The Dark Side of the 2013 game

[Lil' Lavery]

Even with the higher CIM limits in 2013, 6-motor drivetrains are every bit as rare as they were in previous years. 1712 has encountered only one at each of our events (341 at Hatboro, 225 at Lenape). Most teams are still sticking with 2/4 CIM drivetrains.

Even more curious, imo, is how many teams didn't opt to go with high powered or high traction drives this year. Perhaps it was the relatively low contact nature of the 2012 game, but there are a number of teams (including some very good veterans) who opted for more finesse-oriented drives in 2013. 1712 has a relatively standard drive system by many years' FRC standards (4CIMs, 1-speed transmission, ~10fps, Versa wheels), yet we were among the strongest drivetrains at both districts we attended. We've only encountered two teams that were able to displace us, 225 and 2729 (and neither could do it quickly). A lot of teams seemed to forget what happens in "open field" games when designing their robot. Especially ones that also have chokepoints.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Even with the higher CIM limits in 2013, 6-motor drivetrains are every bit as rare as they were in previous years. 1712 has encountered only one at each of our events (341 at Hatboro, 225 at Lenape). Most teams are still sticking with 2/4 CIM drivetrains.

Even more curious, imo, is how many teams didn't opt to go with high powered or high traction drives this year. Perhaps it was the relatively low contact nature of the 2012 game, but there are a number of teams (including some very good veterans) who opted for more finesse-oriented drives in 2013. 1712 has a relatively standard drive system by many years' FRC standards (4CIMs, 1-speed transmission, ~10fps, Versa wheels), yet we were among the strongest drivetrains at both districts we attended. We've only encountered two teams that were able to displace us, 225 and 2729 (and neither could do it quickly). A lot of teams seemed to forget what happens in "open field" games when designing their robot. Especially ones that also have chokepoints.

For some reason, people feel that more maneuverability is demanded with an open field, weighing it higher than a drivetrain with power behind it. I think the logic behind this decision is with an open field, defense is more viable, so these teams wish to maneuver around the defense.

I've only seen 1 6 CIM DT at both events I attended, but plenty of two speed drivetrains, and certainly more 4 cim DT's than before.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Even with the higher CIM limits in 2013, 6-motor drivetrains are every bit as rare as they were in previous years.

I really hope FIRST keeps the motor allocations the same in future years. It would not be fun to have to go back to 4 CIM drive.

[techtiger1]

Lets just play stack attack with the motors we have now, no bumper rules and see what happens. 6 cim drive with brecoflex belts here we come. Back on topic though, I think teams don't teach enough evasive driving. A good driver will beat a really good defensive robot most of the time. FIRST doesn't want to see any defense in these games anyway and writes the manual as such. They allow a few things to make it interesting but the intent over the past few years has been for a high scoring game. Which is what I agree FIRST competitions should be.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by techtiger1

Lets just play stack attack with the motors we have now, no bumper rules and see what happens. 6 cim drive with brecoflex belts here we come.

Given there was hardly a need for any high powered articulation in that game, might as well lob all 10 CIM/MiniCIMs into the drivetrain.