Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Law
Not building a second robot is not an option for me being in Michigan and trying to field a somewhat competitive robot and have a sustainable program.
|
And yet, many people here are saying that the extra time spent in an extended build season is used "by choice". Clearly, the level of competition demands that you build a 2nd robot. How is that different than the level of competition demands using the time in an extended build season?
Since this thread has turned to money, think of it this way: What if teams were asking to be able to spend over the limit on individual components? Or how about the total cost for the robot? (While some teams would find it difficult to do this, others might not.) If teams could gain a competitive advantage by spending $10,000 on a robot, but said "those of you who don't have that much money don't have to spend that amount" I think the discussion might be a bit different. Why is there a cost limit? A motor limit? A battery limit?
Now, I recognize that FRC isn't fair. That's not the way the world works, but there are limits placed on competition (weight classes, salary caps, NCAA limits on practice time, etc.). We have our own in FRC - often for a good reason.
With regards to Jim's low OPR argument, I completely agree. We should be focusing on the teams that need support and help. Clearly, the issue isn't that 6 weeks is too short - the teams we're talking about (and we've all seen them) are the teams that are missing fundamental structure, and that comes down to two major elements - the most important being mentoring, followed by money.
On the tangent discussion regarding overall cost, I agree with Jim - sometimes it seems that
FIRST's math doesn't quite make sense.
- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox