Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

I drive for 1058, and at least a BAE/GSR, G30's were not being called at all. We committed G30 penalties and they were committed on us without call. I don't know if that's just because they weren't being seen or if they're actually being ignored.

They are being called, and we actively pursue their being called.

We line up with our side against a pyramid bar. It is hard for refs to see that we are touching the pyramid, so we let them know (and show them) that we are.

Hard defense is welcome - but smashing teams up against the pyramid will cost you a whole lot of points.

Our robot got it's first 30 point climb last weekend without ever leaving the ground

[Zuelu562]

I liked the perimeter restriction on the whole. I don't like the current number, and as many have pointed out, is likely a very specific rule for this game. The rule of the perimeter restriction allows more diverse robots, because you aren't in "lets use every last inch they give us" mode.

For my team (and several others I saw at WPI), the creative usage of space, especially for electronics, was a cool side effect. Our robot had 3 hinged lexan panes with electronics on them!

I'm personally anticipating the GDC's next move here. I'm of the mind that the NUMBER is the rule that leaves. I think the perimeter measuring rule is here to stay.

[NotaJoke]

I think that lifting the robot onto the field caused potential issues. The smaller robots fit through the opening better.

I like the idea of having a perimeter limit, but I don't like that it's so small =P

[MARS_James]

I look at it like this:

2007: Weight/Height Classes (only lasted one year)
2008: No Defense (only lasted one year)
2009: Required Design Aspect (only lasted one year)
2010: Not Allowed To Pick Up Game Pieces (only lasted one year)
2011: Minibot (only lasted one year)
2012: Huge CoOpertition Effect, or Kinect (Both only lasted one year)

So this is either the continuation of these or the next step in FIRST like all technology, it gets smaller as time goes on

[Ido_Wolf]

Right now, robots are way too big for the average end-user, and their utilization is extremely limited especially with that horrible cRIO firmware v3.1. But in like 15 years, when it's 2010, we'll probably see little portable robots with a 10" long arm that can do so much more than our current mechanical arms!

/lame-attempt-at-being-funny-with-a-poor-analogy

[Billfred]

I think FIRST made the change to make this game harder. At 28x38, this game would be much, much easier. (More room to index, more room to put a hanger.)

I'm personally quite happy with the change, as it does stand to make robots more transportable. (My car BARELY fit a 28x38 robot on its side.) Easier transportation is nice both in-season and for demos.

Which brings me to another point: FIRST has really given us some games that lend themselves to demos. I know we plan to keep our 2012 robot Incocknito together, and hopefully get it back to operational in the off-season.

[Alan2338]

I know our team would rather have the larger size, and we are running into a lot of space problems this year. I think the large size should be ok to use, but maybe suggest that new teams don't build big unless they can handle it. Whether constraint be time, money, resources, etc.

[PayneTrain]

A tangible benefit to the smaller robot sizes is not having to shove a bumper-mounted, bagged and tagged, 28"x38" robot through a standard door.

In the competition, this will cause much larger variety in design and strategy, something one could say was sorely needed after the last 3 or 4 years.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Please note that bumpers are no longer required to be bagged. However, as pointed out above, 28" dimensions have ruled in the past to allow robots to move through standard 32" doors. If the GDC had wanted to make smaller robots, reducing the weight would have helped achieve that in many teams. Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.

Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not build to 28 x 28 and expect the frame perimeter to end up less than or equal to 112". Experienced teams will be building at least 1/4" less in every dimension to insure no problems during inspection.

[Bill_B]

I think the size reduction this year has more to do with reducing the possibility of robots being able to legally impede the passage of the other alliance's robots as they seek to get past the pyramids. Couple the perimeter limit with the 54" cylinder to see why I think so. Also the creation of the update which shows the pyramids surrounded by a graphic boundary gives more support for my flow restriction theory.

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.

My impression was that the new perimeter rule was at least partially driven by a desire to eliminate the sizing box as a choke point in the inspection process. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The cynical part of me thinks the 'string around the 'bot' method has some room for error and ambiguity the sizing box did not. You're advice about designing well under the spec is hopefully heeded.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

Sounds good, until you are inspecting rookie robots Thursday morning that weigh 30 pounds too much, instead of just ten pounds too much

[Calvin Hartley]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley

I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.

As Al already pointed out the robot weight is nothing to sneeze at. A self imposed weight limit would simply put you at a disadvantage in the game, so it really isn't at all the same as a game rule.

I've worked in a warehouse setting and 80lbs was the most you were ever expected to lift on your own. That was, effectively, for grown men accustomed to lifting heavy loads. That's a pretty typical number from what I've seen, and workplace injuries from lifting heavy loads are still common (why OSHA hasn't set some regulations on this is beyond me).

150lbs has got to be the upper limit. Any higher and a robot simply can not be safely borne by two highschool students, and I suspect FIRST already recognizes this. A return to the ~130lb loaded weight would be a big step in the right direction. Since FIRST won't go back to no bumpers, and realistically the battery isn't going to change, that weight would have to come out of the robot. Oh well. Teams are always going to be busting the weight cap no matter where you set it, and will always complain that if only they had X more lbs to play with they could have done Y.

I'd just be happier if the dressed robot didn't weigh more then 90% of my teenage students, is all.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.

I'm not sure I would like such a rule change.
Given that the field size is still the same, robot parts in general aren't going to be lighter, and the already smaller footprint.....its tough enough as it is trying to make weight.