|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
| View Poll Results: Would you rather have a nice looking robot or a winning robot? | |||
| Quality Robot |
|
53 | 32.52% |
| Winning Robot |
|
110 | 67.48% |
| Voters: 163. You may not vote on this poll | |||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
I don't like it when people would sacrifice the ability to win to get a little bit more quality.
Quality is good, because it tends to have a direct correlation with success, which is what is really desired (heh). If I can have a quality robot that can be successful, then that's my cake! If I can only have one robot, then I'll take the successful one. "Look, I have the most well-engineered robot in the world!" -- then the robot can't do a darn thing to be competitive, or win. I don't like that. But to be complete: "Look, I have the most successful robot this year!" -- then a sharp edge slices someone's finger off. I DON'T like that. I guess I'm looking at both types of robots with all else being equal. 1. Make it functional. 2. Make it elegant. 3. Make it look good. That's the order I usually use to guide my thinking. Clearly, there are times when the only thing that matters is looks, and other times when all that matters is quality, etc. Last edited by Joel J : 05-02-2006 at 17:18. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
When my team does our PEW analysis of our goals and designs, our top two criteria are Simplicity and Reliability.
We have had several robots that we tried to make complex 2003 we tried to build a complex stacker that could stack bins right-side up and upside down, but we never used them due to our drive barely working ( it either fell over or blew apart a transmission in almost every match). In 2004 we spent so much time on our Tri-Star drive train that all we had were pneumatic roller wings and ball poker and in the end we ripped out the Tri-Stars and put in 4 wheels which still didn't work that well. In 2005 we decided to keep is simple not only with our devices but in our machining as well (Hacksaw & Drill) And as a result it worked in every match (with the exception of one match where we forgot to engage the arm) So to sum it up I think having a quality (reliable) robot is better. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
if you look at the extreems then I think the answer becomes obvious
we only have 6 weeks. You have to design in as many functions, debug and test them, and give your drivers time with the actual robot to practice any time you take out of that schedule to paint, polish, chrome plate or change the design to make it look pretty is time you have lost to the primary tasks. I wanna be there when you tell the drivers they cant practice with the robot today, because its being painted! ![]() |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
It is all about choosing one main strategy and doing it consistantly well, usually you get a good quality robot from that strategy. All other systems can be integrated to work well with this main strategy.
|
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
Quote:
![]() I'd like to think that a quality robot has a lot to do with it being succesful, so I didn't vote. Last edited by Travis Covington : 09-02-2006 at 03:14. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Beatty's 2004 Robot | mzitz2k | General Forum | 81 | 26-03-2004 15:18 |
| Metro teens put robot to test | Brandon Martus | FIRST In the News... | 1 | 24-03-2004 17:06 |
| Controlling a FIRST robot with a Lego RCX Controller? | archiver | 2001 | 5 | 24-06-2002 04:19 |
| Righting a robot... | archiver | 2001 | 2 | 24-06-2002 00:26 |
| about how Drive Train push the robot... shouldn't the force accelerate the robot? | Ken Leung | Technical Discussion | 12 | 26-11-2001 09:39 |