Team Update #1

[JohnHorton]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I know everyone is rejoicing about the 84" cylinder, but I personally loved the 60" as an actual engineering challenge. What about this game is different than 2007 again? Minibots? OK, cool.

Agreed. I liked the challenge of making a bot to fit into tight restrictions. I was hoping to see some really interesting workarounds for that.
I think we still have the '07 bot in storage. Hmm....

Originally Posted by BrendanB

...Why put surgical tubing on the list if NO stored energy is allowed...

My thoughts exactly.

[dodar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Tech_Challenge

Not sure what to say about this, so do you guys?(read the first line)

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by dodar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Tech_Challenge

Not sure what to say about this, so do you guys?(read the first line)

FIRST created FVC as their mid-level program based on the Vex kit from IFI.

For reasons we don't need to go into here they decided to stop using the perfectly good Vex kit and create their own.

IFI then used the Vex kit to make their own competition VRC.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Jared341

FIRST (the organization) no longer has anything to do with VRC.

Many FIRST teams do compete in VRC for historical reasons (they spent a lot of capital on Vex kits) and for perceived advantages of that program vs. or in addition to FTC.

The difference I see between the two programs is IFI sees us as their customers. They try hard to make it simple for groups to host competitions and make it as easy as possible for anyone to participate. FTC does not.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by IndySam

For reasons we don't need to go into here they decided to stop using the perfectly good Vex kit and create their own.

Or don't know or are none of our business.

Jane

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Or don't know or are none of our business.

Jane

"Hey Chris, why'd you have to toss out those $2000 of Vex parts you bought for FTC last year?"

"None of my business, I guess"

[EricH]

Andy, I chose that as an example. Was it the best one? No. Was it the worst one? No. They could have just said, launching minibots that are not attached to the pole is an automatic safety violation, and any that are launched attached to the pole will be closely inspected for safety. Just one avenue they could have taken.

Jesse, I don't think Adam's post was a change of heart from his earlier one. FTC was simply named as the item of discussion at that time; the later post is simply an expansion.

I finally thought of a good comparison that may explain why everybody's mad: That healthcare bill the last Congress session passed, with the requirement to buy insurance. We're being required to put certain parts on the robot to be competitive--and they may or may not be inferior/superior, which isn't why we're annoyed. It's that we have to have them.

Mods, could this thread be given a 24-hour cooldown? I think we all need a break.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Jared341

How incredibly disappointing on so many levels.

Our students were ready to meet the 60" rule head on - they were looking at things like the comparative benefits of elevators vs. various types of multi-jointed arms and everything in between. We even had a long discussion about Peaucellier-Lipkin linkages. Now there is little incentive for doing anything different than what we saw in 2007...

On the minibot topic, I hope that FIRST appreciates that minibot races will now be decided by:

1) Battery voltage.
2) Whoever deploys their robot at 10.1 or 10.2 seconds without the ref seeing/calling it (it's not a fun year to be a ref).

And I'm not even going to touch the political/financial aspect of it all...

Yep. There are going to a be a TON of hard feelings this year when a robot clearly deploys a half second early and the refs miss it. Wouldn't it be a travesty if Einstein was decided that way?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Ah, I see what I did. I linked a Sandrag post to Cory due to the 254/968 alliance by mistake

JesseK, please slow down for a minute. If you're going to mention something someone said, please quote it. Thus far, I have made no mention of VRC in this thread. Also, please remember, a person's own views may or may not relate to their team's views. Additionally, please be careful in associating people with one another. We are all individuals, entitled to our individual opinions.

Originally Posted by Manoel

Engineering still can't beat Physics! There's only some much weight to remove from the minibot, so it may eventually come down to, as someone pointed out, to whoever has the fullest battery or, completely ridiculous, who got lucky and received the slightly better spec'ed motor from the assembly line...

This is exactly the point that I believe many of the well-established and well-respected members of this forum have been trying to get across, but may not have explicitly stated.

With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom. In FRC, you can have multiple robots that are constructed entirely differently that all play the game equally well. Such is not the case with this new MINIBOT challenge.

Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.

I've thought more about it, and I don't have a fundamental problem with the new restrictions. Why? I don't think most teams have a solid enough grasp on the physics and engineering involved. Those who do will succeed. However, it still may become a game of luck (battery voltage, motor manufacturing tolerance, frictional variations, etc) between the top teams on Einstein.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

"Hey Chris, why'd you have to toss out those $2000 of Vex parts you bought for FTC last year?"

"None of my business, I guess"

Obviously, there is still a lot of anger, frustration, and resentment regarding the FVC program. Maybe it is good that it is bubbling to the surface in this thread and the other one - but, if I wanted to understand why the program that our team had invested/lost $2000 in - I would find a more direct path than the ChiefDelphi fora for investigating the cause and for trying to understand it. And, basically, that would be our team's business.
---
I'm headed to our first day of design presentations. Can't wait to see what the design teams have come up with.

Jane

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

With a solid understanding of the physics and engineering principals associated with the MINIBOT challenge, the possible design solutions converge to one winning concept. There is no lateral design freedom...

...Assuming the designers have done the math, and built it accordingly, (two very big assumptions) it essentially becomes a game of luck.

With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.

I guarantee someone has already designed the best minibot this year. It will be something that other teams couldn't get to work or thought of but tossed the idea aside as impractical.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

With that mind set, you have already lost. You are limiting yourself. Every year there is someone who states, "GAH! these rules are going to make sure that all the robots look/play alike. How Boring!" Every year I am amazed at the ingenious and creative ways teams go about solving the challenges in both FRC and FTC. So you can continue to think along these same lines and get what you expect, therefore proving yourself right, or you can try and look beyond those limits you are placing on yourself.

I agree with you in principle, but in this particular instance there is literally one way to do it. You need to convert as much electrical energy into mechanical motion as possible in as short a time as possible, and you are allowed exactly one way to convert it. One energy source, one energy output, one design.

[sanddrag]

The point I was making is that in the MINIBOT competition, I believe there is now roughly one best conceptual design, if you base it on conventional and correct physics and engineering principals. This is very different than FRC traditionally in which there is no best design necessarily, as they are heavily varied.

I'm not saying I have a problem with either. I'm just pointing out the differences.

[waialua359]

I cant find the post from Al S. team 111, but to me, he said it best.
The minibot is an opportunity to get FLL, FTC, or even VEX students to get involved with an integral part of FRC.
Personally, we are a 7-12 school that does FLL, VEX, and FRC. We are getting the 7-8th graders to help design the minibot, and have ownership to whatever successes we might have this season.
What greater way to recruit the younger kids in getting involved with the FRC program.

[Grim Tuesday]

A message to everyone QQing about FTC being pushed on you.



I think the GDC read your minds ahead of time