Quote:
Originally Posted by jman4747
That's more of a general statement in response to the notion that winning is the metric of doing your best and that someone should build a subsystem because it wins and is easy for them rather than because it is the best they can do. It's not about what you make it's why.
|
Emphasis mine. It's called FRC because it is a competition, where the best win. Your argument seems to be based on the premise that maximized learning is more important than winning the competition. I disagree, the choice of mechanism should not be based on how steep the learning curve is, because there is also learning in the iteration stage, and even if we don't learn the same things,we both come away learning something.
Quote:
|
I am not putting down 254 or anyone else for doing well with a specific system. I'm also not saying you really have to be original you should however push your own envelope as much as possible.
|
I am not offended, just a reminder to think about what you say.
Quote:
|
To the weight thing... I mean make an example of a situation where a team would become comfortable with building something to the point where the only new thing done with it from year to year would be minor optimizations that don't generally teach anything new to those working on it precisely because they are so comfortable with it.
|
Consider a team that has used the kitbot for a few years, not because they are comfortable with the kitbot, but because they are uncomfortable developing their own drivetrain because of the diversion of resources away from other mechanisms (which change almost every year, allowing for a wider range of new learning possibilities).