Tue, 16 Sep 2014 14:35:52 -0400
My two cents; given unlimited time I would love to have my teams figure
out every design aspect of their robots all by themselves. However,
given the time constraints I prefer to bring them my stack of books and
encourage them to look online for ideas. I consider it research and
often refer to the meme that architects have three thousand years of
bridges to which to refer when they design new bridges. I do not
consider it a good use of their time in reinventing the wheel. I have
often seen my teams meld the best ideas of more than one design in
creating their robots.
For all-rookie teams, I see nothing wrong with taking the basic LEGO
Tribot and modifying it with new attachments for the competition. Just
The Robot Engineers #6461
9th year coach.
> On Sep 14, 2014, at 11:59 PM, Frank Levine<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I was wondering where the line is between 'kids do the work' vs 'starter
> robot' is? I have seen several suggestions (both here and on the
> interwebs) that this/that robot is a great robot for rookies, etc. While
> my team has been trying to make a decent robot from scratch, I have taken
> many of the suggestions that I have seen from the internet and made what I
> think is a decent driving base. Is it appropriate to hand that base over
> to the rookies and let them go from there? Will the judges frown on a
> coach doing some of the initial legwork to get a base started? What's the
> difference between that and finding a starting base on-line? Ideally I
> would love to see them make it from scratch, but today's building session
> has me thinking that this may be a bit of a stretch.
> Frank Levine
> "The Construction Mavericks"
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE or CHANGE your settings, please visit https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-l.html and select "Join or leave the list".
-- VADCFLL administrative announcements are sent via VADCFLL-ANNOUNCEMENTS-L. Visit https://listserv.jmu.edu/archives/vadcfll-ANNOUNCEMENTS-l.html to subscribe.