Thread: National Competition Reactions & Opinions
View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 22:40
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Another thought....
Posted by Andrew Trax, Coach on team #180, S.P.A.M., from Southfork,Martin Co. High and UTC.

Posted on 4/27/99 4:21 AM MST


In Reply to: also agreeing with tom posted by Chris on 4/26/99 11:36 PM MST:



Working in alliances was great for teaching strategy, but this format
left too much to chance. I work for a company that designs and builds
aircraft engines. Nothing is left to chance. Everything must work as
designed or planes, profits and, most importantly, lives are lost.
Luck-of-the-draw sucks! It was demoralizing to know that teams who had
built fantastic robots lost matches based on other teams efforts.
My suggestion is that they keep the competition reflective of real world
situations. If alliances are to be made, we should be paired up at
Kick-off and know which of our partners need advice, technical expertise,
tools.... In the real world, a partnership of corporations shares information
to produced a winning, marketable product.
Maybe if we had know earlier who we'd be paired with we might have helped
make repairs, diagnose problems, etc.

Mrs. Trax



__________________
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.