I know this is a relatively old thread, but I am just reading it for the first time tonight – it is amazing how designing and building a robot in 6 weeks cuts into the light reading time 
Anyway, I agree fully with much that has been already said (especially KenW’s stuff – I am starting to like that Ken guy). I won’t repeat what others have said. But I do have something I would like to add.
One thing I have often thought about in the last 8 years of FIRST is that many engineers think about FIRST as an optimization problem. I cannot disagree with this more. FIRST is more like finding a unique solution and then settling on an implementation of that solution that is “good enough” (e.g. NOT optimized).
Think about it this way. Back in the year when we had tubes (1998, I think). That year, you either had a solution to get tubes above the “tube tree” or you didn’t. If you didn’t, all the optimizing of your gear ratios, counterbalances, coefficients of friction, etc. was not going to add up to a hill of beans. If you did, you could get by with all the sub-optimal solutions to the rest of the sub-problems.
In this sense, FIRST is not about optimization, in fact, optimization is often the more of the PROBLEM than the SOLUTION.
My second observation about FIRST is that there are some many hurdles to get over in FIRST, that if you manage to get over all of them without falling down, you will likely be close to the front of the pack because so many of the opponents will have fallen on at least one hurdle.
In this way, if you have one of the top drive trains, with one of the best arms, with a top level autonomous mode, with a better than average driver, with a better than average scouting team, with a better than average strategy team, etc. you will ALMOST CERTAINLY be a top fininsher.
Bottom line: Optimal battery postion & orientation rarely wins you a single match!
Joe J.
