|
Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
This situation is a little different here than most veteran team/rookie team collaborations. 1510 and 2898 would share many of the same mentors and the same shop space. Students would, I assume, split into two groups if they were to build two different robots but it's not like one group is necessarily less experienced than another or that poor little 2898 needs the help of it's older brother. These are very capable students and mentors. They'd spin off another robot in order to give more students key roles as the team is getting pretty big.
My point early in this thread is I think it would have more impact to build two different robots so that more students can get their hands dirty in the design process. Otherwise, all you're doing is spending $10K for eight more students to have more fun at the competition (drive team and pit crew) and you get the "fun" of assembling another robot just like the previous two. The lasting impact of FIRST happens during build season, not at the competitions.
__________________
2016 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2016 Winner Oregon City District, 2015 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2015 PNW District Engineering Inspiration; 2015 PNW District Finalist; 2014 PNW Championship Chairman's; 2014 Championship Innovation in Controls; 2013 Chairman's (Oregon); 2013 Finalist (OKC); 2012 Winner (OKC); 2012 Chairman's (OKC); 2012 Woody Flowers (Oregon); 2011 Volunteer of the Year (Oregon); 2011 Finalist & Captain (San Diego); 2011 Innovation in Control (San Diego); 2010 & 2007 Chairman's (Oregon); 2010 Regional Champions (Colorado); 2010 Innovation in Control (Colorado); 2009 & 2008 Engineering Inspiration (Oregon); 2008 Regional Champions (Oregon); 2007 Regional Finalist (Oregon); 2005 Rookie Inspiration (PNW)
|