Team Update 4

[EricH]

Originally Posted by ZonChau

Though what is the A-Bomb? Unfamiliar with the term.

2006: dumper-class robot dumped it's hopper to an allied shooter with a nice, wide floor load. 195->25, Einstein Field (least I think it was 25--I'm pretty sure 968 was up on the ramp rattling some chains at the time.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by EricH

2006: dumper-class robot dumped it's hopper to an allied shooter with a nice, wide floor load. 195->25, Einstein Field (least I think it was 25--I'm pretty sure 968 was up on the ramp rattling some chains at the time.

Silly Eric, 25 didn't even have a floor intake, it was 195=> 968

[PayneTrain]

All I know is that we have an FTC team who is gracious enough to come in and help us with the construction of the minibot, of which we have 4 weeks left to build (providing team Update 5 disallows anything except tradional Lego bricks).

I think after the season is over, I can either moan and groan about the game like I did after Breakaway, or take a lot of positive things out of it, like Lunacy.

I am grateful that First said, "Yes world, this is why/how we want this," unlike the rapid, unplanned expansion that puts smaller, newer teams with a foot in the grave, or the carpet-yanking of FVC.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by dag0620

I can't speak for others, but even though I am quite upset about this, I am in no way ready to quit. Like in any Group, you have people who get upset, sometimes fuming, about the politics. Now are they mad about a particular way something was done, yes, but at the end of the day we all agree about while were hear and the ideals. For me this ticks me off, but it's not like it's ruined my season. Honestly besides a couple questions about my FB status about this at the beginning of my day this morning, I haven't thought about it throughout the build day.

That's understandable, I was targeting that toward others (not necessarily Chris, who was quoted in my post) that are making this a life-or-death situation. People getting frustrated and expressing their anger about a particular subject is fine, and expected when a major "controversial" statement is made.

People saying they're done supporting FIRST because of it is OK too. So leave. Nobody is forcing those individuals to stay in the program. If it really is as big of a deal as you make it out to be, then try to change it. E-mail the directors, ask Dave some questions, phone headquarters. Don't just sit around and complain about it endlessly. Either you're fine with it, you dislike it enough to take action, or you really dislike it enough to leave.

[Taylor]

The Indianapolis Zoo has a strong platform of educating families and getting them interested in the world around them. My family and I support the Indianapolis Zoo.
The Indianapolis Childrens' Museum has a strong platform of educating families and getting them interested in the world around them. My family and I support the Indianapolis Childrens' Museum.

Are there elements of and lessons learned from the Zoo that may be applied to the Childrens' Museum? Yes.
Are there elements of and lessons learned from the Childrens' Museum that may be applied to the Zoo? Yes.

Does membership in one preclude membership in the other? For families with tight financial situations, possibly. Are there families that participate in both? Absolutely.

Are the two entities aware of each other? Certainly. Do they work together? Possibly, but not overtly in a public manner.

If I show my Childrens' Museum membership card at the Zoo and demand entrance, I will be denied access.
If I show my Zoo membership card at the Childrens' Museum and demand entrance, I will be denied access.
Does that bother me? Not at all - in fact, I'd be shocked if the opposite were true.

Are the two entities in direct competition with each other? It could be viewed that way.
Do they both serve the same population? Generally speaking, yes.

Do they waste one neuron on stealing each other's pieces of the pie, or do they focus on making the overall pie bigger through outreach programs of their own making and celebrating and promoting their own brands?
The latter.

They are both successful and inspirational institutions that are pillars of our community. While some individuals may have stronger personal allegiances to one over the other, they are both widely respected and cherished.

----

We're very excited about the lengthening of the scoring peg and the change allowing feederbots - a strategy we could very likely employ given the right circumstances.

Although the original document could have used a bit more proofreading, I wish to commend the GDC on a truly well-thought-out and engaging game. At first I thought the game was way too complicated to explain to a layperson, but in the end I believe the gameplay will speak for itself. Well done.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

Silly Eric, 25 didn't even have a floor intake, it was 195=> 968

And the first A-Bomb (or at least the first to be called as such) happened in the Newton eliminations.

[JesseK]

I loathe most things about my Apple iPhone; from its archaic synchronization methods, to its inability to multi-task, to its inability to prevent apps from tracking my specific phone's SIM ID, to the ridiculous 56-page (and growing) terms of usage for the Apple Store; the list goes on. The only saving grace I have is that I can cut my losses in April when my contract ends and choose a new phone. I don't begrudge Apple for their communistic technology practices; I simply don't want to be a part of them.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. And this too:

Throw the MINIBOT aside for a second and examine everything veteran FRC teams have had go their way this season; there are three that I can think of off the top of my head, centric to my team:
1.) The 2011 game is very similar to 2007. I doubt there's a successful 2007 team around that isn't almost already done with their robot, barring weather or significant capabilities changes
2.) The allotment of motors plays towards every resource veteran teams have accrued over the years for KOP motors, including the (typically) most expensive things: COTS gearboxes
3.) Use of little-known KOP pieces for scoring 33% of most teams' points (the Igus sliders -- 1 has come in the kit every year for 4 years) -- has allowed at least one team (this one, and I'm sure others who haven't lost focus) to prototype a piece of the the ship-date robot in record-breaking time.

My point in saying both of these is that Apple is successful because Apple (and not their customers) controls the products; in doing so they're able to deliver an overall superior product regardless of its individual [severe] flaws. Customers who don't like it can go to a competitor. If we examine FIRST's control of the FRC product, then we not only get the TETRIX scenario, but also the above positive reflections on that control. Just like Apple has its cultists, atheists and agnostics, so apparently does FIRST.

To me, it's just sad that this year so many CD'ers are taking the opportunity to take cheap shots in the name something they're obviously bitter about only to turn around and continue to put on a facade elsewhere in order to get a FIRST award. To me, it means those teams have representatives who truly miss the point.

[Madison]

Two things --

<R92> The following items are the only permitted materials for use on the MINIBOTS:
A. TETRIX components that are not in violation of any other rules,

coupled with

B. no more than two motors (PN W739083/W739023) and an unlimited number of Tetrix servos),

precludes teams from using more than two of the Tetrix-brand motors on their minibots.

Does bullet A coupled with bullet H

H. Raw aluminum sheet, 90° angle, u-channel, tube, bar, that is not sold in pre-perforated or pre-punched form.

prohibit teams from using Tetrix channel, angle or flat bar? What distinguishes aluminum between the raw condition and something else?

Beyond that -- and risking to show my age a bit here -- how are the rules governing minibot construction meaningfully different than the rules from years ago that required that additional parts and materials of ALL sorts be purchased only from a single source -- Small Parts, Inc? I was younger then, but I can't recall even a fraction of the discontent y'all seem to be displaying today.

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Billfred

And the first A-Bomb (or at least the first to be called as such) happened in the Newton eliminations.

I believe the A-Bomb also was executed Successfully on Einstein by the same Newton Alliance.

[Racer26]

I can't help but to be reminded of a post I made following Championship 2010, and Dean's speech there that offended some manual laborers (we've lost these jobs, and don't want them back).

My [spotlighted] post then, and I stand by it now, said that if we want to grow the programs so that every child has the opportunity to be involved, we have to think with a WORLD-centric mindset, and not the AMERICAN-centric mindset that still seems to dominate many FRC teams (Calling CMP Nationals, and not Championship), and even FIRST HQ itself (talking about "american" problems, and "this nation" and the like, when most of what is being talked about applies the world over.) As a long-standing mentor on a CANADIAN team, I find this america-centric mindset offensive. It flies in the face of FIRSTs stated goals of changing the culture.

FIRST continues to make abject stabs at the VEX program, and as many before me have said, this flies in the face of their stated goal of changing the culture, which FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL, VRC, BEST, BotBall, et al are doing.

When people intimately tied to FIRST HQ such as Dave Lavery are making statements which DO follow these ideals (dont waste time on turf wars, grow the turf instead), I can't help but wonder what the motivation behind taking such (IMO) obvious stabs at VRC's success is.

The way these stabs are detracting from the program, and making SEVERAL well-known and well-respected mentors lose a great deal of faith in FIRST is a very sad thing.

One thing I haven't noticed, is IFI responding to the abject stabs at their success by pulling equally underhanded tactics. IFI remains a huge supporter of FIRST, even after the debacle surrounding FVC changing to FTC, and replacing the IFI controllers with the cRIO. If they wanted to, they could quite easily stop supporting FIRST altogether, and the quality of the FIRST program would surely suffer for it. I for one, am glad to see IFI taking the moral high ground, and not doing this.

Kudos to you IFI, for your continued support of FIRST and its stated ideals, even in spite of tactics aimed squarely at your success.

[Adam Y.]

Calling CMP Nationals, and not Championship

Seriously, that is the sort of thing you are getting angry at? Seriously????

One thing I haven't noticed, is IFI responding to the abject stabs at their success by pulling equally underhanded tactics. IFI remains a huge supporter of FIRST, even after the debacle surrounding FVC changing to FTC, and replacing the IFI controllers with the cRIO. If they wanted to, they could quite easily stop supporting FIRST altogether, and the quality of the FIRST program would surely suffer for it. I for one, am glad to see IFI taking the moral high ground, and not doing this.

I doubt the FIRST program would suffer for it at all if IFI decided to leave. Excluding FTC companies with far better abilities than IFI will ever have jumped in.

[Racer26]

I am not angry at that, I was using it as an example of how commonplace the america-centric view of FRC is.

[Racer26]

Also, all this talk of teams (particularly of TeamIFI, but teams in general as well), slapping VEX and IFI logos all over their [Mini]Bots reminds me of something I myself did in my Stock Car Racing life.

The track I race at had outlawed from the division I race in (known as mini stock in most places) all import vehicles. Only Ford, Chrysler, and GM products were allowed to compete. My Honda Civic was grandfathered in for one season, and then I would have to build a new car.

I built my new Mercury Sable (a Ford product, so it met the rule), and then promptly slathered an advertisement for my father's auto repair shop, which only works on imports, across the hood. It read:

(at the top of the windshield) Car-Du Automotive Services

(on hood)
(small)Independent
(14" logo) Honda
(6" letters) Acura and Toyota Service
<phone number>

The fans of course were confused as to why I was driving a Ford with a giant Honda logo on it, but it was our way of letting the track know we weren't impressed. It worked, people who knew what had happened giggled at our tongue-in-cheek jab at the track, and some of the track staff acknowledged what went on.

This January at the meeting for 2011's season, the track announced that they are considering welcoming import cars back to our division as a way to increase car counts, as many neighboring tracks have lots of imports running there.

I'm not advocating teams do this, as I don't feel its within the spirit of Gracious Professionalism, (unless you're a member of TeamIFI, in which case, by all means, put IFI/VEX logos on your bot), I just thought I'd share a similar story.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I am not angry at that, I was using it as an example of how commonplace the america-centric view of FRC is.

You do realize that it was pretty much an America centric competition until recently right?

[Chris is me]

FRC has been international since at least 2000.