I’ve realized that 2020 will be my 19th year in FRC, and 696’s 20th season, and I’ve seen a lot of great robots over the past 18 years. So, I put together this presentation for my team, and I figured I’d share it with the community in hopes of sparking a discussion, particularly around some of the years that may not be as recent in our memories. Or maybe my presentation will serve as a foundation for others to take it and build upon it going deeper into each year. Anyhow, let me know what you think, and enjoy!
13 Likes
I’ll comment where I feel qualified to:
I’m very surprised at the 2018 choice. 254 had an undefeated season with a design much closer to what most teams are capable of than 971, who finished ranked 9th in Newton. Undoubtedly, 971 robots have excellent construction, software, and design techniques, but 2018 was not their best year competitively. Their 2018 robot is not one that I would showcase to mid level teams or describe as dominant.
8 Likes
I’m not sure what you define as a dominant design but whatever it is 254 meets it for 2018.
12 Likes
What about 1717 from 2012?
6 Likes
Thanks for the feedback folks. Exactly the sort of discussion I was trying to spur, and I will mention that I did include the disclaimer slide. Teams such as 254 are excellent references for just about any year. With this presentation, I was trying to give it some variety in terms of not making it all about 254, and trying not to repeat any team for more than one year (though I did at least once). Many of these robots are ones that I have looked at first-hand closely in person, or watched play first-person. So, this presentation has a lot of my own personal influence in it I will admit. I could certainly have spent more time taking a data based approach from TBA, but I was more looking for things that I remembered as having stood out during those years for some unique reason or another.
Anyhow, let’s keep the conversation going. @iallergic what was it particularly about the 2012 1717 robot? Maybe we want to start including some pictures and videos in the thread as well.
1 Like
Here’s a pretty good video about them by F.U.N.
7 Likes
For 469 2010, I’m fairly sure that there was actually a CD thread around the middle of Week 2 detailing the strategy. IIRC the idea was largely dismissed due to the sketchy legality, but it was there.
1 Like
It’s awesome seeing the details of some of these robots, especially for the ones pre 2008.
There are definitely two approaches to this sort of presentation: one that focuses on dominant technological development and another that deals with the most effective robots.
A good example of this would be 2012. 1717 and 987 had dominant technological developments that made them stand out from the crowd, but I would argue that more teams should have built robots like 330. They were simple enough, not code heavy, and could out perform people with a fraction of the complexity. Some years this difference is more distinct, but below is a quickly thrown together list that has an example for each year I’ve been involved in FRC. There is obviously overlap between the two categories, but I would simplify this into “the robot I wish we could build” and “the robot we should have built”.
| Year | Dominant Tech | Effective Design |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 233 | 1503 |
| 2012 | 1717 | 330 |
| 2013 | 469 | 1986 |
| 2014 | 971 | 254 |
| 2015 | 2826 | 1114 |
| 2016 | 971 | 1241 |
| 2017 | 118 | 1678 |
| 2018 | 254 | 148 |
| 2019 | 1323 | 2056 |
13 Likes
111 was really good over those years but I’m not sure I’d consider them a dominate design in 2007. In a year where end game dominated, I’m not sure they were apart of any double climbs all season – didn’t see any in the 15+ matches on TBA. Their ramp wasn’t big enough for two robots and I don’t recall them ever trying to climb on a partner. Especially at IRI, they were smart enough to adapt and got really good at placing that last tube or the spoiler at the end while everyone else was climbing, but I don’t think that was the ideal strategy every match. For such a smart team that can get everything out of an alliance, their 29-16 record isn’t dominate.
2 Likes
Great analysis @saikiranra. Totally forgot about 1986. With regards to 111 in 2007, I agree it was not the most dominant. But for my students, I wanted to highlight the systems engineering approach to their design, and the lightweighting of it.
I regret I did not include 3476 and 2056, and 217. Definitely some dominance in certain years of all three. I’ll admit that while this did take me hours, I also ran out of time before I had to have it done, and now I’m done with it. So I figured I’d put it out there rather then tossing it to the archives.
Going back a few years, I was looking for some info on 177, but the further back you go the harder it is to find. In the last 5 years Google has become absolutely terrible at finding older sites and stuff. Perhaps I need to use a different search engine. Also, with the move from vBulletin to Discourse here I struggled a bit.
Finally, anyone remember 179 Swamp Thing and Titus I think was the guy’s name. They built some crazy stuff back in the day.
1 Like
I’ll add on to your 2005 entry; that robot had a devilishly simple anti-defense mechanism that’s somewhat hidden in the picture you chose. After the autonomous period, two large powered wedges folded down on the sides and a smaller one flopped down on the back of the robot. Anybody who tried to push the robot would find themselves transferring their normal force to Pedro’s wheels, increasing our traction and decreasing the defender’s. A few robots ended up tipping themselves over on the side wedges, but they were never intentionally used for this despite an explicit rule change banning similar wedges in 2006.
1 Like
They still do… paging… @thedries
Also, point of fact the Pink Arms have kinda been a thing for them for a while. I remember them having one in 05 they may also have one them prior to that.
I’m not sure I’d call them all “dominant” but definitely useful design studies.
2 Likes
I see you used D’Penguineers for Lunacy. Great choice! And if your students want to delve deeper, there’s a book, remember?
I got Amir to sign my copy 
2 Likes
Copying Andrew and pinging @Jake177 @Akash_Rastogi
I’m brand new to 177, @Jake177 @Peter_Matteson @David_Bridge are your guys.
1 Like
In that Effective Design category I’d throw 610 from 2013 and 1011 from 2017 in there. Those two along with 1503 from 2011 are my favorite examples of teams who did exceptionally well without even attempting the complexity of solving all the game challenges.
2 Likes
If there’s any specific information you’re still looking for about 177, I’d be happy to provide what I can. Although I expect it might mostly fall between my last year as a student (2004) and when I came back to the team as a mentor (2012). Call it a hunch.
1 Like
Just a little bit of West Coast Bias in the OPs list. 
Those robots with Titus were before my time. While we do have fun with the design, I’m not sure we fit in the description of “dominant”, but thanks for the shout out.
@saikiranra brings out a good point. While some of these robots are technically impressive, many times a simple, effective design can be just as successful (think 2056 or 610).
1 Like
I’ll add video of 111 in 2003 being a dominant robot. https://youtu.be/vnwl31zoAPI
P.S. I’m really going to miss Woodie during kickoff.
1 Like