Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri
Absolutely true, but I was attempting to define "big risk" in your context, which appeared to be "Keep it simple, keep it durable, keep it serviceable. You cannot break any of those rules, ever, if you want your drive to do its job" (emphasis mine, the risk being breaking any of those rules). For us, it is not a significantly different risk, but it is very much breaking that three-fold requirement. It's the view of them as "rules" to which I object. Viewing them as hard-and-fast imperatives sets artificial limits below what at least some teams are capable of pushing themselves to and learning from.
|
This brings another point: durability/reliability/simplicity is only a requirement if you make it one. It is completely possible that a team would prefer to create some crazy, out of the box drive train
solely for the purpose of building a crazy, out of the box drive train. Teams can have other goals than winning matches when they build a robot (and/or a drive train, as the case may be).