The 2021 Robonauts Everybot Low Resource Build

The Robonauts Everybot, costing less than $1000, is an affordable, robust, and simplistic robot that can be built with nothing but basic tools and items found in either the kit of parts, purchased from your local hardware store, or an online retailer such as AndyMark, Vexpro, McMaster-Carr, etc. We hope to help students and teams find their stride in FRC regardless of their circumstances or practical limitations. In the 2020 season, over a hundred teams built off of the Robonauts Everybot concept, and we are excited for what the 2021 season holds.

In our analysis of Infinite Recharge at Home, we’ve found that a subset of robot capabilities of the 2020 Everybot design will be capable of being competitive in three of the five challenges. Everybot 2021 will be a sleeker, lighter, and faster version of Everybot 2020, allowing teams to add the ability to climb and score in the bottom port in the event that in-person tournaments are possible later in the year. Normally our goal with this initiative is to enable teams that follow our plans to play in their local finals matches as well as have a place on an alliance at a championship. Everybot 2020 fulfilled this goal and will still do so in a potential 2021 in-person competition season. This year, we hope that teams that build from our plans can place in the top ten teams in their group.

The 2021 Robonauts Everybot will play the Galactic Search Challenge, AutoNav Challenge, and Hyperdrive Challenge for Infinite Recharge at Home.

Next weekend, CAD, a bill of materials, software, and documentation of how we built Everybot will be posted in this thread and on our website, We will also post a video of Everybot accomplishing the three at-home challenges.

Please do not let the community’s excitement for the new FRC challenges cause your team to feel pressure to start building robots before you decide it is safe. COVID-19 is affecting teams and regions differently, and the situation is changing by the day. It is important that everyone in the FRC community does their part in protecting themselves and those around them. We hope that teams assess how they are promoting safe practices in accordance with local guidelines as driven by experts in the field of public health. For widely accepted and up-to-date information and guidelines, the CDC is a great place to look. For many teams, it is not a good idea to be meeting in large gatherings at this time. However, Infinite Recharge at Home can be a great opportunity for teams to engage their students in an exciting design challenge given appropriate precautions.


I was thinking last night about how the everybot a subset of our team built might outperform out “comp bot” in 3 of the 5 at home challenges for the overall score. Excited to see what yall build! (and slightly nervous about how to outperform it haha!)


Does this year’s EveryBot have the same dimensions on the chassis as 2020? :slight_smile:

I think this is a tough call to make for them. IMO the most successful Everybot for the at home challenges would be going about as small as you can with the Kitbot.

However I think it would be a disservice to new / low resource teams to recommend that without thinking about how it might hurt later years where that size would probably not be the recommendation. It is nice to have a second chassis about the same size as your comp one so that you can mount things to it to test (like an intake) even if it doesn’t have all of the electronics needed to run it.

Once you cut small you are stuck. If you cut big you can always cut smaller.

1 Like

You aren’t stuck. There are options out of it. That being said if you’re operating on the everybot budget, that $100 or so to replace the rails is probably a significant tradeoff, so I agree with you in that sense.


That’s an interesting thought that I hadn’t thought of yet! But first thing’s first, I’ll still need to make sure we buy another RoboRIO for next year so we can have a programming bot. :slight_smile:

I wouldn’t recommend buying a roboRIO. I would try to get one off of FIRSTChoice. If you don’t get that I would wait as the new roboRIO (not sure if it will be called that or what) is coming out next year.


Yes. However, as others have pointed out, cutting a kit chassis down as small as possible would be the best solution for the at-home challenges. The unusual circumstances of this season have led us to recommend a robot that is not as strategically sound as we normally would have liked. We cannot in good faith recommend that teams sabotage their chances at having a competitive robot for in-person Infinite Recharge gameplay in order to do marginally better in the at-home challenges.


Excellent - thank you!

1 Like

We’ve filmed and posted videos of Everybot driving through the paths for the first three challenges. These are all driven manually with just a quick afternoon of practice in order to give a general sense of speed.

There are also two bonus videos in that playlist of Everybot completing the Power Port Challenge. In the first video, Everybot scores 144 points. In the second, Everybot scores 18 points. The first utilizes the ambiguity of the rules and description of the Power Port Challenge, and we do not expect that it will remain a viable option.

The robot is the same as Everybot 2020, sans the climber. An updated BOM and CAD will be posted shortly. In the meantime, if your team is able to meet and work on robots, you can get started using the build documentation from last year, found at


Some GDC member: 1995 game flashbacks


Power port challenge- That. Is. Fast.

I noticed in the “Is this allowed” video that the motor shaft powering the movement of the hopper arm moves quite the lot… It’s most likely just the motor stalling.

1 Like

Glad you called us out… :stuck_out_tongue: The rivets all sheared from driver practice last season and some were a little deeper than I was willing to go to fix. Still functional, just doesn’t look pretty. One of the resources we plan on releasing is a collection of what broke so teams can reinforce or plan ahead accordingly.


We have put some thought into doing a very small robot for the skills, (specially because our robot uses the wide configurantion), but gains wouldn’t be that much probably and is really hard to fit anything more than an intake onto it

The smallest we’ve gotten the KOP chassis down for a competition robot was to was 24"x24". Right now, there are two schools of thought in my team: small everybody versus small flywheel shooter bot. We probably build both for fun. Lots of room to explore this year, distanced and safety of course.

I’m interested in seeing the list of common Everybot stress points - I bet we’ve seen a lot of them on my team already, but wonder if we missed a few. The motor on the arm assembly gave us lots of headaches.


To me this seems like the pinnacle example of a loop disallowed by the blue box in PPC6.

“The intent of this allowance is to avoid forcing humans to field POWER CELLS in close
proximity to the ROBOT. Teams should not use this allowance to attempt to create a
“loop” with minimal ROBOT movement.”

Depends on how you read that blue box. If it’s restricted to the realm of human reintroduction, as suggested by PPC6, the blue box has nothing to do with the example shown in the video.
If you read the blue box as separate from PPC6 and more holistic in its nature, then I agree with your assessment.
Unfortunately, there’s no way to know what the GDC intent was without a direct Q&A.

I feel this is the worst part of the 2021 manual. In the past, teams have been encouraged to stretch the rules to the farthest possible bounds, to promote the engineering challenges. This year, it’s much more ambiguous, and teams are asked to infer the intent of purposefully vague rules. Frustrating to say the least.


I agree the challenge isn’t totally clear. IMO this however is universally ruled out as the provision that allows robots to use power cells from the field say “POWER CELLS which land in the challenge space may be fielded directly by the ROBOT” these aren’t landing anywhere in fact they are never released.

All of this is also completely ignoring the spirit of the rules. I don’t see how pushing balls against a wall could possibly be in the spirit of this challenge.

I agree that the Power Port Challenge is IMO by far the worst offender for this as it is pretty much solely judges how many balls you can shoot so teams are entirely encouraged to optimize how many they can shoot and the involves bending the rules towards a loop as much as possible.

IMO to fix this either remove the blue box and make all power cells be reintroduced via the reintroduction zone or lay out a specified number of power cells and then timing the robot in how long it took teams to pick them up and shoot them. I understand this would be very difficult for teams with 3 balls but I would think that would be the minority of shooting teams and that those teams could borrow more.

One way to go could be:

Intuit the spirit of the rules and follow it in good faith.

A fundamental problem with that approach is that the spirit of the rules is not generally clear to all participants. As we can see by the Q&A questions posed every year, it is hard to distinguish between clever legal and clever illegal solutions to the problems posed to us.

Another way to go could be:

Goals can only be scored with live balls. Balls go dead when they touch the goal for the first time after becoming live. Balls go live when they touch the HP, floor, or robot for the first time after becoming dead.


@GDC please put this in TU03. This is clear, succinct, and still allows leeway for multiple designs and applications.