|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Would you support a petition based repair rule? | |||
| Yes |
|
52 | 74.29% |
| No |
|
9 | 12.86% |
| Unsure, need clarification, |
|
9 | 12.86% |
| Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
A modest proposal...
In another message I put forth a theory as to why FIRST has made the ruling about no repair time after a regional.
You should read that message, but it boils down to helping teams limit costs to sponsors (and themselves) by more strictly limiting the build time (more specifically, the re-design and re-build time after a regional). Now, suppose that this is the reason for the new stricter rules. I have the following proposal that would allow FIRST to have its cake and for us to eat it too. FIRST keeps the rules exactly as is: No building parts except during the 6 weeks and at events. FIRST initiates a petition process that allows teams up to 3 days of "repair time" in make parts for their robots. Petitions are only granted for the following cases: Part broke at regional that is not manufacturable at a regional AND one of the following conditions are met 1) the break was due to unusual circumstances. Some acceptable examples may include: . A) a particularly vigorous interaction with another robot . B) the machine was mistakenly driven into the wall at full speed by our drivers . C) the part was damaged or lost while trying to fix another problem . D) we forgot to tighten a bolt down and as a result our gearbox toasted itself. 2) the break is an UNFORSEEN chronicly breaking part that a SIMPLE redesign/re-manufacturing will address, but this re-manufacturing is not makeable at a regional. An example of a petition that would NOT be approved would be "my robot needs mechanism X so that it can win the Grand Championship." Another petition that should go un-granted would be "my gear ratio is too high and I am popping the breakers and/or losing pushing matches." I think that this could be a fair compromise that will allow us to fix broken robots without cheating AND it will allow 99% of us to keep our costs down by limiting our ability to do rush re-designs/re-manufacturing/robot improvements. What do you think? Joe J. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Prime# teams at natonals | Tytus Gerrish | Rumor Mill | 48 | 07-12-2003 18:37 |
| Way back there. Size of Nationals, and a solution | archiver | 2001 | 23 | 24-06-2002 03:28 |
| A proposal to Brandon (or Mike) M... | archiver | 2000 | 3 | 23-06-2002 23:44 |
| Proposal for a LAN at the National Competition | archiver | 2000 | 6 | 23-06-2002 22:18 |
| A proposal for FL, please comment | archiver | 1999 | 6 | 23-06-2002 22:08 |