View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 02-03-2016, 15:15
MrJohnston MrJohnston is offline
Registered User
FRC #0948 (Newport Robotics Group (NRG))
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 378
MrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond reputeMrJohnston has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update 14 (2016)

If the goal is the increase parity in FRC, removing Bag-and-Tag, weight limits, etc. is not the way to go. Teams are typically strong because:

* They have professional engineers as mentors that have been in FRC for years.
* Their mentors have specific engineering specialties that more directly relate to building robots.
* They have access to high-end equipment.
* They are willing to really work to raise funds.
* They build robots year-round.
* They have a handful of students and mentors who are willing to commit to insane hours.

If you take a team with talented people, good funding and accesses to all the equipment and, then, give them more time, they are going to create robots that are far more effective than what "elite" teams can already create. They will be able to better take advantage of that extra time than less experienced or poorly financed teams. Example: 1114's crossbow can-grabber last year. Had there not been rules about bag-and-tag and weight limits, they would have arrived at Champs with it already fully constructed -and functional. And no, the vast majority of teams would not have even come close to copying that thing.

Sure, the extended time would help the struggling team to get that "cross a defense, shoot that boulder" routine down. It would also give them some practice time. However, the "elite" team would be working on something that would score two or three boulders and practicing full scrimmages with multiple robots. The deadlines are tough on lesser experienced teams, but they also keep "elite" teams in check. Yes, every team would have a better-functioning robot. However, it would not overcome the design flaws inherent to any team without professional engineers and lots of FRC experience.

If we want to truly create better parity:Look to help poorly financed teams learn how to raise money. Help them to find mentors. Take them under your wing and teach them what you know. Etc. In a nutshell, help them to become better engineers and teach them to find resources. Isn't that what our focus should be anyhow?

As for the thoughts on "copying" other designs... If engineers today never copied proven ideas from other engineers, we'd still be in the Stone Age. Learning from those who know more than we do is one of the best ways to improve. We spend time researching what "the best" teams have done in the past as a way to expand our knowledge base... Our boulder-acquirer came from the Cheesy Poof's 2012 robot. Our shooter came from a Ri3D bot this year. Etc. Sure, we had to modify them for our needs, but that's engineering. Want to support struggling teams? Show them what teams like 254, 148, 1114, etc. have done in past years. Much if it can be found online. It saves time. It saves money. It helps to overcome a certain degree of lack of expertise, etc. (Note: We do have very strong mentors on our team, I do not mean to slight them. However, even they admit, that they are not "robotics engineers." Many work at Boeing, so we'd really have an advantage if we were trying to make things fly....)
Reply With Quote