Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber
I stand by my claim that a good driver is a key component of an effective design.
|
I'm going to have to disagree, I feel that there is a large difference between design and execution.
A driver is something that is outside of the robot, and as much as it seems some people on this forum would like to, you can't design a driver. You can design the driver interface (intuitive controls, logical presets, fluid/consistent motion, etc) though.
As for ease of manufacturing and driver practice...The majority of practice for teams occurs during the competition season. Either with their practice bot or at the competition. Being able to easily manufacture a robot (I'm assuming this includes building in a smaller time period as well) is more of a construction/upkeep benefit. The ability to put a robot on the floor in Week 4 instead of Week 5 is mainly an advantage for troubleshooting issues that wouldn't otherwise be seen until later. I can't imagine many teams getting a significant amount of practice time in with their drivers during this time frame.
That being said, ease of manufacturing does imply less likely to break down and easier to repair if it does. Giving a team more time to practice while another robot might have to be maintained. I still find that the practice time difference between an easily manufactured robot and that of one
not easily manufactured wouldn't be weeks but hours, and depending on how much a team practices that difference in time can become minimal.
I'll agree that simplicity is always a key feature to a successful robot, and that drivers are a crucial part to any success on the field. Driver's are still something that has to interact with a scoring design, they're not part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawiian Cadder
while no team 233 style arm made it onto Einstein
|
Team 2016 had a similar approach, albeit not identical, to a 233 style. They were World Finalists.