|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Design Sharing
The coolest part of the competition for me is seeing some robot do something crazy and then going to their pit to find out what the heck that was! I suppose I would only lose this thrill if I went online and viewed posted information on other bots.
However, I am torn on this pointy subject as well. Last year on 1020 a few members were veterans from teams that were strictly confidential during the build period (71 for instance). The idea that our design needed to be protected infected almost everyone else - despite the obvious lack of need to protect our design (even if non-rookies - who was seriously going to look to us for ideas?). It was no big deal, however it caught me off guard and I thought it was a bad thing for the rookies on the team because it gave them a sense of contempt (is that the right word?) for other teams. It wasn't a horrible thing, but you get my point. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Design Sharing
I just took a look at what team 68 had constructed last year. It was most impressive. Kudos to TT.
I believe that if a team constructs such an awesome monstrosity that is not clearly against the rules, there should be some sort of appeals process to allow such designs to be permitted. Many teams would have loved to block the entire field last year, but how many tried? I think that there might be some merit to a general FIRST-wide vote on such an issue. I would loved to have the chance to go up against something like that. How would one fight it? I think one could try to go under the arms (if there was room) or to try and force TT out of that position by creating some sort of stacking havoc. It is just like a wall in Jezzball, that good old game. On the other hand, a general FIRST-wide vote might not fit the ideas of FIRST very well. We would start down the path of lawyers and such. The idea of questioning the rules of FIRST is like questioning referees in sports. There is some validity in some cases, but on the whole such a thing would most likely hurt an organization. Can anyone think of a way to implement an appeals process for something like this without creating a burecratic machine? |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Design Sharing
I think an appeals process would make things worse
as it stands now, the judgement of the head referee is final. If there was an appeals process, then what does that do to a 3 day competition? If someone apeals a call or decision on the second day, do we stop the whole competition until the call is appealed to a higher authority? I was totally unaware of team 68s giant spider legs last year - I read the whole thread, and in my opinion, if the wings were deployed and a bot pushed against them, then clearly they were using the dividing bar to hold their position on the top If I remember correctly, FIRST clarified the rules so that nothing could reach over the side - if this was in response to their bot then I take this as an indication that FIRST felt the bot failed the intent of the rules, but rather than argue sematics, they issued a ruling that made their position clear. personally I think it was a mute point anyway, those spider arms would have a rotational torque on them and they would have twisted up like pretzels if a bot slammed into them, they would have twisted along their length (like a strand of DNA) and supplied no holding force anyway. the bottom line for this whole issue of meeting the requirements of the rules, if there is any doubt, ask FIRST - they will tell you before you start building anything whether your idea violates the intent of the rules. and if you really think your team is the ONLY one out of 950 to come up with your idea, and you dont ask because you are afraid of giving your idea away well then, you are taking a big risk, your gonna win big, or lose big. Last edited by KenWittlief : 08-01-2004 at 23:10. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Design Sharing
I wanted to add to my comment earlier because it only refers to designs during the build season...
I think that it would be beneficial for teams to share their past mechanisms, designs, ideas, etc with other teams. That's to say - starting after the Nat's or after all the off season competitions - I think teams should be more free about their secrets especially since someone could have walked up to the pit and found out for themselves (for most things, not all). My reason for this view point falls into the same concept Andy B. discussed - raising the bar throughout the teams as well as giving that rookie team without eingineers or guidance something to get them going (physically or mentally). As a side note - some of you who are adicts and read too much of these forums might think, based on my past posts, that I apply this philosophy to my knowledge of Beatty's past creations without reguard to their secrecy. I have not divulged all knowledge and don't intend to. The things I have discussed I believe were obvious enough for anyone to understand by visiting the pits. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| How do you design your robot? | Gui Cavalcanti | General Forum | 23 | 16-11-2003 18:33 |
| gearing design calculation question | caffel | Motors | 4 | 24-03-2003 17:34 |
| Ok, so YOU design the 2003 game... | dlavery | General Forum | 157 | 07-01-2003 23:55 |
| Sharing w/rookie teams | archiver | 2000 | 0 | 23-06-2002 22:01 |
| Team 401's design | jonnywalk | Technical Discussion | 2 | 30-01-2002 23:02 |