Quote:
Originally Posted by jman4747
I think I have a responsibility to be the best I can and for this team to be the best it can this year and next. To me that means that I should try to push the limits of my current abilities. I realize I sound too condicending towards teams who did make it to and win Einstein, however winning is not the primary perpose of building a great machine, building a great machine is. There is a difference between doing your best in rankings/placement than doing your best as an engineer and student. Our "best" issn't what gives us the best chance of winning it's what was hardest for us regardless of necessity.
Also "same old robot as 2k other teams" is unfair, I'm sorry. But if I can help it I won't try to have my systems fundamentally similar to most teams because that's the easiest rout. I'll make it because it's the best I can do with what I have.
|
You appear to have some pretty strong opinions, and that's fine. I just popped into this thread to say a couple things.
1. The most successful teams in this program are also consistently pushing their own boundaries in an attempt to be the best. Just because you don't know what those improvements are doesn't mean they aren't there.
2. I cannot speak for other teams, however, at the beginning of the build season our problem statement is to win the World Championship. As such, our robots are built for the sole purpose of winning matches. We implement features and push boundaries that we think will contribute to this goal.
3. When your team participates in this competition you start with a set of rules and a set objective. There isn't actually any room for your own definition of "great" engineering or what the "best" robot is. These are quantitatively defined by on-field results independent of thoughts, feelings, and opinions. That is the nature of competition.
Cheers, Bryan