View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 09-05-2013, 21:54
Tetraman's Avatar
Tetraman Tetraman is offline
FIRST on my mind
AKA: Evan Raitt
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,322
Tetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond reputeTetraman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag View Post
So ask yourself, are we really doing something smart with the machine access rules, or is all of this just a collection of old rules, imposed for obsolete reasons which have been forgotten?
I'd say half and half. It's not smart at all to just keep doing things because thats how they have been done, but I am still in the camp that the rules as they exist (with some tweaks) are the best way to go.

To argue for why an "open access" build is in my opinion wrong for FIRST, is because of the competition schedule. Consider that there was open access to the robot at all times. Some teams don't have their first Regional event until week 4 or 5. A good majority of teams in those week 4 or 5 regional have at least been to one other event. I would argue that the teams who have been to a previous event have a massive advantage over those who hadn't.

Teams that know how their robot plays in a game of first and can correct it over the course of 2 to 3 weeks have a gigantic advantage over those who have so many more extra weeks of build and gameplay footage but no knowledge on how their robot actually does with 5 others on the real field. I'd argue further to say that in this scenario the best teams will HAVE to make week 1 event if they want to have any sort of competitiveness for the future events.

Open build would give too much advantage to teams with the capability to travel long distances to their events or have events nearby for attending both a week 1-3 and week 4-6.

Keeping the robot out of the hands of teams during the competition season maintains that robots and teams can be as equal as they were at the end of the competition season since the beginning of it - but doesn't stop teams from fixing their problems and getting better over time. This year so many teams got better as the events went on, but it wasn't overwhelming to push out teams who hadn't got a taste of action on the field.

I think the 30lb allowance is fine. It allows for robots to evolve and can keep teams busy, if they want to be busy, during the competition events but isn't that much unfair as being able to redo half of a robot in 2-3 weeks.
__________________
"For every great theory about design, there is a better and contradictory theory about design. And don't let the irony of that escape you."
Reply With Quote