|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Is Battlebots I.Q. a threat to FIRST? | |||
| Nope, true quality and decency will show through, XFL |
|
77 | 34.53% |
| Although Battlebots will climb up, they won't be that big, think UPN vs. NBC, ABC, or CBS |
|
56 | 25.11% |
| They will be on the same level, like American and National baseball leagues |
|
39 | 17.49% |
| Battelbots IQ is a better concept and will triumph over FIRST |
|
12 | 5.38% |
| Don't Care |
|
39 | 17.49% |
| Voters: 223. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
In regards to Doug's post,
Another way in which FIRST isolates itself is by the strick isolation of the ability to run competitions. As many of you know, most scrimmages are held using hand built toggles, because they refuse to give pin-out information for the RC which would allow competitions to take place outside of FIRST. Thus the IFI RC controller is "just" another robot controller, instead of a system which people can use for competition |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
Actually I think the IFI system is great, but why do we need bags of springs, wheelchair wheels, and at least 1/2 of the other stuff in the kit. I know, someone will say it was donated and such, I say forget the whole kit except the control system and it's associate electronics. Looking around at the competition last year, most teams didn't even use the kit frame, I know we didn't. The only team it benefited were the first or second year rookies. Why not let us figure what motors are best - put a limit on them or their rated wattage or something - I'd just like to see the whole enchilada changed a bit to encourage growth and reduced cost. I'm really considering other options if funding doesn't come through this year - the BBIQ, MATE program, BotBall, Rocket Challenge, etc... There now seems like a lot of other programs to inspire students to pursue science and engineering and are a lot cheaper. I grant you, nothing beats the experience of FIRST, but there ARE other options that can fulfill the same mission. Hence the point of this thread.
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
They tried Battlebots here but it never got near to our own Robot Wars series, which ran for 7 seasons (although nothings been heard of it since 2003).
I cannot see either of the 2 FRC teams from the UK jumping ship to a Battlebots spin off... I suppose it's like FIRST and Techno Games (UK equivelant of Battlebots I.Q. from what I can gather, albeit less violent). Techno Games was popular here, but most teams were younger than FIRST teams from what I'm aware of... Last edited by JVGazeley : 05-10-2005 at 05:35. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
Quote:
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
Quote:
I think having a consistent set of basic building blocks is one of the important differences between FIRST and something like BattleBots. Sure, most experienced teams can do well without having things handed to them in a box, but that fosters elitism and makes it harder for newcomers. |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
Quote:
Our drivetrain used the stock gearbox and sprockets. We only changed the wheel and added a couple of sets of sprockets for six wheel drive. For the game it was the right thing to do. Next year will probably be different. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
I have a couple thoughts about the BBIQ/FIRST discussion, but first a quick note. I participated on my high school's FIRST team for four years, and will someday get involved again, so I am somewhat biased towards FIRST. However, I can see strengths in both.
However, FIRST has one thing that BBIQ doesn't seem to offer. BBIQ seems to be nothing more than an extension of an engineering class where the goal is to build a robot. FIRST's goal is different. Every year Dean speaks of how the goal of FIRST isn't to build a robot, but instead to learn teamwork, leadership, business and engineering skills. While the robot and competition are a major focus, FIRST also recognizes the other aspects. The best example is in the true 'champion'. From everything I've read, the 'champion' of BBIQ is the team that does the best. The top prize in FIRST is for something different. The Chairmans Award goes to the team that contributes the most, in the local community, to FIRST, and to other teams. They also give awards for other things, teams with great websites, great animations, and great spirits. While these teams may not have great engineering skills (although they may) they have taken the opportunity to accel at other skills. My second point is on the biggest complaint heard of FIRST, it's cost. Yes, $6000 to register, and more to build a robot is a challenge, however, that's part of what FIRST is. In the real world, most companies fail in their first year. Money is always a challenge, and FIRST emphasizes that wether intentional or not. It inspires a team to work hard on the business side of the challenge. With regards to BBIQ, the situation doesn't seem to be much different. Many posters report bills of $10,000+, although this may have changed as more competions seem to have popped up. Just my 2 cents. Pat |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
Quote:
The one thing that really seemed to make a difference to many teams were the NASA grants - they're usually for 2 years (if applied for each year). Once a team were in FIRST for a couple of years, then they got it - they realize how to build it up like a business venture. That's what helped us our first few years. Quote:
Maybe a question that could be asked is, would veteran teams be willing to receive less kit parts than rookie teams if it means lower the entry fees? Or would veteran teams be willing to subsidize part of the cost of rookie teams (assuming it's a perfect world and nobody abuses this)? Rookie teams cost = $4000, Veteran Teams = $6500? I'm just throwing out ideas that probably have been discussed to death elsewhere in the forums. Last edited by Doug G : 08-10-2005 at 01:58. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?
First, sorry I know this isn't what the forum started about, but it gave me an idea.
I like the idea that the older team help subsidize new teams, but I had another idea of my own. How many teams have signifigant amounts of cash left over at the start of the season? I know my team never did, but I would guess some teams probably do. What if any team that could afford it was asked to donate $500, $1000, or whatever they could to a Rookie Fund, which would then be disbursed between rookie teams who need it. This seems like a great form of gp. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|