|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Should teams be allowed to make repair parts for their robot after a competition is o | |||
| Yes - Robots do break - Give us until Tuesday following. |
|
80 | 61.54% |
| No - You break you will have to tuff out the repair on site |
|
28 | 21.54% |
| No - Just pack up and go home, forget the nationals |
|
3 | 2.31% |
| Just break the rule |
|
19 | 14.62% |
| Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I have to agree with all about the addition of time to repair. In 2000 the ball grabber on our robot was destroyed beyond repair in the finals of a regional. We were able to weld up a new one for Nationals and bring it on the plane. Same exact design no improvements. If we had to do that in the pits, I would have rather got a refund on the plane tickets, hotel charges and watched on NASA channel. Should we have built 2 spares and shipped them in 6 weeks, sure it's easy to say that now. I don't know how a team could even build two robots worth of spares in 6 weeks, our team can not with the time budget allowed.
Hey if we wanted we could have built a mini-fridge battlebot with 20 wheel drive this year that no-one could have broke (multiple team members are working on Battlebots right now also) but that wasn't the goal. I think the point is even more important for the real veterans of the event. The robots are an engineering miracle for space, weight and time. You don't bring a Ferrari to a smash up derby which is what some teams think this is. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| $3500 ruling......big mistake | JamesJones | Rules/Strategy | 42 | 13-01-2003 18:38 |
| Wow! what a year | archiver | 2000 | 8 | 23-06-2002 22:43 |
| WOW!!! | archiver | 2000 | 3 | 23-06-2002 22:22 |
| WOW | RebAl | Chit-Chat | 15 | 10-04-2002 17:13 |
| WOW ! | Mike Schroeder | General Forum | 12 | 12-03-2002 21:32 |