[BB]: Regional Variations & Bagging It

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Starting to look more and more like the VEX Robotics Competition all the time...

Which is modeled after the FIRST Robotics Competition...

Oh boy! What a loop we have here!

[waialua359]

Oh Snap!
So busy that I didn't even know about the bag-tag regional events.
Only had time to sign up for our week 1 regional.
Thank God its a traditional one.

Interesting points. The only downfall for teams that have to travel far, is that they cant benefit from the bag-tag process.
If cutting down time out of school for students is one of the points for a condensed regional, why not do more Friday, Saturday and Sunday events, like NYC the past few years? Problem solved.
Sure, everyone will be tired the next day at work. But, hasn't anyone been tired on a Monday morning before?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Starting to look more and more like the VEX Robotics Competition all the time...

Probably because VRC had a fresh start with a model to begin with and improve upon whereas FRC had to start from scratch and has had to continually evolve over 19 years. The same people continue to do both FRC and VRC and it's a shame this implied insult was even thrown out there.

---

In my mind, a 4v4 would take pressure off of teams to create robots to 'do it all' in a game.

If the game were simple yet the tasks complex and the restrictions limiting, teams would almost be forced to specialize in one task and use teamwork to do the rest. Not only could this create more complicated strategies and encourage us all to finish simple bots before ship date, it could help even the powerhouse teams in the funding department since we're creating 10 iterations of a simple machine rather than an intricate one. To me this seems like a logical combination of options given the financial state of some teams.

[EricH]

Jesse, I don't think that an insult was meant or implied, at least by Rick. Now, there is another post in this thread in response to Rick's that is closer to an insult, and to that post's maker I have only this to say: I don't agree with you.

Also, I think that a 2v2 would get more teams trying to do it all, at least depending on the game.

[Fe_Will]

Originally Posted by EricH

Jesse, I don't think that an insult was meant or implied, at least by Rick. Now, there is another post in this thread in response to Rick's that is closer to an insult, and to that post's maker I have only this to say: I don't agree with you.

That's OK if you don't agree. I would prefer to continue to participate in a Varsity Level Competition.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

That's OK if you don't agree. I would prefer to continue to participate in a Varsity Level Competition.

It's fine to not want to go the VRC/FTC route, but that "Internet tone of voice" makes that a deliberate insult to both of those. May I remind you that VRC has a college-level competition? And that all of the other college-level robotics competitions that I know about are 1 Vex-sized robot at a time?

And, as has already been pointed out, VRC is modeled after FRC. The first VRC game (back when it was the FVC pilot) was a scaled-down version of the 2004 FRC game, Raising the Bar. So you're saying that the model for a competition is starting to look like that competition (which looks like the model), which is sad?

Insults (and whining, for that matter) take FRC out of the varsity level, in my opinion. It makes whoever does that sound like Mr. Kiffin in Tennessee.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

That's OK if you don't agree. I would prefer to continue to participate in a Varsity Level Competition.

How would anything about having two fields and alternating between matches have anything to do with the quality of competition? To be honest it just seems like you were jumping on the opportunity to diss another, rather unrelated program.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

Sadly

There's precedent you know. In 1992 FRC robots were roughly the same size as today's FTC/VRC 'bots.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by EricH

Jesse, I don't think that an insult was meant or implied, at least by Rick. Now, there is another post in this thread in response to Rick's that is closer to an insult, and to that post's maker I have only this to say: I don't agree with you.

Calling something more like Vex would be a compliment from Rick

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

That's OK if you don't agree. I would prefer to continue to participate in a Varsity Level Competition.

Please come tell my students who have spent just as much time and effort (if not more) on their Vex competitions as my FRC students have on theirs that.

[Bob Steele]

Bigger and Heavier does not make something a more VARSITY LEVEL COMPETITION..

Innovation does.... this can be accomplished at any scale.

I believe one of the issues that arises is visibility from the stands...
Vex competitions and FTC competitions (and BEST and others) all have smaller footprint robots. It is much more difficult to see what is happening from the stands.... not that this is necessarily a bad thing....at least for the competitors..

Scale is a tricky thing... most of the time smaller is MUCH harder...

We are in the process of building an approximately half-scale FRC type robot...
with a base size of 15 X 20. And a max height of 30" The FRC components do NOT lend themselves to this scale...particularly the control system.

It has presented some real design challenges... and continues to.

Scaling down the robots would help a great deal in shipping ... etc.

I would think that perhaps a robot with a 20 X 30 robot might be attainable or perhaps a 24 X 24 footprint.... given the present control system with perhaps a 36 " height... It would be a real design challenge...

That IS what we thrive on isn't it?

These robots would much easier to transport

I can't see this year's competition changing the size very much... given that we are using the same control system and battery....(from KOP data already released...)

We could start to reduce the size back though.... so perhaps this year...??
A robot that starts at 24 X 36 with a max starting height of 42" ?
or max height of 36" ?

This could make the crate much smaller.... perhaps something like 4 X 4 X 4
Easier to handle in shipping .... lighter too...
We all know that the crate usually weighs MUCH more than the robot...

Just ideas... we can do this.
We can do whatever is decided to do...
We like tough challenges...

Go FIRST...

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

In 1992 FRC robots were roughly the same size as today's FTC/VRC 'bots.

In 1992, FRC robots were roughtly the same size as a couple of today's FRC robots' batteries.

The TechnoKats 1992 robot is smaller than the TechnoKats 2009 robot's control system alone, without battery.

[Robert Cawthon]

Originally Posted by dlavery

To support the argument that 4x4 would be difficult/impossible ...
- What happens if the size of the robots is significantly reduced?

I think this was discussed in the Rumor Mill about next year's game. Some interesting thoughts there. Worth looking at.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

In 1992, FRC robots were roughtly the same size as a couple of today's FRC robots' batteries.

The TechnoKats 1992 robot is smaller than the TechnoKats 2009 robot's control system alone, without battery.

That is a little misleading considering the controls were not on the robot. It is about the size of a battery though. Actually I thought it was a part of a FRC robot and wondered why Eric was bringing a robot up in pieces the first time I saw it. Regardless, that 1992 robot is clean, elegant, and... well, just freaking cool.

Also, if you guys think that FTC is the minor leagues you are NOT going to like my next sentence. FRC needs to emulate FLL. I mean think about this, the goal of FRC is to inspire as many people as we can right? How many FLL events are there? How many teams? How many COUNTRIES? And I can tell you, as an FLL alumni, mentor, and judge, those students are inspired and there are a LOT of them. They have to be doing something right down there in the intramural leagues because how many of us went through it and are now involved in FRC? An interesting statistic might also be, what percentage of FLL students go on to be in FRC (if it is available) compared to the percentage of FRC students that come back to FRC after graduation.

You guys, remember the robot is a tool, a large, complex, and often shiny tool. Use it to help make your work easier. You don't need a 130lb robot racing around the field at 20fps with a 14' arm to inspire kids. Does it look better on TV than a 18"x18"x18" robot moving at a slow walk and struggling to pick up a football? Of course it does. Do they both inspire students? Nope, the mentors do that. Changing the scale of the robot doesn't change anything.

Now, those things being said, I think that FRC is the perfect scale. Smaller means that it gets boring for TV (less complicated mechanisms which are always impressive). Larger means it gets more expensive.

[Rick TYler]

Since my wildly humorous comment above may apparently be misconstrued -- I was suggesting that we might be seeing parallel evolution with different processes trending towards a similar result. I started saying three years ago that FVC would be successful only in that it looked like a smaller version of FRC and not Sr. FLL. That came true. Now in solving some different problems, an FVC/FTC/VRC-style multi-field 2v2 competition with smaller robots has been posited as a possible solution. Hence, the jocular and somewhat ironic comment about convergence. FRC --> FVC --> FTC/VRC --> new smaller FRC. See?

Originally Posted by Andrew

Now, those things being said, I think that FRC is the perfect scale. Smaller means that it gets boring for TV (less complicated mechanisms which are always impressive).

One small disagreement: smaller <> less complex. Take a look at this VEX robot: http://www.vexforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=3051. You couldn't see it on television, but there is a lot of engineering going on there in an 8-pound package.