Robot Numbering, Attractive Solutions?

[Mr. Lim]

We just made plates using these this year:

http://www.mcmaster.com/#sign-engraving-plates

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Siri

Without being a marketing/ascetics expert, I have trouble formulating a rule that would satisfy both my concerns and those others have mentioned. Anyone have an idea?

From looking at your examples of legible vs. illegible numbers on robots, it looks like we need to specify that every robot be a large box with expansive sheets of polycarbonate around the outside, so there's a convenient place to put a well designed team logo. We also need to require that every team spend sufficient effort to design such a logo, and it wouldn't hurt if they all figured out how to get sponsorship from a company that makes graphics.

I doubt that will happen.

The new rules may work ok, they may not. Figuring out where to put the numbers is going to be a challenge this year, since the way the game works kind of suggests that robots will not be made of big boxes, covered with polycarbonate panels. Instead, they will mostly be spindly frames with very little surface area, and moving parts that will make it hard to find a place to put four (roughly) 12" x 6" team number placards. Even if FIRST provides the placards, it's still going to be challenging to find or make a place to put them, as well as the team (school) name, and sponsor names.

It should be fun, we'll see what happens! The referees and scouts will probably have some fresh challenges.

[GaryVoshol]

Unfortunately Siri, far too few teams will design a robot with obvious identification like your 3 examples. Over the past few years with bumper numbers, there were quite a few teams that could have been disqualified from participating because they didn't have readily legible numbers. Of course we don't want to toss them out of an event because they couldn't meet something relatively easy to achieve. But really, teams could try a whole lot harder.

Allowing teams to design their own number-display scheme would be just that much worse. Teams would choose to have designs that were clear to them, because they are used to seeing the logo, but which don't translate well when displayed on a robot. Or they would come up with a color scheme that didn't have enough contrast.

An example from outside robotics. In our travel soccer league, teams are required to have a light and dark jersey. One team used their light blue team color as their dark jersey, and white as the light. They'd go up to play against a team that used light and dark blue. Team A would have their light blue on as "dark", and Team B had their light blue jersey on as "light" - and you couldn't tell the difference between them so you had to get one of them to change. And was a girls team, so changing wasn't simple.

I'm sure we're going to have teams show up thiss year with a sheet of paper with a thin Sharpie number on them, teams with only 1 or 2 signs, teams with no margin around their numbers, teams with black on non-white backgrounds - all sorts of sub-standard number signs. But at least they can be readily fixed.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Unfortunately Siri, far too few teams will design a robot with obvious identification like your 3 examples. Over the past few years with bumper numbers, there were quite a few teams that could have been disqualified from participating because they didn't have readily legible numbers. Of course we don't want to toss them out of an event because they couldn't meet something relatively easy to achieve. But really, teams could try a whole lot harder. ...

Gary, I agree, but I'd argue that the bumper number struggles are separate. I've never had a problem immediately identifying a team that is actually in compliance with modern-era bumper rules. At the same time, like you, I regularly let teams slide for failing to comply with them, both in inspection and on-field.

But that is not a rules issue. I have full confidence that n>1 teams will always fail to comply with any potential set of rules. (I'm an optimist like that.) We'll do our best to get those teams into compliance just like we do every year.

My post here was a separate issue, as to how compliance with this/alternative rule sets will actually affect identification (as opposed to just ascetics). I disagreed with jvriezen's point about immediate identification, but that doesn't mean I'd advocate for looser rules. (In fact, if immediate identification were the only end goal, I'd expect the rule set to be stricter. I'm not advocating for this either.) In terms of an identification/ascetics balance, are the rules too tight in some places and too loose in others? Would standard bibs better? A standard height? Allowing vertical numbers? Would allowing white-on-black make some robots more identifiable? What about giving RIs more leeway (which, as mentioned, we're likely to take anyway)? I don't know, so I asked.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Siri

this guy

"This guy?"
Oh come on, it says Alice right on the front!

[Anupam Goli]

Might as well ask this in the thread:

Would a creative way of displaying Team Number count towards your weight allowance? Per the manual,

When determining weight, the basic ROBOT structure and all elements of all
additional MECHANISMS that might be used in different configurations of the ROBOT shall be weighed together

Team numbers aren't really a mechanism, so I'm thinking we don't need to weigh those with the robot. However, the manual explicitly states that bumpers count towards weight this year, leading me to believe that any creative solution to numbering our robot may end up counting against our weight budget...

I'll be sure to ask in the Q&A, but I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.

[EricH]

My opinion is that it would. After all, sponsor panels count. The only things that don't count are batteries and operator console, so a tricked-out number would almost certainly count.

Siri makes a strong point that more aesthetically pleasing and more importantly more distinct designs are the more memorable ones. Anyone who comes to the Silicon Valley Regional for the first time will be able to automatically recognize that the robot with the orange animal theme is the Wildhats, that the elegant blue machine is the Cheesy Poofs, and the beautiful architecture of sheet metal is Spartan Robotics. The reason this is so effective is because these teams know how to properly brand and design robots that stand out compared to the rest. It's not even arguable that this is the most ideal method to differentiate robots. It's that effective, always has been, and likely always will be.

The problem with that is it is an ideal, because not every team makes robots that clearly make it known to a viewer whose they are, which is why the mandated numbering system is being used by FIRST this year. However due to all of the very clear reasons others have posted in this thread about, it is definitely not the best solution. Now I'm not saying it's a bad one - it has potential to get the job done, but it's not the ideal solution.

So to both provide an alternative, and to answer Gregor's question, I believe that if we want to achieve that ideal solution of perfectly distinguishable and clearly recognizable robots, the best method is to educate teams on how to do so. The majority of teams don't make these kind of robots not because they don't want to, but because they don't know how to. If taught how, I can very easily see teams making robots that will be easily identifiable to any "reasonably astute observer". Even when bumpers do make a return, I believe that educating teams on how to effectively brand and make their robots stand out will be beneficial. When 148 unveils this season, I will see their robot once, and each time after that know that that robot is the Robowrangler machine. In the future, I want to be able to look at rookie team 7777's robot and be able to recognize it from then on in the same way I always recognize the Robowrangler robots.

tl;dr: Instead of insisting on a standard that raises the floor but also lowers the ceiling, educate the floor on how to become the ceiling.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Might as well ask this in the thread:

Would a creative way of displaying Team Number count towards your weight allowance? Per the manual,

Team numbers aren't really a mechanism, so I'm thinking we don't need to weigh those with the robot. However, the manual explicitly states that bumpers count towards weight this year, leading me to believe that any creative solution to numbering our robot may end up counting against our weight budget...

I'll be sure to ask in the Q&A, but I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.

I think they used the wrong word in R4. Instead of "MECHANISMS", it probably should be "COMPONENTS" - or perhaps "MECHANISMS and COMPONENTS".

From the Glossary:

MECHANISM – a COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

COMPONENT – any part in its most basic configuration, which cannot be disassembled without damaging or destroying the part or altering its fundamental function.

Surely they don't mean to say that any removable COMPONENTS don't count in ROBOT weight. If so, you could remove a whole lot of COMPONENTS to meet weight, and then add them back on at will.

But this wouldn't apply to the team numbers - that placard is a part of your basic ROBOT structure. A ROBOT isn't a legal ROBOT unless the numbers are correctly displayed.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Andrew Lawrence

tl;dr: Instead of insisting on a standard that raises the floor but also lowers the ceiling, educate the floor on how to become the ceiling.

At the very least, having open rules (your number has to be highly visible with a minimum stroke) and whatever doesn't make the cut gets pre-made license plates. At the end of the day what ticked me off was the idea of raising the floor vs lowering the ceiling. With all of the times we have been raising the floor over the last 2 years, I don't know why the ceiling was lowered here.

[Abhishek R]

The rules aren't optimal, but the numbers aren't absolutely horrible. There are ways to make it look pretty nice actually, as we've found out recently. Surrounding it with your own team colors such that it's like a license plate makes it look much better, in addition to a more fluid shape than a straightedge rectangle like I said earlier.

I do agree that we should raise the floor rather than lower the ceiling, but I don't think it's that bad. I think future amendments should include choice of contrasting colors if this remains a requirement, and have backups ready at competition for teams that fail to meet this requirement.

[cgmv123]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Might as well ask this in the thread:

Would a creative way of displaying Team Number count towards your weight allowance? Per the manual,

Team numbers aren't really a mechanism, so I'm thinking we don't need to weigh those with the robot. However, the manual explicitly states that bumpers count towards weight this year, leading me to believe that any creative solution to numbering our robot may end up counting against our weight budget...

I'll be sure to ask in the Q&A, but I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

I think they used the wrong word in R4. Instead of "MECHANISMS", it probably should be "COMPONENTS" - or perhaps "MECHANISMS and COMPONENTS".

Surely they don't mean to say that any removable COMPONENTS don't count in ROBOT weight. If so, you could remove a whole lot of COMPONENTS to meet weight, and then add them back on at will.

But this wouldn't apply to the team numbers - that placard is a part of your basic ROBOT structure. A ROBOT isn't a legal ROBOT unless the numbers are correctly displayed.

This is lawyering the rules. The intent of the weight limit seems to be that everything but the battery counts toward the ROBOT weight.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Might as well ask this in the thread:

Would a creative way of displaying Team Number count towards your weight allowance? Per the manual,

Team numbers aren't really a mechanism, so I'm thinking we don't need to weigh those with the robot. However, the manual explicitly states that bumpers count towards weight this year, leading me to believe that any creative solution to numbering our robot may end up counting against our weight budget...

I'll be sure to ask in the Q&A, but I'd like to hear some opinions and thoughts on this.

The intent behind this rule is that you can't build two drastically different mechanisms that each bring your robots weight to 120 lbs and swap them between matches to change your strategy. This rule says that if you want to swap them you can, but they both count towards robot weight even if they don't go on the field. Otherwise nothing stops me from building two robots and picking the one I want to field each match.

Functionally equivalent replacement parts with different cosmetic appearance don't violate this rule. For example in 2010 the killer bees swapped signs on the bottom of their robot every time they hung, but they didn't have to weigh in with ALL of those signs.

The sign weight counts towards your 120 lbs, but it doesn't count if it's not going on the field. Feel free to change your sign every match if you'd like.

[TedG]

Originally Posted by PurpleInk

My husband and I own our own vinyl cutting business and we have been cutting black vinyl on a white background for teams in our area. These stickers can then be put on any surface.

Similar situation here, I own a small sign shop where I do signage and graphics part time.

For years I have been sponsoring / supplying the necessary graphics for our team whether it be stencils for bumper numbers or sponsor logos for the robot and sponsor board etc. This year we plan on simply putting the required black numbers on white background in vinyl and applying them to (4) sides of the robot.

Sure it won't be fancy, but the team and sponsor logos should shine.

This isn't a fashion show, it's a piece of machinery that needs to pass inspection.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by TedG

This isn't a fashion show, it's a piece of machinery that needs to pass inspection.

It's FRC man! It's a bit of both.