FRC Blogged-Frank Answers Fridays: August 16,2013

[Nemo]

Excellent - Frank went after one of the big questions in this installment. It's nice to hear that some people are having real discussions about this issue at FIRST. I'll be very curious to hear what else they have to say about this in the next year or two.

[Foster]

I'm impressed that people submitted some pretty direct hard-ball questions and Frank has answered them. I'm pretty jaded by the talking heads with puffballs (Senator, do you eat your corn around or across the ear) and getting lame answers ("Why thanks Wolf, really I like all vegetables).

Nice job Frank. Keep pulling from the top of the pile.

[who716]

In my opinion I'm fine exactly how it is... The teams that don't have the resources to build two robots learn how to imprevise Indifferent ways to accomplish that same task whether its building the robot in 4 weeks so that you have 2 week to practice (like us) or converting an older robot into a similar robots.( also like us) so I don't think it has to change as the overall purpose of first is to interests kids In science and technology and prepare them And I believe since the real world isn't all ways the fairest place it's important to teach each of us that. yes the competitive advantage is there and will always be there in some way even when we are looking for careers it what we do to lessen the advantage that I feel is a more important lesson.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by who716

so I don't think it has to change as the overall purpose of first is to interests kids In science and technology and prepare them

Then there's the other part of the FIRST mission about changing culture to celebrate science and technology. This is where my argument takes place. More robots moving, scoring points, or otherwise doing cool things = more inspiration, celebration, and opportunities to get others hooked, inciting a cultural change. Why have teams keep their robot in a bag when they could otherwise be working to make it work in competition? An expensive, glorified paperweight is far less inspirational than a point-scoring robot.

[evanperryg]

I disagree with the notion that only teams with a lot of resources can make a practice bot. My team made a second bot this year, and we were hugely successful. We were only permitted a single, simple waterjetted part and we aren't allowed to weld. We have more resources than many teams, but we don't have a 'huge' amount of resources.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Then there's the other part of the FIRST mission about changing culture to celebrate science and technology. This is where my argument takes place. More robots moving, scoring points, or otherwise doing cool things = more inspiration, celebration, and opportunities to get others hooked, inciting a cultural change. Why have teams keep their robot in a bag when they could otherwise be working to make it work in competition? An expensive, glorified paperweight is far less inspirational than a point-scoring robot.

+1!