[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by faust1706

I'm a programmer, but I'm willing to bet money on if you design something for industry, you have to extensively stress test it in software before implementation is ever thought of. It's kind of like with code, only it's called unit testing then. Bill Gates got so much free programming time because someone who wrote the login info to computers back then they didn't unit test their code. When prompted to put time, he simply put a letter, and the software couldn't make sense of it so he got to use the computer for free.

NASA wouldn't have gotten to where they are today if it weren't for extensive stress testing, in software and in the lab.

I think it would be a good habit to get into the ensure what you design can serve its purpose in the worst case scenario. What if brakes of a new car failed after 10,000 miles? What if pacemakers fail after 4 years?

It may seem silly for a little case, but it pays off. It gets you experience, and isn't what this is all about?

Good engineering practice is to not over engineer or overanalyze things. If this case was protecting components for manned space exploration, on which lives depend, and was something never-before-done, then yes, extensive stress testing would definitely be in order.

This is not going into space. It is a simple protective cover for a relatively replaceable component in a robot designed to play games, for a robot whose operational lifespan will be measured in hours, using materials the designer has almost certainty used in similar applications dozens of times, in an application that is highly weight sensitive. Given these constraints, stress analysis is a waste of the designer's time, and overbuilding the case to withstand any freak accident imaginable in FRC is poor use of resources.

Nice case! Have you considered implementing cable retention into the base piece?