Quote:
Originally posted by Mikeman602
Well I have some things to say and I do not mean to offend anybody. I just think that it is almost unfair that some teams that are funded by big compines like NASA and Lockeed have a lot of money to blow on their robot and also have pro-engineers to help them build it. A smaller team like mine who can barley get the $5K to enter and is very very lucky to get any help from an engineer. I think that FIRST should consider maby putting a limit on how much you can spend on certain materials and parts. I read in one forum that one team had the time and money to make 2 identical bots. Hey don't get me wrong I loved building the bot and competing at VCU! All I'm saying is that some regulation of funds should be considered by FIRST.
How dose everybody else feel about this??
P.S.
Sorry if I have made anybody upset
Michael D.
Team 602
|
Well, there are two responses to this, and I will try to give them both because I'm really not sure where I stand myself.
RESPONSE #1: Tough.....no one said that life is fair, or that everyone is guarenteed the same things in life. (Even opportunity will never be equal as money will open alot of doors) The FIRST competition is a reflection of the way life is, and it is a place for all of us to see this issue, and learn to live/deal with it. (and to go off and find better/more sponsors)
RESPONSE #2: While the above is certainly true, since FIRST imposes all sorts of other rules in order to "level the playing field", this seems like the next logical place to impose something for the same reason. Perhaps awards might be tied to the total cost of the robot....parts and fabrication costs. Perhaps there are different classes that are limitted by amount of money spent....with the highest prizes going to those getting some number of points and spending less. (encouraging teams to spend less)
As you can see, even both of my responses do not limit the money spent....with even the 2nd one simply handing out a carrot encouraging teams to spend less by making money spent a part of the scoring equation.
(I'm not one for "forcing" everyone to be equal as I believe you lose creativity and the loss of one of the animal worlds great motivators....GREED!)
I'm really not sure which way this needs to go. I agree that while "money does not make the world go around... it sure greases the wheel"......and while money does NOT equate to points, it sure does provide alot of opportunity and options generally enlarging the "choices" availible to the team. (as it does in life in general)
It might simply come down to whether you are a capitalist or a communist ...who knows. (consoder that while communism might look good on paper, but I'm not sure communism has ever been proven to work in practice)
-Quentin