Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryVoshol
Unfortunately Siri, far too few teams will design a robot with obvious identification like your 3 examples. Over the past few years with bumper numbers, there were quite a few teams that could have been disqualified from participating because they didn't have readily legible numbers. Of course we don't want to toss them out of an event because they couldn't meet something relatively easy to achieve. But really, teams could try a whole lot harder. ...
|
Gary, I agree, but I'd argue that the bumper number struggles are separate. I've never had a problem immediately identifying a team that is actually in compliance with modern-era bumper rules. At the same time, like you, I regularly let teams slide for failing to comply with them, both in inspection and on-field.
But that is not a rules issue. I have full confidence that n>1 teams will always fail to comply with any potential set of rules. (I'm an optimist like that.) We'll do our best to get those teams into compliance just like we do every year.
My post here was a separate issue, as to how compliance with this/alternative rule sets will actually affect identification (as opposed to just ascetics). I disagreed with jvriezen's point about immediate identification, but that doesn't mean I'd advocate for looser rules. (In fact, if immediate identification were the only end goal, I'd expect the rule set to be stricter. I'm not advocating for this either.) In terms of an identification/ascetics balance, are the rules too tight in some places and too loose in others? Would standard bibs better? A standard height? Allowing vertical numbers? Would allowing white-on-black make some robots more identifiable? What about giving RIs more leeway (which, as mentioned, we're likely to take anyway)? I don't know, so I asked.