Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamHeard
It's not a punishment at all.
You're drafting a team and a robot. That robot is made up of many design decisions that may be positive or negative. This wouldn't be any different than passing up a team because their mechanical design isn't robust due to choices they made.
|
Just to be clear you'd do so because you have actual reasons for declaring it a negative right?
That's the heart of the issue: what testing do you define as sufficient to take risk on.
Cause I could argue that surviving 10 matches of FRC on 10 designs is enough. You may argue that it's 1,000 matches of 100 designs. That was why I was so very specific to elicit criteria when I started tinkering early in this topic.
It's not much of an experiment without clear expectations.
So if we can put it out there we don't feel they are adequately tested which can drive hardship back to the manufacturer - can we in fairness put out there what adequately tested is?
If we can't define what the actual testing barrier to entry is we are basically saying FIRST is 'all over the place' about how you make a product that is FRC approved and ready for sale. That kind of situation is painful for everyone involved.
To close my previous post: if you view FIRST as an experiment for an educational process/product. FIRST doesn't set their achievement by the minority of technical issues that have happened. They set the value on the overall impact which is greatly positive. These new ESC products haven't had time to set any other experience but it is safe to say that time will tell and I'd like to know for reference how one charts a path to a conclusion because it seems in < 2 months some people have a pretty negative outlook. It sets expectations for people that might want to make FRC products. Is it okay to have a problem when you first release a product if you fix it? How about 2 problems which you do fix...? How about a product that looks a little different? I would hate to hold the teams building robots to the same level of scrutiny. I've seen lots of robots evolve in positive directions after a bumpy start.