Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait
Sounds good, improvement is the way forward.
Setting up a strategy is wise; it's done by many top teams. Remember that physics is your friend and that every part of the game is important until actual experience tells you otherwise. Do some math and plan a super optimal strategy.
First off, prototyping is not the same as proof of concept. LEGO and VEX are proof of concept materials. They are an easy and quick way to show that an idea is sound and will probably work in reality. Prototyping goes beyond that by requiring careful work and allowing you to optimize dimensions and prove functionality in the real environment.
Second, you can sometimes eliminate ideas without building anything. Some ideas are clearly too expensive/complex/inane, and oftentimes logic and physics (or a proof of concept) will prove that only a handful are viable.
Decide what your team is here for - building an amazing robot or changing lives? What will be better for that goal - outsourcing or engaging?
If you can't pay for a second robot, you can't pay for custom machining. Also, you shouldn't make your second robot if it's not the same as the first. Even little nuances will drastically affect code, driving and strategy. Even though the practice is nice, it will feel like a waste of time and material as everyone adjusts from practice bot to competition bot.
Wrong. True inspiration is when students choose to be good engineers because of the example of mentors and peers. It doesn't come out of good engineering, it leads to it.
As a last note: I've often felt the same way you do, which is that the team is nose-diving into a dump. Encourage these changes, but also act upon them yourself first. Crabbiness doesn't solve problems; leadership by example does. You personally can demonstrate the value of following a good engineering thought process, and others will follow when they see the advantages. Try not to overstep your bounds, however, and remember that you're doing this for the team, not for winning. Good luck with your efforts!
|
I sometimes refer to proof of concept as prototyping, but you are correct. I think a proof of concept would be nice before we eliminate any ideas. of course, an idea of 25 wheels would probably be shot down if we were playing logo motion, or building two arms.
Our team's goal is kind of mixed. most of the students who join robotics are already part of the magnet program here at our high school. We have multiple competition teams that they go into. Our biggest goal as a robotics team would be to take these talented kids, and allow them to go through the engineering design process and engineer an amazing creation that provides an effective solution to the problem. In order to be effective, we have to be competitive. In 2010, our entire robot was made by manually milling parts with an inexperienced first year robotics student milling the kicker and the base was made of 1010 cut by an old slave and tapped by some students. By championships, the base was tilting at a 30 degree angle and would've completely been destroyed in another few matches.
I first got into robotics as a freshmen because I wanted to build a robot. I participated in the BEST competition, which does that. However, when I worked with FRC in 2009 (my rookie year), I was amazed at the clean cuts and CNC cut parts that were on our robot, and how it went from concept, prototype, CAD and finally to the robot. I didn't make many things other than prototype a battery mounting system that year, but i did not have any less feeling of satisfaction of creating something from when I fabricated all of the parts in the BEST robotics competition to getting everything fabricated by CNC or waterjetted by a sponsor.
I don't know how well a compromise would work on this, but I see people wanting to fabricate parts of the robot. For complex pieces, we could use the CNC or get it cut outside by one of our sponsors, but for putting the base together or creating an end effector, we could have students fabricate parts for that.
With the 2nd robot, i've heard that you will never have an exact copy of the robot, but if the drivetrain and simulated weight is similar, you can still use it to drive around the field, or if you are using an arm, you make one out of wood that goes the same speed as the one made before. For the past 2 years, we've only been putting out two drivers, me and another person (who is a senior this year). We've only been chosen because of our Rules knowledge and natural talent. natural talent only took us so far. In 2010, we had a good scoring robot. But because of a lack of practice, we couldn't go over the bump, and we couldn't score as effectively, because we didn't have aligning with the ball down to an art. We may not have had much experience still with getting over the bump with an inexact copy of the robot, but we could still practice lining up with the ball and running scenarios of other teams playing defense. Also, practice builds the relationship among our drivers. I personally don't have a good relationship with our other driver, but if we were to practice, form new strategies, and run plays, we can think alike and we don't have to disagree on how to approach the game piece
I don't want to cause internal strife within our club, but I also want to make sure the overall leader understands my arguments and why I think they are beneficial to the team as a whole and to ourselves.
Also, I agree with your modification of my inspiration definition. What was I thinking before?
