Team Update #1

[StevenB]

I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint. More than a few people have moaned that the expansion of the 60" cylinder to 84" reduces creativity. If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.

You have a specific power source and a specific pair of motors that you're allowed to use, and within those restrictions you must create something that's better than what everyone else made. You'll have to invent clever ways to reduce weight, minimize friction on your MINIBOT and maximize friction with the pole. You'll have to find ways to make your deployment fast and your robust, because every fraction of a second counts.

Come to think of it, the HOSTBOT also has to use a specific power source and specific motors. And I've yet to hear anyone complain in this thread how that limits innovation. Or look at FIRST LEGO League. You might think that since everyone has to use the same plastic building blocks, the same motors, and the same half-dozen sensors that all the robots would be pretty much the same. But you'd be wrong. It's the same with racing concrete-canoes, mousetrap vehicles, or stock cars. The constraints are severe and the limitations are often frustrating, but great ideas still emerge in the end.

I believe most of the frustration comes from the fact that for the last four days we've invested in our souls in some truly cool ideas which have now been thrown in the dumpster. It hurts, I know. But stand up and move on. This season is still going to have its share of good engineering challenges, and I can't wait to see the great ideas that emerge in the coming weeks.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by StevenB

I'm hearing an awful lot of complaining about the removal of a strict constraint mixed with a lot of complaining about the addition of a strict constraint. More than a few people have moaned that the expansion of the 60" cylinder to 84" reduces creativity. If that's your line of thinking, then please consider the MINIBOT restrictions as the kind of engineering challenge you wanted.

You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying. In the removal of the 60" constraint, creativity is, arguably, being removed by letting teams basically build giant arms like in 2007.* By adding the constraint to the minibot construction, creativity is being removed because it limits your designs to basically making the same minibots. As stated elsewhere on CD, it has basically become an issue of who can make the lightest minibot. That's hardly a tough engineering challenge. This change also has some political implications, as well as an increased cost for many teams who do not have access to the FTC kit. That is more where my issue comes from--FIRST is now basically requiring everyone to use their flawed FTC system.

Additionally, teams have already spent the past four days brainstorming and designing and these are two very big changes, especially now that teams who don't have an FTC kit will need to find a way to borrow one or acquire their own. As stated, this can be quite costly for teams running on a very limited budget.

*I tend to disagree that this reduces the creativity, but I'm trying to help you see the other side.

[BrendanB]

Okay, so the key now is to make the minibot so light that it is disposable from match to match! Woah! That was the easiest design session ever! FRC is evolving.

[EricH]

We like the removal of the 60" in favor of the 80" (sort of).

Where we are drawing the line is that the Minibots are restricted such that you have to get certain parts to have one, or borrow someone else's.

Those parts are expensive, and there are similar parts that are much cheaper, and some would say better quality (I've no experience with Tetrix, so I can't do the comparison)--but those are explicitly prohibited.

I would have had no problem with a pole-grasping minibot that launched from the base straight up the pole once it grasped. But by requiring teams to only use the motors, that set of minibot designs are trash.

Worse, a large number of teams that have zero or almost zero FTC resources (Israel, Brazil, Chile, Canada, Mexico(?), and quite a few in the U.S.) are being required to get those resources (see cost complaint earlier) to be competitive (see tube/minibot debate).

That, in a nutshell, is why a very large number of people do not like this particular ruling.

The other parts list--without FTC motors and battery, it's useless. And how do you get the motors and battery, if you missed the FIRST Choice supply/window? $$$$.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

As stated elsewhere on CD, it has basically become an issue of who can make the lightest minibot. That's hardly a tough engineering challenge.

Coming off of the high of my first FIRST Regional Competition win, I have to say that there appears to be a difference in perspective that I can't quite grasp here.

This game is both exciting and terrifying because it isn't a matter of "who can build a robot to meet the challenge?" Every FIRST team can build a robot that can do the tasks asked of us in this year's game...

It is a matter of "who can build a robot that can meet the challenge better than the other teams who are doing the same?"

Hanging tubes on a rack = not hard.
Hanging tubes on a rack better than everyone else = hard.

Racing a MINIBOT up a pole = not hard.
Racing a MINIBOT up a pole faster than everyone else = hard.

----------------

We were confident last year because we knew we had nailed the strategy, and knew that we build a robot that could perform. We were confident that we were top tier. (This proved to be true on the regional level, but not at Championship -- we learned some lessons we are taking to heart!)

We are not at all confident this year because we know that we have the strategy nailed, but we're 100% positive that most teams do, too. We know how to build a bot to execute that strategy, but so do they...

Different decisions in task execution will result in gold and bronze medals, and gold vs. bronze will not be decided by chance.

To whit, building a light MINIBOT isn't hard. Building "the lightest" MINIBOT absolutely is. (FYI, I disagree with you a bit, too. While 'wheeled bots racing up the pole' will likely be the standard, there is a matter of gearing, wiring, traction, deployment, etc. to be considered. If this weren't a competition, it'd be easy. But it is, so it isn't.)

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder.

Agreed: To all the people arguing that 2007 designs will be copied. some of those designs may have issues now thanks to different bumper rules now compared to 2007

Somebody should really do a poll on this: i thin the FIRST community is split on weather the 84" rule is a good or bad thing.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

FIRST. You made a horrible call, you took what was potentially a good engineering design challenge, and turned it into a last ditch effort to save their inferior (to vex) FTC design competition.

It's now a challenge of who can make the SAME minibot lighter. Yay.

Quoted for Truth

Originally Posted by Cory

I have no desire to watch a battle of who sucks less. It's not inspiring to see whether the robot that takes 16 seconds to hang beats out the one that takes 14 seconds to hang. Slow=boring, regardless of whether it's a scenario where it ends up being a buzzer beater.

my thoughts exactly. I have no desire to watch a football game involving two bad teams, even if that game may end up having the most suspense that week.

a lot of those consistent hangers would still make the match exciting. Instead of going for the hang with 20 seconds left, the would go for it with 5 or 7 seconds left

[Astrokid248]

Honestly, I didn't even know what an FTC robot looked like until last year. My area (Clear Lake/League City) does VEX. The VEX game is usually more exciting than FTC's, and I don't know about the kits, but VEX is fairly easy to work with. The implication (given by Kamen at kick off) that the only way to do well in this competition is to join with an FTC team is a little...unrealistic, and even a little rude. Is it really for inspiration and recognition of science and technology, or is it for inspiration and recognition of Dean Kamen and FIRST? I think by making the minibot rules so rigid (and so bent towards FTC) it is becoming the latter.