Best Robot Ever(again)

[indieFan]

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

indieFan

[JVN]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

indieFan

Why are you annoyed that people admire high quality robots?
Isn't this program about inspiration?

See... I'm inspired by the "Best ever.. top Ten... etc.".
Inspiration is the key to this program.

Don't get all high and mighty because you think you understand "what FIRST is about".
Really -- Get a grip. If you're annoyed that people admire the top contenders, perhaps you need to sit down and rethink your philosophy for FIRST.

Heck!
I would venture a guess, that the students on the teams Jason listed above get a lot out of this competition. I bet these same students learn a lot, and I'd even suggest that many go on to successful carreers in science and technology.

It's all about the inspiration.

If you can watch any of the robots on Jason Morrella's list without being seriously impressed, I'd be surprised.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

indieFan

I'm inclined to agree, to a point. The robots aren't the sole reason we're here--it's the whole experience that can only be described as FIRST. There is, however, one flaw with that method of declaring a best robot by that criteria.

You can't go through a FIRST season and not learn something. Even if your students had nothing to do with the build, you learn something in a competition. Therefore, all of the robots are on an equal footing (assuming one doesn't say that some robots are more equal than others) when it comes to student learning, in that all of them allowed students to learn something. Therefore, we currently have a 900-way tie for the best robot from this year alone. While possible, it kinda defeats the purpose of having a best robots list. You just have a robots list.

So if we have all of the teams that have ever competed in FIRST meeting this primary goal, then we've got to have something to debate and reminisce about. And it seems that the most-agreed-upon secondary goal is building an awesome robot. That's where these lists come in--we're talking about the teams that have done the best at meeting that secondary goal.

Geeze, I hope that came out right.

[Jason Morrella]

Originally Posted by indieFan

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

indieFan

since this seems to happen on occasion in here, and it's an insult to all teams and the entire FIRST community every time it happens - let's again revisit the definition of IGNORANCE:

1. lacking knowledge or experience 2. caused by or showing lack of knowledge 3. unaware.

If anyone wants to be so childish or ignorant as to discredit all the students on a particular team, keep it to yourself unless you have some facts or knowledge to back up such comments.

Indiefan - YOU HAVE NO IDEA what students on ANY team listed in this thread learn in building their robots. You have NO IDEA how involved those students are in building, testing, fixing, and maintaining their robots.

If you want to ASSUME students on certain teams aren't involved or don't learn, that's your right to make assumptions without any actual knowledge to base such a conclusion on.

On the other hand, you might be impressed if you try to get to know students on the teams you "assume" don't involve students. You might learn something you didn't know and be better for it.

IMPORTANT: The question was "best robots ever". To pick any team number out and imply their students didn't learn as much or more than students on other teams, or that their students weren't involved and critical to the success of their robot, just because they had an impressive robot that year is just sad - especially when you know NOTHING about that team.

As an example, out in California the past couple years STUDENTS (not mentors, but students) from teams like 254, 22, 599, 294, 481, 330, 192, and others have fixed robots of OTHER teams, have taught OTHER teams how to program their robots, have manned machine shops to repair other robots at events, have taught workshops to other teams and mentors, and so on. These students learned these skills because they are so involved in the building and maintenance of the robots on THEIR teams. If you make the assumption that just because a particular team might "dominate" as you put it, that the students weren't involved or very integral to that success, that is a disservice to you and to the students on those teams. I was at IRI last month, and personally met students on historically "dominant" teams who impressed me so much with how much they knew and have learned in FIRST. It's a pity when people assume that just because they had a beautifully built robot, or a dominant performing robot, that the students on those teams weren't involved or didn't "learn" as much as students on other teams.

Understand one thing - I would have reacted this way regardless of what team number you listed in your post. If you made that assumption about 33, 45, 47, 60, 67, 71, 111, 330, 469 or ANY other team whose robot people have praised in this thread or any other - I would have made the same post.

No hard feelings, and I know the previous post wasn't out and out attacking any team. It seems every year we have to go through the exercise of helping people see when they are assuming things or just trying to discredit teams and students for whatever reason when they really have no knowledge or facts to base such comments on. It gets old, but I'm just not willing to let the hard work of any students on any team be questioned or discredited - it's not right, it's not fair, and it wouldn't be right to be silent and let people make such public comments which in many cases are based in ignorance.

Rant over. Hope everyone is having a great summer.

JM

[Corey Balint]

Ok-shall we just leave that now-and go back to the thread's topic?

[Karthik]

Okay, here it is, Karthik's top 10 FIRST robots since 1998. I've put a lot of time and thought into this over the past couple days. (Mainly because I have three finals this weekend, and I needed an excuse to procrastinate)

The criteria I looked at when coming up with this list was:

• Ability to control the game
• How far apart they were from the rest of the field
• Technological innovations
• The "Wow" factor -- Did this robot make jaws drop.

T10. Team 71 & Team 16, 1999

These teams did everything. They moved that puck around as if they were Gretzky, they raised their floppies into the air with ease, and they always got off the ground. There were some amazing robots in '99 (45, 111, 1), but these two stick out in my mind.

8. Teams 60/254, 2004

Yes, I'm listing them as one entry. I feel bad placing them this low on the list, because I spent most of the 2004 season talking about how I though this was the best robot in FIRST history. But after looking at all the other robots out there, I couldn't move them up. This more has to do with the lack of a control strategy in the 2004 game, rather than any inherent weakness in the 60/254 bot. This robot blazed through autonomous mode, could herd balls, manipulate the big ball like no other, and hand with relative ease. The most agile non-strafing robot I've ever seen. Watch the video of the poofs at Silicon Valley. They owned that regional. They made everything they did look so simple. A lot like the #6 robot on this list. On an unrelated note, I swear Team 60 was cursed this year. If you look at how they lost in Colorado and Nationals, you'll see what I mean.

7. Team 111, 2003

There weren't a huge variety of strategies in 2003, and one of the main ones went like this. Knock down the stacks, get to the top of the ramp and defend. Teams who played this strategy usually ended up on top of the ramp after about 1:00. But one team was consistently getting up there in 15 seconds, during autonomous mode. How? With StangPS. In my opinion, the coolest technological innovation in FIRST history. Before each match, they told the robot where they wanted it to go, and it went their. Every time. It was a thing of beauty to watch. Add this amazing controls innovations to a typically flawless Wildstang mechanical design, and you have the robot of the 2003 season.

6. Team 47, 2000

To this day, I'm still shocked that this robot didn't win a national championship. The robot did everything so smoothly and fluidly. The strafing setup was amazing. (It served as the inspiration for 1114's 2004 SimSwerve design) Score, descore, score. It was fun to watch. I thought they were a lock for a championship (much like 1998, see #2 on this list), but it was broken weld (correct me if I'm wrong) that held them back this year.

T4. Team 60, 2002 & Team 469, 2002

The 2002 game was a strange one. The playing field was simple, and the game was sort of simple as well. It was simple in that a well designed robot could control most matches. So you saw a lot of robots who tried to do the same thing, like grab two goals. Well, lots of teams tried, but some teams did a better job than others. There were two teams who were completely dominant at the two goal strategy. Teams 60 and 469. Team 60 won two regionals, and a division at nationals. The only team that knocked them off was the #3 team on this list. 469 won two regionals as well. The only reason they didn't win their division at nats, was because 121 kind of just stopped moving just short of their endzone. These two teams were example of teams who were basically unbeatable unless something went wrong, or if they faced each other.

3. Team 71, 2002

I placed team 71 ahead of 469 and 60 for a couple of reasons. 1. 71 won a national championship. 2. The the three goal strategy was more dominating than the two goal strategy. 3. They creativity in this design was unmatched, and actually cause FIRST to change the rules in future seasons. The idea of using file cards as traction devices was brilliant. This made the Beatty Machine a virtually unstoppable force. There was no moving them, as they would slowly inch to wards their destination.

2. Team 47, 1998

This robot just slightly edges out 71, 60 & 469 entries from 2002. This robot has special meaning to me, because it really got me hooked on FIRST (along with 111's entry from the same year). Me and a few teammates spent our last spring break of high school road tripping to GLR, to scout and watch. It was the first FIRST event for all of us. The first match I saw was with team 47. I saw their robot drive forward, but then it did something strange... it went sideways. Crab steer! I was shocked, I didn't know that was possible. As far as I know, this was the first time any FIRST team had employed strafing. Add in the fact that they had a massive joined telescoping arm, and I was stunned. Team 47 took home three regional championships that year, and looked like a lock at EPCOT. Unfortunately they fell victim to the dreaded 2 on 1 strategy, that still makes me somewhat queasy. (But that's a story for another thread)


1. Team 71, 2001

The most dominant robot in FIRST history. They were champions and the number #1 seed at every official event they attended (2 Regionals, National). But what's more impressive is the manner in which they did it. No one ever came close to them. In Western Michigan, they were the #1 seed by 40% (They're average score was 1.4 times greater than 2nd place!!!). In Illinois they were ahead of second place by 30%. And at the championships, they were on top by 37%. These are not normal gaps. Their dominance was unreal. Heading to Nationals, it was pretty much understood that Beatty was going to win, barring something miraculous happening. Beatty found a way to put a up a huge score, and perfected it. Great strategy, great design, great execution.

[Swampdude]

The 2 that stick out in my mind were:
190 from this year, hanging during autonomous and putting wings over the bar - made my mouth drop
111 from 2001, with all the flippin truss stuff and carrying other bots on the back - made my mouth drop

I just love it when people pull off the over the top and outta the box stuff, that's inspiration!

[Corey Balint]

i see 71 in '01 a lot. Does anyone happen to have videos of any of there matches that year? Or any vids of the mentioned top bots?

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Corey Balint

i see 71 in '01 a lot. Does anyone happen to have videos of any of there matches that year? Or any vids of the mentioned top bots?

You ask and you shall receive. This is from the team 71 website: http://hammond.k12.in.us/TeamHammond...bot%202001.MPG

If anyone has any video from the 1998 season, I'd love to see it.

[Corey Balint]

Nice-thanks-and that is quite possibly-the coolest thing ive ever seen. it looks like it could do anything and flawlessly. Thats just wow. I never knew why 71 was so respected, but after that, im kind of suprised everyone doesnt love em.

Does anyone else have any vids of robots-that were just different then anyone elses? Just not comparable to anything. Not even dominate-just odd ones.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Karthik

You ask and you shall receive. This is from the team 71 website: http://hammond.k12.in.us/TeamHammond...bot%202001.MPG

If anyone has any video from the 1998 season, I'd love to see it.

On this topic:
I'm STILL looking for video of Stang 1997, or some good match video from 1999 (preferably involving 95, 157, 176, 71, 27, 111, or 47... I've heard LOTS of stories).

[Mike Ciance]

I agree that 67 was the best robot in the competition this year. This is the only time i ever felt so strongly about something like this that i actually went up to one of the mentors on team 67 and said "I hope you guys win, you have my favorite robot."

in 2003 i have to say that i think our robot, the original Evil Machine, was the best one out there. that thing redefined what a great drive base is, and the unfolding mechanism is one of my favorite robot mechanisms ever, even if i did get hit in the head with it. leaking pneumatics - it's a bad idea to have them running and try to feel for the hole with your finger.

for 2002 i gotta hand it to beatty for picking up the goals with us attached. can't do much pushing when you're off the ground, but hey, our scorpion claws were really good, cuz they never let go!

Originally Posted by indieFan

I keep reading these lists (Best Ever.. Top Ten.. etc.) and getting annoyed with them. To me, the best robots are not the ones such as Team 254's this year because it seemed to "dominate" the game. Instead, the best robots are the ones that allowed the students to learn something. After all, that is what FIRST is about.

i'm with V-Neun on this one. We learn from our failures, but our successes reinforce what we've learned.