New Perimeter Rules Reflection

[vhcook]

As an inspector, I liked the perimeter rule. I didn't have any teams have to make a correction, unlike the old problem where the frame going off square made the robot not fit the box anymore. The tape measure was a little more annoying to manipulate than the box, but I think it's better for the teams.

Originally Posted by bardd

Because of that, fitting mechanisms into the robot was much harder, and demanded more tradeoffs. Because of that we saw much less robots perform many tasks, and none could do all (the closest was 469 IMO that could do anything except climb and dump).

Did you see 1986? Floor pickup, 7 disc auton, rapid cycling, 30 point climb. Ok, they didn't dump once they were up there, but come on...

There were some other robots that could do nearly everything but I'll admit they were relatively rare. I don't think the reason for that was space. The tasks were not easy, and teams made strategic design choices to stay within their ability to execute well. A little more space might have gotten you a handful more teams that could do it all, but I don't think it would have made that big a difference. Larger might even have made climbing harder by moving the typical robot's center of gravity farther from the pyramid.

I'll admit we felt a bit of a crunch fitting in electrical and the pneumatics due to the space limitations, which was made even harder due to the design choice to go short, but we'd already decided we weren't climbing for more than 10 before we even started space allocation.

[cbale2000]

Personally, I liked the flexibility of the of the rules as far as the dimensions and shapes it allowed. It was quite interesting to see how some teams took advantage of the rules to come up with everything from very square machines to unusually elongated ones (I'm looking at you 326)

That said, the smaller total perimeter was, in my opinion, a huge headache for building the robot and even more-so for finding space for electronics. Particularly for teams like ours that didn't take advantage of using a non-standard frame shape, the smaller overall size was a pain.

I'd personally like to see FIRST revert to the previous max frame perimeter size, but keep the flexibility of this years shape and dimension rules.

[bardd]

Originally Posted by vhcook

Did you see 1986? Floor pickup, 7 disc auton, rapid cycling, 30 point climb. Ok, they didn't dump once they were up there, but come on...

No FCS...

[Whippet]

Originally Posted by bardd

No FCS...

That's not necessarily true. I remember them telling me at Hub City that they could, but didn't see it as being worth it strategically.

[Zuelu562]

I love the frame perimiter rule. People see 28" x 38" and said "welp, 27-27.75" by 37-37.75" "(outside of the people who think creatively and those who only use kitbot frame). As was mentioned, it allowed the creative to get more creative, it allowed those with experience with the kitbot continue to use their security blanket (the downside being people getting caught, but then again, the weight rule has been relatively standard, and it catches people every year X_X).

If the exact number on the frame perimiter rule changes (ie going from 112 to 130), it would probably be prudent to have a blue box with the reminder that most doors are X" wide, as was also mentioned.

Again, mentioned earlier, the permiter rule worked out perfectly to limit the amount of functions a single robot could perform to it's zenith (It was hard to fit a 30 point climber with a dumper on a robot with a FCS).

[bardd]

Originally Posted by Whippet

That's not necessarily true. I remember them telling me at Hub City that they could, but didn't see it as being worth it strategically.

I don't see a way to feed disks in their robot when it's aimed at the goals, but I'll check it out. The point was to show no one can do everything (also, forgot this the first time, no dump).

[vishnum]

Originally Posted by bardd

I don't see a way to feed disks in their robot when it's aimed at the goals, but I'll check it out. The point was to show no one can do everything (also, forgot this the first time, no dump).

What about 118? They can pick up discs, cycle, full court shoot, and climb for 30. Not sure about dumping at the top though.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by vishnum

What about 118? They can pick up discs, cycle, full court shoot, and climb for 30. Not sure about dumping at the top though.

they removed the climber for weight issues i believe, but i bet they could shoot very slowly into the top from what would have been their end position. Also i dont think they ever fcs except to feed discs to 254 (or maybe themselves on occasion or maybe im thinking of someone else

[vishnum]

Originally Posted by Boe

they removed the climber for weight issues i believe, but i bet they could shoot very slowly into the top from what would have been their end position. Also i dont think they ever fcs except to feed discs to 254 (or maybe themselves on occasion or maybe im thinking of someone else

Ah ok, I never actually watched any of their matches so I didn't know. I was just saying what I saw from their release video.

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by bardd

No FCS...

I think 842 surpasses 1986 in versatility. They have a climb and dump, in fact I think they could do everything but FCS.

IIRC, 842 was the most versatile robot as far as design approach/tactics goes.

[joeweber]

It would be nice if they went from 112inches to 112.25 inches than we could make full use of the kit frame holes. They seemed to line up 7/8 short or 1/8 too long.