Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri
While I agree with Brandon on most topics, this is one we don't see eye to eye on.
In my experience a fully functioning, simple robot is much more effective and reliable than a figurative time bomb on wheels. Remember that reliability is a part of your scope, as is function. If this doesn't click, think about what you look for in a car. There's a reason Honda and Toyota have risen to the top of the proverbial food chain.
The enemies of scope are time and cost. (FIRST has a third enemy: experience. But that is for a different discussion!)
Broken robots = stressful = no fun = less inspiration
|
This was probably one of the biggest lessons I took away from this year. Over the course of my FIRST career, my designs have ranged from the super-simple to the super-complex, and everywhere in between. This year was by far the best robot I've ever worked on, and it was also probably one of the simplest. Coincidence? I think not. Everything was simple and reliable, and it worked every time (barring a mishap with a wire and the terminal block). After 4+ years of constantly having to fix things at every event, I had two stress-free competitions, both of which were greatly successful.
The takeaway from all of this: especially for drivetrains, most teams will benefit from something simple and reliable. The less experience and assistance you have, the more critical this becomes! The last thing you want is to spend your whole competition season getting the robot to move. A 6WD chain drive may not always be the perfect drivetrain for every competition, but it's easy, simple, and reliable, and it will always be serviceable and successful for any game. (Until we get that water game, or Dave punishes us by banning all wheels....
)
An addendum on the #25 versus #35 question: I consider myself to be a pretty experienced designer, but I will ALWAYS use #35 for drivetrains. It doesn't matter how well you can CAD a drive base, if your fabrication tolerances are not tight enough, you WILL have problems with #25. I will take the reliability and forgiveness of #35 over the weight savings any day. I've seen too many #25 systems fail due to misalignment to do it any other way.