[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I think there are a few noticeable effects of playbooks.

On the more negative end, yes it's hard to stick to some of the complicated designs that come around during the actaul match. You've got an adrenaline high, and one of the most important aspects of a quality drive team is the ability to think on their feet.

Also, it will depend so highly on what your alliance partners do. You can't limit yourself to a play and find yourself in a corner mid match because it didn't work out perfectly. As Bill Gold said about 2001, it's easier without an opponent.

However, I see a few awesome perspectives.

I think a playbook is a great way for the team to organize and explain the game for newcomers. Last year, I didn't have a clear understanding of the game until midway thru my first competition, and it wasn't until Nationals that I even truly understood our drive team's awesome strategy. Having a small playbook available for competition newcomers to look at (on the bus on the way to comps or something) could increase bonding, and the entire pit crew could have a voice if they didn't like a design all of the sudden.

Also, it's true that designs shouldn't be complicated in 2005's game. It would teach your strategy team true engineering: they would have to take what resources they have and put them into a complicated situation and narrow down beneficial possibilities by looking at all angles and costs. Instead of having them plan stuff in a textbook for some class, they would be doing it for real knowing the high technological and logistical limitations.

As long as you don't limit yourself, a referanceable playbook is a great option

- Genia