|
Re: Solutions for No Shows
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg McKaskle
I'm with Eric. In fact, I think it would have been interesting if an alliance had three trailers, perhaps only two, and the trailers could be attached to individual robots or to ganged together into trains. This would have allowed additional robot specialization into tugs and sprinters, and the no-show means that at least the trailer would be moving, and there would even be robots designed for pulling multiple trailers.
Greg McKaskle
|
Wow, that would have actually been pretty awesome, and I think would have led to a greater degree of ingenuity on the part of the teams.
__________________
I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
--My Life in FIRST--
2009 Detroit Xerox Creativity Award
2009 Detroit District Finalists - Thanks to 1856 and 2620
2009 Kettering District Quarter-Finalists - Thanks to 1504 and 1025.
2008 Kettering Kickoff Champions - Thanks to 67, 1075 & 2619
2008 MARC Finalists - thanks 67 & 226
2008 Great Lakes Finalists - thanks 66 & 217
2008 Western Michigan Semi-Finalists - thanks 2337 and 1504
2008 GLR Judges Award Winner
2007 Curie Division Champions - thanks 330 and 1270
2007 ARC Champions (13 and 0, plus scoring a double-keeper!) - thanks 1625 and 313
2007 MARC Champions - thanks 1732 and 1023
2007 Xerox Creativity Award - Western Michign
2006 I.R.I. Champions - thanks 71 and 1625
|
I think this can be cleared up easily...one of the New Hampshire teams needs to go dumpster diving at FIRST HQ and look for an invoice. - Vaillancourt88 [more] 
21-04-2009, 21:43
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode