View Single Post
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-12-2007, 20:53
Kate00's Avatar
Kate00 Kate00 is offline
Not In My House
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 100
Kate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond reputeKate00 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: FIX-IT WINDOW Proposal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Van View Post
It has been suggested that the Fix-it Window restrictions be removed and teams be allowed to work on whatever they wished for any amount of time up to the competition. I am very much opposed to this for several reasons:

In the end - either eliminate the Fix-it Window and not allow any work on the robots OR keep it restricted.
The difference between the build season and the proposed after-ship date elimination of "fix-it" windows is not really comparable to extending the build season for another month and a bit. The two biggest reasons I see for this is that you don't have a robot to work on, and you can’t make unlimited amounts of parts. I know that with my former team, we didn't really utilize these windows, except to make one or two replacement parts, because we didn't have a robot to work with, and we didn’t have the resources to work with CAD drawings. There are teams that have those resources – more power to them.

You are still restricted on the amount of parts you can bring into a regional, and the type you can bring in - a very fair and enforceable rule. I think that this levels the playing field enough. A team can’t remake their entire robot – they can only bring in 25 lbs of spare parts, and those parts can only be SPARE and REPLACEMENT parts.

The biggest reason I have for eliminating fix it windows is that it is an unenforceable rule. Mr. Van, what you are proposing is that teams can’t work at all on spare parts between the ship date and competition. Let’s say the majority of teams follow this rule – say 90%, and 10% of teams being spare or replacement parts in. There is no way to prove that the other 10% of teams broke the rule. Those 10% of teams have a huge advantage over the teams that actually followed the rule, and I don’t think this is fair, at all – teams are punished for obeying the rule, and obeying by the credos of FIRST. To me, that doesn’t add up.

Quote:
I disagree, in that there needs to be limits on how much teams can do during the competition season - otherwise teams going to the NJ regional (1st week) have a disadvantage over teams going to, say Manhattan (5th? week) - specifically, 5 extra weeks on which to perfect a mechanism that was only conceived after the team actually got to see the Game being played.
I completely disagree with you. If a team has a mechanism that doesn't work, do you want to force them to work with it for the rest of the season, because they didn't realize that it didn't preform up to standards on the playing field? As well, if a team wants to better their robot with help from resources at competition that they didn't have at their workplace, do you want to stand in the way of the incredible potential for inspiration?

Teams who go to Week 1 competitions will always be at a disadvantage, what with being the pioneers for the gameplay. I'm sure they completely understand this, and, ultimately, it's their choice to go to a Week 1 regional. If it bothers them enough that they don't have the same chances to change mechanisms, why don't they try to raise some more money to be able to go to a different regional or an additional one? FIRST should not artificially attempt to level the playing field to cater to the choices of teams.
__________________
[Kate Mosley]