Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemo
A couple of quick notes:
1) The lift rule is not exponential; it is 5 points for each extra inch, which means that the extra height might not be as important as it was in last year's FTC game.
2) The FTC kit lacks in several ways, but this year the raw material rules got opened way up. Now we can use any amount of any raw material that is widely available on McMaster or someplace similar. Also, next year North American teams get to start using the Matrix system, which looks promising. I think those two factors will do a lot to make FTC robots more interesting.
|
1) yeah, sorry. Mixing up my games!
2) I understand the
options are greater, I'm just not sure the minimum (un)viable executions will be. I've known veteran FRC teams led by professional engineers that struggle with raw material procurement. (No, seriously.) Either way, it's a little worrying to see an impetus for being so passive.
I hadn't intended to argue any single point; I'll just be interested in what will happen. Will powerhouses invest in sky-high lifts without knowing the geometry of their load? Will anyone take a passive route without the guarantee of sky-high lifts? Will anyone want to
get on a tall lift? <please don't drop me> What might I learn about student perception of engineering design tradeoffs that could prove useful in the classroom? Curiouser and curiouser.