[FTC]: Unlimited raw materials. Welding. Wow!

[aklego]

FTC has released the robot portion of the game manual.

Wow, those are some big changes! I'll be curious as to how it shakes out as to what constitutes a "raw material" and what does not. Off the top of my head, wooden robots would seem to be legit. As would robots machined out of an 18x18x18 billet of Aluminum. Or Steel. Or pretty much whatever.

And welding is no longer prohibited.

Wow.

Comments?

[sanddrag]

I don't know much about FTC, but wow, this is a big change indeed. I can see a lot of both good and bad that will come from this. Hopefully more good than bad. It'll be interesting to see if this change impacts program growth one way or another. One nice thing is that FTC has differentiated itself from Vex now in the sense that it's not "just a kit you put together" (as I've heard some folks say). I like Vex, but there is something to be said for making things from raw materials.

[Andrew Remmers]

There are also lazy susans and linear slides as COTS parts.

Also. Hang on. Am I reading this right? There is no dimensional constraints? _ At All!_ ?

And if thats true, we can use AL Block? :O This is going to be _so much fun_

[aklego]

Originally Posted by Joyride_67_1902

Also. Hang on. Am I reading this right? There is no dimensional constraints? _ At All!_ ?

And if thats true, we can use AL Block? :O This is going to be _so much fun_

Excepting the starting size of the robot, that is what I'm seeing. The servo blocks are also a nice addition.

[Andrew Remmers]

Originally Posted by aklego

Excepting the starting size of the robot, that is what I'm seeing. The servo blocks are also a nice addition.

Oh my.

Still I want steel gears inside our servos, not garbage plastic stuff.

[Chris is me]

I hate it. One of the best things about FTC back in the Vex days, and one of the highly emphasized portions of the competition, is that you only needed hand tools to build a competitive robot. A hacksaw and a file was literally all you needed to build an FTC robot that could win the World Championship - it was a pure "smarts" challenge and resources didn't come into play at all. This made it the perfect competition for schools without machine shops with basically no barrier to entry other than cost.

What is the program now? Certainly not that. In my mind, if you want advanced machining you go to FRC.

[Tristan Lall]

Since I'm not sure what FIRST has in mind for the future of FTC, I'm open to the possibility that the removal of materials restrictions is a good thing. It certainly does set FTC apart from VRC in a tangible way—and that may be just what FTC needs to stay relevant.

As for the rules, they're unfortunately ambiguous, self-contradictory and possibly redundant, particularly with regard to the way the numerous clauses of <R02> are to be interpreted (and reconciled with each other and <R01>).

And of course, since extruded aluminum is available in some rather hefty profiles, expect to see some fancy CNC-milled robots this year. We might also see some fun castings and composite layups, if teams are feeling especially creative.

[PhilBot]

I wonder what the ruling will be for using a Rapid Protyping machine (3D Printer) to fabricate parts. After all, the raw materials for our 3D printer is a spool of 1/16th diameter ABS "rod".

As to whether allowing machining and Rapid Prototyping would be a bad thing... We've built some VERY sophisticated metal robots just using drill press, jig saw and disk sander. Would a team that has access to more sophisticated tools automatially build a better robot than us? I think not.

Since the requirement is for these team's students to learn how to effectivly use these tools, and use CAD to design, I don't see how it's an automatic slam dunk. There is a lot of extra work required to use these tools effectivly. That learning is a VERY good thing.

Phil.

Though I don't dabble in FTC too much, I gotta agree with Chris. This just makes it look like a small FRC, and will give an advantage to those with the capabilities to abuse these new rules. I used to build VRC/FTC bots when I was younger just for fun, just with the kit. I hope this doesn't turn FTC into the small FRC I see it to be.

[PhilBot]

The big (HUGE) difference between FTC and FRC (I coach both) is that:

FRC is all about students working with Engineers and Manufacturing firms with the stated assumption that these firms will be providing manufacturing support so that the students can work side-by-side with these industry professionals in their normal environment. In several FRC kickoffs, Woodie has said that FRC Teams that insist that the students do everything without working closely with industry partners "aren't getting it".

Where as in FTC (and FLL) the students are meant to do all the work. That's why they have much more time to do it, and everything is scaled down. So unless the teams break the spirit of this difference, FTC won't turn into FRC.

I also think that there is this assumption that having better tools automatically makes a team's robot better. The reverse is true, better tools usually place higher demands on student and mentor training: eg: CAD to produce drawings, and student design ability to conceve of a part well enough to create an accurate drawing.

Sure, better tools will enable a good team to do even better. But based on many robots I've seen at competitions, many teams are struggling with even the most basic tools. Giving them a CNC machine would NOT help.

This is one reason what we've chosen to add a Robot clinic to the front of our FTC Qualifier this year, with the goal of ensuring that every team that attends has a solid working foundation, to build on during the remainder of the season.

Phil.

[Andrew Remmers]

While all these points are really good, I'd like to add something serious.

While FTC teams have slowly been getting the ability to use more than the standard kit parts very slowly over the last few years. I think that the reason is to allow for a larger range of designs that aren't limited to the insane constraints of tetrix parts. Because lets face it Tetrix kit can do amazing things as we all have seen that, but as a kit its very limited, and also very expensive as we all have seen as well. Allowing teams to have a range of materials to pick from allows them to find cheaper alternatives, I personally like this approach because it doesn't always break the bank.

Allowing flexibility to the materials last year did some insane things, 20 foot lifts? Thats astonishing. Teams did alot with what they were given, and alot of teams realized that precision machining was a serious option, if not a absolute option to have a lift that goes up 20 feet without falling over.

While there are pros and cons to the decision to allow such flexibility, I think I can stand safe by my words when I said that FTC will soon start having larger amounts of custom parts, and precision machining, its been worming its way in back since Hotshot at least.

But alas the decision has been made, and its something I can certainly live with.

- Andrew

[aklego]

Lots of thoughtful discussion. I remain baffled by the raw material definition:

"Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form."

A tree would seem to be a raw material but what about a 2 x 4? I can argue either way.

[PAR_WIG1350]

Originally Posted by aklego

Lots of thoughtful discussion. I remain baffled by the raw material definition:

"Raw Material (e.g. metal, plastic, etc.) provided that it is readily available to all teams from standard distributors (e.g. McMaster-Carr, Home Depot, Grainger, etc.). The definition of Raw Material are items before being processed or manufactured into a functional form."

A tree would seem to be a raw material but what about a 2 x 4? I can argue either way.

2x4s are rarely sold in 18" lengths (or any other length that would fit within the starting box). You could get it cut at the store, but the receipt shows that you bought a 10 foot 2x4 (because you did). In other words, a 2x4 is not in a functional form until you cut and drill it to fit your specific application. At least that is how I interpret it.

[JesseK]

This announcement is going to blur the lines alot more in the whole 'transfer of skills from mentor to student' paradigm. Yet it will allow a bit more creativity in robot design (so long as the game doesn't have ridiculous outcomes like the 2011-2012 game did...). Personally, given the choice I'll stick with FRC. Yet if I ever had to start a new team from scratch as a sole mentor, this announcement makes FTC much more attractive since FTC is more cost effective that FRC yet is still open-ended competition platform without the constraints of a kit.

It will be cool to see pure WCD's in FTC rather than the standard cobbled-together amalgamations that I've seen in the past. And given that (currently) there's no weight limit, I don't see why the lower frame rails can't simply be solid steel extrusions welded together in order to get a massive traction bonus. A 50-lb 8-motor box-on-wheels with a c.g. 1" off the ground, proper gearing and the LEGO tires that I (still!) only saw 2 teams with at champs this year?? I'd take that as a partner in FTC any day.

Originally Posted by PhilBot

The big (HUGE) difference between FTC and FRC (I coach both) is that:
...
Where as in FTC (and FLL) the students are meant to do all the work. That's why they have much more time to do it, and everything is scaled down. So unless the teams break the spirit of this difference, FTC won't turn into FRC.

Funny you say that -- it does happen, and it does affect outcomes:
Under The Sun's 2010 FTC bot was completely adult programmed. The dad on the team admitted it outright to a couple of students who cornered him at the end of the VA competition. At champs, one of my snarkier students walked up to the guy and congratulated him on beating high school students. I think at that point he realized his mistake, because since then the kids on that team have become much more knowledgeable about the underlying code.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by JesseK

It will be cool to see pure WCD's in FTC rather than the standard cobbled-together amalgamations that I've seen in the past. And given that (currently) there's no weight limit, I don't see why the lower frame rails can't simply be solid steel extrusions welded together in order to get a massive traction bonus. A 50-lb 8-motor box-on-wheels with a c.g. 1" off the ground, proper gearing and the LEGO tires that I (still!) only saw 2 teams with at champs this year?? I'd take that as a partner in FTC any day.

Did these teams use the plastic hubs for the lego wheels or simply stretch the tire over a Tetrix wheel? I like the idea of using the nice rubber tire, but connecting to that plastic hub in a reliable way would be the challenge for me.