Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
In 1992, FRC robots were roughtly the same size as a couple of today's FRC robots' batteries. 
The TechnoKats 1992 robot is smaller than the TechnoKats 2009 robot's control system alone, without battery. |
That is a little misleading considering the controls were not on the robot. It is about the size of a battery though. Actually I thought it was a part of a FRC robot and wondered why Eric was bringing a robot up in pieces the first time I saw it. Regardless, that 1992 robot is clean, elegant, and... well, just freaking cool.
Also, if you guys think that FTC is the minor leagues you are NOT going to like my next sentence.
FRC needs to emulate FLL. I mean think about this, the goal of FRC is to inspire as many people as we can right? How many FLL events are there? How many teams? How many COUNTRIES? And I can tell you, as an FLL alumni, mentor, and judge, those students are inspired and there are a LOT of them. They have to be doing something right down there in the intramural leagues because how many of us went through it and are now involved in FRC? An interesting statistic might also be, what percentage of FLL students go on to be in FRC (if it is available) compared to the percentage of FRC students that come back to FRC after graduation.
You guys, remember the robot is a tool, a large, complex, and often shiny tool. Use it to help make your work easier. You don't need a 130lb robot racing around the field at 20fps with a 14' arm to inspire kids. Does it look better on TV than a 18"x18"x18" robot moving at a slow walk and struggling to pick up a football? Of course it does. Do they both inspire students? Nope, the mentors do that. Changing the scale of the robot doesn't change anything.
Now, those things being said, I think that FRC is the perfect scale. Smaller means that it gets boring for TV (less complicated mechanisms which are always impressive). Larger means it gets more expensive.