Quote:
Originally Posted by galesc
However, I don't agree with you about finals being decided by robots breaking down. You are taking away from my alliance accomplishing winning the regional, and I will tell you why. You can build an awesome shooting robot, but it doesn't do any good if you don't build it robustly. During the entire competition our robot, need only fine tuning, but no major repairs. Our alliance and pit neighbor 2549 needed little repairs either. It is also not wise to hinge your whole design on the fate of one small component. If you watch the footage from the regional 171's ball collecting belt cam off in the end of the final match, however we were still able to operate with the other belt.
So, although I am bias, I disagree with your assessment of the best teams at the regional. The design process starts with the concept and ends with the longevity of your design. I think the best teams won the regional!
Casey Gales
Mechanical Engineer
|
I did not say your team was bad or that your team would have lost to them in the finals if they would not have broken. I think it is disapointing to watch a match that one or two teams breaks instead of having all 6 robots play thier hearts out and the match be decided on a last second place or knock off. As a fan watching the matches, most would agree that this is more exciting than having a robot stuck or broken. If I offended you or your team, I am sorry.
Last year at Wisconsin, we were paired with 1816 in the eliminations. We thought we had a very strong alliance. But in the semifinals, 1816's banebot transmission broke on the left (?) side. Without thier defense, we lost the next 2 matchs. It is a very bad feeling to lose because someone on your alliance breaking down. I would have much rather lost by simply losing to a better alliance. Then, I would have known that we were not the best alliance. Instead, I am still thinking "what if...".
I do stand by my comment that 1625 and 1730 were the best teams at the regional. Again, that does not mean that your team is awful or anything. Just by looking at the numbers 1625 and 1730 averaged 42.8 and 37 points respectivly. 171 was 5th with 30.9.
Yes, being a robust robot is important. But to the best of my knowledge, 1730 never had the problem of thier ball picker-upper bending, or 1625 with the motor.
I also think it is nearly impossible to make the claim that the shooter design isn't has robust as the arm design (or vica versa) without doing a huge statisically study on it.