[Ninja_Bait]

I understand what you're saying, but I still think that success in a match environment is more indicative of robot quality than success in the competition structure. Let's agree to disagree before this turns into an nasty semantics-slinging fight.

What BrendanB said was very wise - inventiveness can trump money any day. In 2009, the very competitive "number 7"/"roller-dumper" bots were probably possible with a $500 budget (the KOP, 2x4s, PVC, lexan and belting was basically all it took). In 2011, a similarly cheap but competitive robot was probably possible, though I can't think off of the top of my head what you'd have to do to get it - the game is also a factor in what kind of money you'll need.

$1500 is an admirable and probably achievable goal; if only every team could pull it off, FIRST would be all the richer. But this question is ultimately unanswerable. Experience can tell you so much, but any curveball will totally flip experience upside down. I seriously doubt that $1500 is enough to cushion the team from huge mistakes or massive changes in the game, and this is coming from a team that has never spent less than its $8000 engineering budget (of which the robot was probably only half our expenditures). If you can get the extra money, do it - if you don't use it you lose nothing, but if you don't have when you need it, you'll lose 6 weeks of hard work.