Drive Systems... ...The FIRST Arms Race?

[Ken Patton]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Go ahead, make the game more conducive to using those motors in other places. But don't restrict their use. It's the best tool we have.

I agree. I think that there has been a trend toward a more-pushing style of play, and it has contributed to more powerful drives. But the reasons for it - and the solutions - could be addressed in a different way.

I think the number one factor determining how we play the game is the game design. Not the kit, and not the robot rules. If the game design enables teams to do nothing but push others around and still be "successful," then teams will do it. This has been the case in the last few years (and probably this year too).

If the game design has a valuable feature that only requires robots to deliver in the last 15 seconds of the match, my guess is that teams who optimize for those 15 seconds are going to have some time on their hands to go stir up some trouble for the remaining 2 minutes.... IMHO, this feature of the game has nothing to do with how many motors we get.

If the game design has some really important yet difficult feature, you know, something crazy like shootin' balls through a hole at 30 feet, and many teams say that task is too much to handle, I think its highly likely that they are instead going to play some D on the teams that do shoot well.

Don't get me wrong, the robot rules have an impact. For example, the near-mandate for bumpers has, in my opinion, encouraged teams to ram into each other because now its "safe." Maybe the rules and refs should just say "don't ram into each other."

The kit has an impact too. When teams get a kit part that works great, they'll use it.

Maybe its better to use the game design, and not the kit+robotrules, to steer the horde of us robot-builders. I would rather be amazed by some creative games and designs than be forced to see lookalike robots from every part of the country (oops world). I think its more interesting and inspiring. So, let us use our motors freely, with lots of current, efficient transfer of power, and some serious traction. Then give us a game that makes our preconceived notions obselete .

I remember going to Houston in 1998 and seeing a bot that could move sideways. Talk about inspiring.....

[Bharat Nain]

With no disrespect meant to anyone, I think we have enough limits put on us. They tell us exactly how to do everything. If they now tell us exactly how to build our drive train with the exact gear ratios and the exact wheels and the exact motors, and the exact metal to use, and the exact shaft to use, then we will have no creativity left.

I also disagree on the part that FIRST is encouraging pushing and shoving matches. They have told us exactly when we can push in and pin in the rules book. I think they want to see teams become creative with mechanisms to cap the rack.

I do agree that they gave us too many motors, but I still think its good. Anyone who decides to put them all on their robot is going to have a tough time on the field. There isn't a strong enough battery and the most robots wont even have enough weight for it. The game demands for these options, though.

[nuggetsyl]

Dont forget motors weight alot. So sure put 8 motors on your drive.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by nuggetsyl

Dont forget motors weight alot. So sure put 8 motors on your drive.

We have...

[newton418]

Yes, there has been an increase in the number of motors used on drive trains. But, the weight constraint keeps the robots’ pushing power in check. The grippiness of the tread available to us is currently limited, and with a maximum weight of about 148 lbs, a robot’s pushing force is bounded. With a shifting gear box, and proper ratios, the 4 small CIMs allow robots to have enough torque to spin their wheels against a wall, so the motors’ power is not the limiting factor.
Sure we might be able to slip the wheels faster, but a robot must be controllable, so the speed is limited too. And with shifting gearboxes becoming more accessible, there isn’t much reason to slip your wheels at 15 ft/sec. So, although there has been a Drive System Arms Race, other physical factors keep it in check.

Also, another potential solution is to limit the number of powerful motors (motors above 100W). The 2.5” CIMs, 3” CIMs, and FP motors make up ~85% of the total motor power. If, for instance, we only had the 4 small CIMs and then many less powerful motors, teams that want to get ahead in the FIRST Arms Race would have to slap on six extra motors instead of just two FP or two large CIMs.
I don’t know about all designs, but based on my experience I don’t think many other components require the power that a solid drive system does (except, perhaps, last year’s shooters), and we have pneumatics we can use. I really like the banebot motors, because they should be powerful enough for most arm/fork lifts, yet it would take three banebot motors to equal one CIM on a drive system, which just isn’t that practical for most teams.

[Duke_of_Hazard]

Like the original poster said, a reason for this escalation is because of FIRST game designs.

I think this is in fact the main reason.

Take this year's game, for example. Rack'n'Rolls main scoring device is ONE device, in the middle of the field. Most of the gameplay SHOULD happen nearby it, therefor not that much movement and a robot that can keep where he wants to be is paramount. Sadly, i think FIRST made a slight error in point values with the bonus, which makes creating a robot that in no way plays a scoring game until the end an actually viable(and very sadly, winning) solution. So, what would the builders of this robot do with the rest of the time? DEFEND!!! against those teams that make a robot which actually plays during the match. and since those teams made a robot that is not 100% geared and weighted for defense, they most likely wont be able to out-class the defense machine.

the point I'm trying to reach is....If robots with pushing power were not useful, ppl wouldn't make them, would they?

Just my 2 cents.