Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil
By standardizing on mechnisms it gives teams more time to concentrate on the new changes in the game.
You would think that this put veteran teams to a distinct advantage, and in some ways it does.
|
I think this is exactly one of the points Matt is making- it
does put veteran teams at an advantage, even over other veteran teams that do not standardize. The advantage is exactly as you say- you spend much less time creating what is arguably the most important aspect of your robot. In most cases I like to think virtually all the design that goes into a robot should be done within the 6 week limit, not the 8 months between competition and the next build season. Otherwise, you may as well fabricate your base and drive train, and simply plug in your motors and electronics as soon as you get the kit. Slap on a goal/bar/ball grabber and you have 5 weeks of practice time.
FIRST relies on our gracious professionalism to ensure we don't do that sort of thing. The 6 week limit is there for a reason, and I feel to work on any part of a robot outside of competition or that period defeats the purpose of having a set time limit. I think that's why in last year's game we didn't see too much stacking- it was a new thing no one has seen before, so no pre-proven or optimized mechanisms were around. Adds to the challenge aspect of the FIRST experience.
Quote:
|
The final reason is because FIRST has raised the bar and requires synergy between teams (mostly drivetrain and control systems) that just can't happen in 6 weeks.
|
That's exactly the purpose of the 6 weeks- it's a challenge.