Re: Team Update #9
 

The most violent incident I ever saw at a FIRST event was in 2003 when 378 raced up the field at Buckeye and ran straight through 494 and sent them flying where the robot landed upside in a heap.

Re: Team Update #9
 

I remember buckeye that year too. It was a demolition derby.

They took out the "potential disablement" violation in <G48> and didn't replace it in <G48A>. This is probably a good thing.

Re: Team Update #9
 

As I recall, 2006 (Aim High) was the first year of optional bumpers; before that it was all metal on metal, as you said. 2003 (Stack Attack) was the roughest of the years I've seen, the closest it ever got to BattleBots, and I think the universal reaction was "No, we don't want to go there anymore."

Re: Team Update #9
 

I think I'm in the minority of actually likeing that game. They just gave to many points for the endgame and the eliminations were screwed up.

Re: Team Update #9
 

No, bumpers were optional back then too. The "standard bumper" of today was first optional in 2006. Back in 2003 the bumper rules were a bit more ambiguous (to say the least), no definitively defined material, no "bumper zone" etc. It was just a way to help teams protect their robots a little bit if they wanted. I saw very few teams running with bumpers back then.

-Brando

Re: Team Update #9
 

On the 2011 game: If the referee determines that you are intentionally trying to damage the internal workings of another robot you can still get a red card directly. What this update does is give the referee some discretion if, for example, you tip over onto another robot and damage it.

2005 remembered: In Pittsburgh that year there was a case when a robot (I think it was 128) initiated (unintentionally) contact with another robot which as a result damaged the first robot. The second robot got disqualified. This update gives a referee some wiggle room to prevent that from happening.

2004 (FIRST Frenzy) remembered purely for nostalgia's sake: This game was pretty rough too. At least partly because so many of the collisions happened while one or more robots were suspended several feet off of the ground. In one match while we were winching up another robot drove on top of us (they were trying to push us away from the bar, not to drive on top of us, but didn't realize that once we had deployed our hook we were not going anywhere) from the top level of the platform. We didn't retract our overly massive arm for fear of breaking their much smaller arm which was entangled with them. But we need to get off the ground to win the match, so after waiting about 10 seconds for them to get off, we tried to winch up to get them to slide off. But their robot was stuck on ours. Our winch lifted the two robots up off the ground, but we were not in balance so we swung violently to the side, hit a third robot and knocked it off the bar to fall on a fourth robot. (In the end, we didn't win either because our robot was swinging back and forth and at the apex of the swing the edge of our ball grabber would brush the platform, so no points for hanging.)

Re: Team Update #9
 

Oy, all of these metal on metal collisions were before my time. Anyone have a video? My girlfriend's dad is really into BattleBots and was somewhat underwhelmed by the DC Regional last year. I've modified his attitude a little, but it wouldn't hurt to show him some old school carnage as well.

This update should prevent teams from intentionally knocking out an opponent's MINIBOT (a concern, but a minor one). Most teams protect their electronics -- but I bet many teams aren't protecting their MINIBOT as much as they should be. After all, there is no deployment if the MINIBOT doesn't make it to the endgame to begin with!

Re: Team Update #9
 

[quote=mathking;1019025]On the 2011 game: If the referee determines that you are intentionally trying to damage the internal workings of another robot you can still get a red card directly. What this update does is give the referee some discretion if, for example, you tip over onto another robot and damage it.

There is nothing within the language of G48A that suggests a red card can/will be applied, all references are to yellow cards only, regardless of intent...Is there a regulation elsewhere in the manual that allows a ref to disregard the specific language of a rule? Per my earlier comments, I wish there was a specific allowance for a ref to red card a team for intentional efforts (yes, intention is sometimes hard to determine) to damage another team/s robot...but this update seems to limit the penalty ( a yellow card is less a deterent than a red card, right?).

Re: Team Update #9
 

Things like this used to be a lot more common. Most of the time it would just end with robots tipping over or getting tangled, but a few times something awesome happened.

You also used to have to build very robust drivetrains. By the end of the year, there would be dozens of major dents and gouges with traded paint everywhere, along with hundreds of more minor scratches.

There was also the unforgettable and satisfying thunk sound made whenever two robots made contact. EVERYONE would know you hit something. I haven't heard this sound in a FRC arena in years.

Re: Team Update #9
 

[quote=JB987;1019110]<T09> gives the Head Referee the option of giving a RED CARD for "particularly egregious" behavior.

Re: Team Update #9
 

And I like that it is at the discretion of the Head Referee -- exactly as it should be. I imagine that any intentional destruction of another robot's mechanisms (mechanical or electronic) will earn such a RED CARD, and thus not make it worthwhile.

Re: Team Update #9
 

In 1999, 45 was well known knocking people over with their arm.

In comparison to 1999, the 2000 game seemed tame at the time. However, watching this video it certainly was rougher then anything today.

One thing to realize is that prior to 2005, most teams had significantly less power in their drivetrain then now. The kit transmissions that accept two CIMs and the introduction of the AndyMark shifting transmissions have really increased the speed of the average robot, and thus the violence of the collisions. For example, in 2000, an average robot went 4-6 ft/sec. There's a lot more energy in a collision at 12 ft/sec then at 4.

Re: Team Update #9
 

Is there a better way to kill time than watching throwback FIRST vids? I don't think so...

Watching all the old matches brings back the memories of seeing these robots on the field and being absolutely awe struck.

-Brando

Re: Team Update #9
 

I really liked 2003 as well. It was my rookie year. 1075 had a machine with ~4" pool noodles on the leading edge.

Our worst year for violent robot contact was 2004. Teams with dead reckoning autonomous (like us!) to get to the yellow ball were often targeted by opposing teams with a high-speed straight on autonomous, attempting to defend that ball. More than once, this resulted in violent head-on full speed collisions between our robot and an opposing robot. One of these collisions involved so much kinetic energy, it bent the 1" square aluminum tube frame of our robot some 3" in deflection. The remnant frame of that robot is still missing the piece to this day where we had to sawzall that piece out to continue competing at the Wonderland Invitational (and go on to win, with 1241, and 1114.)

Re: Team Update #9
 

Well, titanium has a lead time of ~54 weeks* so, you could put it on your 2013 robot.


*Our mentor works for a company that orders it in bulk directly from the processor, that's how long it takes them to get it.