Well, we at team 256 excel in great ideas, arguments over what ideas to use, and loosing the one bolt we need and not finding it for 3 days. I think that the 3 are somehow related…
The number of teams whose strengths include “being good” is really too many to be worth listing.
Team 359’s strength is bringing the best chocolates to tournaments and shell leis.
I think you guys are selling yourselves quite a bit short 
Since I happened to hop on, you forgot that we’re also good at having some people who are obsessed with maintaining our web site 
I was more aiming at robustness and beautifully designed robots rather than just being good.
If we’re doing one for Simbotics, then I submit the following.
1114: Driver training. Scouting. Data analysis. Preparedness.
Their success only starts with their robot.
Our team consistently fast at tearing our robot apart and building a new one in it’s place. We did this during both lunacy and breakaway.
Our team also builds robots with very large tolerances. Many times after we have built something, we discover a misaligned axle or something of the like and yet it doesn’t affect the robots performance in the slightest. Our claw at champs was a good example of this.
We used to be really good at building overcomplicated robots that we never finish that liked to tip a lot and fall off the tower when attempting to hang…
Okay that was mostly really only one year. However in years past we built overcomplicated robots and made them work.
We learned this year that it doesn’t work for us. So we built a simple simple simple robot. And that’s what we’re going to do from now on.
I’d say we’re good at having too many students for the amount of jobs in the shop now.
-Nick
971 and 254 builds really fast bots. They rarely are geared to be the fastest, but in real world practice, they get where they want to go faster than anyone else, every year.
174 is really good at being the last pick by the first seeded team.
above reported
Just doing that is almost as effective as building a winning robot. :yikes:
We go for simple machines that accomplish the primary game tasks and are easy to operate. Hopefully, simplicity means efficient design - not just crude or lacking. We have always done tank drives with one speed transmissions. We haven’t used the camera much. We always try to make it easy to get at stuff for service and repairs. Make the thing that picks up the game piece so user-friendly that even I can operate it in a mentor match!
Resistance to change and radical ideas. Perhaps, it is the fear of failure that hold them back, but my personality and the personalities of many team members seems to collide a lot. A lot of my radical ideas come under fire by many, but few find flaws. Yet they are still resistant to change. Perhaps, I am the extreme radical and the general population will always have that resistance to my ideas.
I’m not understanding how this post applies to the thread topic.
Jason
Yes, please don’t use this thread to air dirty laundry.
Thinking out of the box, as I usually do. Strengths don’t have to be obvious; they have resilience and proceed with caution to radical ideas and those are strengths I believe. But like all traits, they all have a weakness. That weakness I believe is disregarding radical ideas without through understanding can be a bad thing too.
Team paragon is good at finishing things just before the robot goes it the crate.