Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[F22Rapture]

I would hope that it isn't, however FIRST is expanding and they may well be trying to cut down on materials costs by reducing the size. It's also possible that it's a one-time thing due to the dynamics of this year's game. Thoughts?

[connor.worley]

Small robots cost less and are easier to transport. We haven't had any issues with designing for a smaller size this year, so I like the new rules.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

Small robots cost less and are easier to transport. We haven't had any issues with designing for a smaller size this year, so I like the new rules.

How much less though?
With respect to registration fees, travel costs, and the actual field and game elements not significantly smaller, I find it much more difficult to design a robot vs. the "savings" made from a smaller robot.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by waialua359

How much less though?

I believe the savings are pretty negligible in regards to material costs.

[Nuttyman54]

I don't think FIRST will see a particular cost savings from the robot size, although theoretically it may give them a reason to reduce the pit space slightly to allow for more teams at an event.

I feel that the decision was made to force teams to choose between a good climber and a good shooter. The additional restrictive playing configuration size limitations make it difficult, if not impossible, to fit both mechanisms onto a single robot. I believe it was a conscious decision by the GDC to diversify the robot capabilities and force teams to focus on doing one aspect of the game well, or a few aspects mediocre.

[EricH]

I think that the size change was FIRST's way of giving notice: Anything can and will change at any time.

Before this size change, the size has stayed the same* since 2005. Before that, the size stayed the same for several years; I don't remember when it became 30"x36"x60" so I can't say anything about how long. Teams have locked into--and to some extent assumed--a constant size. A number of offseason drives have been prototyped, at the 28"x38" size. Maybe one or two offseason drives snuck into the competition. (Note: I do not include the extension limits as part of the size here; those changed every year.)

The size change changes all that. It forces teams to adapt--or engineer--their designs. It also opens the design up a bit, making the competition harder. And, it's really, really easy to tweak in future. Just change one number, and watch the wheels in 20,000 heads start turning.

Incidentally, when I competed in SAE Aero Design's Regular Class, there was a similar limit to aircraft size: length+width+height<=X, and X could change year to year. We tended to build to a long wingspan. Other teams built more to the long tail or tall height sides of the spectrum. In different years, with somewhat different rules, different long dimensions did better.

I think the size change will be semi-permanent. That is, the change in how dimensions are calculated is probably here to stay for several years; the actual number will probably vary year-to-year.


*Barring 2007's varying height, which did not affect the perimeter size, but was rather popular in public opinion.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I believe the savings are pretty negligible in regards to material costs.

Definitely - especially when you consider the costs of motors, gears, electronics etc.

[Jon Stratis]

I keep going back and forth on the size change.

Pro: Helps to stimulate innovation and create a diverse field of competing robots.

In other words, by defining the robot footprint the way they did this year, it allows a lot more flexibility and creativity. Hopefully, we'll see robots with wildly varying dimensions this year.

Con: Getting the kitbot with a belt drive train this year really doesn't work well with the new size limit.

The belts are designed for specific spacing, which means you need to build your drive train to one of two dimensions, depending on if you're going 2 wheeled or 3 wheeled. This seems to be directly contrary to the main benefit of the new size rules.


So, if you're a team that opted for the voucher, you're sitting real nice - You can build to whatever dimensions you want (within the limitations of the rule), and build a custom drive train.

But if you got the kitbot chassis, you have a choice to make: Build to the specific dimensions the belts for the drive train dictate you build to, or spend more money for new belts (or chains and sprockets) in order to get the same flexibility teams with the voucher have.

It just feels like these two changes shouldn't have been introduced in the same year, or that we should have had some sort of advanced notice about the size change so we could really make an informed decision when it came to the kitbot chassis.

Then again, maybe I'm just being a bitter old man after being stuck obtaining chains and sprockets when the belts wouldn't work with our design.

[Justin Shelley]

I would like to see the size changes permanent. I enjoy the challenge

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by connor.worley

Small robots cost less

We have yet to save any money due to the smaller footprint and extension limits. The metal itself is a small portion of our robot cost.

We have saved a lot of robot money in speed controllers and in many mechanical parts due to the new low-cost Vex Pro and reduced price AndyMark components. The savings from these two alone is far larger than reducing the robot size by 10", likely several orders of magnitude larger.

I am not a fan of the 54" cylinder including the bumper, but I don't mind the footprint rules.

[s_forbes]

I love the new method of sizing robot frames by using the perimeter. It encourages teams to put more thought into the design of the robot compared to the "these are our max dimensions, let's use all of it" approach. There should be some more interesting frame designs this year compared to the last 6 years. I'm also hoping that we'll see more light, zippy robots this year instead of a fleet of 120lb rectangles.

Best of all, we finally got rid of that darn sizing box!

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I love the new method of sizing robot frames by using the perimeter.

Me too! Airplane people are all about trade-offs. This method of sizing forces teams to consider many more trade offs instead of just building to a typical size and putting a mechanism in their somehow. OTOH, the Frisbees take up a significant footprint in the robot, so it will be harder for some teams to design working mechanisms.

IMO, it makes it a little harder to be overweight as well. On the flip side, it'll make robots more tippy.

[Shu]

I don't think it would be fair to change the size now that teams have developed strategies and designs based on the current requirements. I'm just talking about this year's game.

[Bryce Paputa]

I like the new rules. They allow for more creativity and pose a challenge of a smaller robot. However, what I like even more is that the weight is still the same.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by stevend1994

One thing I noticed Week 1 was how crowded the space in front of the pyramid and the space in between the pyramids seemed to get at some times. This could just be from streaming angles, but I can't imagine what it would have been like with larger robots, it would have been significantly more crowded, meaning more G30s.

I drive for 1058, and at least a BAE/GSR, G30's were not being called at all. We committed G30 penalties and they were committed on us without call. I don't know if that's just because they weren't being seen or if they're actually being ignored.