Not building to do everything??

[TriggsJr]

Has any team out there started to back off on what kind of machine they build every year. I know my team has tried to build a machine that can do most or all of the tasks given every year.

pushing machine
3 point scorer
1 point scorer
go up the ramp
hold alot of balls

The engineering effort to do everything is taking its toal.
My team is going to back off on this next year unless they can find different engineers or start making prints themselves.
Myself and the other engineer on our team agree we're killing ourselves trying to make a crazy good machine. We both agree would could of just made a simple 1 point machine accomplishing the same goals and getting more sleep.
That and only build one machine.
The goal is still accomplished show kids what science and technology is like.

Has anyone else back off on solving the entire game??

[Swan217]

Has any team out there started to back off on what kind of machine they build every year. I know my team has tried to build a machine that can do most or all of the tasks given every year.

We both agree would could of just made a simple 1 point machine accomplishing the same goals and getting more sleep.
That and only build one machine.
The goal is still accomplished show kids what science and technology is like.

Has anyone else back off on solving the entire game??

You make a very valid point. I'll tell you a closely guarded secret among veteran teams - simplicity is the best plan. If you think up a design that easily incorporates all of the objectives of the game, then you can be successful. Most teams aren't that lucky though. There are always pro's and con's to each objective. For example, while it's easier to block 1 pt goals vs. the 3 pt goal, they 1 pt goals aren't as valuable.

Each team makes tradeoffs. It's much better to determine what the "essential" abilities of the robot need to be at the beginning of the season, and add other functions later if you have time and weight.

Simple function shouldn't be mistaken for simplicity OF function, however. The simplest function would be a box on wheels, an essentially motorized shopping cart. You can simply add a trap door on one side to add the function of dropping balls into the 1 pt goals. It's really hard to screw up this design; it is the simplest design, but how effective is it inspiring students to be engineers and problem solvers? Is it the best design, just because it's the simplest?

Take another function: ball shooting. The simplest design of this may be a "cornhusker" method, where balls are fed through a conveyor up from a storage tank to a softball machine style shooter, which operates at a single speed and angle. The drivetrain is a standard "tank style." This is a simple design of a function. How effective is this design in inspiring students to be engineers and problem solvers? It may be more complicated than the shopping cart, but it's a simple design of a function.

Contrast this to a robot that is designed like a Rube Goldberg device. Ex. - the ball enters the robot and is funneled into a storage box. This box is then elevated up to a channel (like an elevator) where the ball falls down into a "catapult" type device. A series of pulleys and rope then catapults the ball into the goal at various speeds, depending on where the robot is in relation to the goal. This catapult is also on a turret, so it can shoot at various angles. The drive system is also crab-style, so it can drive in any direction. Even though this robot has the same purpose as the previous design, shooting balls into the 3 pt goal, it is much more complicated. This is not a simple design of a function.

The "cornhusker" also has another advantage - it is very easy to extend the conveyor mechanism down to the bottom and get a second function - picking balls up off the ground. How easy is it to add this function to the Rube Goldberg Catapult?

On the other hand, both of the latter designs offer a lot up to problem solving. Sometimes the "best" plan ends up being the complicated one. Either one offers inspiration to the students to design, test, and build. So even though your team tends to want to do everything, is this such a bad thing? It definitely offers a lot of opportunity for problem solving!

The main question you have to ask yourself is, "Am I inspired to engineer?" Whether or not your robot fails, it doesn't matter. Would you be just as inspired building the box on wheels as you would be building the cornhusker or catapult? What if you had to do physics calculations or ball trajectory trigonometry to design the robot, instead of having the engineers and teachers on your team do them all for you? Would you want to go into engineering so you could do more of these calculations and finding the solutions? Can you do any calculations like this with the shopping cart design? Do you have to prototype the shopping cart design to prove that it works? Do you have to worry about weight management and material selection and friction with the shopping cart design?

THAT'S TRUE inspiration. You can get inspired just from being involved with FIRST, but can't you do more? Wouldn't you WANT to do more?