[Dan Petrovic]

I think it's all about the process. A team finds a process that works well for them, and they stick with it.

So far, our new design process of having a small, core design group has definately proved it's effectiveness to us. It may work for some teams, it may not work for others.

2005, the robot was essentially designed by a small group of people, last year, the robot was essentially designed by a small group of people, but neither of those years were very attractive years looking back at them because the design was finalized too late into the season.

This year, we went in knowing that we will have a small design group finalizing the design early on. We had a basis done Wednesday of week one, and today, the CAD team finished every part on the robot in Pro-E. This has been the one of the best, if not, the best years since my family became affiliated with the team back in 2002. This system, so far, has worked very well for us.

What I'm trying to say is that not all teams have always been good right from the get-go. Some have been (1126 for example). It may take a year or two find the process that best suits the way the students like to work. They repeat that process and get the same results.

Now... I don't really have a way to justify the amazing year one year, and then a not-so-amazing year the next. I have a feeling it has to do with some major change in the team structure, sponsor, location, or something like that. Or it could vary based off of the games we get. I can name a couple of teams that did very well in 2005 and 2004, but not so well last year.