Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang
Not quite sure what you mean both methods are effective?
I don't want to offend anyone, but it's hard to ignore the fact that some teams have more resources than others simply because of geography and their school district. And there is an undeniable advantage to having more resources.
Do they win solely based on that fact? No. But it sure helps. If our team has money, we wouldn't spend 2 weeks * 3 core students making mecannum-wheels (instead we would buy them). If our team has money, we would get ourself nice tools instead of using our shop with no new equipment since the 80s. But we don't, despite fundraising for half a year. Can we deal with that and still make a kick-butt robot? Yes. However, can you really expect our students to say "we lost only because they were better engineers"?
|
Building an excellent robot with few resources is part of the challenge of first for some teams. This year we utilized a new construction method that allowed for design, fabrication, electrical work, and programing to all occur in parallel. Our standardized design made this season one of our best, despite our teams lack of machining sponsorship. I would advise any teams with limited shop resources to design a robot with similar qualities, and make a prototype on the off season. Prototyping is absolutely possible, on any budget. We built a wood WCD prototype over the off season with 35$, 7$ for wood, 28$ for fasteners. Gearboxes, chain, sprockets, and wheels were all from the 2011 and 2010 kits of parts. The Prototype took less than 50 man hours to complete with 3 students including myself working during our communal shop class. I would be completely comfortable with this Drive base in an actual competition, and the Prototype was more controllable and lighter than our 2011 drive base. While you can choose to spend lots of time or money to build a robot, It can be done for little to no money, with almost no time.