Team Update #1

[GaryVoshol]

So I guess the Trailer Hitch has to be designed to be easily removeable, huh?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

So I guess the Trailer Hitch has to be designed to be easily removeable, huh?

I was hoping that FIRST was going to give the inspectors crowbars and reciprocating saws, in order to speed up the sizing of robots whose trailer hitches stick out too far.

Realistically, only if your robot is nearly 28 in wide, and has the trailer hitch on the 38 in side, will it have trouble fitting in the existing sizing boxes. Given that the materials required for the hitch are standardized, a standard weight could be deducted from robots weighed with a hitch. (I suppose that to use a standard weight like this, it would be prudent to specifically disallow modifications to the hitch design that would permit a small robot weight advantage to be gained by lightening it. On the other hand, it's the system weight that matters anyway, so it would only be a technical violation of the rules, rather than a meaningful one.)

[Madison]

I didn't receive an e-mail blast about Team Update 1. Did anyone?

Rookies don't know to look for this stuff, so remember to get the word out to your local rookie teams about the changes this update implements.

[Stuart]

as a programmer Im wondering how Auto mode is going to work this year . . if robots cant place balls in bins? very confuseing

[Nate Smith]

Originally Posted by Stuart

as a programmer Im wondering how Auto mode is going to work this year . . if robots cant place balls in bins? very confuseing

Robots can still put balls in, as I am reading the rules, but you just have to get more creative as far as how to do it...

[rees2001]

I’ve thought this one through & I think this is the first true competition where offense is the best strategy and pretty much the only strategy. (The only other one I can think of was 2001 & there is no point to playing defense on the only alliance on the field, yours.) I know some defense can be played & people will get creative but, I like when people can’t rely on un-doing what someone has worked to do. I won’t say that that defense isn’t a viable strategy for FIRST but don’t be afraid to break out from what you know & innovate.

As for inspiration & the growth of FIRST, it will survive. I couldn’t stand 2001 because it was dry but FIRST has done pretty well since then. They can’t all be Aim High & First Frenzy.

[Stuart]

I don't know, the whole way that FIRST does team updates . . kinda feels like a waiter brings out your food, puts it in front of you. then just as you get your forks out, hurries to change your order because the chef wanted to make soup not steak . . kinda unprofessional. In this regard is where I really have to say BEST manages better than FIRST.

but ohh well. on to how to place balls while being at least 10 inches away from where they need to be.

Edit: to elaborate on BEST's team updates method. they have a Q&A much like FIRST where rules are clarified. Past that there are no updates to the official rules or additional rules. Once the game is out that is the game that will be played. If BEST had intended for teams not to steal they would ( and have in past games) simply said teams cannot remove game items from other teams scoring areas.

[Kit Gerhart]

For now, it looks like the "fan suck down" idea is still legal, if we can make it work. Given that we have these two extra CIM motors that won't be needed for the drive train, I think it is still worth investigating.

[nahstobor]

Originally Posted by Kit Gerhart

For now, it looks like the "fan suck down" idea is still legal, if we can make it work. Given that we have these two extra CIM motors that won't be needed for the drive train, I think it is still worth investigating.

Sorry 233, http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/

"3) Don’t spend time attempting to develop a vacuum car system like Jim Hall’s sucker Chaparral car. Even a slight suction over the base of the robot will damage the field surface and you don’t want to do that (See the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Manual section 7 rules G-29 & G-30)"

We were thinking the same thing, to bad we can't do it.

[Kit Gerhart]

Originally Posted by nahstobor

Sorry 233, http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/

"3) Don’t spend time attempting to develop a vacuum car system like Jim Hall’s sucker Chaparral car. Even a slight suction over the base of the robot will damage the field surface and you don’t want to do that (See the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Manual section 7 rules G-29 & G-30)"

We were thinking the same thing, to bad we can't do it.

Thank's very much for clueing me in. We can now apply full effort to other things, like picking up and shooting balls, rather than looking for the ideal leaf blower/shop vac/ whatever, and coming up with a configuration for the "skirt" for the base of the robot. It seemed like a fun, and worthwhile concept to pursue for this game. Oh well.

[eNyoron]

Man, the fact that you have to stay within the vertical projection of the bumpers really inhibits the ability to create an effective dumper... you have to get the balls going about 4 inches from the dumping mechanism in order for them to actually land in the trailer. I actually had a really long discussion with a mentor about using a rotating hatch, similar to the mail deposits where you pull down on the handle insert the letter and gravity causes the letter to fall into the box when closed again, but in reverse. The idea was that when retracted, contact would indeed stay in the bumper zone, but it would extend beyond that for just a second to unload balls, and now that idea's moot. </rant>.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by eNyoron

Man, the fact that you have to stay within the vertical projection of the bumpers really inhibits the ability to create an effective dumper...

My thoughts exactly. It looks like they want everyone to be a shooter. Given the difficulties with that in 2006, and the more random squishy nature of the Orbit balls, I was hoping to see some very effective dumper designs. It would be hard enough to work within the 28x38 restrictions; you'd have to make your base slightly smaller so you could have a 4-6" chute that extended over your robot's and the trailer's bumpers.

I'm not upset at no-goaltending and no-descoring rules, as it would have been difficult to do within the 28x38 footprint anyway.

Originally Posted by Madison

I didn't receive an e-mail blast about Team Update 1. Did anyone?

Rookies don't know to look for this stuff, so remember to get the word out to your local rookie teams about the changes this update implements.

I'm not a mentor, so I'm not on the list. This Update came out on a Tuesday; last year the schedule was Tuesdays and Fridays. Were teams informed to look for Updates on this schedule this year?

[johnr]

Team Update #1

1- You will build team #???? robot from 2006
no other updates this year

[Paul Copioli]

I heard a rumor that they will hold down the surface with double sided carpet tape underneath and fiberglass tape at all of the seams and edges. We are using 4 x 8 sheets and have 3/4 of a field put together. We are only using the fiberglass tape and the field doesn't move. The tape is clear with fibers going the long way and sideways like a grid. I found it in the paint department at Home Depot. The double sided tape is in the flooring / carpet department at Home Depot.

We have driven about 6 hours on the floor and it is holding up just fine. All of the forces this year are much, much lower than in previous years.

[Swampdude]

I'm surprised nobody seems upset about the descoring issue. I've wasted 2 unpaid days heading in that direction.. Where do I send the bill? I don't see how this game is affected much by the robots. The human players will have the trailers half full by the end of autonomous. So now we're trying to fight over a few supercells and a few moonrocks the whole match? not to mention if we want a decent drive system, we're left with barely any room (within the bumper perimiter) to pick up balls. It seems like they want a tie every match regardless of effort. Sorry but I'm really dissapointed with this one...