Major Changes in FRC game year to year

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You can say the same thing about 2004. And that's exactly why I feel it would be cool to re-use those old robots. Because the students who worked on them AREN'T there anymore. It's not just breaking out an old toy again, it's learning and understand what someone else engineered and why they did things they way they did.

In racing they have vintage races where historic racecars run around the track in what is really a glorified High Speed parade. This could be neat to see some of the old CD47 machines brought down off the wall to face off with or against the "vintage" 33 machines hanging out in the basement. Do you get 6 weeks to fire up those old beasts? I know team 33's rule tune with bungee means that many of our machines more than 2 years old would require some major rework.

[Mr. Pockets]

It also probably won't be a water game ^_^

[viking]

The only constant is change.

I also figure that we will not go over the 120 lb max limit. I have heard from several sources; over that amount additional OSHA rules kick in for the operation of the machine.

Seven months until kick off

[Carol]

Originally Posted by Molten

The teams that made 1999 robots don't even exist today. I mean sure, several teams were around at that time. And sure, the numbers still exist at the same school. But the students aren't the same. And the students are what makes the team.

But in many cases the mentors are the same. In 2000 and 2004 we had hanging bots; if we have another one next year, I bet a lot of older teams (yes, mine would be one of them) will go back to the old designs and evaluate what worked and what didn't. Which wouldn't necessarily give them an advantage!

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Carol

But in many cases the mentors are the same.

I would presume this to be the case for most teams. However, the mentors don't really make the team. The students do. (arguable I know...so just consider that an opinion.) I don't consider it to be a major advantage to be able to look at old robots. However, to take a part off of an old robot and put it on a new robot...this is a big advantage. One that the rule books now prohibit. The idea suggested by Lil' Lavery would be doing this with the entire robot.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Part of the reason I made my post was because I've heard rumors that the GDC is looking to throw more annoying curveballs that neutralize veteran advantages. This years was the field and drivetrain, which screwed up a lot of drive systems from year to year. Who knows what it could be next year? If a trend makes too much sense, I'd be willing to bet it's not being used by the GDC.

One thing you can (maybe) count on: You will manipulate a game piece, and drive on a solid surface or surfaces. That's really about it.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I thought that was how we were supposed to interpret "levelling the playing field". Neutralize is toos trong of a word, perhaps... making veterans think twice? I dunno. I thought they were trying that this year, and the speculation and rumors were to expect more.

First off, where did they say anywhere that they were "leveling the playing field"? If the slick playing field caused some veteran teams to be "neutralized" then I state that those teams never learned how to design a drivetrain, and only learned how to manufacture the one that they had designed previously.

As far as "curveballs" from the GDC go ... It's all just part of the challange. One of the things that I look for are the little "gotcha" details that they tend to gloss over at kickoff such as how high the lip of an entrance is or how tall the supports under the carpet are. I consider those details the most profound "curveballs".

Remember: "It's not the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable to change"

[Robert Cawthon]

The only pattern that can be dicerned from my viewpoint is that as soon as someone thinks they have a pattern figured out, GDC will break it.