Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt H.
It’s definitely not a popular view, but I support the new minibot rules for engineering and inspiration reasons. Regarding the Tetrix/FRC debate, I have no comment and would prefer this thread be used to discuss the engineering merits (or lack thereof) of the new rules.
Note: If you haven’t read team update 1 now would be a good time to do so.
Here are some counter points to arguments I’ve seen against the new ruling.
1. “The new rules make the game boring” or “Slower is boring”
Fast does not equal exciting. Launched or self-launched minibots from experienced teams could easily reach the top of the tower in <.5 seconds. This is less time than it takes to scan the field. Audience members wouldn’t be able to see a race; they’d see four different lights go on almost instantaneously.
Now the end game might go more like this: 1726’s minibot out of the gate first, but moving slowly. 1114 got a late start, but is moving more quickly, wait it looks like they’re having a traction problem and are slipping back down the pole, 1726 wins! <-- This is exciting.
2. “The new rules discourage diversity”
I don’t see the universal minibot design people seem to think the team update requires. Allowing launched minibots would force every competitive team to design a projectile. This new rule makes a variety of different climbing mechanisms feasible. Off the top of my head I see several different robot designs: two ratcheting jumars joined with a linkage, a multi wheel design which clamps onto the pole, or a single magnetic wheel.
The design challenge can now be stated: “Design the lightest possible device which converts rotation motion from the motors at max efficiency into vertical motion.” There are literally hundreds of ways to do this.
3. “All robots will now finish at roughly the same time”
It’s difficult to design a minibot which optimizes weight and hits the Tetrix motors peak efficiency. Only teams with a very solid grasp of engineering fundamentals will be able to do so. Many minibots will move at a non-optimal speeds or slip. I predict minibots will finish within seconds of each other as opposed to milliseconds for launched minibots.
I strongly support the GDC’s decision and look forward to seeing the wide variety of minibots produced by clever teams.
|
1. Given the choice, would you watch a horse race, or a tortoise race? Sure, there might be interesting tortoise racing dynamics, but the horse race has the same thrills at a much faster pace -- which is why it is more exciting.
2. The only way that will be remotely competitive (or even score at all I imagine) will be two wheels geared at the ratio for optimum power, attached to the tower with enough grip to climb, but not so much as to make the powertrain inefficient. You don't have time to ratchet up the tower, 10 seconds is pretty quick! And if they weren't easy to copy... why did the GDC shroud theirs in plywood for the kickoff video?
3. I agree with you here. Each match will end will end with lots of minibots either still climbing, sitting at the base trying to climb, or scattered all over the field because they weren't held securely enough.
I agree it remains an interesting, difficult challenge. Lots of teams will leave it until last minute, and lots of teams will field robots with systems that ultimately don't work, just like many ramps we saw in 2007.