For those who are using the pronoun, I, with regard to what an FRC team will or will not be called or who will or will not be submitting a Chairman's - has it come to the point that you are forcing 'I' into the meaning of 'team'?

Jane

Re: Team Update 4
 

Not quite. This is making FIRST more about Lego. "And their kits" is the key phrase.

For awhile I thought FIRST actually went out of their way to make sure that politics doesn't affect teams and team members, lest the organization un-inspire them. But not now. They're literally saying that if you love FIRST, give these guys money and use their product. They have tied their nonprofit organization and lofty ideals straight to an inferior product.

The disgusting thing about this to me is not just the politics. Any organization has political battles that will make your stomach churn. What pisses me off is that this political battle is at the expense, literally, of every FRC team out there. I feel it's our job as mentors to shield the students from this bull, to make sure they're inspired and to carefully skirt them away from the messes of any large scale organization. But at this point, it's too $@#$@#$@#$@# hard.

What the hell am I supposed to tell a student who asks why we can't use aluminium that has a pre drilled hole in it? What am I supposed to tell them when our Tetrix motors smoke within 5 minutes of use when we have perfectly good Vex motors sitting on a shelf unused, and non Tetrix catapult designs derailed by Update 1? How can I rationalize all of the very, very public flaunting and politics of the FIRST organization that they catch wind of? I'm out of answers - and these are not rhetorical questions.

Seriously, I'm stumped. I'm here because the ideals of FIRST are things that I love and want to push for more than anything else - but FIRST themselves keep making it harder and harder.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I don't know, I mean the intent was clear, but the fact that they actually went out and said it.....I just hope that whoever runs PR up there is getting on it to fix it.

Listen I understand the reason why FTC is limited the way it is, and I'm fine with it, but using that as an excuse (I'm not saying FIRST has, but supporters of there push for exclusiveness of Tetrex have), for why only one companies products may be used it not alright.

All I know is this week's episode of FirstTunes has a major agenda change and a need of some new guests......

Re: Team Update 4
 

And they also added an additional 1.5'' onto the length of the pegs for the Team Field Elements...too bad we already completely assembled our 3x3 peg board according to the old drawings...

Re: Team Update 4
 

Yes we are. The issue of money and parts was covered more or less 'ad nauseum' in another thread.

Regarding FTC/FLL versus some non-FIRST program -
- nowhere was it said you had to take a loyalty oath to FIRST do this year's game.
- nowhere was it said you had to abandon your other outreach efforts
- nowhere was it said you had to give up all the other robotics programs you enjoy promoting.

It was simply asked that at a minimum you put a tetrix motor or two and a few more parts together to climb a pole. And if you are feeling in a good mood maybe commune with the FLL and FTC folks. But if you don't want to support FLL / FTC that is fine, just build the minibot, send it up the pole, and don't worry about it.

If you look around you will find some very well known people that are big players in other types of robotics programs, and other types of STEM programs. If they do not have a problem with what is going on, then why should the rest of us ?

Re: Team Update 4
 

So does that mean that the aluminum that we got in the FTC kits from the FIRSTChoice thing are illegal to use now?

Re: Team Update 4
 

I'm going to attempt to split the middle here.

Yes, I also thought of quite a few minibots that are presently illegal.

Yes, I can think of many more ways that the minibot race could be made a more interesting challenge. (Paging the IRI planning committee......)

No, I'm not surprised FIRST made this change (beyond the fact that I'd forgotten about items that met this criteria, e.g. the Vex aluminum kit).

No, I'm not wild about the implications highlighted on this thread (see Dave Lavery's thread--grow the pie).

No, this change is not going to stop us from building a minibot using our FTC mini kit from FIRST Choice, which we acquired for under $10 in shipping and in reasonably short order courtesy of the fine people at AndyMark.

On the bright side, if you're willing to look strictly at the engineering challenge presented and can ignore all this other stuff, this year's edition of That One Rule The GDC Put In The Manual That Frustrates Everybody On ChiefDelphi is still the easiest one to manage in ages. We'll have eight months to talk about vision to FIRST...but four weeks to complete this build season.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Those parts are Tetrix, so they are usable. Chop them up if you must. Save the rest for donation to a worthy cause.

Re: Team Update 4
 

You would tell them the same thing that you would tell them if you burnt out a BaneBots motor, but couldn't use the globe sitting on the shelf. Why can't we use a different 12V battery that is the same size and same weight but not the specific model*? Now, I'm not sure what the response would be, but it's the same kind of thing.

We all knew that there was controversy regarding the use of catapults. There should have been some kind of discretion applied to designing a catapult before it was clarified. It was going to be legal, or was not, and it turned out to be not. It was simply a chance that was taken. Same situation as the idea of using a vacuum in 2009, if you'd like to look at it that way.

*Motors and batteries are not my forte. Maybe that example isn't quite accurate, but you should see the intent.

----------

I'm so sad to see our happy FIRST community fall apart because of this.

Re: Team Update 4
 

You could tell them that sometimes in FIRST / work / school / relationships / customers / bosses / employees / governments / (fill in the blank) that we have rules and restrictions and limitations that we don't necessarily agree with or understand, and that we have a choice in how we deal with those situations. And you can teach them that when we are in those situations, we can work to find solutions or we can complain.

You could tell them that you don't agree with the rules that have been put in, but that you are going to work within them. And then later you could write a letter to FIRST, explaining your concerns.

And you could read some of the recent posts on this forum and ask what types of Mentors and Role Models some of us are being to those students who are on here reading.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Without directly addressing any of the overblown complaints evident in this and other threads regarding minibots, I would just like to remind everyone:

THERE IS NO CRYING IN ROBOTICS!!!

There has been a number of posters implying they are done with FIRST because of the harsh requirements of minibots. Booo hoooo! I tell you what, the whining gets louder every year, and THAT is what may drive me away. Download the rules, build your robot, and compete. Simple.

Re: Team Update 4
 

It's not falling apart.

Jane

Re: Team Update 4
 

I don't see the FTC issue as that significant. Like others have said- it was part of the kit minus the cost of shipping. The change in control systems or the change to Jaguars in the kits was an order of magnitude more significant an impact.

If the minibot challenge had required an NXT, then they would have been getting into the significantly annoying area.

Those that use all the aluminum from their TETRIX kit are probably going to be dissatisfied with how heavy their minibots get.

----
That said- the moralizing in the rule update was inappropriate.
Rule books are for rules.

Oops- they made a little mistake... go built a robot-

Everyone already knew starting a FLL team or league were milestones for a Chairman's application- but there are plenty of non-FIRST related milestones that count as well.

Re: Team Update 4
 

There seems to be a lot of lingering bad blood that won't go away, but I think the reason more people might take issue is the clarification following the update: "Supporting FIRST means supporting FTC and FLL and their kits." This is true, but I think many teams "support culture change" with Vex, and take offense to the implication that FIRST is the only way to "change culture." I don't think FIRST is saying that... but I think many are taking it as an implicit assumption.

In the thread I linked to above was an IFI press release, saying that TSA had chosen Vex as their robot kit of choice. The thread title was "VEX beats Tetrix and others in bid to develop a robotics competition for the TSA". Dave pointed out that turf wars are a waste of everyone's time, because only about 5% of American high school students have access to FIRST's programs (and other nations are probably in the same ballpark). We are best served by reaching outwards.

Another good quote:

Re: Team Update 4
 

Amen. What tiny fraction of the FIRST community frequent CD with any regularity, if at all? And what tiny fraction of those thus far have voiced their displeasure at this issue? And how many of those displeased enough to voice their displeasure will stop participating in FIRST because of it?

Not many, methinks.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier if they just kept the speeches at kickoff and Championship shorter (and fewer in number). Enforcing a brand is just something I've come to expect from everyone...

...now if they'd only get a linear solenoid manufacturer as a sponsor, that's a "gee do we have to use those" I could get solidly behind!

Re: Team Update 4
 

So, yes, the restrictions suck. Is it unfair? Maybe.

However, FIRST does a fabulous job of preparing us students for real life. In "real" life there are restrictions that you might find unneccessary. There are often situations that you find "unfair." Yet with all those times I have yet to find a situation where complaining has solved the problem. Instead, rise above and make do what what you have.

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you need"
-Rolling Stones

I've always found this a meaningful reminder.. and a good song.:)

In the end you have to make a decision. You can make a mini-bot that complies with the rules, or you can not make one at all.

Re: Team Update 4
 

To go along with Curtis, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion--or the other several on this topic--if the kit of choice for the Minibot had been the FLL kit.

But because of the statement about supporting the kits, a lot of people are rather annoyed. Ideals? Sure. Programs? Eh, maybe... OK, can do. Kits? Hey, wait a minute! You mean the kit I left behind when [you fill in the rest]? No way.

If anyone from FIRST is reading this: I think a politic thing to do would be to retract the "and their kits" part of that statement, as soon as practical. That would go a long way towards un-ruffling the feathers that were ruffled by that statement. (Oh, and having FLL be the program of choice for support nest year would also help.)

I'm not actively involved with FRC, FTC, FLL, or VRC, for the record.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I have 2 questions:

1. What is so ruffling about "and their kits"?
2. Who is making this a seeming political situation?

FIRST recognizes its partnerships with its vendors/suppliers/sponsors. Why should that change now? Any impact the minibot potentially has is recognized through these partnerships or through the application of rules in the manual and updates that state what can be used or what can not be used, should teams choose to build one.

There's nothing complicated or upsetting about it.

Edit: I have a 3rd question -
Has anyone given any serious thought as to how this particular game is honoring Jack Kamen? I have a few ideas but I have glimpsed very few ideas/suggestions of others here in CD and how, by honoring Dean Kamen's father, we are all committed to playing the game and following the rules as they are intended.

Jane

Re: Team Update 4
 

Just to be clear, the restriction is not really what bothers me this moment. It's stupid and blatantly targets Vex aluminium, but I understand that restrictions are part of the game, and they make it fun / challenging / etc. If the update ended there, I'd be upset but move on. The part of the post I quoted is what really pushed me as slimy politics.

What's ruffling about "and their kits" in particular is that FIRST has equated believing in its ideals with giving a particular vendor money. They said more or less that if you love FIRST you should be buying Lego's kits. That is what's absolutely infuriating above all else. So because I don't like FTC, and I don't want to buy their in my opinion inferior kit, I don't support FIRST? If they really don't want my support just because I disagree on a platform of choice for something - I don't know what to say anymore.

Honestly, it looks like Lego is pushing FIRST's buttons here.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Ok I am not sure what all the whining is about but I look at it this way...
1. You don't have to build a minibot if you chose not to..it would be a mistake not to though.
2. You received that kit (1/2 of it) for the price of shipping.
3. You don't have to use the NXT if you don't want to.
4. This is an important anniversary year for FIRST. I look at it as a celebration on all levels.
5.You get to build 2 robots this year!! YES!!!!
6. Most of us ( or at least I hope we do) support at least 1 FLL team. If you don't then you need to jump on the bandwagon. This is your farm team for FRC!!
7. Yes maybe FIRST could have worded it better..but hey there have been times when all of us could have worded something better...except me I am the Queen of Perfectland!!!!
8. All the time you spent on here complaining, you have had that mini up and running. 1 of my former FLL kids who is now FRC had it together in a couple hours and shimming up the pole.
9. VEX isn't Textris...as much as I would like to use those parts they aren't part of FIRST anymore.
10. Welcome to the real world boys and girls!! Work can change on a dime are we going to suck it up or whine to the boss!!!!

There I had my say... NOW GET OUT THERE AND BUILD BUILD BUILD!!!!! :D

Re: Team Update 4
 

EXACTLY!!!

Re: Team Update 4
 

Is it just me, or has everybody not read the note about the edit to R92-H?
"The original intent of R92-H was to allow teams to use raw aluminum. We appreciate that the intent was not clear in the original verbiage, and for that, our apologies. Throughout the process, and especially in public statements, we have been transparent and unambiguous that the minibot is an opportunity for FIRST to prominently feature and reflect support for our family of programs. This is a golden opportunity to show that support, and we have taken advantage of it. We were clear in our comments at kickoff that we are using this competition, in part, to support FTC and FLL. There is no secret plan; it is a wide open plan. Supporting FIRST means supporting FTC and FLL and their kits."
It's not that big of a deal, guys. Saying your team isn't a FIRST team anymore is radical. Kids like me who love everything about FIRST and the impact on our lives do not want to hear about everything that's allegedly bad about robotics. For people like me, this is my life. And I don't want to hear all this bashing on the most influential, educational, and inspirational program in the history of programs steered towards the kids of the future. We just need to ignore this. It's just words in the 4th team update. And I think 20 years worth of actions speak louder than update #4's worth of words. If the mentors can't get over the clarifications of the GDC that has brought the world more kid-based, STEM related field influence in the history of the world, how can you expect a kid to not do the same?

Re: Team Update 4
 

I'm not going to say I like what is said any more then the next guy. I could go on about politics and my dislike of the move and everything as has already been said. Instead I have a different message to leave.

THANKS

Yes, thanks for treating us like adults and coming out and stating your motives for once. At least they openly stated it without doubt and aren't hiding from the truth. They thought enough of us to not lie or hide the facts or to simply ignore us. I'd prefer this had been placed in the original manual, but I'm just glad that they came out and said it.

To anyone at FIRST that reads this, don't mistake it for gratitude of the message. Just gratitude for you actually saying it.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I have a little adage I try to hold myself to: "Deal with it, or shut up and deal with it."

Some of us should take a few minutes to step back, cool off under the collar, and maybe grab a sandwich.

Re: Team Update 4
 

A perfect example of this. Last year for our rookie test we had 4 mini teams that had to build a robot in one week to navigate a maze. We showed them how the maze was set up and gave them dimensions, but not the real maze. 2 days before their mini competition the got a glimpse at what the real maze looked like, one of the teams builders started to complain that their robot would not turn in the tight corners of the maze and asked me to make the maze larger just for him. We did not change it for him at all and nobody else has a complaint about the field. So needless to say dont change the rules and dont change the field CHANGE YOUR ROBOT because that's the only thing you can truly control.

P.S the student who asked me to change the field did not make our team last year or this year because he argued that is was unfair and unjust, but that's how competition and LIFE works.

Re: Team Update 4
 

LOOK, LOOK! It's a moderately on topic post that's not about the FTC debacle!
You two clearly aren't thinking creatively enough. Scoring for your opponent makes loads of sense when there's 9+ points sitting on the top row in the form of a completed LOGO. All you do is have your feeder score the wrong GAME PIECE for your opponent, and you wipe out the LOGO bonus. Scoring for your opponent to lower their score! I thought it was pretty brilliant and hilarious, personally. Anyways, I posted a question to the Q&A a while back that outlined this scenario. So I'm taking credit for the <G39> rule change in this update until anyone else admits to having a twisted enough mind to think that up.

However, I'm not taking credit for this:All I did was post about the rule change before someone else did. And show back up in the thread to nod along with everyone else and bring a little order to things. I suspect that the biggest push came from people who developed all the CAN technology and either wandered across the thread or were otherwise informed about the rule change.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I actually thought of it too but with using the robot however that could have been flagged for yellow carding under egregious behavior. But you aren't the only twisted one :ahh:

Re: Team Update 4
 

Turf wars solve nothing.

When I first heard about the minibot being Tetrix-based, of course I was upset after spending hours and hours working with VEX and building a very successful program through it. I was also upset because FTC's presence in Canada is slim to none, and I thought every team would jump on the free Tetrix kits available on I will not compare the two kits here, as my opinion is biased to VRC due to the extensive work I've put in with it.

I'm happy FIRST is trying to expose more students to STEM programs, and I always have been. I'm disappointed in the politically-heavy way they're doing it.

Regardless, my team's minibot will have VEX stickers proudly all over it, not to say we like VEX more, but to prove that we're about expanding not just the FIRST program, but all STEM programs.

-Nick

Re: Team Update 4
 

lulz....where'd you order game pieces this year?

Re: Team Update 4
 

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time seeing unfortunate things happen with the intermediate program, despite the best efforts of great people, I'd ask those of you who are having "visceral" reactions toward what you're reading to think carefully before acting (My buddy Chris has some great ideas on how to deal with things, later) and help your team and its students to be successful as best you can - first and foremost - now.

Also, be very thoughtful and careful as to what terms you use and who you direct your displeasure toward. The "GDC" is a general term many people throw around here. Please remember that this committee is largely made up of volunteers, but also includes some FIRST employees for obvious reasons. I spent a few years working on the intermediate program GDC.

So, any time you associate the "GDC" with an activity and assign credit or blame, please understand, for those of us on the outside of that process, that there's no way of knowing, for certain, what information and decisions are coming exactly from where or who's recommendation leads to what action/ruling. Be mindful, if it's here or in a letter later, that there's no way for us to know what information comes from which portion, or all of the "GDC" under certain circumstances.

Peace ... go build robots with kids and show them a better way to live their lives in the process. Years ago there was a local cover band I loved to go see play, The Vultures. On the back of their shirts was the motto, "Passion in the face of adversity." It was good advice then, and it's good advice now. Take your passions and direct them where they are most needed right how - toward your teams :).

Now...about minibots going vertical ....

Re: Team Update 4
 

I don't care that they limit minibot to Tetrix and some raw materials, that is a fine constraint that levels teams to some point.

My problem is that if you go to the FTC-Tetrix site:

http://parts.ftcrobots.com/store/def...y=9&c=1&bhcp=1

the parts are one price and another price when you go to the FRC-Tetrix site

(http://www.legoeducation.us/store/de...ID=159&bhcp=1).

In the real world, an organization uses it purchasing and political muscle to get a better price for its members.

In this case, First SEEMS to be letting FRC subsidize FTC or Lego. I don't think Lego is starving! I have asked the question in the official forums and have not seen any answer. Maybe Update#4 is the answer?

Does not seem correct or fair. We are a well funded team and the difference in costs will not prevent us from building a minibot or two if we are successful. Not true for others.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Man, all this whining about how FIRST is being political, it reminds me of, oh, I don't know, politics, businesses, other non-profits, and maybe even groups of people in general?

BTW, my team doesn't give two flying monkeys about the whole FTC-vs-VRC debacle, and I had to bring them all up to speed before they knew why it was such a big deal to "the entire FIRST community (/sarcasm)". Are they bummed that they can't use anything their hearts desire? Sure. But are they fuming mad, ready to quit this excellent program, because we've got a classroom full of VEX kits that we can't use? Nope. We're too busy working on our hostbot and game strategy to care.

"Welcome to the real world"? If I worked at Google, why can't I use my Windows-based notebook? They're in high school now, kind of late to be sheltering them, much-less hiding seemingly asinine rules and restrictions.

That a catapult was awfully out-of-place in terms of the intent of the mini-bot race, if common sense were applied?

Tell them it's not all sunshine and rainbows, and things don't always go your way. Good luck finding a group of organized human beings that aren't even remotely political.



No one is perfect. FIRST is not perfect, you're not perfect, I'm not perfect. At the end of the day, people make mistakes, and people disagree with each other. But the beauty of choices, is just that. You don't like it? Next year, switch your team to VEX/BEST/whatever. Before you do that, though, do me a favor: Take a poll at your next team meeting. Ask how many people hate FIRST so much for promoting FTC that they want to switch programs next year, then ask how many people are enjoying their time in FIRST enough to overlook this TRAGIC event and continue next year.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Well, if Apple made their player available for your hardware you could use it if you wanted. There are also a dozen other music players for Android available...

I get your point though.

No, it isn't falling apart but a lot of the people I am seeing complain about these minibot rulings are some respected members of the FIRST community. I'm not saying they should have some special say but I am saying that if a large number of them disagree strongly with a decision it should really make us step back and ask ourselves why they are disagreeing.

Because their kits are supplied by a for profit company that signed a contract with FIRST. I support FIRST, I support the ideas it stands for and I will do anything within my power to help any FIRST team (FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL). THAT is supporting FIRST. Buying parts from a FIRST partner is not supporting FIRST it is supporting that partner. Now, if FIRST wants to mandate that we have to buy those parts to be competitive that is their prerogative. For some reason the wording reminds me of our former President's use of the phrase "You are either with us or against us". I disagree, nothing is ever that two sided, especially when it comes to inspiring the next generation.

After having played with the Tetrix kit a little I understand why it costs so much, it is really nice hardware. I just do not feel it is the proper tool for me to use to inspire our students. Can I still say I support FIRST? Can I still say I support the ideals and goals of an organization that changed my life? With this statement by the GDC I am not sure.

I understand the goal of bringing more awareness of the smaller competitions by using the larger one. I like the idea, I admire the desire to bring FTC and FLL to the same status as the "big robots". Quite possibly the only thing I don't like was that one little phrase. And, maybe there isn't a rational reason why it bothers me so much, maybe I can't explain it to you. I still don't agree with it.

[Rant] This is the Superbowl of Smarts, why should the playing field be level?[\Rant]

Now that I have said some pretty mean things about the GDC I have to give them a compliment. Thank you for doing exactly what we asked for. I feel that the rules this year have a clear intent behind them. If the intent is not clear it was mentioned in either the Kickoff broadcast or one of the blue boxes/ notes in the rulebook. I know you are catching a lot of flak for it but I think that clear and honest communication will only result in an improvement for the entire community. I don't always agree with your intent but I appreciate you sharing it with us.

-Andrew

Re: Team Update 4
 

Can we all please take a deep breath and relax before pouncing on that "Post Reply" button? I doubt if anyone is really ready to leave FIRST just because they threw some limitations at us.

Like it or not, FIRST is a brand as well as a philosophy. As such, it is the interest of FIRST to say you have to use FIRST stuff. Just a fact of life, as many before pointed out.

Another thought to consider is the GDC put restrictions on the otherwise infinite number of variations that the minibots could evolve into. Aside from safety reasons (i.e., catapults), they're trying to be realistic in terms of what the judges will have to evaluate in determining which ones are in fact legal minibots and which ones aren't. So they put it simply as "FTC".

And, yes, there's desire to grow the FIRST community, etc. Personally I don't see how FTC-based minibots will bring this about, but hey, I'm only a high school teacher and a FRC coach, maybe I don't have the necessary experiences to understand the logic. So I do what I can do: I support my team and its students, and not rant about things I don't know about.

So as maltz1881 said, "NOW GET OUT THERE AND BUILD BUILD BUILD!!!!! "

Re: Team Update 4
 

Oh how I wish that were true.

No one ever said that the use of proprietary game pieces was any more just the the FTC requirements, but based on the price, I doubt AndyMark is making much, if any, profit. I would guess that the sale of the game pieces functions in a similar manner to FIRST Choice, where FIRST supplies the materials and AndyMark handles the distribution (please correct me if I'm wrong).

Re: Team Update 4
 

I can't speak for others, but even though I am quite upset about this, I am in no way ready to quit. Like in any Group, you have people who get upset, sometimes fuming, about the politics. Now are they mad about a particular way something was done, yes, but at the end of the day we all agree about while were hear and the ideals. For me this ticks me off, but it's not like it's ruined my season. Honestly besides a couple questions about my FB status about this at the beginning of my day this morning, I haven't thought about it throughout the build day.

Re: Team Update 4
 

The Return of the A-Bomb, and a strategy that will most likely be used. I CAN NOT WAIT FOR COMPETITION!

Re: Team Update 4
 

Don't forget to bring your video cameras to capture it. Though what is the A-Bomb? Unfamiliar with the term.

Re: Team Update 4
 

2006: dumper-class robot dumped it's hopper to an allied shooter with a nice, wide floor load. 195->25, Einstein Field (least I think it was 25--I'm pretty sure 968 was up on the ramp rattling some chains at the time.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Silly Eric, 25 didn't even have a floor intake, it was 195=> 968

Re: Team Update 4
 

All I know is that we have an FTC team who is gracious enough to come in and help us with the construction of the minibot, of which we have 4 weeks left to build (providing team Update 5 disallows anything except tradional Lego bricks).

I think after the season is over, I can either moan and groan about the game like I did after Breakaway, or take a lot of positive things out of it, like Lunacy.

I am grateful that First said, "Yes world, this is why/how we want this," unlike the rapid, unplanned expansion that puts smaller, newer teams with a foot in the grave, or the carpet-yanking of FVC.

Re: Team Update 4
 

That's understandable, I was targeting that toward others (not necessarily Chris, who was quoted in my post) that are making this a life-or-death situation. People getting frustrated and expressing their anger about a particular subject is fine, and expected when a major "controversial" statement is made.

People saying they're done supporting FIRST because of it is OK too. So leave. Nobody is forcing those individuals to stay in the program. If it really is as big of a deal as you make it out to be, then try to change it. E-mail the directors, ask Dave some questions, phone headquarters. Don't just sit around and complain about it endlessly. Either you're fine with it, you dislike it enough to take action, or you really dislike it enough to leave.

Re: Team Update 4
 

The Indianapolis Zoo has a strong platform of educating families and getting them interested in the world around them. My family and I support the Indianapolis Zoo.
The Indianapolis Childrens' Museum has a strong platform of educating families and getting them interested in the world around them. My family and I support the Indianapolis Childrens' Museum.

Are there elements of and lessons learned from the Zoo that may be applied to the Childrens' Museum? Yes.
Are there elements of and lessons learned from the Childrens' Museum that may be applied to the Zoo? Yes.

Does membership in one preclude membership in the other? For families with tight financial situations, possibly. Are there families that participate in both? Absolutely.

Are the two entities aware of each other? Certainly. Do they work together? Possibly, but not overtly in a public manner.

If I show my Childrens' Museum membership card at the Zoo and demand entrance, I will be denied access.
If I show my Zoo membership card at the Childrens' Museum and demand entrance, I will be denied access.
Does that bother me? Not at all - in fact, I'd be shocked if the opposite were true.

Are the two entities in direct competition with each other? It could be viewed that way.
Do they both serve the same population? Generally speaking, yes.

Do they waste one neuron on stealing each other's pieces of the pie, or do they focus on making the overall pie bigger through outreach programs of their own making and celebrating and promoting their own brands?
The latter.

They are both successful and inspirational institutions that are pillars of our community. While some individuals may have stronger personal allegiances to one over the other, they are both widely respected and cherished.

----

We're very excited about the lengthening of the scoring peg and the change allowing feederbots - a strategy we could very likely employ given the right circumstances.

Although the original document could have used a bit more proofreading, I wish to commend the GDC on a truly well-thought-out and engaging game. At first I thought the game was way too complicated to explain to a layperson, but in the end I believe the gameplay will speak for itself. Well done.

Re: Team Update 4
 

And the first A-Bomb (or at least the first to be called as such) happened in the Newton eliminations.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I loathe most things about my Apple iPhone; from its archaic synchronization methods, to its inability to multi-task, to its inability to prevent apps from tracking my specific phone's SIM ID, to the ridiculous 56-page (and growing) terms of usage for the Apple Store; the list goes on. The only saving grace I have is that I can cut my losses in April when my contract ends and choose a new phone. I don't begrudge Apple for their communistic technology practices; I simply don't want to be a part of them.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. And this too:

Throw the MINIBOT aside for a second and examine everything veteran FRC teams have had go their way this season; there are three that I can think of off the top of my head, centric to my team:
1.) The 2011 game is very similar to 2007. I doubt there's a successful 2007 team around that isn't almost already done with their robot, barring weather or significant capabilities changes
2.) The allotment of motors plays towards every resource veteran teams have accrued over the years for KOP motors, including the (typically) most expensive things: COTS gearboxes
3.) Use of little-known KOP pieces for scoring 33% of most teams' points (the Igus sliders -- 1 has come in the kit every year for 4 years) -- has allowed at least one team (this one, and I'm sure others who haven't lost focus) to prototype a piece of the the ship-date robot in record-breaking time.

My point in saying both of these is that Apple is successful because Apple (and not their customers) controls the products; in doing so they're able to deliver an overall superior product regardless of its individual [severe] flaws. Customers who don't like it can go to a competitor. If we examine FIRST's control of the FRC product, then we not only get the TETRIX scenario, but also the above positive reflections on that control. Just like Apple has its cultists, atheists and agnostics, so apparently does FIRST.

To me, it's just sad that this year so many CD'ers are taking the opportunity to take cheap shots in the name something they're obviously bitter about only to turn around and continue to put on a facade elsewhere in order to get a FIRST award. To me, it means those teams have representatives who truly miss the point.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Two things --

coupled with

precludes teams from using more than two of the Tetrix-brand motors on their minibots.

Does bullet A coupled with bullet H

prohibit teams from using Tetrix channel, angle or flat bar? What distinguishes aluminum between the raw condition and something else?

Beyond that -- and risking to show my age a bit here -- how are the rules governing minibot construction meaningfully different than the rules from years ago that required that additional parts and materials of ALL sorts be purchased only from a single source -- Small Parts, Inc? I was younger then, but I can't recall even a fraction of the discontent y'all seem to be displaying today.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I believe the A-Bomb also was executed Successfully on Einstein by the same Newton Alliance.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I can't help but to be reminded of a post I made following Championship 2010, and Dean's speech there that offended some manual laborers (we've lost these jobs, and don't want them back).

My [spotlighted] post then, and I stand by it now, said that if we want to grow the programs so that every child has the opportunity to be involved, we have to think with a WORLD-centric mindset, and not the AMERICAN-centric mindset that still seems to dominate many FRC teams (Calling CMP Nationals, and not Championship), and even FIRST HQ itself (talking about "american" problems, and "this nation" and the like, when most of what is being talked about applies the world over.) As a long-standing mentor on a CANADIAN team, I find this america-centric mindset offensive. It flies in the face of FIRSTs stated goals of changing the culture.

FIRST continues to make abject stabs at the VEX program, and as many before me have said, this flies in the face of their stated goal of changing the culture, which FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL, VRC, BEST, BotBall, et al are doing.

When people intimately tied to FIRST HQ such as Dave Lavery are making statements which DO follow these ideals (dont waste time on turf wars, grow the turf instead), I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind taking such (IMO) obvious stabs at VRC's success is.

The way these stabs are detracting from the program, and making SEVERAL well-known and well-respected mentors lose a great deal of faith in FIRST is a very sad thing.

One thing I haven't noticed, is IFI responding to the abject stabs at their success by pulling equally underhanded tactics. IFI remains a huge supporter of FIRST, even after the debacle surrounding FVC changing to FTC, and replacing the IFI controllers with the cRIO. If they wanted to, they could quite easily stop supporting FIRST altogether, and the quality of the FIRST program would surely suffer for it. I for one, am glad to see IFI taking the moral high ground, and not doing this.

Kudos to you IFI, for your continued support of FIRST and its stated ideals, even in spite of tactics aimed squarely at your success.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Seriously, that is the sort of thing you are getting angry at? Seriously????
I doubt the FIRST program would suffer for it at all if IFI decided to leave. Excluding FTC companies with far better abilities than IFI will ever have jumped in.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I am not angry at that, I was using it as an example of how commonplace the america-centric view of FRC is.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Also, all this talk of teams (particularly of TeamIFI, but teams in general as well), slapping VEX and IFI logos all over their [Mini]Bots reminds me of something I myself did in my Stock Car Racing life.

The track I race at had outlawed from the division I race in (known as mini stock in most places) all import vehicles. Only Ford, Chrysler, and GM products were allowed to compete. My Honda Civic was grandfathered in for one season, and then I would have to build a new car.

I built my new Mercury Sable (a Ford product, so it met the rule), and then promptly slathered an advertisement for my father's auto repair shop, which only works on imports, across the hood. It read:

(at the top of the windshield) Car-Du Automotive Services

(on hood)
(small)Independent
(14" logo) Honda
(6" letters) Acura and Toyota Service
<phone number>

The fans of course were confused as to why I was driving a Ford with a giant Honda logo on it, but it was our way of letting the track know we weren't impressed. It worked, people who knew what had happened giggled at our tongue-in-cheek jab at the track, and some of the track staff acknowledged what went on.

This January at the meeting for 2011's season, the track announced that they are considering welcoming import cars back to our division as a way to increase car counts, as many neighboring tracks have lots of imports running there.

I'm not advocating teams do this, as I don't feel its within the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, (unless you're a member of TeamIFI, in which case, by all means, put IFI/VEX logos on your bot), I just thought I'd share a similar story.

Re: Team Update 4
 

You do realize that it was pretty much an America centric competition until recently right?

Re: Team Update 4
 

FRC has been international since at least 2000.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Being that I have personally been attending FRC events in CANADA since 2003? I think 8 years is more than "recently".

Furthermore, Woburn Robotics (Team 188, The Blizzard, based in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada) with Alumni including such FIRST personalities as Karthik, and Tristan Lall have been active in FRC since 1997.

CMP has also been known as "FIRST Championship" since 2007, and "The Championship Event" since at least 2003.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Maybe there are some creative ways for teams to convey this message, showcasing the value and wonder of being an international program and event. Like so many things in FIRST, there is much to celebrate and recognize and we haven't even begun to explore the possibilities. Perhaps that is why this 20th anniversary FRC game is so special.

Jane

Re: Team Update 4
 

Couldn't have said it better myself, Its just like the real world, Design criteria change, sometimes your asked to use a certain brand of parts because of a company's affiliation with another.

Get over it, Accept the challenge, and focus your brain power on developing the best solution to the challenge FIRST gives you!

- Bochek


Edit - I haven't read the entire thread, this is in response to the first few pages.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I don't want to "get back into it" as I think my posts were very rash and not well thought out - but I think those saying "these are the parts you're allowed and they happen to be one company" are completely missing the point of what anyone was offended about in this thread. In other, earlier threads, a different tune was sung, but do read up on what the objectionable part of this update was. The restriction on aluminium parts wasn't really it.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Umm, sure.

The first ever Canadian team began play in the 1998 season. This year we're celebrating the 10th ever regional in Toronto. What was known as the Canadian Regional began in 2002. Canadian teams have been participating at the Championship (then called Nationals) since 1998, and a few of them have even won the whole event at both the FRC and intermediate levels. Although levels of involvement in FIRST in America obviously dwarfs what's happening here in Canada, these competitions have not been America centric in a long time. (Nor should they be.)

Re: Team Update 4
 

I'd be interested in seeing actual percentage of FIRST teams that are based out of Canada(that goes for other countries as well). I'm sure I, for one, would be amazed by the percentage. Anyone have that percentage? or readily available figures to calculate it?

Re: Team Update 4
 

Mark McLeod would probably be the person to ask.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Well, I know that there is sufficient Canadian attendance at FLR that we have both the Canadian and the American national anthems sung before each day's festivities...

Re: Team Update 4
 

Canadaland has 80ish or so teams. IIRC.


Yes Canadaland is the proper terminology.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Here are charts of 2010 & 2011 teams by country (12 of them).

Here are the 2011 numbers:
US -------------- 1925 -------- 92.50%
Canada ----------- 80 ---------- 3.84%
Israel ------------- 48 ---------- 2.31%
Mexico ------------ 12 ---------- 0.58%
Brazil -------------- 5 ---------- 0.24%
Turkey ------------- 4 ---------- 0.19%
United Kingdom --- 2 ---------- 0.10%
Australia ----------- 1 ---------- 0.05%
Chile --------------- 1 ---------- 0.05%
Germany ---------- 1 ---------- 0.05%
Herzegovina ------ 1 ---------- 0.05%
Spain -------------- 1 ---------- 0.05%

Re: Team Update 4
 

I thought the proper term was Canadia.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Actually its Canadialand, and everyone knows its a state.

Re: Team Update 4
 

False: its a US territory.:D

Re: Team Update 4
 

False, it is a stylish hat.

Re: Team Update 4
 

92.5% American. I'd say that is still rather US-centric. I'm not saying we're the only ones. But it is centered around us. When we get down to about 75%, then I predict people will be more likely to think before they speak. I honestly thought that Canada controlled around 10% myself. Its only a matter of time though considering the saturation of the US being much less then that of Canada.

Re: Team Update 4
 

My roommate is a Canadindianian.

Great guy.

Re: Team Update 4
 

This is me conveying disgust:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Re: Team Update 4
 

So how exactly does Canada relate to Update #4? Or was this another thread hijack?

Re: Team Update 4
 

I know that Canadians represented about 6% of teams in attendance at 2010 CMP. I counted them when I was making my post about that originally.

Based on Mark's numbers, that means roughly twice as many Canadian teams go to CMP than would be a fair representation. Furthermore, Canada has 2 regionals of its own, and I believe there is one in the works out on the west coast (Vancouver-area) to be started in the next few seasons. For a market share of 3% to be controlling 4.16% of the regional events (counted from the list on frclinks.com, subtracting CMP divisions, and MI districts), we're doing alright.

Also, of the teams that have won 3 regionals in the same year, fully 50% of the times this has happened, it was a Canadian team, and a Canadian team holds both the record for being the only team in FRC to do this twice, and the only 3peat regional winner to also win Championship in the same year:

51 (ex 47/65) (1998)
359 (2010)
1024 (2008)
1114 (2006, 2008, 2010)
1503 (2006)

NB: Edited for mistakes.

Re: Team Update 4
 

It was tangentially related to FIRST's poor decision making, and people ran with it.

Re: Team Update 4
 

I don't think anyone is saying your minority isn't a great part of FIRST. Just that it is still vastly a minority.

Re: Team Update 4
 

Just nitpicky: They entered one regional in 2008.

359 and 1114 each won three regionals in 2010.

Re: Team Update 4
 

67 in 2009? 3 District wins.. State Championship and Championship?
217 in 2009? 2 Districts wins.. State Championship and finalist at the championships (i believe they might have played somewhere else also)? (IE-if it wasnt for mechincal failure in the last match at GLR in 2008, they would have also won three regionals and CMP.

Re: Team Update 4
 

From what I've seen, MI teams have been excluded from stats like that, since the dawn of the District model, as it gives them an unfair advantage (they get to play more events for less money than the rest of us, and each MI District has fewer competing teams than most regionals.)

This also is a huge detriment to the US side of the statistics, since a large chunk of american teams are in Michigan. In fact, I believe michigan has the highest concentration of FRC teams anywhere, and thats WHY the district model was started there.

Re: Team Update 4
 

yes this is true... But still 40-42 robots at a event is plenty enough... There are events that always have this amount or lower...