I’ll throw in 254 from 2014 with (what I believe to be a first in this program) their implementation of path planning/following. I think many would agree that this paved the way for “modern era” FRC path planning that is now almost common place amongst many teams (although it’s still mind blowing to see every year IMO).
Agreed completely that 254 in 2014 brought path planning/following into the forefront of FRC, but teams had their own more primitive implementations going all the way back 2008 (and possibly further). I know getting those algorithms figured out were game changers for 1114’s 2008 robot (a lot of which was based off of 111 in 2003’s work).
Slightly before my time there. I didn’t know that it had history prior to 2014 (I’ve never read/heard much talk of it before). Very cool to hear that there were various implementations of this in earlier years too!
The Pink Team’s nesting extension arm was a direct copy of the 177 arm used in 1997-2001, 2003, 2005 and the same basic design is still used in our elevator mechanisms.
Edit: video link showing the 2001 Iteration that is probably the best known version:
2 Edit: Watching this video I realized it also contains footage from the match that caused the rule “the scoring object is considered part of the robot to be created” when our robot fell out of bounds but was balanced on the ball so we were not touching an area outside the field, and therefore not DQ’d. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUnjfGgQbQ0
The first Roller claw was simultaneously developed by 45 and 177 for the 1998 game. I believe we debuted them at the same event.
Edit: Adding pictures.
Also from 254 that year: Cheezy Vision. Sure, they weren’t the only ones “breaking” Autonomus that year (1114 did something similar with a Kinect), but to have something so modular and portable (in the software sense) that it could be released to other teams for championship (only requiring a webcam on the driver’s station) yet so effective that it was explicitly banned the next year.
Really, if you make something so effective that it gets banned for being too effective (not just because it damages the field), you deserve to be on this list. 71’s 1997 detachable goal cap comes to mind (alongside a few other designs already mentioned in this thread).
If you’re referring to the 2015 900/1114 harpoon bot, I’m not sure how I feel about it being on this list. Notable, yes. But other than all non-cots cheesecake being eventually banned in 2020 due to the elimination of bag day, it wasn’t ever ruled illegal (in a design/concept specific way); likewise, it hasn’t been copied or really built on in events/seasons since. But I stand to be corrected.
71 “created” rules twice… 1997 (the intentional removal of parts rule) and 2002 (the carpet rule, although a lot of teams were running studs/cleats that also weren’t so nice to the carpet). The latter I’m not counting since the rule was more of a “don’t break our field” rule more than it was a “that’s so effective it ruins the game”… although I could see one arguing that it was a bit of both.
469 didn’t change the rules in 2010 either (but it was indeed innovative)… they just capitalized on what came out looking like an intentional loophole per a Q&A response that explicitly legalized such a design. Although one could argue that the use of agitators in this years goals (to randomize which chute returned cargo exits) was a direct response to said design 12 years earlier… otherwise a crafty team could design a robot that could shoot in a goal in a way that would always return the cargo out the same chute (and be parked at said chute to immediately recapture and score the cargo over and over).
StangPS is absolutely the godfather of all of the modern state estimation and drivetrain motion planning you see in FRC today. When I was a student in high school I was blown away when they posted what they had implemented, and it inspired me to go understand exactly how it worked (after I got over my initial reaction of “it’s so good that it’s not fair!”). This wound up giving me quite a heavy push towards robotics / autonomous systems in college and my career.
I take immense pride that my teams (along with so many others) have helped move the ball forward in these areas over the years as well, and at this point what comes in WPIlib makes all the early attempts at autonomous mode look amateurish by comparison - but we stand on the shoulders of giants.