This isn’t completely true. Based on the skill of your driver and the simplicity of your controls, it can be done with practice. But again, thats where the 2 coaches come in. You can’t expect the single driver to make any real decisions while on the field, so the coaches tell him everything he needs to do, and then you just let him drive.
If that makes sense
But don’t discredit single-driver teams, it is very possible
It depends on the decision at hand…
If it’s something like the driver is about to score “for” the other team to gain SP’s, the coach keeping score can call off that operation really quick - he’s the one that knows. If it’s regarding whether to matchload now or later, that would be between that coach and the driver (the driver decides if he can get there, the coach decides if it’s reasonable).
Re: Robot design:
Design also includes the programming, correct? It’s very easy to keep an arm at a specified height if it’s a preset button or something similar. I like to think programming can compensate for a lot… 
//Andrew
<G3> Each team shall include up to two Drivers and one Coach
You’re correct, but I don’t see this enforced at competitions much and you could just bring a spare joystick to the field and not have it be used, designating your second coach as an “operator” even if they don’t do anything 
I attribute 1103’s success in driving to his robot design and programming prowess. In Clean Sweep, his robot design just allowed him to run a line and pick everything while holding the intake button, then pressing a button to dump, not all 3 subsystems were every in use at the same time. In Round Up, his robot design was a very fast claw, which is probably the easiest kind of design to drive (in my opinion) because again, usually all 3 subsystems aren’t in use at the same time. Not only that, but Josh even outlined in a video explaining his Round Up robot that his programming allowed him to use one button for grabbing rings, lifting to either goal height, dropping the lift to the correct height depending on the goal and then release the ring.
To any team that only has one driver or only has one joystick, programming can really make things so much easier for your driver, making tasks that usually take a lot of technical skill and concentration into a press of a button.
No, it’s not illegal. See this Q&A:
https://vexforum.com/t/answered-driver-definition-clarification/20185/1&highlight=Driver+clarification
//Andrew
Ya, I can obviously see how frustrating it would be to have a second driver who won’t synch with you, but in the long run, no amount of programming can really make up for the amount of focus that one can have when only having to control half the robot. (unless its a very simple robot) 1103 was able to achieve this because 1) he was a god among men 2) his robot had only 3 real functions 3) he was able to program the thing to basically drive itself.
We solved this problem both with programing so that the motors engage slightly at max height, and with more elastics. To keep it down at the beginning, we velcro it down haha. The velcro provides enough force to keep the elastics from pulling the lift up, but it is little enough that the lift can still raise when the motors engage.
I would disagree with the statement that 2 drivers will outperform 1 driver most of the time. For example, in the finals of the Robot World Cup here in New Zealand, 3 out of the 4 robots in the finals were driven by only one driver, and in my opinion, the driving I saw in those finals was the best driving I have seen in VRC, and I have watched a LOT of youtube videos. I think it’s all about practice.
So for me all of this comes back to the communication delay within the drive team. Single drivers get caught up with their robots and can’t pay attention to the game as a whole and when the coach has to stop the driver mid-action, like calling off scoring SP’s. I think maybe all information regarding the circumstances of the game should be funneled to the driver who then makes the decisions. I find that my team’s system makes it very easy for me to see the whole field even when I’m looking at the robot because my coach keeps me updated on time and score while my operator and I are synced up.
Yes, I would agree with the end of your sentence. Practice makes perfect seems to be quite applicable here. I would like to edit my statement slightly to make it fit more accurately my opinion. I believe there is a curve for how effective your driving is compared to how many drivers you have. At first, 1 driver is better and simpler because there is less disfunction. As you practice more, 2 drivers become more effective because you can focus solely on your one task. Once both have achieved a certain level of practice, it is very difficult to distinguish which is better, because both will be at such high levels of play. I just personally like 2 joystick better because it feels less stressful. (Coming from someone who drove 1 joystick and 2 joystick)
The ratio on the arm is 7:1 with 4 269 motors
Well we still have to differentiate on driver performance and robot quality. While I would never doubt that the 4 robots in the finals of the NZWC were phenomenal drivers, I’d give the bulk of the credit to the design of the robots. Seeing as all 4 were the world-inspiring side roller design, this may have just been the most effective offensive design and that allowed the 4 teams to breeze past the competition (relatively). A test for this might be to give a completely new robot to an accomplished single driver and accomplished duo team and see which team does better.
We also have to look at the type of strategy each team employs. If the strategy is more defensive, aggressive (stealing goals on the opponent side, playing heavy defense) then the skill set is different than a purely scoring approach. I would think it would be easier to drive 1 robot and score everything in sight than it would be to react to opponent robots in a different kind of strategy.
Dang, it sucks to come up with a design that NZ also came up with. It will always be considered the “new zealand design” well, we can let our robot speak for itself I guess lol
Yep, teams everywhere are saying the same thing as you haha. It all comes down to media I suppose. With such a highly publicized event and the prowess that all of the teams at the NZWC have exhibited in the past, anything that came out of it was bound to be world VEX news by the end of the day.
While I do hugely agree with you that a lot of it was due to the quality of the robots, the driving was also absolutely phenomenal. Some of the doubler and negator balances I was seeing completely blew my mind. I might try and post a picture of one them later If I have it, it was just so crazy.
Also, a lot of the competition to those four finals robots had some similar designs, although probably not quite as well executed.
Also, I think that giving a new robot to a single driver and a duo of drivers would almost always result in the single driver doing better initially, because for the duo of drivers to drive cohesively they would probably need to get a feel for the robot (eg. speed, power, functions, etc.), whereas a single driver does not need cohesion to drive the robot, which means that having a feel for the robot probably isn’t that necessary.
Ultimately, I think what’s important is how good single drivers/duo drivers are when they are fully practised and experience, because, lets face it, basically all competitive teams will be very well practised before big competitions.
At that stage, I think the effectiveness of both driving configurations is very similar, if not identical, and that is where the capabilities of the robot become more important that the drivers.
Ok, now we’re on the same page 
I would like to see some of those pics. DO you mean like balancing them on top of huge stacks? One of my most memorable driving moments was when we were 1v2ing 677 at a competition (we had no alliance) we actually descored the negator they had placed on our 30 inch goal full of objects and proceeded to double it giving us the win by 1 point.
Yeah, I think my brother took a picture, of a doubler or negator (can’t remember) balanced by 720p, and literally the whole barrel was above the top of the goal. It was on top of another barrel which was slanted, and its corner was inside of the concave of the other barrel. It’s hard to explain, but considering it was done at speed, my jaw just dropped.
lol thats epic. No one just knocked it off? :eek:
No, as I said, it was done at speed, and that’s because it was balanced at the VERY end of the match. There was no opportunity to knock it off.
If two drivers already have the coordination between the two of them, they each only learn one subsystem out of (2). A single driver has to figure out how it drives and picks up. Of course, the way the two subsystems interact might affect which would be better but I think a single driver has to do that anyways.
Self-induced tunnel vision during a game is the biggest reason to have a coach, or the ability to look away from your robot for a split second. The coach should never have to pay attention to what the robot should be doing except on a large scale. That was fun during Round Up to coach games where the position of our robots on the field won whole matches.
Does anybody remember the Puerto Rican teams in the finals last year? I always remember them having really good driving. Did they have 1 or 2 drivers?
Completely agree on this. Coach is for the rest of the field where the driver can’t devote attention to.
I think one was Colombian? Not sure. Both were claws, both had one driver. Again I think it’s the design that made it easier for one driver to coordinate it than a more complex robot, though the claws were nonetheless extremely effective and the drivers were amazing.