*Note- I only read the first page, these are my personal thoughts. Also, as I am not currently affiliated with a team, I am probably not a good candidate to send MTN Dew to*
I see it as a couple of simple yet deep factors.
First, the issue is that out of five classes of defenses (9 total), that 90% of teams voted to focus on the one that is the most limiting in terms of resultant design constraints (more on that below) indicates that at least, perhaps, 65% of teams didn't weigh design choices well. I will say this here and say it again, the low bar IS the tunnel from 2010. So, I'll make a call to my experience as a student that year to illustrate. Many of the best robots that year were unable to fit in the tunnel. Robots like say 1114, 148/217, 177, 111, etc. come to mind. Significantly fewer of the best could. Of those, the only three that come to mind are 1625, 294, and (Indiana bias showing
) 1501. However, in the actual field of robots that year, based on my memories of scouting matches, most robots (just over half?) overall did fit in the tunnel, to include the robots built by both teams I have student experience with (and both robots I did eventually work on at one point or another). The point here is that while a robot could both fit in the tunnel and perform well, it wasn't the case most of the time; that is, most good robots skipped the tunnel and hopped bumps instead. This year, like 2010, the bar/tunnel isn't the only way to cross the field (nor is it required to BREACH, as only 4 of the 5 defenses need DAMAGED).
The other factor here is the limitations presented by making a bot slim enough to fit under the bar (or in 2010, through the tunnel). First, I'll mention another famous bot from 2010 that couldn't fully fit under the tunnel, 469. The redirector design they made was, obviously, a disqualifier to using the tunnel to cross the field. In fact, they didn't even need to cross the field! Sure, with a few exceptions (say 51 and to a lesser degree 1024), nobody else chose that strategy, but to say "must use tunnel" would have pretty much precluded such an innovative strategy. Even if one didn't opt for such a "game breaking" strategy, there still were major issues faced by opting for a slim design. Kickers had to be very compact. Hanging mechanisms, something obviously not required that year for success (although it did tend to separate the absolute best from the pretty good), were in most cases impossible, although the "vertical pole" hanger could be made to fit (1625 comes to mind here). Even harder was making a robot that could also cross bumps AND go through the tunnel. My team at the time, 1747, tried and succeeded at that, but nothing more. Our kicker had issues (oh the poor AM gearboxes we trashed trying to make that work
) and our ball suction devices never took off (although the roller never had a fair chance as it was destroyed in the pits due to a kicker cable failure). Those could have worked had we figured things out sooner, and sure, some teams are so good they can make almost any design work (especially with a good drive team). However, the packaging constraints were indeed quite tight; as a result our winch for an attempt at a hanger never did work (the rube goldburg gearbox had binding issues and couldn't even lift a bucket of scrap steel) and the means of making the hook reach never took off (pun intended?). This year is even worse, as there are so many different ways to score and function (it's like FLL in that way). Trying to get those to work in a slim bot was bad. Trying to have a shooter and feeder (which is almost guaranteed to be bulkier than a 2010 kicker), a hanger (which is subject to more strict rules this year, the result of which is likely added bulk), and one or more mechanisms to deal with the other defenses. An average team would be hard pressed to make all of that fit in a slim bot, with a good drivetrain (for the low defenses), and make them work well. However, eliminate the slim limitation and those become that much easier to work well; one can design mechanisms to work well out of the box, rather than fit a tiny space and be tweaked to sorta work well (if the stars line up and the groundhog misses his shadow, that is). The point here is that in terms of "Karthik points", the tradeoff of fitting under the bar is a net loss of points, and as that goes contrary to Karthik's teachings, he would indeed be terrified to see so many Chief Delphi aware teams (presumably) get it wrong.
Also, I'll sum this up to a final point: It seems many teams didn't remember 2010. Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.