Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
A lot of you are saying this game is quite the engineering challenge. But in 05, we lifted 8 pounds (or even 12 lbs I think it was for the "vision" tetras) and a good distance out, and a good height too. And almost every robot did it, and did it fairly well. These rings weigh hardly anything. (less than 1 lb). I'm not sure where we've gone wrong here. Was the end game bonus so exciting that everyone forgot about the importance of a good arm and gripper, and then failed at ramps too, and was left with nothing? I don't know. tTo me, ball gathering and shooting and climbing 30 degree ramps (aim high) seems more complicated than this game, and a lot more teams had very successful and impressive robots last year. I just don't get it.
|
Well said, but in '05 there was really no other option, you made a bot that could score a tetra or you made a "bash bot". Thus more of those bots seem to be able to score.
In '06, ball gathering and shooting was very tough, much tougher than this year's design. How many 'bots could actually collect balls and shoot at the high goal real well - not many at the regionals we went to.
Some of us are getting spoiled and we need to take a look back at '02, '01, and before. They gave no kit frames or ready to use transmissions. Just getting a robot to be a bash bot was tough back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag
What I'm seeing is an increase of the number of teams in which FIRST is something they do, not who they are. They make it a two day per week 6 weeks out of the year program. It is meant to be more than that. It is about getting the industry professionals in there, meeting often and long, putting a lot fo thought into it, and delivering a product that meets the engineering challenge.
Yes, many teams have tried to build a robot beyond their means. And I applaud them for trying. But, the amount of "do nothing" or "drive and bash" robots has REALLY got to come down. We aren't moving forward here. Design within your means to build. Then you should be able to build it effectively, and put on a good show on the field.
|
I see this as the effect of FIRST getting into more schools where there is little or no mentor support. This is OK, it's just that the learning curve is a bit lower. I'm a HS teacher with a science degree not an engineering degree. It took 3 years for us to get to the point where we feel somewhat competitive, from an engineering point of view. If we had some engineers mentoring us in the beginning, our learning curve would be faster. But after 7 years of this, we now have recruited engineers from our community and trained some along the way and now FIRST is who we are not just what we do.
Show some patience and encourage all the teams to grow and develop.