A few years ago, FIRST inflicted us with a high tech solution to making it easy to identify alliances, the stinkin’ light.
This year, much controversy pertained to the placement of the light. Despite the rules, many teams embedded their light inside their robot, making it hard to see from the stands and invalidating the purpose for the light.
Many other teams followed the letter of the rule and had a more visible, and vulnerable, light. Our light, for instance, was almost completely demolished by the end of the competition season. The poor thing is held together by super-glue, duct tape, and tie wraps.
The problems with the light are many. It is heavy. It is bulky and tall. In competitions where you have a low constraint of 14", the light may reduce your height constraint to 10" or lower. It consumes precious power and an extra relay. It requires effort to mount and wire it. The light is a very high tech, resource intensive solution to a simple problem.
Many teams solved this same problem (robot identification and visibility) more effectively this year by putting a whip antenna flag on their bot.
So my proposal is, why doesn’t FIRST require us to use a flag instead of a steenkin’ light?
I’m sure FIRST will come up will a more defined set of rules on light placement next year… and these lights were actually smaller then lights in the past (2000, 2001, etc.)…
If ya dont want the light broken dont put it in a high impact zone, :ahh: we usually have our light in the center of the 'bot and i cant remember ever having a light broken (maybe in 2000 or 2001 once)
A flag would be harder for people in the stands to identify alliances, ya cant miss the color of the light (even if teams did have in buried in their 'bot)
I’m sure the lights will always be a part of FIRST robots…
*Originally posted by KyleGilbert45 * …ya cant miss the color of the light
Not true. Many times, while watching matches, I had difficulty figuring out which alliance one or more robots belonged to because the lights were too buried, or their visibility was obstructed. This difficulty was made all the worse after the match ended when the lights were off!
I’m all for the light. It actually does make it easier to identify MOST teams.
However, our team had bright red frame and 639 was in huge letters on sides and back upon a white background which was really easy to see.
The rule I don’t like is how the judges want numbers on 4 sides, as in the four sides AROUND the robot.
For stackers, the actualy front side is not a very good place for the number. Reading the rules carefully, the number can be placed on any 4 sides at 90 degree intervals. The top is then a much better side for stackers yet most inspectors didn’t seem to think so except one who went and READ THE RULES. I think 3 sides is plenty for identifying a robot, along with a light. It’s not like the robtots are covered in styrofoam peanuts.
Best argument for the light is robot function.
No light= broken robot.
Especially in this variety of when robots were enabled (depending on when the human player got out of the field) or if the robot tried to leave during autonomous the light helped tell the spectators as well as th edrive team what was going on (sort of)
So I like the light. But more consistant placement rules would be nice. How about LED strings around the frame? Say 4 feet in the kit and 1 foot must be visible from any side of an unobstructed robot.
*Originally posted by EStokely * Best argument for the light is robot function.
No light= broken robot.
I think we can say that the rules on lights were a little lax this year including the wrong color during matches. There are other ways to handle this but none as simple. If you couldn’t see our light it was due to the ambient light in the venue, but (you knew this was coming!) this year’s light was so much better than last year’s. (Sorry to the supplier of last year’s light who is from my home town.) It is lighter and draws less current. Since the light is not essential to winning or losing a match, no big deal.
I saw a team at SVR who was designed to go under the bar, but their light was on a spring-loaded hinge with protector bars around it, so when they went under the bar, the light was pushed down, and then it popped back up and swung back and forth a little. That was hella cool.
Im pro-light. I weighed the 2002 light and then the 2003 light and found out that the 2003 light is about half the weight of the 2002 one. Also they really have improved the light a lot from those big bulky lights held in by hose clamps in 2000 to the little twist on light in 2003 that was definitely less annoying than in 2002.
The light is a necessity. It is extremely helpful in scouting situations; it helps identify robots when the team’s number is way too small to see at a distance. Plus it makes the match a little more interesting if it causes problems.
I agree that the light should stay. Flags are much more difficult to identify than a rotating light. You can’t miss a light even if you wanted to. It also helped attract attention and keep the driver focused amidst the jumble of boxes. I don’t know about other regionals, but our light shattered once when we were forced under the bar and FIRST replaced it for us.
*Originally posted by narenr *
**I don’t know about other regionals, but our light shattered once when we were forced under the bar and FIRST replaced it for us. **
I’m really sorry but I saw that happen and just couldn’t stop laughing. I though your robot didn’t go under the bar but to my amazement I was wrong.
As an announcer I need " To see the Light" and the numbers. It’s hard enough with all that’s going on to remember every robot and number and team name and robot name and alliance and … Whoa.
You need to watch your robot which you see all the time and remember 1 alliance partner at a time. Even then I saw 2 alliance partners pushing each other around until they realized what they were doing. I saw robots that I would not have passed during inspection because their lights were not visable. FIRST needs to go back to having trained inspectors rather than team members.
lights/flags for the crowd, drivers and mentors/human player(strategist) usually knew who was on what team… i hope they did…
but yea the lights are awesome… they really make the robots seem alive when they are out on the field… maybe strobes or something but the lights should def. stay
Back in high school I had a project for a tech class to protect an egg in a crash. The main rule was the egg had to be at least 2/3s exposed. Some students almost totally enclosed there egg. It survived the crash but they failed because they didn’t fallow the rules. MY egg broke but since I fallowed the rules I got a B. It was much harder to design the restraint for an exposed egg. The same is true for choosing were to place the light on a bot.
I think FIRST should instill a clear rule that the light cover should be totally exposed. Teams may and are encouraged to surround the light in clear lexan or with a thin metal mesh to protect it from damage. Should the light be damaged during a round by collision or impact its a minor penalty. If a ref thinks that at anytime the light is not visable then the bot is assigned a minor penalty.
The robot must meet wieght and size requirments. Wiring must be to code and the light should be part of a design requirement. Teams may complain that it impedes there design but so does a size limit. Its plain and simple, robots must be identified as to which team they are on. If by the placement of the light they are not allowing there bot to be identified they are breaking a rule plain and simple.
*Originally posted by Jim *
**FIRST should more clearly mandate light visibility at the beginning of the season and then stick to it!
The challenge of the light placement should be looked at as just another “engineering opportunity”
My vote - Keep the light (a light) **
In fact, instead of just making it a rule, I believe it should be a part of the checklist for next year. I saw many teams CLEARLY violating that rule, where we actually decided to design a solution when we thought there was none.
