Quote:
Originally posted by Gadget470
should we really be trying for awards? I think we should build things that perform the game to the best of our ability rather than something new and innovative. If some team can create hovercraft but it doesn't do the game well, whats the point? If another team does a traditional motor setup and gets into the elim's, should they be given a special prize? What if they beat that team with an 10-motor, 5-speed transmission?
I think teams shouldn't be trying for awards unless it's chairman's because that is for the benifit of all. If they win an award because they solved a problem they were having with an innovative idea, more power to them, but they should not think of an innovative idea to a problem that doesn't exist in order to get an award
|
Well, so long as students are still learning, I don't think performance in a competition is really all that relevant. Would anyone here say that the kids on on 173 learned more last season than the kids on their team? I doubt it.
Furthermore, I'd argue that doing things that are unconventional in the world of FIRST could, quite possibly, teach the students more. After all, there aren't many cookie-cutter designs for hovercraft in the White Papers. If you need a transmission, however, it's right there for you to download, and you don't have to do as much work.
It's not a black and white issue, but bucking convention and trying to noveltly, technically challenging tasks, or new methods is worth attention, in my mind.
With that said, we'll be trying for all of them. All 12
Edit: Additionally, we have more chances at qualifying to go to Houston via a technical award than we do for winning a regional. So, it makes sense that we'd pursue whatever gives us the best odds, no?