The Robots that changed FRC thread started discussion on teams who have collaborated and built (nearly) identical robots in the past, something we don’t see as often these days.
Are there any teams that you would like to see combine forces over a season to create (nearly) identical robots?
Personally, I’d love to see another 973/1323 collaboration. Back in 2011 when they first collaborated they had similar styles that ultimately created two nearly identical, extremely well-engineered robots. Over the years they’ve each developed their own strong, unique brands when it comes to robot design, and I think that each style has its own strengths that, when combined with the other, could make an exciting pair of powerhouse machines.
ALL teams play the way they practice; especially those who get most of their practice time during matches at Regionals.
Want to seed higher? Practice the way you are going to play. Do it before you take that robot to a competition.
In a real match, your team will have alliance partners, most of whose robots are not copies of yours.
It follows that building the drive team skills your team will need in competition REQUIRES a practice partner. One with a robot that is not like yours. Collaboration on complementary designs is going to be harder work, and cost more, than making two copies of the same robot. Will the extra work and cash be worth it? I think it will, IF the two designs really are complementary, not merely different.
When teams start doing this, the GDC will begin to consider collaborative skills practice when they imagine how a prospective game should be played. It will be a major change, like the transition from 3-way cutthroat play to 2-team alliances was. Alliances began as ad-hoc collusion of two teams against the perceived strongest team in a 3-way match.
Back to the original question: I’d like to see my team collaborate with one that is nearby, so we can practice together.
Okay, I actually have a pair of team numbers to offer here. I’m thinking in terms of design philosophy, and who I would like to see try to compromise on style and fabrication techniques, and I want something that I can’t imagine the output of.
My answer is 67 and 118. Both of them never fail to amaze with their solutions to the game challenge. But 67 is understated, black accents on bare aluminum, and simple elegance; 118 is all flashing lights and bright colors, and subsystems that pop out of other subsystems. It’s a mashup of old-school cool and new-school showtime, Sinatra and KISS. Tell me I’m wrong.
