Protect High-Schoolers in STEM- Protect FTC’s Open Hardware Ecosystem. Don’t Lock FTC In

Protect High-Schoolers in STEM- Protect FTC’s Open Hardware Ecosystem. Don’t Lock FTC In

Recent signers:
Oscar Yeung and 19 others have signed recently.

The Issue

FIRST has announced a major change to the FTC control system through the introduction of Systemcore and Motioncore, along with the FIRST A301 smart actuator. Beginning in the 2027–28 season, teams using the new control system will be restricted to the A301 as the only legal motor and servo actuator, effectively eliminating the use of third-party motors and servos that have long been a defining feature of FTC.


This represents a fundamental shift in how FTC robots are designed. For years, teams have had the freedom to choose from a wide range of legal actuators—such as goBILDA Yellow Jacket motors, AndyMark NeveRest motors, REV HD/Core Hex motors, Studica Mavericks, and others—allowing students to compare specifications, select appropriate gear ratios, and design mechanisms based on real engineering tradeoffs. Under the new system, those choices disappear.


The A301, while well-integrated and feature-rich, is intentionally limited in power and performance and is designed to match, not exceed, the capabilities of existing 550-class motors. Many teams are concerned that this creates a lower performance ceiling than what is currently achievable with commonly used FTC motors, particularly for drivetrains and high-load mechanisms. More importantly, making one proprietary actuator mandatory introduces a single-vendor dependency, reducing competition, resilience, and innovation within the FTC ecosystem.

 

Additionally, servos are not just a minor convenience in FTC; they are one of the core tools that make FTC design unique. They let teams build compact wrists, claws, gates, latches, turrets, PTO shifters, linkage releases, and other small mechanisms that do not need the size, weight, or power of a full motor. Treating every actuator problem as something that can be solved by one standardized smart actuator misses one of the biggest engineering lessons FTC teaches: choosing the right actuator for the job. Servo limitations are not a flaw in the program; they are a design constraint. Students learn to support loads correctly, reduce shock, design around torque limits, package mechanisms carefully, and decide when a mechanism actually needs a motor. FIRST has said the A301 is intended to replace existing motors and servos in the new control system and become the only legal actuator for that ecosystem, but replacing an entire class of small, cheap, precise actuators with one required device would remove flexibility rather than expand it. 

 

FTC’s best mechanisms are often built around dense packaging, clever linkages, and small servo-powered actions. Automatic clipping systems, compact transfer mechanisms, folding arms, linkage-driven claws, and multi-stage manipulators are possible because teams can use small actuators exactly where they are needed. A whole motor-sized smart actuator is not a reasonable replacement for every tiny latch, wrist, hood, release, or claw, especially on long arms or tightly packaged mechanisms where weight and space matter. The result would not be more creative design; it would be bulkier robots, fewer elegant mechanisms, and less meaningful actuator choice. To preserve FTC’s identity as an open, creative, mechanism-driven robotics program, FIRST should keep servos legal alongside the A301 instead of removing one of the most essential tools students use to solve real engineering problems.


FTC has historically distinguished itself from programs like VEX by maintaining an open, multi-vendor hardware environment that encourages creativity, vendor innovation, and authentic engineering decision-making. Restricting future FTC robots to a single approved actuator risks eroding that identity and turning FTC into a closed ecosystem where teams are consumers of one predefined solution rather than engineers making meaningful design choices.

This issue is not about opposing new technology or progress. It is about ensuring that FTC’s transition to a new control system does not come at the cost of openness, flexibility, and the educational value that third-party hardware choice provides.

 

List of Student-Voiced Complaints:

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br31i0WGlmkAQ_bHyuj9id5kSu1sMOpMhlpQbMPf4R0/edit?usp=sharing

689

Recent signers:
Oscar Yeung and 19 others have signed recently.

The Issue

FIRST has announced a major change to the FTC control system through the introduction of Systemcore and Motioncore, along with the FIRST A301 smart actuator. Beginning in the 2027–28 season, teams using the new control system will be restricted to the A301 as the only legal motor and servo actuator, effectively eliminating the use of third-party motors and servos that have long been a defining feature of FTC.


This represents a fundamental shift in how FTC robots are designed. For years, teams have had the freedom to choose from a wide range of legal actuators—such as goBILDA Yellow Jacket motors, AndyMark NeveRest motors, REV HD/Core Hex motors, Studica Mavericks, and others—allowing students to compare specifications, select appropriate gear ratios, and design mechanisms based on real engineering tradeoffs. Under the new system, those choices disappear.


The A301, while well-integrated and feature-rich, is intentionally limited in power and performance and is designed to match, not exceed, the capabilities of existing 550-class motors. Many teams are concerned that this creates a lower performance ceiling than what is currently achievable with commonly used FTC motors, particularly for drivetrains and high-load mechanisms. More importantly, making one proprietary actuator mandatory introduces a single-vendor dependency, reducing competition, resilience, and innovation within the FTC ecosystem.

 

Additionally, servos are not just a minor convenience in FTC; they are one of the core tools that make FTC design unique. They let teams build compact wrists, claws, gates, latches, turrets, PTO shifters, linkage releases, and other small mechanisms that do not need the size, weight, or power of a full motor. Treating every actuator problem as something that can be solved by one standardized smart actuator misses one of the biggest engineering lessons FTC teaches: choosing the right actuator for the job. Servo limitations are not a flaw in the program; they are a design constraint. Students learn to support loads correctly, reduce shock, design around torque limits, package mechanisms carefully, and decide when a mechanism actually needs a motor. FIRST has said the A301 is intended to replace existing motors and servos in the new control system and become the only legal actuator for that ecosystem, but replacing an entire class of small, cheap, precise actuators with one required device would remove flexibility rather than expand it. 

 

FTC’s best mechanisms are often built around dense packaging, clever linkages, and small servo-powered actions. Automatic clipping systems, compact transfer mechanisms, folding arms, linkage-driven claws, and multi-stage manipulators are possible because teams can use small actuators exactly where they are needed. A whole motor-sized smart actuator is not a reasonable replacement for every tiny latch, wrist, hood, release, or claw, especially on long arms or tightly packaged mechanisms where weight and space matter. The result would not be more creative design; it would be bulkier robots, fewer elegant mechanisms, and less meaningful actuator choice. To preserve FTC’s identity as an open, creative, mechanism-driven robotics program, FIRST should keep servos legal alongside the A301 instead of removing one of the most essential tools students use to solve real engineering problems.


FTC has historically distinguished itself from programs like VEX by maintaining an open, multi-vendor hardware environment that encourages creativity, vendor innovation, and authentic engineering decision-making. Restricting future FTC robots to a single approved actuator risks eroding that identity and turning FTC into a closed ecosystem where teams are consumers of one predefined solution rather than engineers making meaningful design choices.

This issue is not about opposing new technology or progress. It is about ensuring that FTC’s transition to a new control system does not come at the cost of openness, flexibility, and the educational value that third-party hardware choice provides.

 

List of Student-Voiced Complaints:

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Br31i0WGlmkAQ_bHyuj9id5kSu1sMOpMhlpQbMPf4R0/edit?usp=sharing

The Decision Makers

Chris Moore
Chris Moore
FIRST Chief Executive Officer
Rachel Moore
Rachel Moore
Senior Director, FIRST® Tech Challenge

Supporter Voices

Petition Updates