Posted by Michael Martus. [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.
Posted on 1/17/2000 6:44 PM MST
I will be so bold as to suggest that the 6 week build, stop, wait, build at competition, stop, wait and so forth is not really important.
What would happen if …
Kick-off we get parts and start the competition.
We keep our robot, and all the parts and take it to events as we are registered for. All this time ALL teams can be working on their robot, improving, learning and improving design.
At each event that you attend you get better, you have fun, you wear out your machine. Others not at the events that week are practicing and working on their robot.
When the Nationals come we have many polished drivers, quality tested machines, a real tough competition for all, no matter how many events they attended.
Yes it makes the build time longer, more time to learn. Re-design is as valuable as first prototype in exploring engineering for the students.
Does the lock and wait really benifit teams and FIRST?
Well what do others think???
Posted by Jon.
Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
Posted on 1/17/2000 8:05 PM MST
In Reply to: Does it really matter? posted by Michael Martus on 1/17/2000 6:44 PM MST:
i personally am not for the lock and wait method to the madness… people run themselves ragged on the 6wks to ship schedule because its prety much the way you have to do it. if you had your bot and could rebuild it (if needed) between comps, or just practice with it, it would make competitions that much better!
granted, some people wouldn’t use the time properly and would -still- manage to waste it, i think that lots would realize the gift and use it to practice and test and what not…
maybe this is a cost issue as far is shipping is concerned though?
Posted by Dodd Stacy.
Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 1/17/2000 9:59 PM MST
In Reply to: Does it really matter? posted by Michael Martus on 1/17/2000 6:44 PM MST:
It could not be said better. I would like to think that this sane idea could be seriously considered by this community, and be met with opposing points of view more persuasive than ‘save me (and my __ ) from myself.’ The people in the program who would advance its underlying objectives in the continuous progressive way you describe also need to be heard clearly. I think Dean underestimates the sustained level of enthusiasm and excitement this program would attract on a more continuous basis. The jerky schedule is an unnecessary artifice.
Dodd
Posted by Greg Mills.
Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.
Posted on 1/18/2000 6:23 AM MST
In Reply to: AMEN posted by Dodd Stacy on 1/17/2000 9:59 PM MST:
:
It seems that I am in the minority again on this issue. I like the six week design & build challenge. My boss & family tolerate it. It does save us from ourselves. One problem that FIRST faces is that some teams are driven from the school and some are sponsor driven. And each sponsor has a different level of committment and/or tolerance. Some can allow alot of money to be spent, some can allow alot of time. Some teams use this as a year round program, some just jump in for the competition season. We are all looking at this from a different perspective.
While I like the deadline I don’t like the ‘no fabrication of spares’ rule. FIRST wanted the design to stop and felt that the only way to enforce it was with this rule. I think that they only needed to spell out what was expected. I don’t know of anyone involved in FIRST that would break a rule on purpose if they knew the clear meaning. I think FIRST is trying to lessen the importance of the machine in this program but might go to far if the machines don’t run.
Posted by Samuel Lindhorst.
Engineer on team #240, Mach Vee, from Jefferson High School and Visteon.
Posted on 1/18/2000 11:58 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: AMEN posted by Greg Mills on 1/18/2000 6:23 AM MST:
: :
: It seems that I am in the minority again on this issue. I like the six week design & build challenge. My boss & family tolerate it. It does save us from ourselves. One problem that FIRST faces is that some teams are driven from the school and some are sponsor driven. And each sponsor has a different level of committment and/or tolerance. Some can allow alot of money to be spent, some can allow alot of time. Some teams use this as a year round program, some just jump in for the competition season. We are all looking at this from a different perspective.
I agree with you, Greg. 6 weeks is about all my employer will stand, and I think the length is about perfect. It’s too short for large teams with 20 engineers that are slow off the mark getting organized, and long enough for moderste sized teams to get something done with 5 overworked and soon to be burnt out engineers.
Longer than this, very large teams could bring so much talent to bear, smaller teams would have no chance. I’ve seen robots with hundred’s of hours of machining time in them, and I wouldn’t like to give them a few more weeks to do even more.
Sam