Allow me to work backwards.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Waegelin
That's what our engineers and teachers have taught us. How to do it the right way, on our own.
|
Bingo.
That's precisely the point. You had the help and guidance of more experienced individuals that, in time, were able to give your students more responsibility. While your engineers and teachers may not be involved in each aspect of your robot's construction, or any aspect of it, for that matter, they were there in the important stages to ensure that your processes and behavior are reflective of a safe, intelligent, thoughtful team. You're not a group of kids meddling in a basement, but a team that's earned the knowledge it needs to function self-sufficiently.
Teams without such support don't ever have the benefit of being shown "the right way." Without that benefit, they're often long in finding a method of design and production that is safe, efficient, and demonstrative of their potential, should they find such a methodology at all.
The point, to me, anyhow, is that many of the teams who're so proud of their "100% Student Designed and Built" status aren't even aware of the parts of the process they're missing. That GM and Ford don't go from design to production is exactly what teams in this situation don't often understand, as they're not being exposed to the many steps of the design process.
This often results in a shoe-horn-it philosophy that ends up being something more akin to what MacGyver might do than an engineer at GM. It means that the detailed planning necessary to build a reliable, safe, attractive functioning robot doesn't take place.
Every time someone makes a part for these robots, it's a risk, and anytime an injury might occur, it's truly a shame. If that injury could've been prevented because of better planning, better design strategy, and better methods, there's really no excuse for it to happen. "100%" teams with no engineering support are more at risk for that type of accident, and that's not something to be proud of.