Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
The time to test these to build confidence for teams was in the offseason at events.
It'd be foolish for teams to run these without being cognizant of the substantial possible risk compared to more established brands.
I know we will be worried about picking teams running these until substantial independent testing in competition proves robustness.
|
So you are suggesting you'd punish teams at selection time because they are using hardware you think is an issue?
You haven't even played the first match. That's sort of a bold stance to take. I suppose I could do the same.
I pour money and time into FRC and there are often field and technology problems in the control system.
Perhaps I shouldn't do that any more
I mean I take risk doing that. I could cut my losses.
Cause I can actually prove that these issues have cost matches - where as I can make no such claim about these ESC.
You've implied there's a standard for testing here - so I honestly wonder what it might be because an ill-defined standard isn't much of standard. I've got some experience with proposing hardware to FIRST but I can't say that anyone has ever handed me any documents that define the criteria clearly for the levels of test required. I am also fairly certain FIRST is trying to hire a test engineer:
https://jobs-usfirst.icims.com/jobs/...un1offset=-240
Perhaps that role being unfilled contributes hard to say.