Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Betts
I normally respect your opinion but let's look at engineering and physics for a minute...
...
The correct way is not necessarily the competitive way...
Just who is ignorant of physics or of the world around them?
Regards,
Mike
|
Destruction of material and risk taking IS part of good engineering, especially part of race engineering.
The competition is not about the team that builds the minibot with the least cost, most reliable parts that never degrade over the course of a season.
Teams spend many thousands of dollars per season and most of the parts depreciate in value very quickly most KOPs are replaced within a few years.
How much engineering maintenance does a NASCAR need compared to the family minivan?
Per mile, how much more often does a NASCAR fail as compared to a family minivan?
In reading the competition manual as a good engineer, are the requirements for the portion of the competition regarding the minibot more like NASCAR or like the family minivan?
Is it correct engineering to teach students to build a minivan for a NASCAR race?
There are plenty of relatively reliable 2.5-3 lb minibots.
If FIRST wanted the best teams to use the NXT and motor controllers, they should have make a challenge more like a use of a minivan- running all over town, picking up toddlers and groceries, making controlled stops, obeying all speed limits and signals, etc.
But then, who wants to go to a competition to watch that?
Probably not the stuff a Cirque du Soleil promoter could promote.
Has anyone had to replace a KOP limit switch from electrical overload in this challenge? What is the failure rate?
(Team 241 has used them without failure over 100 times.)
What is the perception of the other failure rates that the large minibot engineers have actual data to back up their concern?