Team Update #1

[h1n1is4pigs]

Originally Posted by Cory

Not quite, see this thread

So you can theoretically make one go up in 5 seconds. Whoop de doo. I guarantee you would have seen sub one second climbs if stored energy systems were allowed.

yeah we would see 1 second climbs but we would also see major damage to minibots and field elements and possibly even major damage to a ref, so i think it is better that rule is in existence now

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Cory

minibots will now be completely and totally boring.

What's more inspiring, a 1 second minibot or waiting to see who reaches the pole first to deploy their minibot that takes 7 seconds to reach the top?

This.

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.

And especially this.

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.

And this. 60" cylinder was enough space to make it a decent challenge. 84" just makes it easy.


I've done FRC for almost a decade now. These rule changes are of 2002 tether-rule in magnitude. I'm not thrilled.

It's a case of taking a challenge that is complex and engaging with multiple solutions, and dumbing it down.

[cpeister]

I was looking forward not only to designing a launching minibot, but also to watching them in competition. Slow, motor driven minibots will be much less exciting to watch

As for the cylinder rule, 84" certainly gives more room for arms and such, but I liked the challenge that 60" presented.

[Navid Shafa]

Rather predictable changes, however appealing "launching" might be, it was bound to be corrected. I must say that I am also glad that the robot extension diameter has been increased, that extra two feet will be nice. Thanks for posting!

[rees2001]

Better now than in 2 to 3 weeks after full designs were done like in 2002.

[jblay]

well just threw all the windup toy minibot drawings in the trash. back to using ftc motors. was really hoping to have no ftc on the minibot

[smistthegreat]

It's a bit of a frown town for me with the 84" rule, since 60" would've posed a challenge, and now that it's 84" this year is almost identical to 2007 (yes, the tubes are different and such, but I digress). The minibot change was predictable, FIRST definitely didn't want to allow any kind of projectile, as that could have caused field damage and/or a safety problem.

Also, something i found very interesting was this:
"MINIBOT use is independent of the ROBOT inspection. For example, any FTC team can bring a MINIBOT to an event, get it inspected, and if legal, that MINIBOT can compete with any FRC ROBOT (that has passed ROBOT inspection). There are legal HOSTBOTS and legal MINIBOTS; they are independent of each other regarding inspection."

Does this mean that FIRST is trying to get FTC teams to build minibots independent of FRC teams and bring them to events? This kind of FTC/FRC collaboration puts teams (like mine, 1507) at a disadvantage simply due to the fact that there isn't an FTC team around.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Thank the robot gods for an 84" cylinder.

Re-quoted for truth. 60" was a good challenge, but a little bit too good.

[BBnum3]

The minibot aspect of this update is disappointing. As others have stated, it would have been a lot of fun to see the different ways minibots avoided using motors. It probably would have made the end game more exciting as well. I know my team was planning on using surgical tubing as a source of stored energy. Oh well.

By leveling the playing field in terms of energy sources, I think this just makes teams focus more on the deployment of the minibot. Teams have always managed to come up with fantastic solutions to all of the problems in each game, and I am guessing that this case will be no different.

That being said, I am glad the 60" diameter was expanded to 84". Yes, the 60" rule was a tricky and interesting limitation, but I think we'll see a lot more competitive strategies with the new rule.

[rcmolloy]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

That being said, I am glad the 60" diameter was expanded to 84". Yes, the 60" rule was a tricky and interesting limitation, but I think we'll see a lot more competitive strategies with the new rule.

It will and it will also help teams that already designed for being in that 60" envelope. There are so many ideas that are being tossed up and I am sure that teams will dominate regardless of being within the 60" or not.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

Not to be mean, but this is the FRC competition, not the FTC competition. I want to have fun designing a minibot, not use someone elses.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

I want to have fun designing a minibot, not use someone elses.

That is your choice and I don't think you were being mean.

[s_forbes]

Baaaww...

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Am I the only one who sees the FTC minibot as an exciting challenge for FTC teams to be in demand at an FRC competition? Can you imagine how in demand the fastest FTC minibot might be if it proves to be faster than all the FRC built minibots? How great is the chance for an FTC team who can't afford to be an FRC team, but now can come and have some play with the big guys.

I also like how the FTC folks are able to get involved with the FRC process this year, but it's always a bit of a let down when you're told you can't launch things into the air.

The 84" rule is a good change, too. I don't think we'll need it, but it will be nice to see more robots running around with long arms sticking up in the air. It makes for entertaining matches.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Tetraman

I am all for everything in this update.

Makes me wonder if they changed it to 87" because of the fact we caught their mistake and they are going to give us the wider spread for their fault, or they actually wanted it to be 87". I mean...87" is such an odd number...Wonder why 87"....

84" is 7 feet.