I don't trust some of the kids on my team drive the robot either, but that might just be the point (okay, are we ready for this?)....

Look at it this way. Dean wants us to learn all the important concepts of engineering. Last year he taught us teamwork, where we well exceeded everyone's expectations as to how well people can do when they work together to acheive a common goal. Another very important aspect of engineering is user-friendliness (spl?). Would anyone use a microwave if they had to know exactly how it worked to operate it? No way! Or a car, for that matter. While I don't really like other people driving my car, I think that since they have the experience driving others that they would be able to manage mine, even though it does have a different feel.

Because after all, if a product isn't easily used by the public, how much value can it be?

~Tom~, who's all done now. ;)

I would like to see the return to additive scoring like last year, especially if we return to 2v2 when knowing the exact score can be crucial. Its much easier to add than to multiply by 1.5 and then 1.1 ;)

If we did have to drive othere's robots, what forma would the game be?

Driving each others robots would be too impractical. There would have to be some sort of incentive in the scoring that would award you on how well your robot did, vs. how well the robot you were driving did -- otherwise, there would be no reason to build a quality robot. Besides, I remember Dean saying that he would make the scoring system easier next year. Once you figured out how the scoring for the robot-switching worked, it certainly would not be easy to keep track of, I think that a lot of it would be subjective, which is very difficult to do consistently.
On the other hand, I would not be suprised to see more teamwork in the future. This year's competition has been said to be boring for the observers, but I found this not to be the case. That, however is beside the point. It would not suprise me to see 6 - 8 robots on the field at once, all competing against each other, but also on mini-alliances of 2, 3, or 4 robots competing across alliances. This could be similar to what occured in the very exciting 2000 competition, but on a larger scale. The playing objects would be somthing common, though bowling pins would certainly fall into that category -- I think that a complex manufacturing process for playing field objects (like the floppies) is not reasonable for most teams for practice. In addition, I think that the increased numbers of teams, would mean that the playing fields will be larger -- especially if there are more than 4 robots on a field at a time. I would expect to see an objectve that requires more from a robot than simply picking up an object and raising it over 8 feet in the air, though that does seem to be a common height requirement. Perhaps the surface of the playing field will be inconsistent, or perhaps there will be bars at irregular heights throughout the field that the robot is required to climb upon. I, for one, would also like to see some variance in size requirements. An engineer is supposed to be able to do more with less, but the sizes have been increasing in recent competitions. It would be interesting to see how designs changed if the robot could not exceed 3 feet in height.
My overall expectation for next year, would be a cross between the 1 vs 1 vs 1 from the '98 comp, and the 2 vs 2 from the '00 comp -- probably a 2 vs 2 vs 2, on a larger field that had more difficult obstacles to traverse than the standard carpeted fields have had. I would expect something that a standard 4 wheel drive system would not easily handle without modification, as well as objects on the playing field that were of irregular shape. Combine this with a fairly simplistic goal, such as putting the objects into a bin, and you could have a fairly challenging game.

Well I don't/won't let anyone drive my car but me. Not even a possibility. I don't know if I agree with the really long preceeding post, my ADD kicked in and everything became a jumble. I would like to know what you guys think is in store for us this year.
C~ya,
Carolyn

Doesn't Dean say that every year?

yay for add

Re: Re: Talk about coincidence.
 

Well, that would certainly qualify as sick. But - it would encourage better controls design. it would foster interaction between teams (hopefully good interaction, but if someone crashes your robot, I don't think you'd be patting them on the back). It would, at the very least, make things interesting.

I wonder...
 

Have any of you guys ever thought that Dean uses FIRST to get ideas for his stuff? The thing that made me think this is college profs. Some of them have their students do all kinds of research and call it "gaining experience" then take the info and publish it themselves. Could this be possible?
C~ya
Carolyn who wonders...

you mean, like things we post on these forums give dean ideas about future games? or that he gets ideas for his inventions, like the i-bot and it from first?

Yup!
 

That's exactly what I mean. Somewhere along the line something has to come up that bears such a striking resemblance. Afterall, we ship the robots early and they get inspected. What about the judges this past year (the ones that actually talked to people). They were selective about who they spoke with, maybe they were idea searching for Dean. Maybe this is all one big conspiracy...
C~ya,
Carolyn who watches too many Mel Gibson movies.

Sound like a good movie plot if you ask The High Priest.

*picks up cell phone*

Dean, they're on to us!

-Ed "Said too much again" McDonnell

Conspiracy Theory
 

It's not really an original plot, I borrowed the idea. You get what I mean though. Dean waits a few years so no one will notice...
C~ya,
Carolyn

Hmm...

*Begins to type a movie script*

-Ed "Yet another post to increase his post count" McDonnell

I just told you...
 

That movie's already been made. Get a new idea or you'll be in... the middle of a copyright case.
C~ya,
Carolyn