Next Years Events

[megmuffinx3]

The events I would like to do next year are Amphibians and Reptiles, Compute This, Environmental Chemistry, Wright Stuff, and Robo-Cross.

[aphoticruby]

Sometimes people get bitter because there really ARE people way better than they are. It isn't my fault that my dad has a 3-d fabrication printer and that I know how to use it, or that our schools' machine shop has a CNC machine, or that one of my teammates took an interest in robotics at the age of 3 and took college classes in mechanical optimization in high schools. As for devices that look nice just barely passing, I have personally been involved with vehicles that worked exactly 3 times: regionals, states and nationals. If one of those times had been the day before instead, then our shiny machine mitered design would have looked pretty foolish. The biggest issue I see is the desire for inclusiveness. Back in like '97 mission possible had an objective of starting 3 marbles in a specific order, not having more than one marble moving at a time, completing 50+ UNIQUE transfers, and then entering a cup in the opposite order than what they started...all in like a half meter cube. I remember my friends' older brother pouring over thousands of lines of 8088 assembly to make sure that everything was going to work correctly. Then things changed. Since not everyone can be competitive at such an event they started the slow decline of expectations. As things become easier luck becomes a bigger factor.

[gneissisnice]

The point is, you and your friends did it themselves, though you may have had privileges that others dont, but thats the way life works. We are saying that some kids dont do anything. Their parents build their bridges, or towers, or whatever, and the kids just watch, and thats wrong.

[aphoticruby]

The point is, you and your friends did it themselves, though you may have had privileges that others dont, but thats the way life works. We are saying that some kids dont do anything. Their parents build their bridges, or towers, or whatever, and the kids just watch, and thats wrong.

And when this happened did you talk to the coordinator for that competition? It seems like nothing more than a lot of speculation to me.

[gneissisnice]

No, we had one of the kids on my own team that bragged about how his dad built his bridge for him.

[dudeincolorado]

wow in my world privalged is sheet protectors i dont even know what thoughs are...oh well you can belive me my parent did not help AT ALL they dont build they dont computerizer and they dont like science... how thick are you binders like my rocks one was one feild guild (my core resource and a binder that refers back to the book, like i ditonmus key that goes back to the book for info)(what do you people think of audobon books?)

[aphoticruby]

No, we had one of the kids on my own team that bragged about how his dad built his bridge for him.

Man, that's a terrible moral dilemma. Tell the judge (or your coach, or whatever) and get people angry at you, or do nothing and undermine your integrity and the integrity of the competition. That sucks.

[carneyf1d]

I completely agree with thefather. I'm also a wright stuff geek, and i can say that at state i saw around 20 planes of the same dave ziegler design. I seriously started laughing out loud when around 15 of them came within 10 seconds of 2 minutes. Sure it's a great plane, but as i watched kids wind their rubber bands by twisting the prop over and over and look dumbfounded when trying to make their plane turn, it just made me laugh. Sure Dave Ziegler had a decent plan, but there are three other areas in flight that the students never even learn about (rubber, trimming, and propellers) Building from kits doesnt make the students learn anything about aerodynamics, structural integrity, etc. and it's truly sad. I think Sci. Oly. should get rid of the building from kits rule and start making the rules to be specifically students design. There are tons of people out there to help students over the steep learning curve. When it comes to wright stuff, ill always be willing to tell a student how to fix a trimming problem, or tell them how to optimize prop efficiency, et cetera as long as they're the ones learning and doing the work.

[theoneandonly]

Sometimes people get bitter because there really ARE people way better than they are. It isn't my fault that my dad has a 3-d fabrication printer and that I know how to use it...

But the fact of the matter is that YOU know how to use it, and your father doesn't do it for you. Of course, some teams will have inherent advantages over others in terms of monetary or physical resources, but it all depends on how YOU use those resources. I mean, sure, you may have a Fab @ Home, but if you can't come up with an effective and creative design to use it with, then it's pointless.

Our Division B Mission Possible device was made out of cheap 2 by 4's, golf balls, duct tape, and billiard balls, and we got first at state over some teams who custom-ordered parts and told us they had used significant, if not total parent help. Superior resources do not necessarily equate to superior results.

[gh]

Iv'e witnessed competitions where I know the kids couldn't have done the events themselves.

Nothing is impossible for the kids to have done by themselves. Even without rocket scientist parents or hired machine shop coaches/mentors, students can learn amazing amounts of knowhow for building events on their own. Talk to these kids and ask them about their devices. Assuming they are not under orders to protect the sacred secrets of their devices, what they say when they're discussing their creations will let you know very quickly just how much of the thing they built themselves. I had a very expensive looking EV in competition this year. What went on the device was closer to $60—not entry level cheap, but not super custom precision cashing-throwing wallet-wagging expensive either. I have had a number of adults question me about the device. Invariably, we would end up talking about the details of hardware interrupts or getting the maximum resolution from quadrature output of optical encoders, or something else that they never expected me to know. I'm sure nobody left thinking I was a spoiled rich kid or my device was a daddybuilt.

It's always good to ask before making assumptions.

I think it's pretty fair that some students are privileged than others with respect to building events. SO competitions are not about the medals or the places; it's about what you get out of the experience. If a team has the tools to build a better robot and uses them, that team isn't the SoBs that screw other teams over—it's the team that's learning the most about how to build a robot. Why level the playing field to serve the poor teams when that would just ruin it for the other teams? I think this way very strongly, even though my team is relatively underfunded and not so well supported (surprising, when you consider that my school is the best—and the best endowed—public high school in New York City).

Likewise, what's the point of having your parents build your device? What are you getting out of SO that way? Teamwork? Physics knowledge? A sense of a job well done? Friendships? You're cheating yourself out of everything that you experience as a part of a SO team when you compete with somebody else's device.