Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

[wilsonbiggs]

I think it's a good idea; like stated earlier, it forces teams to be creative to make it smaller. The weight not changing also makes sense; like architects say (I'd assume), you can still build up rather than sideways. About its permanence, however– perhaps it should change every year. It would be a good idea to challenge teams each year by mixing it up.

[flargen507]

I am personally very excited about the new frame perimeter rules. I agree with many other posts that the smaller size will create more specialized robots, which I am looking forward to seeing. Another point that I don't think has been brought up is the shape of the robot. Geometrically, the new rules put a larger push on non-rectangular robots, particularly six or eight sided. This gives you more area for your 112 in perimeter (although it may not be as usable). While before the box pushed all teams to the standard rectangle to maximize area, this weights it the other direction. I haven't seen a non-rectangle robot at my regional or nationals since 2010 (not that they weren't there, but I didn't see them). I am curious to see how this may affect the 6/8 wheel tank drive or mecanum drives most commonly seen. I expect to see more omni directional drives and swerve modules, which I think could be very exciting.

[ksafin]

Part of me was upset because despite the fact that FRC robots are still large, it's really the size of just two FTC robots side by side (in one dimension, at least).

FRC was always known as the big step up with big bots, big challenges, and big ideas. That hasn't changed much but the big bots got less big

Part of me loved big bots because they just "looked" more impressive in terms of luring in new potential members - not saying a smaller bot isn't impressive, but I feel as though it's easier to make a bigger bot look more impressive.

The other side of me is happy because its much easier to stay within weight limit w/ the new size restriction.

[Sandvich]

I think FIRST thinks that smaller robots will make teams more likely to build single-function robots dedicated to a specific task rather than building big multibots that can do everything. They want more variety and specialization. Hence the ability to make a robot any shape as long as it's got a small enough perimeter (compared to the rigid 28" x 38" rule from past seasons).

[pfreivald]

I agree that smaller bots will force a lot of teams to compromise functionality (especially with a VERY tiered end game) -- I know it did with us!

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of having the bots get much smaller than they have been historically, because laypeople see small robots as toys, and large robots as ZOMGROBOTS! That this just isn't true doesn't matter when we're talking about public perception and recruitment of sponsors, mentors, and students.

[catacon]

I hope they keep it for a few years and then maybe go back to large bots or some different form factor. I think it's good to change things up every few years. I do agree that they shouldn't be too small, though. Leave small bots to FTC.

[Grog_Maelstrom]

With regard to the size change, I am all for it. One of the things I enjoyed most about it was that it allowed teams to still have the 120 pound weight requirement, allowing for denser robots. The design changes in place to accord for a more flexible perimeter did not affect many teams, including ours, assuming that everyone read the rulebook. I do know of robots at regionals who have been unable to play due to being 28x38. I hope they keep it, our robot this year fit really well, and we are doing a west coast drive, which freed up space. It took some stagnant ideas and methods and brought new innovation by restriction, and, we even overcompensated, and, for the first time I have seen on our team, we were underweight, allowing for heavy manipulation of the centre of gravity, which I hope will play to our teams advantage.

TL;DR
Keep it, please

[Qcom]

This year was the first year in recent memory that 2996 did not have to drill weight holes. We managed to get everything in under the size constraints pretty well, and the fact that everyone else has to be smaller levels the loss of size, of course. Thumbs up from me for the size change!

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Qcom

This year was the first year in recent memory that 2996 did not have to drill weight holes. We managed to get everything in under the size constraints pretty well, and the fact that everyone else has to be smaller levels the loss of size, of course. Thumbs up from me for the size change!

Oddly enough, this is the first time since 2006 that 1551 hasn't been easily under the weight limit!

[rick.oliver]

I like the use of perimeter and that the footprint is smaller. Is this a step toward four team alliances?