View Single Post
  #98   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-05-2013, 16:38
scottandme's Avatar
scottandme scottandme is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scott Meredith
FRC #5895 (Peddie School Robotics)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Hightstown, NJ
Posts: 239
scottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory View Post
It would be impossible (or very close to impossible) to perform a hang like 1114 and 67 without designing your robot to do it from the start. Doesn't matter ho much time you'd have to copy it, you'd still have to build an entirely new robot.
1114 showed their working climb at a week 2 competition. Assuming you are qualified for CMP, that gives you 5 weeks before you have to crate and ship your robot to St. Louis. Only a week less than the "official" build season, and you already have concept and design proven. The 30 point climber is obviously a very complex example, but this would apply to every novel/successful design feature shown early in the season.

As noted, this already happens at varying scales - look at 2010 "ball-magnets", 2011 minibots, 2012 stinger/balancing aids, etc. 2168, 1218, and 103 all rebuilt their 2013 robots to a significant degree after their first event.

I could see this having the same effect as the wildcard rules. Why compete weeks 1/2/3 if you have no shot at a wildcard? Why compete week 1/2/3 if you have a unique and successful robot with features that others will then duplicate, negating your competitive edge? How many 469 clones would there have been in 2010?

341 rolled out of the gate in 2012 with a dominant robot that was made out of extruded aluminum. It was genius in game analysis and strategy, not mechanical design: most mid-tier teams with good controls mentors would have been able to build a reasonable facsimile without too much struggle. Would that be a good thing for FRC? I see the merit in going through iteration, redesign, etc, as crucial engineering fundamentals, but at some point wouldn't we see significant design convergence? Didn't 341 earn the right to plow through the competition?

Watching 341 last year motivated our team to take a much deeper look at the way we approach game analysis and robot design. Along with increase in-house manufacturing capability, we were able to build a relatively simple robot in 2013 that was highly effective, and very much inspired by the way 341 addressed the 2012 game. I don't think we learn those same lessons in 2013 if we're able to play knock-off in 2012.
Reply With Quote