The updated clarification of <R49> is a breath of fresh air for the controls community. Kudos to Kevin Sevcik for bringing it up this morning and for the GDC to make a common sense clarification.
No offense gang, but aren’t we getting a bit carried away here?
The minibot is an opportunity, a part of this year’s game, a part of FIRST, and most importantly, a way to involve younger kids in this program we call FRC.
The Chairman’s Award and other such FIRST initiatives include outreach and spreading not just the idea of FIRST, but STEM education as a whole.
Is the complaint about money? Or the fact that some of you including us are heavily invested, using VEX/IFI components as a vehicle for your other competitions? What about 2009 when we had to buy glassline FRP for just one season, so far?
Many teams that I know and am aware of, are familiar with and participate in some of these other programs. Let’s not make assumptions about teams and other programs, esp. in areas/regions where there is an abundance of options to select from. Some teams spend their fall semesters competing in and supporting other programs.
For those who are using the pronoun, I, with regard to what an FRC team will or will not be called or who will or will not be submitting a Chairman’s - has it come to the point that you are forcing ‘I’ into the meaning of ‘team’?
Jane
Not quite. This is making FIRST more about Lego. “And their kits” is the key phrase.
For awhile I thought FIRST actually went out of their way to make sure that politics doesn’t affect teams and team members, lest the organization un-inspire them. But not now. They’re literally saying that if you love FIRST, give these guys money and use their product. They have tied their nonprofit organization and lofty ideals straight to an inferior product.
The disgusting thing about this to me is not just the politics. Any organization has political battles that will make your stomach churn. What pisses me off is that this political battle is at the expense, literally, of every FRC team out there. I feel it’s our job as mentors to shield the students from this bull, to make sure they’re inspired and to carefully skirt them away from the messes of any large scale organization. But at this point, it’s too @#@#@#@# hard.
What the hell am I supposed to tell a student who asks why we can’t use aluminium that has a pre drilled hole in it? What am I supposed to tell them when our Tetrix motors smoke within 5 minutes of use when we have perfectly good Vex motors sitting on a shelf unused, and non Tetrix catapult designs derailed by Update 1? How can I rationalize all of the very, very public flaunting and politics of the FIRST organization that they catch wind of? I’m out of answers - and these are not rhetorical questions.
Seriously, I’m stumped. I’m here because the ideals of FIRST are things that I love and want to push for more than anything else - but FIRST themselves keep making it harder and harder.
I don’t know, I mean the intent was clear, but the fact that they actually went out and said it…I just hope that whoever runs PR up there is getting on it to fix it.
Listen I understand the reason why FTC is limited the way it is, and I’m fine with it, but using that as an excuse (I’m not saying FIRST has, but supporters of there push for exclusiveness of Tetrex have), for why only one companies products may be used it not alright.
All I know is this week’s episode of FirstTunes has a major agenda change and a need of some new guests…
And they also added an additional 1.5’’ onto the length of the pegs for the Team Field Elements…too bad we already completely assembled our 3x3 peg board according to the old drawings…
Yes we are. The issue of money and parts was covered more or less ‘ad nauseum’ in another thread.
Regarding FTC/FLL versus some non-FIRST program -
- nowhere was it said you had to take a loyalty oath to FIRST do this year’s game.
- nowhere was it said you had to abandon your other outreach efforts
- nowhere was it said you had to give up all the other robotics programs you enjoy promoting.
It was simply asked that at a minimum you put a tetrix motor or two and a few more parts together to climb a pole. And if you are feeling in a good mood maybe commune with the FLL and FTC folks. But if you don’t want to support FLL / FTC that is fine, just build the minibot, send it up the pole, and don’t worry about it.
If you look around you will find some very well known people that are big players in other types of robotics programs, and other types of STEM programs. If they do not have a problem with what is going on, then why should the rest of us ?
So does that mean that the aluminum that we got in the FTC kits from the FIRSTChoice thing are illegal to use now?
I’m going to attempt to split the middle here.
Yes, I also thought of quite a few minibots that are presently illegal.
Yes, I can think of many more ways that the minibot race could be made a more interesting challenge. (Paging the IRI planning committee…)
No, I’m not surprised FIRST made this change (beyond the fact that I’d forgotten about items that met this criteria, e.g. the Vex aluminum kit).
No, I’m not wild about the implications highlighted on this thread (see Dave Lavery’s thread–grow the pie).
No, this change is not going to stop us from building a minibot using our FTC mini kit from FIRST Choice, which we acquired for under $10 in shipping and in reasonably short order courtesy of the fine people at AndyMark.
On the bright side, if you’re willing to look strictly at the engineering challenge presented and can ignore all this other stuff, this year’s edition of That One Rule The GDC Put In The Manual That Frustrates Everybody On ChiefDelphi is still the easiest one to manage in ages. We’ll have eight months to talk about vision to FIRST…but four weeks to complete this build season.
Those parts are Tetrix, so they are usable. Chop them up if you must. Save the rest for donation to a worthy cause.
You would tell them the same thing that you would tell them if you burnt out a BaneBots motor, but couldn’t use the globe sitting on the shelf. Why can’t we use a different 12V battery that is the same size and same weight but not the specific model*? Now, I’m not sure what the response would be, but it’s the same kind of thing.
We all knew that there was controversy regarding the use of catapults. There should have been some kind of discretion applied to designing a catapult before it was clarified. It was going to be legal, or was not, and it turned out to be not. It was simply a chance that was taken. Same situation as the idea of using a vacuum in 2009, if you’d like to look at it that way.
*Motors and batteries are not my forte. Maybe that example isn’t quite accurate, but you should see the intent.
I’m so sad to see our happy FIRST community fall apart because of this.
You could tell them that sometimes in FIRST / work / school / relationships / customers / bosses / employees / governments / (fill in the blank) that we have rules and restrictions and limitations that we don’t necessarily agree with or understand, and that we have a choice in how we deal with those situations. And you can teach them that when we are in those situations, we can work to find solutions or we can complain.
You could tell them that you don’t agree with the rules that have been put in, but that you are going to work within them. And then later you could write a letter to FIRST, explaining your concerns.
And you could read some of the recent posts on this forum and ask what types of Mentors and Role Models some of us are being to those students who are on here reading.
Without directly addressing any of the overblown complaints evident in this and other threads regarding minibots, I would just like to remind everyone:
THERE IS NO CRYING IN ROBOTICS!!!
There has been a number of posters implying they are done with FIRST because of the harsh requirements of minibots. Booo hoooo! I tell you what, the whining gets louder every year, and THAT is what may drive me away. Download the rules, build your robot, and compete. Simple.
It’s not falling apart.
Jane
I don’t see the FTC issue as that significant. Like others have said- it was part of the kit minus the cost of shipping. The change in control systems or the change to Jaguars in the kits was an order of magnitude more significant an impact.
If the minibot challenge had required an NXT, then they would have been getting into the significantly annoying area.
Those that use all the aluminum from their TETRIX kit are probably going to be dissatisfied with how heavy their minibots get.
That said- the moralizing in the rule update was inappropriate.
Rule books are for rules.
Oops- they made a little mistake… go built a robot-
Everyone already knew starting a FLL team or league were milestones for a Chairman’s application- but there are plenty of non-FIRST related milestones that count as well.
There seems to be a lot of lingering bad blood that won’t go away, but I think the reason more people might take issue is the clarification following the update: “Supporting FIRST means supporting FTC and FLL and their kits.” This is true, but I think many teams “support culture change” with Vex, and take offense to the implication that FIRST is the only way to “change culture.” I don’t think FIRST is saying that… but I think many are taking it as an implicit assumption.
In the thread I linked to above was an IFI press release, saying that TSA had chosen Vex as their robot kit of choice. The thread title was “VEX beats Tetrix and others in bid to develop a robotics competition for the TSA”. Dave pointed out that turf wars are a waste of everyone’s time, because only about 5% of American high school students have access to FIRST’s programs (and other nations are probably in the same ballpark). We are best served by reaching outwards.
Amen. What tiny fraction of the FIRST community frequent CD with any regularity, if at all? And what tiny fraction of those thus far have voiced their displeasure at this issue? And how many of those displeased enough to voice their displeasure will stop participating in FIRST because of it?
Not many, methinks.
Personally, I’d be a lot happier if they just kept the speeches at kickoff and Championship shorter (and fewer in number). Enforcing a brand is just something I’ve come to expect from everyone…
…now if they’d only get a linear solenoid manufacturer as a sponsor, that’s a “gee do we have to use those” I could get solidly behind!
So, yes, the restrictions suck. Is it unfair? Maybe.
However, FIRST does a fabulous job of preparing us students for real life. In “real” life there are restrictions that you might find unneccessary. There are often situations that you find “unfair.” Yet with all those times I have yet to find a situation where complaining has solved the problem. Instead, rise above and make do what what you have.
“You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you need”
-Rolling Stones
I’ve always found this a meaningful reminder… and a good song.
In the end you have to make a decision. You can make a mini-bot that complies with the rules, or you can not make one at all.
To go along with Curtis, I don’t think we’d even be having this discussion–or the other several on this topic–if the kit of choice for the Minibot had been the FLL kit.
But because of the statement about supporting the kits, a lot of people are rather annoyed. Ideals? Sure. Programs? Eh, maybe… OK, can do. Kits? Hey, wait a minute! You mean the kit I left behind when [you fill in the rest]? No way.
If anyone from FIRST is reading this: I think a politic thing to do would be to retract the “and their kits” part of that statement, as soon as practical. That would go a long way towards un-ruffling the feathers that were ruffled by that statement. (Oh, and having FLL be the program of choice for support nest year would also help.)
I’m not actively involved with FRC, FTC, FLL, or VRC, for the record.
I have 2 questions:
- What is so ruffling about “and their kits”?
- Who is making this a seeming political situation?
FIRST recognizes its partnerships with its vendors/suppliers/sponsors. Why should that change now? Any impact the minibot potentially has is recognized through these partnerships or through the application of rules in the manual and updates that state what can be used or what can not be used, should teams choose to build one.
There’s nothing complicated or upsetting about it.
Edit: I have a 3rd question -
Has anyone given any serious thought as to how this particular game is honoring Jack Kamen? I have a few ideas but I have glimpsed very few ideas/suggestions of others here in CD and how, by honoring Dean Kamen’s father, we are all committed to playing the game and following the rules as they are intended.
Jane