Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Holley
No one said the robot had to be broken...just because it is more complex, or took more time to develop doesn't mean it is going to break.
I dont know tom, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree here...it seems to me that learning some more complex engineering substance is just as valuable as any other part of FIRST.
|
I have to back Tom on this one, mostly because I think he just has another take on the same issue. Teams sometimes need to make a decision about where they aim to provide the most inspiration to kids - in the workshop through innovation, or at the competitions through empowerment when they see their creation. Sure a complex design is an amazing feat to accomplish and everyone can take pride in it, but how much fun is it if you don't finish it or you don't get a chance to utilize it because your focus was on making it happen at all. If you can finish your design early you get to show kids another very important aspect of engineering - testing and training. If you took any talented driver and told them they would be driving a Wildstang robot for the first time at a competition right after the coders finish testing, they would flip out. Not everyone can take a positive message out of a complex design if they don't pull it off in time or they don't get to use it to its fullest. I don't want to come off saying that winning is
the inspirational experience, but sometimes competing needs to take a little more precedence over designing and learning how to tackle a complex project like any robot within the constraints of the competition is something teams ought to consider too. So there is nothing wrong with attempting a complex design, because there is no reason it shouldn't succeed, but teams ought not lose sight of their final goal: to have a competitive, fully operational robot completed within six weeks (without forgetting about their drivers or coders!)