The 2010 Curve Ball

FIRST General Forum
#37

Dunno about that one, Sean. If they do like they did in 2007 with the height/weight classes (which didn’t return the next year for some unknown reason), there could well be a number of smaller robots. Or they changed the size after the kit frame material was made and teams have to do the cutting down.

Sure, it’s likely to be the same, but there’s no reason for it to be, based on a single box dimension. (Not to mention the fact that said box could very well be a pre-built lift system that must be on the robot, not a KOP frame…)

#38

They made a similar last minute dimensional change in 2005 to adjust to our current dimensions from 30x36 (I think, it’s been a while) to through a last minute change at us from what the envelope had been for the previous 4 or 5 years. This was done after the kit bot, new that year, had been designed. I have heard about this from several people involved in the original kitbot design.

That said the size of the robots is really about getting through standard doors and staying on standard shipping palates so I would not expect much change.

#39

Good point on not using the box size to guess at robot size… and I agree that smaller robots, while difficult to build, and more difficult for specators to watch, would allow more room on the playing field.

I do want to point out, however, a few practical maximum dimensions… the robot has to be able to fit through a doorway, and the 28" dimension works pretty well for that once bumpers are added. (Wouldn’t it be cruel to increase the max width to 38" and see how many 38"x38" robots are stuck in their build rooms on ship day?)

The max weight is also limited, I understand, by American health and safety regulations that limit loads lifted by hand to 150 pounds.

So I doubt the robots will be any bigger…

Jason

#40

Bigger robots will always be a problem as long as DOORS remain the same size. (There are rumors that in the early years some teams found they couldn’t get their 'bots out of the workshop …)

Personally I’d LOVE to see an obstacle to climb over again. Those were fun days.

And I’ve said it before, but this thread looks like a good place to repeat myself. Consider the following points:

  • In 2006 the tetras were 8 lbs apiece
  • The GDC is always looking for a readily available, fairly inexpensive game piece

My vote for the curve ball is … bowling balls! :ahh:

#41

2005 :slight_smile:

But yes, bowling balls would be cool.

#42

48 without a sweet drivetrain? That’ll be the day.

#43

Isn’t this the year of the water game? haha

#44

And those tetra being flung around by robots were a hazard I don’t think the GDC considered until the game was actually payed. I can’t imagine anything like that again.

I too would love to see some ramps or something to climb again. The floor has been flat for too long.

#45

I too would love to see the return of ramps like in 2006 or platforms like in 2004 or some other fun field obstacle but I just don’t see it happening for one simple reason: BUMPERS. Ever notice that about the time bumpers came along the field got flat? At first bumpers were optional but for the last couple of years they have been mandatory. I suspect he GDC has a fondness for bumpers for good reason. I well remember watching a 2004 Newton match when two opposing robots charged out of the gate at the beginning of autonomous and met mid field in the hardest, fastest, head on robot impact I have ever seen. I can’t remember for sure what the team numbers were but I want to say 254 was one of them. In any case, neither robot moved from the point of impact for rest of the match. Bumpers are designed to reduce the effects of such violent robot impacts. I think I read somewhere that the CRIO is rated to 50g. While 50g is nothing to sneeze at I bet those two robots on Newton back in 2004 felt much more. The recent bumper rules are the way they are for many good reasons. Heck, last year nobody was ever able to get enough traction to get going anywhere near what we have in the past but we had the most stringent bumper rules to date. As long as bumpers are deemed necessary by the GDC in anywhere near the same manner that we have become used to (bumper perimeter requirements, bumper zone, non-articulating, etc., etc. etc.) I predict that the field will remain relatively flat. Bumpers add to the safety factor and, well, we all know FIRST is all about safety and rightfully so. It is a litigious society we live in after all.

#46

The Field will be pretty much the same size - I’m 99% sure on that one. I think there will be serious obstacles to negotiate through, over, or around. Like others have already said, we haven’t had that since 2004.

Curve ball? 4-6" wheels may not be the way to go this year. Treads or larger wheels could be needed. If teams have to use larger wheels, treads, or stairclimbers, that maybe enough of a curve ball in itself.

#47

Rather than climbing obstacles, I think we may have to duck them. Perhaps the GDC will honor the year 2010 with a giant X suspended 3’ over the field. Scoring goals will be > 6’ high, and robots are required to navigate under the X in order to reach the goals.

#48

Curve ball - No Game Hint #2

Or, perhaps, Game Hint #2 that is “hidden” in some web location that we must go find…

(Come on Bill Miller, prove me wrong…)

#49

Why does this sound like Iron Chef? Today’s secret ingredient is … bowling pins!

(I think bowling pins would be more fun than bowling balls.)

#50

And extremely tricky too – those things weigh 3lbs, are slick with wierd shapes, and are fairly durable. They seem perfect for a FRC game…

#51

There was a team in 2007 that competed in a competition match with no drivetrain. Their drive was broken, but they were a ramp bot, so they plunked it on the field and still scored points for their alliance. There’s a picture somewhere…

#52

Except for the cost factor… I personally have a set I got from the bowling alley I played at. They don’t replace them often because they’re expensive.

#53

I don’t know if you are meaning 1816. In the semis at WI during the second match, the transmission failed on their robot. For the third match, they put the robot out because the ramps still worked even if they couldn’t drive around. They didn’t win the match, but both of the other robots were lifted up at the end.

#54

I can think of one ramp-bot that didn’t have a drivetrain at all that year. Can’t say they had much success, though.

#55

It depends on the game, my friend. :wink:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/31433

#56

Our team in 2006 was in the proccess of converting our treds to wheels and put the robot out on block for a match. Our auton worked, at least!:stuck_out_tongue: