This is going way back all the way to the 2002 game, Zone Zeal.
I came across of a forgotten picture of our team’s robot in 2002.
What caught my attention was what I found in the front and back of the robot. I realized that the robot started vertical and then fell forwards to have a longer drive base. (You can see the curved back plate on the left side of the picture and the rubber pneumatic brake which slowed the impact with the floor on the right side of the picture.)
There were others as mentioned above. In recent years, rules about starting configuration and game configuration have changed making ‘flot bots’ illegal.
I’m sure there are numerous rules that have resulted from teams in a gray area. Whether or not FIRST created those rules to make flop bots illegal or it was just part of the game is another story.
Allowing only one solenoid valve to feed each air cylinder/actuator. In 2009 we fed our catapult cylinders with 2 parallel valves per cylinder. The inspectors REALLY did not like it and nearly DQ’ed us, but it did not violate any written rule. The following year they added the one valve = one cylinder rule, so we refer to it as the Titanium Rule, but there have probably been other teams which have done it.
I played around with the idea of a rebound rumble flop-bot. The frame would have been hinged and it would have folded to take up less space on the bridge. It would have started with the frame folded and everything on the upper frame would fit within the footprint of the lower frame satisfying the frame perimeter with the lower frame defining the frame perimeter. when it folded down, the upper frame would remain within the allowed envelope for deployed mechanisms and would have given us the same wheelbase and configuration as our final design, which was wide robot with four 12" pneumatic wheels. Unfortunately, the penalty, in weight and complexity, was too much given our resources.
No intentional tipping resulted from team actions in 1993. I want to say I’ve heard that it was one or two specific teams, but I can’t for sure.
Metal on carpet as mentioned–though 71 gets the credit, a lot of teams had metal.
71 is the motive behind a rule on intentionally detaching robot parts, though. I don’t remember seeing it lately, but it was their 1997 design that triggered it.
No wedges/optional bumpers resulted after the 2005 season. In one of the divisional QFs, there was an extremely rare double DQ (red cards hadn’t been introduced yet)–2 robots with angled sides were called for intentional tipping, on opposite alliances. Multiple teams on the champion alliance carried defensive wedges. But the GDC realized that if they didn’t put something in place to protect the offensive robots, there would be an outcry… so they allowed teams extra weight and volume for bumpers if used–only if they were a particular design. Bumpers became mandatory in 2008. The alliance-colored bumpers came into play in 2010–after a team asked Q&A in 2009 if they could do so and the answer came back “No”.
Back in 2007, You’d get an endgame bonus for having robots lifted off the floor a certain distance. During the regional circuit, the rules didn’t say anything about having a robot starting an elevated position.
Look at the flop-bots in 2008–they were allowed to flop, and yet bumpers were mandatory (though as I recall, as a % of the bumper perimeter).
Admittedly, the requirement that the bumper perimeter not change through a match is a tough one to get a flopping robot around. That’s new since 2008, but I don’t think it’s a reflection on any team(s).
In 2002 the endgame was to have your robot touching some part of your alliance zone. These tethers were used to extend backwards from the robot, allowing you to reach your own zone from the end of the field. Specific rules can be found here.
