|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
This looks like a render.
I like it |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
At first, I thought you meant BIG team number vs BIG team number (example 71,179,233 aka 71million 179thousand 233)
-q |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
Quote:
I had to read that twice to get it... but that would be hilarious! We could only wish there were that many teams. We are a rookie team, 1991, and I've always wondered when that number would seem like a low number. Like a number 365 seems low to me now, but I'm sure at one time it seemed like a large number. Jacob |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
Quote:
Team 648 was once 309... that was 1999 and 2000... much fun. At least we dropped the name from that year (Fab Five). |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
its pictures like these that make me wish we had little hot-wheels-like models of FIRST robots that people could buy and like paint different colors then simlulate a match with... haha
robots like that look cute when they're that small (thats right, i said cute) ![]() |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Teams 330,910,1270 vs 71,179,233
Quote:
![]() |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| pic: 233 & 179 on 71's ramp in Archimedes Finals | Swampdude | Extra Discussion | 1 | 17-04-2007 16:27 |
| pic: Teams 1270 and 86 of the Curie division | redbarron | Extra Discussion | 1 | 10-04-2007 12:18 |
| pic: Winners of AZ REgional 2004: Teams 1212, 585, 330 | CD47-Bot | Extra Discussion | 7 | 19-03-2004 01:40 |
| pic: Team #910 Top View | CD47-Bot | Extra Discussion | 7 | 06-03-2003 12:41 |
| pic: Team #910 robot stacks 6 high | CD47-Bot | Robot Showcase | 1 | 06-03-2003 11:27 |