Go to Post FIRST has stated time and again that the program is not about teaching (they always refer to the I and R in FIRST) - Dave Flowerday [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 4.50 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 28-01-2002, 17:06
kevinw kevinw is offline
Registered User
#0065
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Farmington Hills
Posts: 132
kevinw is a name known to allkevinw is a name known to allkevinw is a name known to allkevinw is a name known to allkevinw is a name known to allkevinw is a name known to all
Creme de la creme

I'm not opposed to this ruling because I think there needs to be a way to separate the good teams from the great teams. I'm opposed to this ruling because it's a significant change in the rules that will affect a significant amount of teams.

For example, take teams A and B.

Team A spends 3 weeks designing and building a monster drive-train, and figures they'll get a grasp on how to handle the goals when the drive train is done. If I recall correctly, FIRST even recommends that the drive train be designed first, and mentions that it is perhaps the most important part. It is not unreasonable to expect there are a great many teams that identify with Team A.

Team B recognizes that lifting the goals might be an advantage for traction. Team B spends 3 weeks designing a monster lifting mechanism, and figures they'll get a grasp on how to move the 'bot around when the lifting mechanism is done. Not too unreasonable for teams that have designed drive trains in the past that could perhaps meet this year's task. It is not unreasonable to expect there are also a great many teams that identify with Team B.

Now, this ruling tells Team A that there is a simple solution to gain traction via lifting the goals that was not allowed previously but is allowed now. Team A now has a tremendous robot, where prior to this ruling Team A would have had to rush to design any kind of robust lifting mechanism. This ruling also tells Team B that they wasted 4 weeks and their time would have been better spent thinking about how to pose questions to FIRST in order to get out of having to design a lifting mechanism.

If this ruling stands, I think it would be in every team's interest to designate one individual from their team to analyze the most complicated part of their robot's design, and then formulate questions to FIRST to get them to relax requirements well into the 6 week design/build period. It may not be graciously professional, but this is the message that I see being sent.
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposed New Rule M11 Joe Johnson Rules/Strategy 14 04-02-2003 14:41
Rule C1 Justin Stiltner Rules/Strategy 9 05-01-2003 22:59
45 degree PVC angle fittings: which? archiver 2001 2 23-06-2002 22:53
One coach rule nick reynolds Rules/Strategy 36 10-01-2002 14:58
1 coach rule Mike Soukup Rules/Strategy 14 07-01-2002 22:27


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi