|
Re: Penalties for a part falling off of robot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaMorg
No penalty = no incentive to take action to ensure a robust design
penalty = incentive to fix a problem more robustly
Obviously no one builds their robot to explode on impact, but once parts start falling off, a team may decide to "tie wrap it back on" if there were no penalties. Loosing a point or two may make them to explore a more permanent repair.
|
I disagree with no penalty = no incentive to ensure a robust design.
Loss of functionality and/or perception by scouts that a team's robot is poorly constructed and unreliable should be the driving incentive for building a robust robot.
I don't believe the GDC intended <G41> or <R16> to apply to cases where mechanical or structural failures have occurred in robots. (We'll need to see the answer in FIRST Q&A to get this resolved).
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
|