[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by AHallows

Isn't that what this is all about?

Good catch. I didn't make this clear.

The point I was trying to make is simply this:

The students who are on teams that are big enough to support a second robot get this extra time to learn and become more competitive. The students who aren't on large teams don't get this extra time to learn and are at a competitive disadvantage. I am hoping that through we can steer this discussion to propose ways to still give students the additional experience they'd have by working on a practice robot while making strides to reduce the competitive advantage gained by having it.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more".

I'm don't think I've attacked much of anything. I'm just calling it how I see it - allowing a second robot is a loop hole (something within the rules that allows for an unexpected outcome). The 'unexpected outcome' is simply that only 'have' teams can get this critical advantage. Again, I'd like to see a way for this advantage to be evened out, either by removing it, or (preferably) by allowing it to happen for all teams. Note that my preference is a change of opinion from my original post. I've been persuaded by the benefits that have been discussed.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today.

First, I never meant to imply that building a practice robot is not GP or unethical. We'd be building one this year if we could. Though I hope everyone has given me the benefit of the doubt, this isn't about MY team not being able to build a practice robot, it's about making the competition fairer and hence more competitive for all teams. I think that's something that we should all strive to make happen.

As to the main point you wrote here... let's be candid for a second: of course 'have' teams are more competitive because they are a 'have' team.

'Have' isn't just about money... teams with incredible engineering talent, incredibly dedicated mentors, incredibly dedicated students, incredible facilities, and incredible machining resources will always build incredibly robots. This incredible combination along with building a practice robot is what makes 'have' teams competitive year in and year out. I don't think making this obvious statement is a diservice to any engineer, mentor, teacher or student on your team. 'Have' teams didn't become that way overnight; a lot of people put in a lot of hard work to make it so. Everyone knows that most of the 'have' teams are incredibly generous with offering their resources to other teams. There's nothing shameful about being a 'have' team - I think every team should strive to become a 'have' team so they can share their 'have' with the 'have nots'.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

If we only build our competition robot, there's a practical limit on the number of kids that can be working on it at one time (there's only so many kids that can cram around a robot on a table).
...
Take away the practice robot and we will not be able to let as many kids get their hands dirty working on the robot (or each kid will get to spend less time doing it). This seems like exactly the opposite of what FIRST is trying to accomplish.

This is among the most legitimate arguments I've seen. +1,000 points to you.

That's all folks,

Matt