[mathking]

In all of this discussion, one thing I haven't heard is a mention of FLL. The young kids we have on our team who are right out of FLL (and those who mentor FLL) are more excited about the minibot than the team as a whole. I have a suspicion that our final design might just have switches, and no NXT "brain", but if we do use the NXT the FLL kids will be psyched.

I too am disappointed at the rules clarifications for the minibot, but I think that the idea that not allowing launching is going to make all of the robots clones is a little over-blown. If they had allowed launching, I think there would have been just as much "cloning" of designs. I do think that a lot of people are underestimated the engineering challenge of deploying the robots on the poles. You have to do it quickly, precisely and not so violently that it damages the minibot. Getting the minibot to attach to the pole quickly and reliably is not going to be a trivial engineering challenge given the time constraints. I also think it is likely we will end up using aluminum, PVC and polycarb rather than Tetrix pieces. But who knows?

I do think that FIRST should have given everyone two motors and a battery if they were going to require us to use the two motors and the battery to move the robot. This is definitely an issue they should address if they do anything like this in the future. I would rather have used Vex components since we have a lot of them (we don't compete in Vex but have used them in the classroom), and I don't think that the FRC competition or the FTC competition is diminished by allowed Vex components in addition to Tetrix. But it's a restriction. So we'll deal with it.

As for the 60" rule, I have mixed feelings myself. All weekend I was stressed out because of how brutal this restriction was. Then Monday arrived and Paul Ciopoli pointed out that the rule was printed as 60"(213.4 cm) and I didn't know what to think. On the one hand the more severe 60" restriction would force teams to think much more deeply about their designs. On the other, I think that the 84" rule means we will see a wider variety of mechanisms. And remember if you are complaining about wasted design time, if your robot doesn't violate the 60" rule then it won't violate the 84" rule. On the other hand, if you design in metric and were designing using 213.4cm all weekend and the GDC came out on Tuesday and said "Sorry, it's only 152.4 cm" you would be worse off. So I was looking forward to the restriction of 60", but I can live with 84". A couple of our new kids had a cool idea for an arm that wouldn't work with 60" and does with 84". So it may turn out that the 84" rule will help us.

A few of my students were a little frustrated today, so I told them this: There have been years when I really liked the challenge from the start (ex: Aim High), years when I really didn't like the challenge from the start (ex: Overdrive) and years when I was totally wrong about how interesting the challenge would be (ex: Triple Play). But I do know that I have never gone to a FIRST competition and had a bad time. Occasionally a stressful, frustrating time when the robot is breaking down or not working correctly, but always a good time. So if I have point, it's this: Go ahead, complain. Discuss. Suggest. Just remember to also have fun too.