School micromouse

Duncan's idea re a discussion at the March event is a good one, but it is leaving things rather late if you are planning for a Schools competition in the current academic year. If you then went ahead for a June competition, you would probably get only the 'regulars' taking part - new entrants wouldn't have time to prepare. Perhaps this is a good thing for the first year? However, since fairness and clarity of objectives is important (re Duncan) we need to be careful that we don't alienate prospective schools by making the first year's competition seem a bit like a private 'mousers-club'.

The reason the 2D line-follower competition is ideal for schools is that it is very easy to get a basic mouse successfully running the course. Also, if it loses the line it has a chance of regaining it again, unlike a basic wall-follower which generally crashes and gets stuck. Also, the course is trivially easy to make and store (unlike a 3D maze.........). Also, the idea of building a line-following robot has other applications and pupils can apply the idea to larger robots which can perform useful carrying tasks.

I disagree about the Rat Race being a blind alley! 2D line followers will obviously be able to run the Rat Race, but they won't be a good Rat. Vice-versa, a fast, high acceleration, high deceleration Rat probably won't be any good on the 2D course. I would encourage Rats to be designed specifically for the Rat Race - I see huge opportunities here. But I take your point regarding multiplicity of competitions and dissipation of effort.

Finally, Duncan - the IEEE printed 2D 'mats' were awfully reflective - the shiny black surface reflected more light than the matt white line! I think they improved later versions, but weren't last year's competition courses made from black painted plywood? I can't remember.