View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 23:55
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
Re: I'm with ya... Design changes are comin'

Posted by Brandon Heller.

Student on team #449, Blair Blazers, from Montgomery Blair High School and NASA Goddard, Sigma Space.

Posted on 10/5/2000 10:17 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I'm with ya... Design changes are comin' posted by Raul on 10/3/2000 6:35 AM MST:



: Eliminate wheels - are you nuts? Think of all the teams that had problems just getting a working robot working when it was fashionable, as Mr. B put it, to just have a 'Box on wheels'. Imagine how many teams will have robots that cannot move if wheels are not allowed? Remember, we only get 6 weeks!

I SERIOUSLY doubt that FIRST would disallow wheels. The difficult is just too high. However, I think they should implement a BattleBots-style divided weight system. I think it would work best like this:
-For standard wheeled bots, a weight limit of 110-130 would be put into effect.
-For legged locomotion bots, a weight limit of 160 could be put in, plus they could be allowed an additional two drill motors/globe motors/pistons or something like that. This way, any team could try a new and different movement system, and have the extra weight allowance and motors needed to make its construction accessible to them. Who wouldn't want to see legged bots on the field? The teams that would go legged would get much better visibility, too.

: The folks at FIRST like to challenge us, but they would not want to embarrass us. They always want to have rules that allow a very simple design to be viable.

I say that they can do this, but still put in provisions for those teams that are risk-takers. Maybe only 10% of teams would do this, but it would still be worthwhile. Are you listening, FIRST? How does this idea sound?

Brandon

P.S. I can see it now- alliances of mini-mechadons playing the game ;-).


__________________
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.