Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Andy,
OSHA has a standard but the limit is specified for repeated lifting over an eight hour work shift. As such it is not applicable to intermittent lifting of 75 lbs. Don't quote me as I researched this a few years back. I think it was something like repeated 45 lbs. max without assistance.

[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

[WizenedEE]

I'm hoping it's permanent so perhaps next year we can over 15 revisions of our system-level volume allocation drawing (we're at revision 9 now, although luckily now it's just getting more specific and not so much changing). We've also had the discussions "Can is PLEASE be 26x30? It's hard to do odd numbers in CAD..."

[wilsonbiggs]

I think it's a good idea; like stated earlier, it forces teams to be creative to make it smaller. The weight not changing also makes sense; like architects say (I'd assume), you can still build up rather than sideways. About its permanence, however– perhaps it should change every year. It would be a good idea to challenge teams each year by mixing it up.

[flargen507]

I am personally very excited about the new frame perimeter rules. I agree with many other posts that the smaller size will create more specialized robots, which I am looking forward to seeing. Another point that I don't think has been brought up is the shape of the robot. Geometrically, the new rules put a larger push on non-rectangular robots, particularly six or eight sided. This gives you more area for your 112 in perimeter (although it may not be as usable). While before the box pushed all teams to the standard rectangle to maximize area, this weights it the other direction. I haven't seen a non-rectangle robot at my regional or nationals since 2010 (not that they weren't there, but I didn't see them). I am curious to see how this may affect the 6/8 wheel tank drive or mecanum drives most commonly seen. I expect to see more omni directional drives and swerve modules, which I think could be very exciting.

[ksafin]

Part of me was upset because despite the fact that FRC robots are still large, it's really the size of just two FTC robots side by side (in one dimension, at least).

FRC was always known as the big step up with big bots, big challenges, and big ideas. That hasn't changed much but the big bots got less big

Part of me loved big bots because they just "looked" more impressive in terms of luring in new potential members - not saying a smaller bot isn't impressive, but I feel as though it's easier to make a bigger bot look more impressive.

The other side of me is happy because its much easier to stay within weight limit w/ the new size restriction.

[Sandvich]

I think FIRST thinks that smaller robots will make teams more likely to build single-function robots dedicated to a specific task rather than building big multibots that can do everything. They want more variety and specialization. Hence the ability to make a robot any shape as long as it's got a small enough perimeter (compared to the rigid 28" x 38" rule from past seasons).

[pfreivald]

I agree that smaller bots will force a lot of teams to compromise functionality (especially with a VERY tiered end game) -- I know it did with us!

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of having the bots get much smaller than they have been historically, because laypeople see small robots as toys, and large robots as ZOMGROBOTS! That this just isn't true doesn't matter when we're talking about public perception and recruitment of sponsors, mentors, and students.

[catacon]

I hope they keep it for a few years and then maybe go back to large bots or some different form factor. I think it's good to change things up every few years. I do agree that they shouldn't be too small, though. Leave small bots to FTC.

[Astrokid248]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

Hey now, it's awesome exercise!

[toastnbacon]

I like the new rules! We can finally fit our robot through our slightly smaller than usual front door!

[nahstobor]

I have a feeling this topic will be the most talked about item on the end of the year survey.

The new frame perimeter rules ares fantastic, but lets increase the maximum frame perimeter to 132 inches.

[HumblePie]

I agree wholeheartedly that the change in sizing requirements has made this year very interesting and highly challenging. I think, at various points in this process, we've all just wished for a little more room to make things fit. I too expect that the size requirements will change year to year to prevent veteran teams from just re-using chassis engineering from prior years.

The genesis for this change may have been early during the LogoMotion build season when a few veteran teams posted photos of their Rack n Roll robots with the caption "Done". As always, I look forward to the monkey wrenches that FIRST will throw at us next year.