View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 18-03-2012, 18:32
SenorZ's Avatar
SenorZ SenorZ is offline
Physics Teacher
AKA: Tom Zook
FRC #4276 (Surf City Vikings)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Posts: 929
SenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond reputeSenorZ has a reputation beyond repute
Modular systems in FRC

Sitting here, enjoying a sleep-in day following the LA Regional, and not wanting to grade the papers that have piled up for the last couple of weeks, I've starting thinking about strategy in FRC.

My team was stressed just making a collector and shooter that worked together. Many other teams had awesome collectors, shooters, bridge manipulators... some of which were dual purpose. And it got me thinking. If a future game were rather complex, with 3 or more objectives in a match, would having separate, interchangeable modules be beneficial?

Each module could be more robust and heavy because it isn't sharing space/weight with 2 or more other systems. It might also help foster team work between alliance members.

This could be of most use during elimination rounds. I noticed a lot of alliances where only one robot was shooting, another was only going for the bridge, and the third was just playing defense... but all had almost identical hardware, some of which was taking up space and making them top-heavy. (saw several tall shooters on their sides in the elimination rounds yesterday)

Just a thought I was having. Costs and possible cheating might be the biggest prohibitive elements of the idea. But I think its cool.
Reply With Quote