Battlebots I.Q.- A serious threat to FIRST or a half thought up cheep copy?

[Doug G]

Actually I think the IFI system is great, but why do we need bags of springs, wheelchair wheels, and at least 1/2 of the other stuff in the kit. I know, someone will say it was donated and such, I say forget the whole kit except the control system and it's associate electronics. Looking around at the competition last year, most teams didn't even use the kit frame, I know we didn't. The only team it benefited were the first or second year rookies. Why not let us figure what motors are best - put a limit on them or their rated wattage or something - I'd just like to see the whole enchilada changed a bit to encourage growth and reduced cost. I'm really considering other options if funding doesn't come through this year - the BBIQ, MATE program, BotBall, Rocket Challenge, etc... There now seems like a lot of other programs to inspire students to pursue science and engineering and are a lot cheaper. I grant you, nothing beats the experience of FIRST, but there ARE other options that can fulfill the same mission. Hence the point of this thread.

[JVGazeley]

They tried Battlebots here but it never got near to our own Robot Wars series, which ran for 7 seasons (although nothings been heard of it since 2003).

I cannot see either of the 2 FRC teams from the UK jumping ship to a Battlebots spin off...

I suppose it's like FIRST and Techno Games (UK equivelant of Battlebots I.Q. from what I can gather, albeit less violent). Techno Games was popular here, but most teams were younger than FIRST teams from what I'm aware of...

[Denman]

Originally Posted by JVGazeley

I suppose it's like FIRST and Techno Games (UK equivelant of Battlebots I.Q. from what I can gather, albeit less violent). Techno Games was popular here, but most teams were younger than FIRST teams from what I'm aware of...

Yes, techno games was about making robots to do athletic skills, such as rope climbing, shot put, even relay racing

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Doug G

...Looking around at the competition last year, most teams didn't even use the kit frame, I know we didn't. The only team it benefited were the first or second year rookies....

The TechnoKats used the kit chassis (and gearboxes) to make a quick software development drivebase at the beginning of the build season. It directly benefited us, a 14-year veteran team. We also indirectly benefit from those rookie teams having well-built and working drivebases. It helps raise the level of performance across the board, making for a better competitive environment.

I think having a consistent set of basic building blocks is one of the important differences between FIRST and something like BattleBots. Sure, most experienced teams can do well without having things handed to them in a box, but that fosters elitism and makes it harder for newcomers.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The TechnoKats used the kit chassis (and gearboxes) to make a quick software development drivebase at the beginning of the build season. It directly benefited us, a 14-year veteran team. We also indirectly benefit from those rookie teams having well-built and working drivebases. It helps raise the level of performance across the board, making for a better competitive environment.

I think having a consistent set of basic building blocks is one of the important differences between FIRST and something like BattleBots. Sure, most experienced teams can do well without having things handed to them in a box, but that fosters elitism and makes it harder for newcomers.

The BeachBots used our KitBot chassis to test out a Mechanum drive. It was fun to drive but had trouble holding ground so we dropped it. In the absence of the kit chassis we would have had to make a decision much earlier as to which drive we would use. Due to fabrication difficulties, we didn't make the final decision until Week 5 of build. This would not have been possible and we wouldn't have even attempted the Mechanum drive without KitBot.

Our drivetrain used the stock gearbox and sprockets. We only changed the wheel and added a couple of sets of sprockets for six wheel drive. For the game it was the right thing to do. Next year will probably be different.

[patTeam241]

I have a couple thoughts about the BBIQ/FIRST discussion, but first a quick note. I participated on my high school's FIRST team for four years, and will someday get involved again, so I am somewhat biased towards FIRST. However, I can see strengths in both.

However, FIRST has one thing that BBIQ doesn't seem to offer. BBIQ seems to be nothing more than an extension of an engineering class where the goal is to build a robot. FIRST's goal is different. Every year Dean speaks of how the goal of FIRST isn't to build a robot, but instead to learn teamwork, leadership, business and engineering skills. While the robot and competition are a major focus, FIRST also recognizes the other aspects. The best example is in the true 'champion'. From everything I've read, the 'champion' of BBIQ is the team that does the best. The top prize in FIRST is for something different. The Chairmans Award goes to the team that contributes the most, in the local community, to FIRST, and to other teams. They also give awards for other things, teams with great websites, great animations, and great spirits. While these teams may not have great engineering skills (although they may) they have taken the opportunity to accel at other skills.

My second point is on the biggest complaint heard of FIRST, it's cost. Yes, $6000 to register, and more to build a robot is a challenge, however, that's part of what FIRST is. In the real world, most companies fail in their first year. Money is always a challenge, and FIRST emphasizes that wether intentional or not. It inspires a team to work hard on the business side of the challenge. With regards to BBIQ, the situation doesn't seem to be much different. Many posters report bills of $10,000+, although this may have changed as more competions seem to have popped up.

Just my 2 cents.

Pat

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by patTeam241

My second point is on the biggest complaint heard of FIRST, it's cost. Yes, $6000 to register, and more to build a robot is a challenge, however, that's part of what FIRST is. In the real world, most companies fail in their first year. Money is always a challenge, and FIRST emphasizes that wether intentional or not. It inspires a team to work hard on the business side of the challenge. With regards to BBIQ, the situation doesn't seem to be much different. Many posters report bills of $10,000+, although this may have changed as more competions seem to have popped up.

Just my 2 cents.

Pat

Pat, the cost of FIRST is definitely the biggest complaint I hear all the time as well - and yes it does challenge teams to be have sound business structure. But getting new teams started, is tough, since they don't realize what FIRST is all about until you participate in it. We've made presentations to schools and they really like what we show them, but they just can't get past the initial cost. So in the end, it'll keep FIRST out of those schools that lack resources (inner city, low socioeconomics, etc..) so the great technology divide will continue to grow.

The one thing that really seemed to make a difference to many teams were the NASA grants - they're usually for 2 years (if applied for each year). Once a team were in FIRST for a couple of years, then they got it - they realize how to build it up like a business venture. That's what helped us our first few years.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The TechnoKats used the kit chassis (and gearboxes) to make a quick software development drivebase at the beginning of the build season. It directly benefited us, a 14-year veteran team. We also indirectly benefit from those rookie teams having well-built and working drivebases. It helps raise the level of performance across the board, making for a better competitive environment.

I think having a consistent set of basic building blocks is one of the important differences between FIRST and something like BattleBots. Sure, most experienced teams can do well without having things handed to them in a box, but that fosters elitism and makes it harder for newcomers.

We too used the kit chassis for prototyping - but not on real bot. I guess what I'm sying is it would be nice for FIRST to find a way to get the entry cost down so that more teams would start up. Three years ago FIRST tried a slightly different kit for Rookie teams and veteran teams. I believe that veteran teams didn't receive a pump and battery charger whereas new teams and 2nd year teams did. Perhaps they could something similar to that?

Maybe a question that could be asked is, would veteran teams be willing to receive less kit parts than rookie teams if it means lower the entry fees? Or would veteran teams be willing to subsidize part of the cost of rookie teams (assuming it's a perfect world and nobody abuses this)? Rookie teams cost = $4000, Veteran Teams = $6500?

I'm just throwing out ideas that probably have been discussed to death elsewhere in the forums.

[patTeam241]

First, sorry I know this isn't what the forum started about, but it gave me an idea.

I like the idea that the older team help subsidize new teams, but I had another idea of my own. How many teams have signifigant amounts of cash left over at the start of the season? I know my team never did, but I would guess some teams probably do. What if any team that could afford it was asked to donate $500, $1000, or whatever they could to a Rookie Fund, which would then be disbursed between rookie teams who need it. This seems like a great form of gp.

[Evil Robotics]

While I cut My Robotics teeth in Battlebots, I now spend more time with FIRST. I was drawn in by TV coverage of Robot Wars, Robotica and Battlebots. The main reason I now do more FIRST robots is that there is less travel expense. However I still have a garage full of Battlebots ranging in size from 1 lb to 220 lb.

One thing I really like about Battlebots is you can pick any components of your choice that meet the rules. This can lessen the part price if your a dumpster diver or a flea market king.

There are many ways to have fun and battle bots too can be done in a fun safe manner.

Kill or be Killed,

[skimoose]

We've all been through it. You spend one hour extolling the virtues of FIRST, and then you get the question from a potential school system. "How much does it cost?" There is a solution to the "sticker shock" that we face when trying to start a new FIRST team in a school system new to the concept of FIRST. That is quite simply Vex. If you haven't given the Vex system a serious look, you should immediately!

A vex team is looking at $200 to register with FIRST, $300 to register for a regional, and perhaps $1000 to purchase two starter kits, programming modules, and extra components. Add in $500 for uniforms and other supplies and your in the FIRST game for $2000... A much easier sell than starting a FRC team. A team can compete in FVC for a few years, being exposed to FRC, and start making sponsor contacts in the community. Once the school system sees the benefits of FIRST and the team has had a chance to understand the business side of FIRST sponsorships in successful FRC, they can begin forming that FRC team and they'll have a better chance of having a sustainable program. Even if they don't ever start a FRC team, they're still competing in a FIRST program. Get out there and help start a FVC team, it's more likely to grow into a new FRC team.

Also, if you haven't considered using Vex within your FRC program, check out the white paper in the team building section "Low Cost Robotics: Using Vex in FRC". While this isn't a step by step how-to white paper (those will be coming later), it shows the potential for using Vex to help keep costs down in FRC. We are certainly one of those teams that barely gets by with our funding. Finding ways to save money and still having some of the luxuries of well funded teams, like practice fields and practice robots, is always desirable too.

[Andy Grady]

This age old arguement has always been somewhat of a itch in my side. You have two excelent programs which inspire, teach, and celebrate science and technology. On both sides you have wonderful mentors and students competing together in a gracious way. People try to make the arguement that Battlebots is not safe, when in fact it is very safe when you use proper barriers. Dean Kamen says that civilization can't advance through a group's demolition of anothers work. I say most of the robots get dismantled anyway...why not have fun while doing it? I don't buy into the whole political aspect that FIRST tries to portray into its games over the past few years. "Hey lets all be friends and hold hands while we work together to save our planet!" Don't get me wrong, I love alliances...I think it adds a dynamic element that is unmatched. I have a problem with trying to push the idea that somehow competition is bad. I think that any Red Sox or Yankees fan could tell you that competition breeds success and respect. If I am competing with you, I will strive to make a better product than you, you will strive to make a better product than me, and before ya know it...that product is pretty darn good because we keep trying to one up each other. And as for the respect issue, let me go back to the Red Sox, Yankees analogy. As an avid Sox fan, I am passionate about my distaste for the Yankees. I love to watch them lose...but at the same time, without them my team is nothing. I have respect for them because of the level they take my team on. Competition breeds respect, and maybe we need a little more of that in this world.

Back to Battlebots...i stick by my usual stance. If it gets kids interested in Science and Technology...who cares if it is a threat to FIRST. Each entity has its own positives and negatives. FIRST is more game strategic and diverse, while Battlebots focuses heavily on the concept of design and redesign due to the game never changing while keeping exciting by quenching our natural thirst for destruction. This gives the average competition robots fan variety in choice.

I hope Battlebots IQ succeeds. I would love to go to an event if they ever had one within reach. I love FIRST too and I prefer FIRST because of the diverse games and strategy involved...but there is room for co-exsistance.

Have fun,
Andy Grady

[BuddyB309]

When ever i tell people that i am on a robotics team and what i do people eyes allways light up and say "Like battle bots! Can i join?" Then i tell them
"No. not like battle bots FIRST is a friendly competition based on useing knowlege and enginering skills to overcome obsticals."
Then they say, "Oh.......thats boring and geeky."
But then I try to explian it to them that this is the funnist thing i have ever done in my life and Dean Camin founded it.
Then they say, "Whos Dean Camin? Whats a Segway? You're weird and you're waisting my time. Now im going to miss battle bots on TV."

(I know I misspelled a couple of things Spell Check is not working for me right now)

[teamtestbot]

"...FIRST is a friendly competition based on useing knowlege and enginering skills to overcome obsticals."

There's your problem. Don't explain it to people like that - tell them "sure "

We got a few people on the team this way(rookie team). Those few people grabbed their friends, and we now have around 11 or 12 people. They have attended meetings regularly even after the "revelation", so it should work out this year...

[phrontist]

FIRST is the cadillac of this sort of pedagogical paradigm. It costs more because we get nicer things to play with. A lot of things in FIRST are a bit of a luxury. Could the same goal be accomplish with some trimming? Yes. Is that desirable?

I have no idea.

[teamtestbot]

I also do not see where the enjoyment lies in contrasting the two programs. Seems to me they both accomplish roughly the same thing: get people interested in engineering and technology, and let them have fun while doing so.