90lb weight limit.
If we could guess what it was, then it wouldn’t be a curve ball!
The KOP includes “1 Long box, 36.5” x 8.75" x 5.75", 29 lbs each" - sounds like the AM kit frame. Therefore, we probably have wheels, too…
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some limitations on drive trains. This is the area that gives seasoned veterans a big advantage over younger teams (preseason prototypes, evolution of previous designs, etc.). A big curveball here could force everybody to pull a clean sheet of paper or default to the kit chassis, which might level the playing field a bit.
And speaking of level playing fields - we are overdue for an uneven field surface. Perhaps a game that rewarded tall robots with a high goal placement and then penalized their high CG with a steep ramp, or some such conundrum. Something where you needed to commit to one particular design objective and hope that one of your alliance partners picked the other - kind of like the ramp-bots in 2007.
I don’t think leveling the playing field by limitation is likely to happen.
My hope is the the curveball we have to deal with is learning to throw a knuckle ball with the scoring object.
I’ve suggested a weight reduction many times in the past because I feel the robots already way too much, but I’ve resigned myself to the fact the robot size/weight just won’t change significantly for a variety of reasons. (field size, visibility for spectators, electronics sizing, shipping and handling etc…)
The best curveball they could give us in my opinion is new game object shape or size that we haven’t dealt with yet. A bulk/mass moving type of challege where we move popcorm kernel or something like that and score by weight could work as well. Also working with smaller balls like super balls, tennis balls, etc would create a new challenge for us on the larger robots…
Drivetrains don’t give as big of an advantage as you think. Yes, a solid drivetrain is the foundation for a solid robot, but it doesn’t make a robot an Einstein quality robot.
There are better ways to level the playing field than to limit teams’ freedom and creativity. I agree with Peter, I hope it’s something new. Look at something like the ramps in 2007. It was new to everyone and everyone had a start from scratch. Ramps proved to be a major aspect of the game and IRC every winning alliance has atleast one ramp.
We will play on unpopped corn kernels, just like in 1992. NASA will then use the results to figure out new ways to get Spirit unstuck. Even the price of corn has risen since September, which is evidence that the GDC has indeed been stocking up on the precious commodity.
Two themes knocked out with one field element: check.
I also think that there will be a decrease in the weight limit. I’m thinking 105-115lbs. Anywhere below 100 can get hard to do, but somehow we built our 2008 robot and it came to a weight of 84lbs when done, and we weren’t even trying to stay light.
Who says it will be a curve ball? Maybe the GDC has decided to test out their knuck…
grumbles about being late to the thread
AM does not know the game. AM has chosen, based on past years’ setups, to develop a gearbox that may or may not be used this year. This is a risk that many companies take. Best guess says X, Y happens, company Z loses money. Best guess says X, X happens, company Z makes money hand-over-fist. That’s business in a capitalist marketplace.
No need for limitations. Whereas the difference between “have” and “have not” teams in regards to drive trains may have existed five or ten years ago, AndyMark’s products have pretty much eliminated that.
The proper way to advance forward is by bringing the bottom up, not by limiting how high the top can fly.
Possibly, but people have been predicting stairs ever since Dean’s wheelchair first made an appearance…
Please let it be a larger playing field.
This allows room for all the mid-field obstacles from earlier four robot games that really became kind of impractical with six machines crammed on to the field.
But, sigh… I do know space is limited in some of the smaller FRC venues, so we’re not likely to see that.
Perhaps, however, we might have strict limits on energy consumption… efficiency is always a good thing. Maybe each robot will be fitted with an ammeter to measure total current flow, and it will report back to the field control system how much power each robot is drawing. Alliances will then have “power consumption points” deducted from their final score.
Or maybe the combined total power consumed by all three robots in on an alliance will be monitored… so if robot one is in a pushing match and needs to pour on the juice, robots two and three need to dial back their consumption a bit. THAT would be a real challenge for drivers!
Jason
Smaller robots would give the same effect.
Smaller robots + the non-compactness of our existing control system = major pain in the neck
The cRIO (and it’s auxiliary hardware) is far too bulky to make the robots significantly smaller. We’ve had very wide open fields the past couple of year (2006, out side of the ramps was wide open / 2007, fairly wide open except near the rack / 2008, pretty wide open unless there was lots of traffic generated / 2009, wide open). Putting more elements on the field or creating obstacles would be kind of nice…
Based on the box Wayne mentioned, it seems like the legnth of the robot is unlikely to change. They could require a narrower width, but that would still leave significant space consumption issues based purely on the 38" dimension.
There is not going to be a curve ball this year just a kick but game…
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…)
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.
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
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: