|
Re: MAJOR TWEAKING
Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.
Posted on 4/16/99 4:35 AM MST
In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:
I strongly agree, stiffer guidelines are needed.
FIRST should abandon the early shipping dates if it is
allowable to make such dramatic changes to the robots.
The 6 week building period is stressed over and over, some
teams apparently are now rushing to complete a ''3 month''
construction period.
Using down time to make replacement parts is different than
some of the extensive changes we have seen.
The 6 week rule seems to be one of the strongest ways to keep
a level playing field. Asking sponsors to dig in for an even longer
construction period is going to hurt teams in the end.
: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.
: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.
: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.
: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.
: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.
: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida
: Bill Beatty .
__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.
|