Question for the community: have robots gotten better in recent years? Two components I can think of to this question.
-Are rookie/historically struggling robots higher initial quality?
-Are robot designs across the spectrum better able to play the game, that is, strategically better, structurally more durable and reliable?
I guess I’m thinking in terms of trends, like, over the past six years (since COTS Revolution began) or even just the last two or three years.
Interested in your opinions.
it’s been getting harder to build a robot that will easily win a regional…
I’ve definitely seen a lot of rookie teams starting out with more experience recently. One thing I’ve noted about COTS parts though is that sometimes the teams that could benefit the most from them either don’t know about them or are not up to date with the newest COTS parts unfortunately. I’ve met teams who have never heard about the 775pro or Versablocks, or Versaplanetaries.
Watch a random qualification match from the 2000s. The answer to both questions is an easy yes.
Around six months ago I watched a quarterfinals match we were in in 2011. Multiple teams (I think three) in eliminations were barely moving or were spinning in circles. This included my team. Clearly, there’s a huge difference from pre-COTS.
That’s kind of what I’m seeing. My team’s gotten better, but so have my local buds. In fact, several teams in my neighborhood appear to have built their best robots ever this year, very well designed. I’m wondering if this is happening everywhere.
I accidentally sent my previous message without finishing typing (I’m on a phone). I was going to say that I don’t think COTS makes all teams good/better because some teams don’t do the research to become aware of good COTS options. I do think that it helps teams that are dedicated, but lack resources (which I would say is most teams) achieve their designs. We manufacture quite a bit of custom parts, but without COTS our robots just wouldn’t be possible for us.
Coming from the PCH district, which isn’t really known for technical capability, I would say we’re growing quite rapidly. A lot of rookie teams are coming out strong and a lot of teams are performing well utilizing primarily COTS.
I have to agree. COTS parts are essential and we are using tons of new parts (the under toothed vex gears, new DM gearbox, double sprockets) and even though we have a machine shop we still need good cots.
However, I think that there are better bots, but there are also there are under resourced teams who go to competition with only one CIM on each side, while we have boxes of unused cims. Or today the team ahead of us at inspection was rejected because they had a 775 motor that was so old it was not legal (they swapped it out for a redline) .
I think it’s more of a question of if the rookies know about it. For example, last year, using chains and such were a HUGE pain in the butt for us. We spent hours slaving away on that little thing. This year, our second year, we learned about the chain tool, which helped IMMENSELY.
Another example are clamp bearing blocks that made bearing holes and such SO much easier. The resource and knowledge aspect has gotten better for rookie teams (IMO), which could be leading to better bots out there.
It’s not just COTS, but improvements to the FRC control system as well. The explosion of cheaper and smarter speed controllers has raised the ceiling, while even simple improvements like the inclusion of Power Over Ethernet cables in the KoP have reduced the risk of seemingly random dead robots. Sure, the old IFI radios were workhorses as well, but now we have a dramatically more capable system that enables much greater technological development and is becoming increasingly robust even to rookies and younger competitors.
Structural changes such as access to districts for more teams also makes a huge impact. It promotes the idea of continuous improvement, which allows more teams to learn more from others, adopt ideas and techniques, and then incorporate those learnings on a yearly basis.
I want to build off part of your idea. I think one of the best ways to get better at building competitive FRC robots is to play in elimination matches. You kind of have to learn how to win an event. Districts dramatically increase the opportunities to play in elimination and go through that process. Having some success leads to teams trying to raise their bar every year and teaches them how what they need to do and where they can improve. I think the middle class in FRC continues to expand every year and you really see this at the championship level where you can realistically support 12 divisions with 36-40 high quality robots that can play the game at a high level.
Also, I’ve seen more than a few robots with elements of Everybot, MCC+, and/or a handful of Ri3D in them. Also also, elevators specifically appear to be faster, lighter, and better controlled over last year.
A lot of teams are benefiting from having elevator games 2 years in a row. Before last year we haven’t had an iteration on the best in class FRC elevator really since 2011, so we’re seeing a lot of teams zero in on those effective designs after 2 years of elevator games.
Also with the proliferation of intake wheels and understanding of how to build capable drive trains greater than its ever been, the only real shots in the dark for many teams have been hatch stuff and climbing the hab.
Yes! At a 60 team event, you have an extra 20 teams in the middle of the pack who don’t get to play in elimination rounds. That’s a really unfortunate part of the regional system, and I would agree that playing in eliminations helps a team get better.
I think so. The internet helps teams see old designs, other teams’ current designs, and access engineering resources. So a team with a non-functioning robot
We’ll see in this game. With this field it is a challenge, even compared to Power Up. Lots of little nooks and crannies to get parts caught it. Over the last three or four years I’d say the model of have one simple game piece, and maybe a second odd one, has made it easier on the whole for teams to participate.
While I wouldn’t want my team buying a COTS mechanism, I totally understand teams who are new or lack access to machining tools buying them. I prefer having 6 robots
It’s almost like if you set teams up for success then they’ll be successful.
We need to continue the trend of lowering the barrier to being successful. In some cases, this may mean raising the barrier to entry.
Most rookies I have seen over the past few years have gotten better, but I think that is down to less rookies coming into the program with no experience. A lot of rookies I have seen either have former FRC mentors from other areas or are FTC/Vex conversions.
That said historically struggling teams, still struggle at events I have been too.
While there are still middle of the pack teams that are either roughly built or miss the strategy, a huge number of the middle of the pack teams have started to close the gap. There are a lot of reasons for this but I think a big part of it has to do with the quality and quantity of robot videos available to inspire those teams to try go bigger.
Being someone who has competed in Indiana since 2014, I feel as though teams from Indiana have gotten better as a whole every year. In 2014, there were good teams and then there was the bulk of Indiana (my team included). By 2016, Indiana had a team be the alliance captain for an Einstein alliance. Every year, the standard of robot in Indiana keeps getting better. There are fewer teams showing up to comps with just a drive train and more teams showing up with robots that preform remarkably well!