Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Johnson
Except, I disagree with the declarative statement that multiple motors combined with shifters provides NO competitive advantage.
They clearly can provide benefits -- there are 2 questions you need to ask:
#1 Is there any benefit in your particular situation, given your robot and game strategy, ?
#2 Are the extra pain and suffering required for your team to implement the system worth the possible benefit?
I think that the answer is very likely that for most teams and most game strategies, the extra benefit is not worth the cost, but that is not always the case.
<Snip examples>
It can be EXTREMELY important.
|
Since I'm the one who made the strong and somewhat intentionally controversal comments regarding multiple motors, shifters, "competitive" definition, etc... I suppose I should comment.
To meet the two "competitive" objectives:
A. Top speed of 10-12 ft/s and
B. A pushing force of 150 lbs.
This can be accomplished with any of the following:
1. 4 or more motors coupled together
2. 2 motors coupled with a multi-gearset transmission
3. 4 or motors coupled with a multi-gearset transmission
What is factual is that you can accomplish
A and
B with
either 1 or
2.
Dr. Johnson has no qualms with this.
His concern from my understanding is that "competitive" is
not universal. He gave two perfect examples of sitautions where the needs of certain teams exceeded that of
A and
B, and
1 and
2 would not suffice.
i.e.
If your requirements exceed that of A and B, or if you would like to be "extra competitive", option 3 can (
and will) provide that.
My thesis is that for MOST teams, MOST of the time, in MOST games of the past, you could be "competitive" using MAINSTREAM strategies without using method 3 above. Because you
could do it
without 3, anything more than
1 or
2,
I feel, is wasteful (over engineered).
Matt