2013 Robot Dimensions

[HumblePie]

We were configured long, 6 wheel tank, 32.5 x 23.75. The length was largely driven by the 31 inch nanotubes and wheels.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Actually, it was harder for inspectors to check, but easier for teams to pass! with the sizing box in previous years, inspectors had it easy - they got to stand back while teams tried to shove their robot into the box. This year, inspectors had to pull out the tape measure and work their way around the entire robot, making sure the tape wasn't going over a "minor protrusion" and was pulled tight. Much more work for the inspector

Really? I love not having the sizing box to further bog down the inspection station. More difficult (and sllooow) to handle the box + scale flow than just the scale. Re-checking is also a lot easier. I kept my tape measure as a ref as well (ok, so I did that before). The individual measuring action might not be better for inspectors, but I'd say the process is easier.

Did people actually do the "walk all the way around" thing? I thought that was a original intent, but then we were told (both as an inspector and as a mentor), that we'd just measure each side and add. The walk around's more accurate though.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Siri

Really? I love not having the sizing box to further bog down the inspection station. More difficult (and sllooow) to handle the box + scale flow than just the scale. Re-checking is also a lot easier. I kept my tape measure as a ref as well (ok, so I did that before). The individual measuring action might not be better for inspectors, but I'd say the process is easier.

Did people actually do the "walk all the way around" thing? I thought that was a original intent, but then we were told (both as an inspector and as a mentor), that we'd just measure each side and add. The walk around's more accurate though.

At both of the regionals I did and at Champs, we wrapped the tape measure around the entire robot in order to determine compliance.

[Chris is me]

We were 28W*26L. (No, it's not because I'm a Wave fanboy)

If I had to do it again, it would probably be 24W*30L

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

At both of the regionals I did and at Champs, we wrapped the tape measure around the entire robot in order to determine compliance.

Jeez, I hope they standardize this.


So keep the rule, regulate the procedure.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Siri

Jeez, I hope they standardize this.


So keep the rule, regulate the procedure.

I would guess this will be standardized (assuming the rule stays the same). One of the issues with radically changing a major rule like this is working out the kinks the first year... It's easy for the GDC to decide to change a rule (and frankly I love this rule change!), but once they do the inspectors have to "scramble" to figure out how to best enforce it - remember, we don't see the rules until everyone else does! That means we have 6 weeks as a widely spread out group to figure out how to enforce all the rules the same at all regionals (and keep in mind we have a bunch of bright LRI's who all have their own ideas on how things should be enforced), and sometimes word doesn't quite get to everyone regarding the process that's to be used, despite our best efforts.

In the end, though, I would personally be comfortable with either method as being "good enough". After all, what difference is a 1/4" going to make if you're a little over? It just mean's you're going to be spending some time and effort getting under (by filing the corners), without really changing your design. If we miss that 1/4" by measuring the sides and doing some math, I wouldn't really think that a team gets any sort of competitive advantage. I'd be more worried about inspectors confusing themselves trying to do the math under pressure while standing in front of a team!

[Jeffy]

We would have liked to go with a 38:28 ratio, but couldn't. We had a shooter proto w/ hopper in week one that we liked that was 26 inches wide. So we made the robot 26.5 inches which left the length to 29.5 inches.

We built the bot to the full spec of 112" knowing we could keep a tolerance to .125 inch over the entire bot. Our plan was that if we came in to long on the perimeter to take a smidge off the corner bumper mounts.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

Please, FIRST, give us a 132" (38x28) perimeter again! We couldn't do half of what we wanted to do this year because of size restrictions.

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would say this is actually a good thing. Forcing teams to choose which parts of the challenge they'll address leads to more diverse robots and a more interesting game on the field. Looking back over the past few years, having so many robots available that could do everything really did make match ups a little less interesting than this year.

What Jon said. ^^

I like small 'bots, and I cannot lie.

[Brandon Zalinsky]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I would say this is actually a good thing. Forcing teams to choose which parts of the challenge they'll address leads to more diverse robots and a more interesting game on the field. Looking back over the past few years, having so many robots available that could do everything really did make match ups a little less interesting than this year.

I don't agree. For the most part, it doesn't force prioritizing or diversity, it forces many teams to build the same robot. More complicated drivetrains (swerve/mecanum) are a bigger pain to pull off, and many hundreds of teams built the exact same robot- 4/6wd human-fed linear shooter. The biggest variation was whether the team build a linear or curved shooter, but other than that, differences in functionality are minimal. The only really cool design difference, the height of the robot with regards to full-court shooting (60") or making it under the bar (<30") was not based on size, it was based on the field.

[JohnSchneider]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

I don't agree. For the most part, it doesn't force prioritizing or diversity, it forces many teams to build the same robot. More complicated drivetrains (swerve/mecanum) are a bigger pain to pull off, and many hundreds of teams built the exact same robot- 4/6wd human-fed linear shooter. The biggest variation was whether the team build a linear or curved shooter, but other than that, differences in functionality are minimal. The only really cool design difference, the height of the robot with regards to full-court shooting (60") or making it under the bar (<30") was not based on size, it was based on the field.

I believe they're refering to the decision of having a floor pickup vs having a climber. Or Having a 10pt hang vs a climber. Not differences in the same mechanism but the decision between different mechanisms in the same space.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

I don't agree. For the most part, it doesn't force prioritizing or diversity, it forces many teams to build the same robot. More complicated drivetrains (swerve/mecanum) are a bigger pain to pull off, and many hundreds of teams built the exact same robot- 4/6wd human-fed linear shooter. The biggest variation was whether the team build a linear or curved shooter, but other than that, differences in functionality are minimal. The only really cool design difference, the height of the robot with regards to full-court shooting (60") or making it under the bar (<30") was not based on size, it was based on the field.

and with that, you've completely ignored 2 other viable design options this year: Blocking and climbing. There were a wide array of blocking designs, from ones that were removable to ones that could extend up to block a FCS. For climbing, there were again a wide variety of designs - even teams that climbed the same part of the pyramid (corner or side) had drastically different designs. Yes, there were really only two ways to shoot a frisbee - linear or curved. This wasn't because of the size constraint... it was because of the physics of actually shooting a frisbee. And yes, you see more shooters than anything else... but I think that's due to the (real or perceived) cost and benefits of tackling each part of the challenge. If climbing was as "easy" as shooting and perceived by everyone to be "worth" as much, we would have seen a lot more climbing robots.

The key point, however, is that with a smaller footprint it makes it very, very hard to build a robot that can do everything. As a result, teams have to prioritize and choose what they'll do.

From a strategy perspective, you end up with matches that play very differently based on what each robot is capable of doing. Who does the blocker try and stop, the shooting robot or the climbing robot? If you have 3 short robots, how do you stop the FCS you're going against? This goes directly against what we've seen the past few years. Last year, everyone mostly stayed on their side of the field, shot as many baskets as they could and balanced a bridge. The only question was how many robots would be on that bridge. The year before, you were split with two robots putting up tubes and one playing defense for most alliances, and everyone had an identical minibot to deploy by week 2. By forcing the "elite" teams to make choices in their design, we create a much better competition overall.

[Chris is me]

There's something to be said for the measurement of 112". It's a 28x28 cube. It means any four-sided robot, regardless of how it is built, WILL fit through a standard door. Changing it to 132" would allow the possibility for errors.

Personally, I didn't mind smaller robots. Packaging wasn't easy, but it wasn't the reason we made any of our big design decisions really. The way robots move across the field when they are smaller was also better, less traffic and more scoring in general.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Yes, there were really only two ways to shoot a frisbee - linear or curved. This wasn't because of the size constraint... it was because of the physics of actually shooting a frisbee.

1503

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Boe

1503

I had somehow missed that robot! that's a pretty cool (and very different!) way of shooting!

[Richard Wallace]

525.