Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveL
What is the risk of trying?
If it doesn't it doesn't make a difference, I don't see a downside.
If it does make a difference, great!
More competition and more teams learn the value of iterating their design.
Either way we learn from trying something new.
Dave
|
There isn't really a downside to trying it. But I prefer not to add logistical headaches without some basis in fact.
I'm for stopping bagging. But I also understand that it would have minimal real impact for low performance teams on their competitiveness [1]. More impactful would be figuring out why so many teams continue to ignore the resources placed in front of them (Ri3D, kitbot, various build days hosted by teams) and figuring out how we can develop more resources and get them
used.
Example - how many teams at your events failed to reliably drive? I seem to see at least one per event that's using the kitbot but wiring or programming was too hard. How many fail to move in auto? For me, way too many teams fell into that category. So, the question becomes why? The kitbot can be put together by following instructions. The wiring can be done similarly. And for the most part driving should work fine out of the box. But why is it still so hard?
[1] Yes GBlake, I view this as an important goal in itself, I'm not speaking to "success". I'm solely looking at methods of addressing teams that consistently miss eliminations. I have reasons for this and am more than willing to discuss them via PM if you'd like.