03-05-2016, 16:36
|
 |
no bag, vex only, final destination
AKA: Pinecone
 FRC #0228 (GUS Robotics); FRC #2170 (Titanium Tomahawks) Team Role: Mentor
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 7,589
|
|
|
Re: Was the Low Bar worth it?
If you asked me this week 5 or 6 I would have said no, but I'm glad we went under the low bar for a few reasons:
- Forced a low CG; it would have been very easy to build a tall and flippable robot without the low bar forcing us down to a certain height
- Forced design compromise; trying to shoot high and hang from the beginning would have resulted in our team overshooting and failing to complete either objective well. The low bar basically took hanging off the table for us.
- Provided an alternate path to the courtyard if something on the drive was starting to break and we didn't want to risk getting stuck.
Ultimately, the low bar was a great addition to the game, even for teams that didn't successfully go under it. I think it saved the game from being like 2010, with lots of bad robots that flipped a lot.
__________________
Mentor / Drive Coach: 228 (2016-?)
...2016 Waterbury SFs (with 3314, 3719), RIDE #2 Seed / Winners (with 1058, 6153), Carver QFs (with 503, 359, 4607)
Mentor / Consultant Person: 2170 (2017-?)
---
College Mentor: 2791 (2010-2015)
...2015 TVR Motorola Quality, FLR GM Industrial Design
...2014 FLR Motorola Quality / SFs (with 341, 4930)
...2013 BAE Motorola Quality, WPI Regional #1 Seed / Delphi Excellence in Engineering / Finalists (with 20, 3182)
...2012 BAE Imagery / Finalists (with 1519, 885), CT Xerox Creativity / SFs (with 2168, 118)
Student: 1714 (2009) - 2009 Minnesota 10,000 Lakes Regional Winners (with 2826, 2470)
2791 Build Season Photo Gallery - Look here for mechanism photos My Robotics Blog (Updated April 11 2014)
|