2015 HINT DISCUSSION

[Wyatt Jordan]

But if FIRST gets its hands on this stuff it's all over, but I'm betting its too expensive

http://ktoe.com/common/page.php?id=3151&is_corp=1

[stepan]

"Change is coming."
Change.
Ultimate Ascent will be replayed with different sized frisbees painted like coins.

[Canon reeves]

In 1999, the NFL allowed instant replay for coaches to be able to question the call,here this could be a possiblity, but I doubt it because the question box is already full, imagine the nightmare of rewatching every match for simple calls? But if the penalty affected the game outcome they could use instant replay?

[hmarch00]

Google "Change is coming" and find a song "A Change Is Gonna Come" by Sam Cooke. The first line of that song is "I was born by a river." Water Game Confirmed.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Just my opinion, but I feel the '97/'99 mixup was not on purpose nor does it have any significance. Frank responded "Whoops." which makes me think it was actually an accident - I don't think they would acknowledge the key hint in the video while it might not've been so obvious? Then again he could be helping out and pointing out that that was what we shoud've been looking for.

[gavmac928]

Originally Posted by Canon reeves

In 1999, the NFL allowed instant replay for coaches to be able to question the call,here this could be a possiblity, but I doubt it because the question box is already full, imagine the nightmare of rewatching every match for simple calls? But if the penalty affected the game outcome they could use instant replay?

The other day I was thinking about how the NFL has instant replay, the MLB recently began implementing it, and the NHL is beginning to consider using it as well. I have always seen one of FRC's ultimate goals as being as big a spectator sport as any of the traditional ones, and I'm sure they've talked about implementing things like instant replay. But in football, the one thing you can't challenge is a penalty, even when they can have a big impact on the game. Obviously FRC doesn't have to have the same rules for challenging, but other than penalties, scoring is the other big thing you would challenge, but other than arguing whether a team got an assist or not, I can't think of anything in recent years that's truly questionable. A ball is either in a goal or not, and endgame results are already assessed carefully because they can walk on the field to look at the robots closely.

[GeeTwo]

Originally Posted by EricH

Let's see... Rookies could theoretically manage any one of the following:
2010: push a soccer ball into a goal
2011: launch a minibot
2012: balance a bridge
2013: low goal points, at 1 point each, OR FCS blocker
2014: low goal/assist

How many of those require adding something to the chassis?

Let's make it easier. How many do NOT require adding something to the chassis?

*crickets*

Actually, we had an essentially square kitbot at our regional who managed several low goals and (herding) assists in 2014. The only thing "added to the chassis" not in the KOP were the mandatory bumpers. It also had a plywood cover flush with the top of the bumpers to protect the electronics, but it didn't help push the ball.

The last two years have had several scoring opportunities for a drive system with some totally static "manipulators", and defensive opportunities by simply getting in the way. As I recall, in 2012, something else had to move for you to influence the score - you couldn't get on a bridge without pushing it down outside your bumpers, and you couldn't pick up a ball either. You couldn't defend, since you couldn't get over the hump. I doubt that you could even drop a "startup" ball in a low goal without something moving.

[fb39ca4]

Originally Posted by Wyatt Jordan

But if FIRST gets its hands on this stuff it's all over, but I'm betting its too expensive

http://ktoe.com/common/page.php?id=3151&is_corp=1

At first I thought the demonstration sheet was the entire ice rink. Fortunately not. I wonder how durable that material is.

Originally Posted by GeeTwo

As I recall, in 2012, something else had to move for you to influence the score - you couldn't get on a bridge without pushing it down outside your bumpers, and you couldn't pick up a ball either. You couldn't defend, since you couldn't get over the hump. I doubt that you could even drop a "startup" ball in a low goal without something moving.

It was possible to drive over the hump using 8" wheels.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by fb39ca4

It was possible to drive over the hump using 8" wheels.

As I recall you could drive under the hump, too.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

As I recall you could drive under the hump, too.

That was 2010.

[Paul Richardson]

Originally Posted by XenObliv

Yet hockey isn't hockey without ice or something similar.

Originally Posted by Jacob Bendicksen

It's also possible that they keep the carpet, but do something to make robots a little more 'slippery' on the field...mandatory Omni wheels or something like that.

I feel like the hand model from Zoolander here. I just explained this, a moment ago. There's nothing all that 'slippery' about ice skating. If wheels weren't a close approximation of skates in the first place, roller skates wouldn't be a thing.

Originally Posted by Paul Richardson

I don't think that a slippery driving surface is necessary. If you look at hockey players they aren't slipping and sliding around, they have pretty good control. In fact, the way they skate is pretty similar to how a typical FRC robot moves on carpet (forward and backward, sweeping turns, and pivots).

[mgurgol]

If you take the hint "Change is Coming!" as a play on words for "Winter is Coming" (Game of Thrones), and the 60 in long, 3X3 box in the kit of parts, could it be a lance for jousting.

Have robot to robot interaction instead of each alliance attempting to score a goal.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by gavmac928

... and the NHL is beginning to consider using it as well.

Wait what? The NHL has been using instant replay since 1991.

[evand4567]

The war room in Toronto would like to have a word with you...

[Navid Shafa]

While I am not under the belief that hockey pucks are in our near future, I am willing to agree with the following logic that was proposed to me:

The Mystery Box in the KOP: 3" x 3" x 60", 6lbs

Proposal: Pucks in a long cylindrical tube (minimal weight increase and space reduction)

Individual Puck Size: 2.875" Diameter, 1.25' Thick, Weight 2oz

45 of these pucks would come out to 5.625 lbs and 56.25" when stacked. That would certainly fit the extents and leave a little room and weight for packaging...