[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Drakxii

Personally I really like 6 week format, it feels very fitting to an engineering project in the real life. Including the radical changes with short windows and/or weight limits. Also it gives a good amount of time in the fall for training.

I love the title of this thread because the myth really is this exact statement above. The 6 week deadline is arbitrary. As has been beaten to death in this thread already, our team changes almost nothing about our work style/pace after bag day. The deadline is the competition! Its why every team continues to make changes and improve their robots throughout an event, because the real deadline is when autonomous starts on your next match. When that match is over you get a new deadline of another match, maybe a few minutes from then, maybe a couple weeks from then, you get my point.

My biggest sticking point lies in the almighty dollar. FIRST is run on free money. Money that flows in from sponsors, governments, stipends, endowments and communities. FIRST doesn't generate cash, this is obvious- so its why spending money intelligently and efficiently is really important to me. The way the build season works now inherently is more expensive than any other method. It pushes teams to pay for ultra fast shipping, buy duplicates of many expensive components (both mechanical and electrical) and really lean on fabrication sponsors to deliver duplicate parts and assemblies. This is because the rules are opened enough outside the bag that you can gain fundamental advantages by spending money.

To me this is just crazy. Why are we spending money on this stuff when we are an organization funded by others? Maybe I'm in a minority, but this to me is one of the most compelling reasons to consider a change. I'd much rather spend some more money on tools for our lab, stipend mentors, cover travel costs, etc!

-Brando