New Poll! (5)

[archiver]

[archiver]

Posted by Tom Wible.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.

Posted on 7/19/99 8:42 PM MST


In Reply to: New Poll posted by PollMaster on 7/19/99 6:50 PM MST:



9,
yup, 9

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 7/19/99 11:21 PM MST


In Reply to: New Poll posted by Tom Wible on 7/19/99 8:42 PM MST:



Tom,

You big bully!!!

I've gotta vote 0!

;-)

Andy B.

Daniel? P.J.?

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 7/20/99 1:00 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: New Poll posted by Andy Baker on 7/19/99 11:21 PM MST:



You know I love that stuff. I'm goin' right around dead center there...

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 7/20/99 10:57 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: New Poll posted by Andy Baker on 7/19/99 11:21 PM MST:



Can't decide between 5 or 6, either way it should be one notch higher at the Rumble, where the teams are elite and everyone knows what they're doing.

[archiver]

Posted by mike aubry.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Engineer on team #47, Chiefs, from Pontiac Central.

Posted on 7/21/99 7:05 PM MST


In Reply to: New Poll posted by PollMaster on 7/19/99 6:50 PM MST:



Some interaction can actually be quite exciting! It's really in the way it's percieved to be done.
Malicious destruction must be avoided, as there is just too much time and effort put into these robots.
Let's face it - remote controlled robots driven under the stress and excitement the operators attempt
to work under will often times lead to accidental hits. Strategic blocking or pinning is usually the
attempt by one robot due to the fact they know they can't win a straight out scoring race. That's not
a bad thing (Knowing your weaknesses and planning a strategy accordingly) as long as its within the
rules! The rules, or lack of them is where the issue gets into heated discussion. If it is clearly stated as to
'what is acceptable', and 'what is not acceptable' at the beginning of the design & build cycle, no one should
complain if they didn't build a robust enough robot. If the rules are modified or changed, or if the interpretation varies
by the referees during the competition - then everyone has a legitimate gripe! The goal of FIRST should be
to communicate clearly at the start, what will be acceptable (without the need for further interpretation) and then
we should get on with it. By the way, I think that it was pretty clearly stated over the past few years that the
robustness of our robots should be able to withstand 'falling over', or 'falling off a platform', as well as normal
amount of robot interaction. To me that means an impact of 130lbs. of rolling metal. So anyways, that's what I think ...