|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Practice bot necessity? | |||
| We need it to be competitive so we build it. |
|
242 | 74.69% |
| We build it for fun just because we can. |
|
9 | 2.78% |
| We don't need it. |
|
22 | 6.79% |
| We can not afford it anyway. |
|
51 | 15.74% |
| Voters: 324. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Quote:
|
|
#47
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Quote:
We had a great time practicing that day. Despite being spread out, CA's network of teams is one of our biggest inspirations/resources/motivations. -Mike |
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
I answered #1 because it's closest to our reasoning, if not entirely accurate.
Our sponsorship resources have been generally rising year-over-year, despite a number of big "hits". On several occasions, our coaches, mentors, and boosters have explicitly considered "what do we add" nearly as seriously as we would address "what do we cut" if finding were to decrease. Each time, we have applied resources to both outreach and competitive capacity. On the competitive side, we did a "prototype" robot with a wooden frame in 2014, and in 2015, we did "twin" robots. Each of these gave us more driver practice than ever before, and better use of the withholding allowance to implement improvements worked out after stop build. While the second robot isn't strictly necessary to be competitive, we've found it to be a highly useful and cost-effective tool to help get there. Last edited by GeeTwo : 21-11-2015 at 22:34. |
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
+1
|
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
#1
The last week of build season, we decided to go ahead and build one this year for the first time. A materials sponsor came through for us by doubling their donation, so we could make it happen. We built an exact duplicate, minus outer coverings and a roboRIO (they shared to save money) in two days. It made a huge difference in our competitiveness, and we were much more successful than in previous years. It wasn't the only factor, more like one of three or four changes we made, but enough that we will definitely continue. |
|
#51
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
We brought our practice 'bot to both Bayou and CMP last year in the trailer, to have an on-site source of spare parts. As it turned out, we did not need them, though we did loan a couple of dura-omnis, bearings, and shafts off of it to another team at Bayou.
|
|
#52
|
||||
|
||||
|
That is definitely illegal.
|
|
#53
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
We started an excellent thread about it in 2014. Read it if you like internet arguments.
![]() |
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
|
|
#55
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Not if you only pull COTS parts from it.
Edit: Ninja'd. Twice. |
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Teamwork?
|
|
#57
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
The intention was illegal. Shafts if cut are not COTS. If the DuraOmni has been assembled with a sprocket or a hub it is no longer COTS.
|
|
#58
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Deleted because the post seemed too rude.
Last edited by Sperkowsky : 22-11-2015 at 23:23. |
|
#59
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|