Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois
You're right. That's why I said most components, Not all.
While I'm sure funding is an issue, the focus of this thread seems to be on the competitive aspect of FRC, not all of FRC in general.
I also completely disagree with the notion that there is somehow a lack of trying that's contributing to the downfall of some teams and somehow failure will encourage them to "try harder". Let's stop promoting failure as the means of motivation to getting teams to a higher level.
In most cases, these teams work very hard, they just choose something outside of their ability. A little assistance focusing these teams on appropriate strategies in the first few years is a good thing.
|
I'm the original poster, so let me try to put some of my questions out a little clearer.
I know there is more to FRC than the robot, got that years ago. But a lot of new teams are focused on building a robot first, doing other community things later on.
And I understand that most of the COTS parts are drive train oriented, so some scoring method needs to be designed/built. I didn't mean to imply that there was a "Andy Mark Climber" or an "IFI Shooter", but I did say that with the better selection of COTs parts, scoring devices would be easier to build.
My theory was that COTS parts, would make it easier for teams to get over the initial hurdles of getting a robot pulled together. And if it's easier to build a more competitive robot (vs Dewalt days) will we start to see more teams become sustainable.
It sounds like from prior posts that my theory is flawed, the lack of constant funding (and/or not having a multiyear funding source in place) and the lack of high caliber mentors will still be the biggest failure points.