View Single Post
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-05-2006, 00:49
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Patton
1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then?

4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them?
I am going to answer "Yes" to each of these. Or to be more accurate, I would say "Sure, why not?" What is wrong with allowing, or even encouraging, any of these options? I absolutely do not look at this as a loophole in the rules. Instead, I see this as an opportunity that FIRST has given to all teams, some of which may be smart enough to recognize and utilize that opportunity. It has been suggested that FIRST needs to issue a statement that limits that ability of teams to act on behalf of other teams to fabricate parts. To which I respond: why in the world should FIRST ever do such a thing?

These types of arrangements happen in the corporate world, and even the sports world, all the time. NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates, all the time. Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France because his teammates worked up a strategy to impede his biggest competitors while maximizing the resources they could share to support his ride. Ford makes strategic corporate alliances with specific parts vendors all the time, with the full knowledge and expectation that the supplied parts will be interchangeable across multiple car models - and even with some of their competitor's models. In every case, these moves are considered smart business. The practice is not condemned, but rather applauded.

And please don't say that teams should not do it because "it isn't fair." WHY isn't it fair? "Fair" by what standards? Just because a few teams got together and decided to work for a larger common good than just their own interests, and another team chose not to take advantage of the same opportunity, how is that not fair? Just because a few teams figured out how to maximize their potential resources within the rules, and other teams didn't, how is that not fair? To be blunt, just because some other teams figured out a smarter way to play by taking advantage of exactly the same resources that everyone else had and you didn't, how in the world is that not fair?

As has been said several times, FIRST is not meant to be fair. Neither is life. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. I am looking for a logical, well reasoned, fact-based argument for why the sharing of fabricated parts between teams should not be allowed. I haven't seen it yet.

-dave
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!