If you could Breakaway all over again...

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Chris as I remember 2791 wasn't able to change zones at one point!

Well, one match we found out we couldn't bump climb the hard way (fun fact: sometimes it takes more than just having 8 wheels ). We Saw-Zalled off our hanger for the next one and then we could tunnel.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I really seem hesitant to latch onto the idea that we should make the game more accessible for teams that can't even assemble the kit chassis (enough to change zones) or put a flat piece of lexan on the front of the robot (become a push cart). Were there really a lot of teams that not only couldn't change zones at all, but they couldn't push balls in front? I would agree completely if the kitbot didn't climb bumps out of the box, though.

Originally Posted by BrendanB

Yes and yes. We played with teams and I saw teams that were we have one zone to play. And from scouting I have written, "They had a lot of trouble herding into the goal/can't" so many times.

Chris as I remember 2791 wasn't able to change zones at one point!

Unpopular comment coming...

We should absolutely NOT lower the bar so that struggling teams can compete. In my mind any team that could not at least push a ball into the goal this year should not have been competing because they didn't seek help.

The KOP drive train absolutely could go over the bump. Barring that it could go under the tunnel. It wasn't fast and it wasn't pretty but it worked.

The KOP code was simple plug and play.

Wiring is detailed pretty well as long as you read the directions.

The KOP gearbox is among one of the best single speed transmissions on the market in my opinion.

In my mind the only obstacles to having a robot that could score at least 1 ball a match were the bumpers and frankly I don't need to start that rant again.

In short, any team that couldn't even push a ball into the goal failed. FIRST gave them an out of the box solution to most of the problems they faced.


(Please note, this is for teams within the continental United States only. Outside of that things are different, shipping delays, language barriers, etc, contribute to it being genuinely harder to compete. I respect the teams that attempt it and am awed by the teams that succeed.

TLDR: Keep up the great work you guys! This rant only applies to teams in the States)

[XaulZan11]

I actually thought this game was good for rookies/kit bots. When was the last time that a kit bot could be an alliances leading scorer? Unlike in past games, 67's full field goal was the same as 3XXX's pushing balls into the goal. Of course, the kit bot needed better teams to feed them balls, but they still could actually score. In 2009, a box bot's best chance to score was to push balls to their human player. In 2008, they could try to push balls around the field (but this rarely happened because a team could hurdle the ball much quicker and get 4 times the points). In 2007, they could hope to climb a ramp/lifter. In 2006, they could push balls into goals, but for 1/3 of the points. Early in the season, well driven kit bots could be very valuable to an alliance by actually scoring.

[Refresh]

One thing I would have liked to do over is read the rules more closely and figured out the scoring system. It ruined a lot of teams positions and it was downright confusing!

[davidthefat]

Throw the KISS mentality out the window. I believe that mentality has made the team feel competent; feeling competence is not good. We must get better everytime, or we will never be able to compete at a higher level. Even though I am not the team leader this year, I will strive for perfection and never feel satisfied. Never ever be satisfied with your performance; there is always someone that will out practice and out perform you.

[Garret]

In short, any team that couldn't even push a ball into the goal failed. FIRST gave them an out of the box solution to most of the problems they faced.

I have to disagree. I really do not think the goal of FIRST is to score points and win matches. I have always believed that the goal of FIRST was to Inspire students. This kind of statement is hurtful and definitely a clear example of what FIRST does not represent.

My team was one of those teams that did not score every match and had a hard time doing so due to the shape of the front of our robot. Did my team fail just because we couldn't score? I would think not. If you saw our robot you would see that it had its flaws but still had a unique drivetrain and very effective drivetrain for traversing the bumps. I think that a team that does not learn anything or does not at least make an effort to inspire others is the team that should not compete not the team who did not make a competitive robot. I feel sorry for any team that measures success purely on the basis of winning because that team will never succeed and will never be able to really enjoy their FIRST experience.

My team has some things we want to do better next year, but we are always striving to improve and never give less than our best. My team had problems with money this year and we had to build the robot on an extremely small budget. As such we decided to buy cheaper materials rather than sacrifice functionality. Looking back if we had bought higher quality parts our robot would have done better. We could have gone with a basic kit-bot chassis that we built and hooked up in the first few days, but would we have learned as much? No we would have made a robot that was boring (no offense to anyone who used kit bot).

I understand your frustration, but seriously FIRST is more about Gracious Professionalism and Inspiring than building the best robot.

[kstl99]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Throw the KISS mentality out the window. I believe that mentality has made the team feel competent; feeling competence is not good. We must get better everytime, or we will never be able to compete at a higher level. Even though I am not the team leader this year, I will strive for perfection and never feel satisfied. Never ever be satisfied with your performance; there is always someone that will out practice and out perform you.

Though I agree with much of your post, the KISS mentality is a very valuable strategy to follow. Many ideas should be tested but if the results are the same go with the simple one. This is very true in industry. Simple means you can test more completely. It also means less malfunctions, and there were many robots that broke down this year. Keeping it simple is a skill too few engineers have.

[davidthefat]

Originally Posted by kstl99

Though I agree with much of your post, the KISS mentality is a very valuable strategy to follow. Many ideas should be tested but if the results are the same go with the simple one. This is very true in industry. Simple means you can test more completely. It also means less malfunctions, and there were many robots that broke down this year. Keeping it simple is a skill too few engineers have.

I want to go the "double redundancy" to the max this year, we will see how it would turn out. Being able to rebound from most problems during the match; so make it robust but yet sophisticated at the same time. While simplicity is a good approach, our robot was really too simple last year. I rather over prepare than under prepare.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Garret

My team was one of those teams that did not score every match and had a hard time doing so due to the shape of the front of our robot. Did my team fail just because we couldn't score?

Yes, by definition you failed at the challenge being able to score. No you didn't fail at the mission of FIRST. I'm fairly certain that Andrew's point was related specifically to the game challenge, not the mission of FIRST.

[EricH]

David, there is another saying that applies as well as KISS.

"Keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler."

If, to meet your goals for a robot, a complex mechanism is required, simplify it as much as possible. Multi-speed drive? Use an off-the-shelf shifter, unless you also want multi-traction drive, in which case there may be more elegant ways to do both. Multi-joint arm? Is there a way that a single joint can do almost everything the multi-joint arm would need to?

Just a couple of ideas.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Garret

I have to disagree. I really do not think the goal of FIRST is to score points and win matches. I have always believed that the goal of FIRST was to Inspire students. This kind of statement is hurtful and definitely a clear example of what FIRST does not represent.

[Yada yada]

I understand your frustration, but seriously FIRST is more about Gracious Professionalism and Inspiring than building the best robot.

With all due respect, Andrew wasn't referring to you. There's a distinction to be made between those who failed on their own and those who failed attempting to nuse the kitbot. It sounds like you did the former.

What I believe he was saying is that if you can't make a kitbot run, you probably couldn't have succeeded too much in inspiring your own students to engineering. By deciding not to use the kitbot, you opted out of his example entirely.

I apologise if I misunderstood or misinterpreted anything.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Garret

I have to disagree. I really do not think the goal of FIRST is to score points and win matches. I have always believed that the goal of FIRST was to Inspire students. This kind of statement is hurtful and definitely a clear example of what FIRST does not represent.

My team was one of those teams that did not score every match and had a hard time doing so due to the shape of the front of our robot. Did my team fail just because we couldn't score? I would think not.

Andrew is discussing robot specific issues, not FIRSTs goals/mission. If you see the rest of the comments in the discussion they almost all have to do with how a team would tweak their robot to better play the game.

Would you consider your robot successful? I'm not talking about was your team successful in being inspired, but would you consider your robot to be a success? Did it accomplish what you set out to do? What would you change with the knowledge you have now as the season has ended? These are the questions this thread is asking.




I agree with Andrew's points. I saw many teams this year unable to complete the challenge FIRST laid upon us. The kitbot gave a very capable system right out of the box and it was disappointing to see many teams not able to even cross a zone or herd a ball into a goal.

I wonder how as FIRST veterans we could help to combat these issues with incomplete/ineffective kitbots before they get to competitions?

-Brando

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I wonder how as FIRST veterans we could help to combat these issues with incomplete/ineffective kitbots before they get to competitions?

I believe the only effective measure would be for FIRST to require rookie teams to accept help from veteran teams when that help is offered. Too many teams don't know what they don't know.

[NickE]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

Throw the KISS mentality out the window.

In my 3 years on 254, I've been part of very simple and very complicated robots. After a year of maintaining the robot, you'll be a lot more fond of the simple robot.

However, a simple robot does not mean that you are compromising and only playing part of the game. On the contrary, a simple robot means that you have designed a robot to play the game and then spent weeks and weeks perfecting it, making it as strong and reliable as it can possibly be.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I believe the only effective measure would be for FIRST to require rookie teams to accept help from veteran teams when that help is offered. Too many teams don't know what they don't know.

This is too true. A friend of mine was mentoring a rookie team last season as the only technical mentor and found himself ignored by the students most of the time, despite his 7 years of FRC experience.

Some teams/people may just need to fall, and fall hard, before they accept any help. All that we can hope for is that a team or individual doesn't get completely turned off from FRC/FIRST before they seek support.