Practice bot morality

[avanboekel]

What are your thoughts on the morality of a practice bot? Sure, you are not directly breaking the rules by working on your bot past the 6 weeks, but aren't you gaining an unfair advantage over other teams? Problems you find with your practice bot will be much quicker to find and fix once you get to competition.
Plus, you are spending more than the allotted $3500. Another advantage to teams with more sponsors/ resources.

What are your opinions?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Illegal? No. Immoral? Not really.

I could tell FIRST that this so called "practice bot" is just an extra non-FIRST-related project that just happens to look like my competition robot.

As for money, like I said, non-FIRST-related project.

As for the immorality of it, there is nothing stopping other teams from doing it. If you say money is an issue, then go out and work on your business end of the team and get more sponsors. Every team is capable of getting a practice bot, though it may be harder for some than others.

You just need to work hard sometimes to get what you want, and in the end it's totally worth it.

Or you can do the "poor man's practice bot", which would basically just be your drive train and maybe 1 or 2 other components (Like this year it could be your drive train and ball sucker/magnet thing.)

[Alan Anderson]

I will grant that it is an advantage. I won't debate whether or not it is unfair, but I will say that fairness is not always an appropriate goal.

[SenorZ]

Our intent was to make our 2011 robot into a semi-practice bot if we had the resources, but not build a complete replica of the bag'n'tagged bot. With money being tighter than we had anticipated we're not going to see that happen.

It does "feel" unfair that other teams might have their sponsors manufacture two of everything for them, and get two or three weeks practicing/modifying a perfect copy of the competition bot. But thats just the world we live in.

I firmly believe that if a team has a truly good idea, and makes it a reality, they don't need a practice bot.

[PayneTrain]

If you work hard enough to make the money to build it, then you deserve to be able to build it without anyone getting on your case. It's just another tool to teach kids.

[thefro526]

There's nothing immoral about building a practice bot.

In terms of fairness? It's fair because everyone can do it, given the resources - if you don't have the resources then go out and get them.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Our intent was to make our 2011 robot into a semi-practice bot if we had the resources, but not build a complete replica of the bag'n'tagged bot. With money being tighter than we had anticipated we're not going to see that happen.

It does "feel" unfair that other teams might have their sponsors manufacture two of everything for them, and get two or three weeks practicing/modifying a perfect copy of the competition bot. But thats just the world we live in.

I firmly believe that if a team has a truly good idea, and makes it a reality, they don't need a practice bot.

1) We're doing the same thing you're doing.

2) That last sentence... Are you saying your idea isn't good, because you're building a practice bot? ;)

[avanboekel]

I will agree that its fair/ legal. But I think it still goes against the spirit of the 6 week build. Being able to build a replica of your competition bot that you can work on after you bag your bot gives you an advantage.

That being said, our team is planning on building a second practice bot after our first is completed. I'm not against them. I am just putting the question out there to see what other people thought on the subject.

[VKP]

I think the practice bot may even be encouraged by FIRST. They do allow you to bring in 30 lbs of replacement parts to competition. Do they really expect you to bring in 30 lbs for spares? I think that building a second robot is an important part of FIRST, and it is fair because every team at a competition has the same amount of time to practice between bag day and the competition.

I know some teams may not have the resources, but all it takes is hard work. Ask your sponsors if you need to, explain the situation, and explain how beneficial it is to have a second robot, even if it's made of scrap metal.

Also, building and working with a practice robot makes build season seem longer, which is good because build season is fun:D

[SenorZ]

2) That last sentence... Are you saying your idea isn't good, because you're building a practice bot? ;)

Actually, we're NOT going to build one due to finances. If we're lucky we'll still have enough COTS leftover for the 2011 bot to be used for basic drive practice for our almost all rookie team.

[Andrew Lawrence]

Actually, we're NOT going to build one due to finances. If we're lucky we'll still have enough COTS leftover for the 2011 bot to be used for basic drive practice for our almost all rookie team.

Oh. Nevermind.

[Cory]

I firmly believe that if a team has a truly good idea, and makes it a reality, they don't need a practice bot.

There is no other answer to this than "you are wrong".

The unfortunate reality is that the average team plays for somewhere between 18 and 60 minutes in a given year.

We spend more than 60 minutes practicing each day.

You simply cannot peak at your maximum potential without a practice bot, no matter how good the design is. Unless you compete in Michigan and can play in 90 matches in a given year.

[Drivencrazy]

I see nothing immoral about it. Part of the reason people do FIRST is to get experience in the practices of engineering. One key principle of engineering is iteration. A practice robot allows a team to greatly increase the amount of iterations they can go through. They can practice, find a flaw, find a fix, and implement it at their competition. If you think about it as a tool for learning there can be no thought of it being immoral.

As for the thought of it being unfair to teams without the resources there are many inequalities in FIRST. Would you consider expedited shipping to only the continental US an unfair advantage? No probably not. You would say its part of the challenge and move on. Disparity in resources is very similar. There are many different ways to raise funds on your own and if your team feels a practice bot is a way to increase your teams ability to meet its goals then find a way to make it happen and call it even.

[JohnSchneider]

"Going against the spirit of 6 week build [by adding to the robot after 6 weeks]"

Wouldn't most teams first Day at a regional be doing this :rolleyes:

[AdamHeard]

I won't argue morality, legality or any other point about practice bots which has been thoroughly debated and discussed in numerous threads several times per year.

However, I will say there that any team can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to the very top tier with nothing but hard work.

When I joined 973 (no offense to the existing team at the time), they were mediocre at their best, and often below average.

Each year we set a few goals, and we achieved them; Each year we got substantially better.

Four years down the road from that day, we have a larger far more optimized shop, more machines in house (including a CNC), 5 times the team's 2007 budget, substantially more members, practice bots, offseason projects, powdercoated robots and a fair amount of on-field success.

I am not trying to brag, merely making the point that with hard work any team can massively improve their circumstances.

There is no unfair, just a personal lack of desire to improve one's own circumstances.

[howyadugan1730]

I will grant that it is an advantage. I won't debate whether or not it is unfair, but I will say that fairness is not always an appropriate goal.

In the spirit of FIRST fairness is one of the main goals hence limitations on robot size, weight, and price; so that competition is not only challenging but fun at the same time.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Four years down the road from that day, we have a larger far more optimized shop, more machines in house (including a CNC), 5 times the team's 2007 budget, substantially more members, practice bots, offseason projects, powdercoated robots and a fair amount of on-field success.

And, ahem, a World Championship? I guess you succeeded at avoiding bragging...

Building a practice robot is hardly not in the spirit of FIRST. FIRST says nothing about making yourself less competitive because you know there are those out there who can't/don't do the same things to help themselves out. FRC is about keeping a high level of competition while helping other teams do the same. The competition is the tool to inspire students in STEM.

[Koko Ed]

What are your thoughts on the morality of a practice bot? Sure, you are not directly breaking the rules by working on your bot past the 6 weeks, but aren't you gaining an unfair advantage over other teams? Problems you find with your practice bot will be much quicker to find and fix once you get to competition.
Plus, you are spending more than the allotted $3500. Another advantage to teams with more sponsors/ resources.

I will agree that its fair/ legal. But I think it still goes against the spirit of the 6 week build. Being able to build a replica of your competition bot that you can work on after you bag your bot gives you an advantage.
Seriously?
If you think practice bots are immoral you must think FiM is Gomorrah.

[Aren_Hill]

What are your thoughts on the morality of a practice bot? Sure, you are not directly breaking the rules by working on your bot past the 6 weeks, but aren't you gaining an unfair advantage over other teams? Problems you find with your practice bot will be much quicker to find and fix once you get to competition.
Plus, you are spending more than the allotted $3500. Another advantage to teams with more sponsors/ resources.

What are your opinions?

FIRST is a pretty decent microcosm of real life,

those who work hard, accomplish more

decent lesson to learn, and FIRST is allowing us to learn it.

[Koko Ed]

"Going against the spirit of 6 week build [by adding to the robot after 6 weeks]"

Wouldn't most teams first Day at a regional be doing this :rolleyes:

If teams bothered to come out of the pits. Thursday is often Extra Eight Hours of Desperate Build Time Day to finish their still incomplete robot.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
This subject is brought up every year and the same answers are usually given. While winning is a great thing, let's not loose sight of what the competition is actually attempting. We are here to inspire students. The rest is all just fluff compared to improving someone's life, setting someone on a path, or getting someone to recognize high school education is simply not enough in today's world. We know that added experience gives students more reference on making good decisions. Why would you want to limit our ability to add to someone's life or learning?

Our team is a credit class in our district. Therefore it must meet certain lesson plans and goals throughout the year, all year. We build and prototype, improve understanding and ability, refine and correct strategy, and help others when we can. Part of that plan is a second robot platform.

[Andrew Schreiber]

In the spirit of FIRST fairness is one of the main goals hence limitations on robot size, weight, and price; so that competition is not only challenging but fun at the same time.

[Citation Needed] There have been numerous instances of GDC members posting on here that a level playing field is not desirable. I'd be willing to bet you that there are transcripts of Dean's speeches that outright say that we all need to work harder to get what we want. In fact I know there are but it is a couple years old at this point (I haven't had time to go through transcripts from modern speeches).

Seriously?
If you think practice bots are immoral you must think FiM is Gomorrah.

HA!

Guys,
This subject is brought up every year and the same answers are usually given. While winning is a great thing, let's not loose sight of what the competition is actually attempting. We are here to inspire students. The rest is all just fluff compared to improving someone's life, setting someone on a path, or getting someone to recognize high school education is simply not enough in today's world. We know that added experience gives students more reference on making good decisions. Why would you want to limit our ability to add to someone's life or learning?

Our team is a credit class in our district. Therefore it must meet certain lesson plans and goals throughout the year, all year. We build and prototype, improve understanding and ability, refine and correct strategy, and help others when we can. Part of that plan is a second robot platform.

I cannot agree with this more, if a team has a large number of students then build a practice bot is just logical. It gives more students hands on time with the robot which is always a good thing. It also allows you to use your current machine as a demo bot during competition season.

Also, addressing a common misconception. Practice bots do not cost significantly more unless you build identical machines with all new parts on both every year. Reuse motors and controllers. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Craig Roys]

The unfortunate reality is that the average team plays for somewhere between 18 and 60 minutes in a given year.

We spend more than 60 minutes practicing each day.

You simply cannot peak at your maximum potential without a practice bot, no matter how good the design is. Unless you compete in Michigan and can play in 90 matches in a given year.(emphasis mine)

Really? Into our 4th year and their's still misinformation about FiM? 90 matches is only possible if you are very good - that means qualifying for States and also making it to the FIRST Championship. Then you might get to 90; actually, I don't think it's possible to get to 90 without either playing extra competitions somewhere or an inordinate number of ties in eliminations - more likely, you'll hit 90 only if you do an offseason event or two. Our registration guarantees us 2 competitions with 12 qualifying matches per competition - that's a total of 24 matches. If your good enough to make it into elimination rounds you can increase that number anywhere from 2 to 9 matches per competition. Then, if you've performed well enough, you can make it to the State Championship - another guaranteed 12 matches plus any elimination matches. (I just did the math, if you play to the championship round of every competition, playing the full 3 matches per round, and then make it on to Einstein continuing 3 matches per round, you will get to 88 - so throw in a couple of ties and you'll hit 90.)

Despite my little rant there, I agree with your point...even in MI, you need practice to succeed or you could be done after your 24 guaranteed matches (54 mins playing time). There's little time for on the job training if you want to advance.

[FRC4ME]

If teams could bring their modified practice bot to competition, then yeah, that would be like buying an extra three weeks of build season. But they can't. Hence, the practice bot provides a perfect example of a project that can provide an advantage but also brings a whole slew of additional responsibilities. I've seen first-hand what happens to teams who think, "we've got a practice bot so we don't have to finish by ship date." They quickly discover at competition that the two bots stopped being identical earlier than remembered, and their "three weeks -> eight hours" build plan is missing a few steps.

The practice bot presents an important design decision early in the build season: are you confident you have the resources to duplicate everything while still making ship date and develop a competent plan for applying the lessons you learn from weeks of practice to the competition bot in only one day? If so, the practice bot can give you a huge advantage, but with significant risk: if you underestimate your capabilities or fail to manage the project well, you may end up in a really tight situation come ship date.

[MaxMax161]

A while ago I thought that finding loopholes, or doing more then the rules suggested, was not necessarily moral. But then by that logic the person who discovers how to fold space by finding a loophole in the laws of physics would be anything but a genius. And the student who worked a 2nd job to buy a physics textbook to act their SAT2s would be anything but deserving.

I think the lines between loophole and innovation, as well as advantaged and prepared are very thin and blurry, if existent at all.

Tl,dr; No, a practice bot is no more immoral then an SAT study book.

[JesseK]

*** Start of Bragging (nanny-nanny-boo-boo) ***
This year, we have design-by-committee approach to the bot. Even with that seemingly ridiculous team organization, it's the start of week 3 and every cotton-picking detail of the robot is DONE in CAD. That's right, completed. Some teams are still deciding on drive train, others still deciding on shooter vs launcher. Well we're done. (except the odd-angle curved paneling that no one on our team has a clue how to do ...). Our robot is so done that I re-did the framing for a more product-friendly presentation, and perhaps to some an intimidation factor. Now we just have to weld the framing and fab some small parts, then assemble everything (perhaps wait on some parts ... no waiting on Banebots this year though, muahahaha). In the process we've rejected over 20 different individual designs for various functions on the robot. We've also re-adjusted our strategy as a tradeoff to keeping things simple. We can't have everything we want, but we'll be better for it.

If we stay on schedule, we'll have the bot to the programmers at the start of week 5. Collectively we've already put over 300 hours into the bot (I've already lost 4 nights of sleep...).

For a practice bot this year, we'll take an old protoype frame and make a simple drive train. Then we'll put some sort of launcher/shooter/something on it, and I'll run the drivers through drills. The key this year isn't just practice -- it's practicing with the robot 30 feet away, and practicing with a robot where the driver literally cannot see balls near the slot because of the shallow angle. That by itself will make or break some matches.
*** End Bragging ***

In my honest opinion, teams who rant about 'unfair' should do the following:
Quit whining and focus on your own robot.

[thefro526]

Also, addressing a common misconception. Practice bots do not cost significantly more unless you build identical machines with all new parts on both every year. Reuse motors and controllers. There is nothing wrong with that.

Just to add onto Andrew's statement, your practice bot doesn't necessarily need to be a exact replica of the competition bot - it just needs to replicate machine function well enough that using it to practice is worthwhile.

Some teams build an alpha and a beta bot where the alpha bot is made quickly and rather sloppily (compared to the beta bot) to prove the overall concept of the beta or final robot. The design from the beta bot is then derived from the alpha bot with the alpha bot serving as a reasonably good practice tool. Since the alpha bot in this case is just proof of concept, you can get away with running used motors, gearboxes, electronics, etc.

[Andrew Lawrence]

In my honest opinion, teams who rant about 'unfair' should do the following:
Quit whining and focus on your own robot.

To build onto that, to those complaining to use on CD about their unfinished robot: Get of Chief Delphi and start working/designing. Like my programming class teacher has said multiple times: "Stop complaining on reddit about your code not compiling and actually fix it". :) Love that teacher.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

What are your thoughts on the morality of a practice bot? Sure, you are not directly breaking the rules by working on your bot past the 6 weeks, but aren't you gaining an unfair advantage over other teams? Problems you find with your practice bot will be much quicker to find and fix once you get to competition.
Plus, you are spending more than the allotted $3500. Another advantage to teams with more sponsors/ resources.

What are your opinions?

Is it moral? Of course it is. There is no rule that is being broken.

Is it fair? No, it's not fair, but rarely in life are things fair. The teams that build practice bots have worked hard to be able to afford/gain that unfair advantage. If you (or any other team) wish to also gain that unfair advantage, you need to work hard at getting the sponsors/resources during the 'offseason'. In otherwords, that 'unfair advantage' is the result of hard work, and hard work is almost always moral.

[ebarker]

Is it fair? No, it's not fair, but rarely in life are things fair. The teams that build practice bots have worked hard to be able to afford/gain that unfair advantage. If you (or any other team) wish to also gain that unfair advantage, you need to work hard at getting the sponsors/resources during the 'offseason'. In otherwords, that 'unfair advantage' is the result of hard work, and hard work is almost always moral.

disagree !!!!

Unfair is when 'the referee is blind' and makes a bad call against your football team, or you get a disease through no fault of your own.

If team ( or person ) A outworks, out fundraises, out performs, team ( or person ) B - yes, that is completely fair. That is the definition of fair. It isn't undue advantage.

Compare students that show up and work very hard and participate in FIRST with those that are just on the roster or just show up to socialize. It is completely fair that the hard workers earn the scholarships and Dean's List awards. The sooner a student learns that, the better off they will be. Unfortunately most don't learn until much later in life.

[rsegrest]

Guys,
This subject is brought up every year and the same answers are usually given. While winning is a great thing, let's not loose sight of what the competition is actually attempting. We are here to inspire students. The rest is all just fluff compared to improving someone's life, setting someone on a path, or getting someone to recognize high school education is simply not enough in today's world. We know that added experience gives students more reference on making good decisions. Why would you want to limit our ability to add to someone's life or learning?

Could not agree more! This is about inspiring students to make positive changes in their lives and in turn the world!

Part of the lesson is also in realism though. For instance when you go to college there are going to be those who work harder to get the highest grade on the test while you go to an all-night Skyrim game fest. Is it their fault that you chose not to study?

FIRST does not 'demand' that you win. They ask that you give your best and full effort to succeed, learn, and help others and that is wholly upon you.

[DR3381]

Our goal on Droid Rage 3381 is to have the students build the second robot completely untouched by mentor hands between ship date and competition. It is essentially our test to see if the students have picked up everything that they were taught over the course of the build season. Students go so far as to wrap it in police tape to make sure that no adults touch this robot for any reason.

Last year, the students completed the drive platform and we were running the robot around the shop, but we ran out of time before competition before the students could complete it fully. It was never a useful as anything but a learning tool for students, but hopefully they will work harder and have more time available to them to complete the second robot this year. Its great for us as mentors to see students teaching other students and a robot being built from scratch without us. Maybe someday they won't need us at all!!!

[pfreivald]

I read the title of this thread as "Practice bot mortality" and thought, "yeah, heh, we beat the crap out of ours, too!"

If NCS can build practice bots, any team can. "Fair" is a four-letter eff-word; it belongs neither in school nor in your brain. It's fine to think, "Holy crap, there's no way we can beat the Thunder Chickens/Simbotics/Wildstang/Poofs/[insert so many other teams here]", as long as it's followed up by, "but we're sure as heck going to try!"

With FIRST, it's not "put up or shut up" like in sports... it's "put up and shut up". Don't brag, don't complain, don't whine, for GP's sake don't talk smack -- just do the best darned job you possibly can, every single time. Don't settle, and get better every week and every year. Talk to Paul Copioli if you really want to get inspired about what and how a team can go from zero to intimidating, state-of-the-art FIRST monsters through sheer effort, drive, and smarts. Legacy teams didn't become legacy teams through luck, and they sure as heck don't *stay* legacy teams through complacency and some kind of unfair advantage.

1551 isn't a FIRST powerhouse. I'm not even sure we aspire to be a powerhouse -- we just aspire to be better than we were last year, by as much as we can possibly manage given our resources. But I can assure you that we don't waste one synapse-fire on wondering whether or not what other teams are doing is fair, right, moral, ethical, or just. FIRST isn't about beating the other teams, it's about beating yourself. If you happen to get the occasional blue banner in the process, that's pretty cool, too.

To whit, if your practice bot can't be the same as your regular bot due to money or other limitations, make it close enough -- plywood instead of aluminum, toughboxes instead of planetaries, regular mecanum instead of octocanum... ...and for God's sake don't wait until your regular robot is done to build it -- wham-bang it together as fast as you can and give the protobot to your programmers as a test bench, then replace mechanisms with whatever's closer to "real" if/when you can.

Can't manage even that this year? Then focus on one or two mechanisms. Build 'em, refine 'em, and when you get to competition use your 30 lbs to replace 'em... And do that practice bot next year.

A healthy mind has no place for envy.

[nitneylion452]

What are your thoughts on the morality of a practice bot? Sure, you are not directly breaking the rules by working on your bot past the 6 weeks, but aren't you gaining an unfair advantage over other teams? Problems you find with your practice bot will be much quicker to find and fix once you get to competition.
Plus, you are spending more than the allotted $3500. Another advantage to teams with more sponsors/ resources.

What are your opinions?

For what I bolded, this is not necessarily true. We build a practice bot for 2011 and everything worked fine after some tweaking. We made the same tweaks on the competition bot and nothing worked properly. (Anyone at the Philly Regional last year may remember us as 3167: The team that scored nothing).

[plnyyanks]

For what I bolded, this is not necessarily true.

But more often than not, I feel that it is. It's also dependent on how alike your two robots are. Over the years, 1124 had tried it's absolute hardest to build two exactly identical robots, and we must have learned tons from our second bot. Our two robots usually very translate very well to each other, and what works on one almost always works on the other. Also, it's an added plus to have your code "just work" when you go from one robot to the other.

[Tristan Lall]

Is it moral? Of course it is. There is no rule that is being broken.That's the definition of legality, not morality. (They are related concepts—but not the same thing.)

[ebarker]

FIRST isn't about beating the other teams, it's about beating yourself.

our biggest challenge is beating our selves personally and collectively as a team.

Bingo !! -- nuff said.

[Karthik]

disagree !!!!

Unfair is when 'the referee is blind' and makes a bad call against your football team, or you get a disease through no fault of your own.

If team ( or person ) A outworks, out fundraises, out performs, team ( or person ) B - yes, that is completely fair. That is the definition of fair. It isn't undue advantage.

Compare students that show up and work very hard and participate in FIRST with those that are just on the roster or just show up to socialize. It is completely fair that the hard workers earn the scholarships and Dean's List awards. The sooner a student learns that, the better off they will be. Unfortunately most don't learn until much later in life.

Ed's post should be required reading for everyone. The word "fair" gets tossed around far too often, both in FIRST and outside of it, without being fully understood.

[JaneYoung]

I like the word, ethical, rather than moral when thinking about this. It removes some of the sense of judgment for me.

Here's just a few thoughts to throw on the pile:

1. Having the time, resources, and energy to build a practice robot is an incentive. Committing to it, and following through with that commitment, shows maturity on the part of the team. It also shows that the team understands a bigger picture - doing as much as they can with the time and resources they have to be competitive.

2. That doesn't always happen. Teams may talk and plan for years and it still doesn't happen. The problem doesn't begin with resources - the problem begins with commitment. Building a practice bot and committing to practice time with the practice bot doesn't just happen.

3. A lot of factors are involved in the practice robot:
- team priorities
- management of time, organization, and funding
- practice space and availability
- goal setting

These are just a few that are involved with the commitment to building and using a practice bot for practicing. One of the biggies that isn't talked about much is the commitment of the adults' time that is involved in order to make it a worthwhile investment in achieving the team's goals. That's no small thing. Without the adults on board to coach, keep the space available, and be willing to deliver/pick up their children from practice if needed - it's not going to happen.

It's more than the practice bot. It's what the practice bot is about and what it says about the team.

Jane

[jvriezen]

It was never a useful as anything but a learning tool for students, but ...

If it was useful as a learning tool for students, it was HUGELY successful.

[jvriezen]

What would be cool is to see a powerhouse team with extra resources (people, parts, $) helping out a less mature team by helping them build a practice bot.

[tsaksa]

Ed's post should be required reading for everyone. The word "fair" gets tossed around far too often, both in FIRST and outside of it, without being fully understood.

Absolutely. I know people who think that FIRST itself in unfair. They know FIRST students who do better in math and science than other students who spend their spare time playing video games. Even if those other students did all the assigned homework! Is that fair? What about being able to put their FIRST experience on a resume, or apply their learning to real world problems? And beyond FIRST itself is it really fair to take a special class that helps you study for an SAT when others can't afford it? Of course it is a bit unfair, but it does not, and should not, stop us from helping these students learn even if it is a bit unfair to those we can't reach.

Lets all try hard not to break the real rules. Lets embrace gracious professionalization. But at the same time lets make sure that students with ambition and talent get the most opportunity we can give them to build, practice, and learn. Goodness knows that the real world will not be worrying about what is fair to them when the time comes for them to face it.

[LinuxArchitect]

I cannot agree with this more, if a team has a large number of students then build a practice bot is just logical. It gives more students hands on time with the robot which is always a good thing. It also allows you to use your current machine as a demo bot during competition season.



Exactly. We have 82 students in our club this year. They are working, in three separate teams, on three prototype robots right now, with a few mentors working on two others. Some combination of the prototypes will get promoted to the final design, and the students will build two bots, one to bag for FRC and one to use for other activities. One robot from the bunch will go to two different science exhibits.

We probably have an advantage over a smaller team, though that can be debated. But we're still at a disadvantage to teams with better experience/skills, more money, better school support, etc.

In recent years, we built our competition robot on Thursday on the event; sometimes on Friday. But we've slowly built up our resources, and student interest is at an all time high despite those performances. We're looking to the future with a multi-year plan to turn the program into a championship FRC team.

[Anupam Goli]

Absolutely. I know people who think that FIRST itself in unfair. They know FIRST students who do better in math and science than other students who spend their spare time playing video games. Even if those other students did all the assigned homework! Is that fair? What about being able to put their FIRST experience on a resume, or apply their learning to real world problems? And beyond FIRST itself is it really fair to take a special class that helps you study for an SAT when others can't afford it? Of course it is a bit unfair, but it does not, and should not, stop us from helping these students learn even if it is a bit unfair to those we can't reach.

Lets all try hard not to break the real rules. Lets embrace gracious professionalization. But at the same time lets make sure that students with ambition and talent get the most opportunity we can give them to build, practice, and learn. Goodness knows that the real world will not be worrying about what is fair to them when the time comes for them to face it.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said here. FIRST has leveled the playing field by providing 6 weeks to DESIGN and BUILD, and all of the other time is dedicated to bring in spare parts and practice. Every Team is capable of getting the resources for a 2nd robot. It depends on time, commitment, and a little bit of luck. If the team spends its time in the offseason fundraising, finding new sponsors, and working on build efficiency, they earned the resources needed for that 2nd robot.

Also, if you are determined to win the competition, you will practice. Remember, FRC is a varsity sport, FIRST is the organization to promote STEM. As with all sports, practice is the key to becoming a better player. Should I penalize my school's football team if they practice 4 days a week vs another school that only practices 3 days a week? :rolleyes:

[LinuxArchitect]

What would be cool is to see a .... team with extra resources (people, parts, $) helping out a less mature team by helping them build a practice bot.

I will challenge my team to do that next fall.

[Clinton Bolinger]

This thread shows why FIRST should just lift the 6 week build time frame.

Having unlimited time to build would actually help the teams that have less resources. Also, I believe that some of the teams with more recourses would still build two bots, even if there was an unlimited build time frame.

-Clinton-

[Jim Zondag]

This thread shows why FIRST should just lift the 6 week build time frame.

Having unlimited time to build would actually help the teams that have less resources. Also, I believe that some of the teams with more recourses would still build two bots, even if there was an unlimited build time frame.

-Clinton-

Amen Clint.

IMHO, the 6 week build restriction is an artifact of the early days of FRC, and is obsolete in the context of how the league now operates. The build period restriction serves primarily to keep weaker teams without the resources to buy redundant parts and equipment from doing continuous improvement. It does little to hinder the top teams. This causes quite a bit of stratifaction in the league between the 'have's' and the 'have not's'. This has gotten somewhat better now the suppliers like AM and BB can provide purchased solutions for many hard to make items, but the gap is still very obvious. Eventually this rule must die, it is really just a question of how long it takes NH to actually decide to do this.
Every step toward deregualtion that FIRST has taken in the past 20 years has served to make the robots better and the program more enjoyable. This change would be the same.

[PriyankP]

Is it moral to build a practice bot knowing that there is a team out there that does not have the resources to build a practice robot? Hmm...

In my opinion there is nothing about building a practice robot that is not moral. In fact, every team should build one because by building a practice robot, you become a better, smarter and a more efficient team. There is a reason why people say "practice makes perfect." If you want to be perfect at a competition, you HAVE to practice. It's as simple as that. I can't even imagine how frustrating FRC regionals would be if teams decided to learn to play the game on the field, during the qualification matches. We all know how exciting 0 - 0 matches are. We all know how exciting the first day of a regional is from the stands.

There are many things that give teams an advantage other than a practice robot. For example, mentors and coaches! Having knowledgeable and dedicated mentors is a massive advantage! I think, that's what sets one team apart from the other 40-50 teams at a competition. Coaches who can make the correct split second decisions also give teams a huge advantage! Someone mentioned that their robotics program is a credit course in their district. This could also be a potential advantage as students might work harder to get marks as opposed to not being worried about marks by joining robotics as an extra-curricular activity.

In fact, there is no way every team will have equal chances of winning a competition or doing well in general. If you are at a disadvantage because of one thing, work harder! Or, try to gain a significant advantage in some other aspect of FIRST!

[Andrew Schreiber]

This thread shows why FIRST should just lift the 6 week build time frame.

Having unlimited time to build would actually help the teams that have less resources. Also, I believe that some of the teams with more recourses would still build two bots, even if there was an unlimited build time frame.

-Clinton-

Oh but then it wouldn't be fair in some other contrived way. This isn't an issue of fair any more than the mentor/student debates or the multiple competition debates are. It is all about teams seeing what other teams have and wanting it but not having to work.

Teams need to stop hiding behind fair and GP and start realizing that if they want something they need to work for it because no one is going to HAND them anything.

[JesseK]

This change would be the same.

It'd also make many teams more complacent about procrastination.

The best thing about Week 6 the FRC build season is that there's an end to it. After it, mentors can re-focus on work and relationships that were singed by the build season.

[ebarker]

What would be cool is to see a powerhouse team with extra resources (people, parts, $) helping out a less mature team by helping them build a practice bot.

I don’t really consider us to be a ‘powerhouse’ team but I feel the need to respond questions about ‘hard work’ and what it can get you. If we are going to have a discussion about ‘fair play’ then it is perfectly acceptable to talk about ‘hard work’ and ‘organization’.

Two months ago we opened the Kell Robotics Innovation Center, a 3750 sq. ft. facility for training, mentorship, workshop, exhibit marshalling, etc. Just in the past month we have worked with four 4-H teams, two Boys & Girls Club teams, four High Schools teams, two Future Seekers teams, and a collection of mentors. We have done this type of thing in the past but now it is great to have a permanent facility to host this type of support. We have handed out parts in the past and have no great problem with that, but when all is said and done teams must learn how to feed themselves. Part of things to learn at the ‘IC’.

A couple of times in the past we have started the season trying to build two robot and we have always failed. This year we are trying it again and we are pretty determined to get it done.

Sure, having a ‘practice’ robot will be helpful but we really need it for the ‘road show’. Over the past 3 or so years students have contributed over 6,000 man-hours exhibiting at over 120 events promoting FIRST. There is probably another 6,000 hours preparing for the events.

This past fall we won at GRITS in large part because the LogoMotion robot has not hardly been turned off since last spring. Our 2009 Lunacy bot is on its third or fourth set of slick wheels. We burn them down to the rims doing road shows on concrete and brick pavement. AndyMark is out of 6” slick wheels and we could use a bushel of them.

This year we have a great visual game that is audience friendly. This year is an opportunity to leverage the game into more public attention. If you can keep your bots together, do some exhibiting, work hard, earn some money, you can get some more resources. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Any football coach will tell you the great games are not won with the hail Mary passes. They are won months and years before slogging away in the hot sun, rain, cold, and everything else when everyone else is sitting indoors eating snacks and playing video games.

I apologize if this sounds a little much but it is really important that people develop great work ethics. Your employer will appreciate you for that.

[JamesCH95]

This thread shows why FIRST should just lift the 6 week build time frame.

Having unlimited time to build would actually help the teams that have less resources. Also, I believe that some of the teams with more recourses would still build two bots, even if there was an unlimited build time frame.

-Clinton-

The 6-week build limits the pain. If the build time was increased teams would still pack in 5-7 day work weeks to stay competitive. IMO many mentors and students would burn out with an extended build season.

With an extended build season I could see some serious teams building 3, 4, 5 or 6 robots, with basic teams still only building 1. This would only serve to further increase the performance gap and driving up the cost of running a competitive team.

[Ninja_Bait]

Oh but then it wouldn't be fair in some other contrived way. This isn't an issue of fair any more than the mentor/student debates or the multiple competition debates are. It is all about teams seeing what other teams have and wanting it but not having to work.

Teams need to stop hiding behind fair and GP and start realizing that if they want something they need to work for it because no one is going to HAND them anything.

Quoting the harsh truth for truth.

People who are sitting around complaining and whining are the same people who aren't doing anything. Part of the challenge of FIRST (i.e. not just FRC) is to not only play each year's competition well, but to play every year's competition well, and become a "powerhouse" team. That involves getting devoted mentors, training students each year, fundraising enough for sustainability and yes, sometimes building a practice bot. If you think that teams doing these things well are at an advantage, it's because they are. And they EARNED it. Even mentorbot teams have to deserve those mentors; I'm sure that if the students didn't work hard at all, the mentors would get frustrated enough to walk away (and if they didn't, you'd really have to respect the patience of those mentors).

Don't be an Occupy FRC team. Actually do something instead of camping in public forums with picket signs.

[Aur0r4]

I'm going to definitely agree with James. Limiting the build season makes the competition manageable for all involved, including FIRST themselves, I'm sure. FIRST is a sprint, and 6 weeks seems to be a very close optimum between "just enough time" and "total burnout".

I will say that one very positive effect of the fast build season is that it ignites a drive to think outside the box and gets juices flowing that ordinarily wouldn't with loads of time. Anyone that has worked on a multi-year project knows that a very bad side effect of taking your time is a real developmental lethargy. Contrast the Big Dig (a massive, 25+ year highway project in Boston that, sadly, isn't an example of excellence in our field) and the race to the moon. I think there is such a thing as "too much time" to complete a task where passion, innovation, and excitement dies and complacency, bureaucracy, and lethargy take their place due to human nature. For me, FIRST is a breath of fresh air from normal design processes!

As an aside, the above thoughts are shared with complete acknowledgement of the constraints that budget, processes, safety, and external factors have on project development. However, its a rare long-term, "more than enough time" project that seems to produce anything spectacular, whereas we all love reading about the amazing feats of engineering skill by teams "under the gun". Its inspiring!

To the original topic, I do have to agree with others that FIRST is inherently a change from the typical world of making everything artificially "fair" for everyone. That's not the spirit that drives innovation and is the opposite of FIRST. FIRST promotes competition through collaboration and inherently rewards those who work hard. For those who don't have the resources, the opportunity is there for those who have excess to voluntarily reach out to share. Or, there's the opportunity for teams to improve their own circumstances through fundraising and reaching out to companies or teams around them.

This is the opposite of forced sharing or regulations that restrict achievement. If another team has a full CNC shop and an unlimited budget due to hard work fundraising, they should get to reap the rewards! FIRST is about rewarding achievement and teaching students that good things come to those who work hard for them. Its the hardest fun around!

[Craig Roys]

The 6-week build limits the pain. If the build time was increased teams would still pack in 5-7 day work weeks to stay competitive. IMO many mentors and students would burn out with an extended build season.

With an extended build season I could see some serious teams building 3, 4, 5 or 6 robots, with basic teams still only building 1. This would only serve to further increase the performance gap and driving up the cost of running a competitive team.

What would be the advantage of building 3 or more robots? If the build limit were lifted there would be little advantage in even building 2 - wear and tear is the only reason I can think of that a team might make 2 robots. By lifting the build limits, teams that can't afford the practice robot would be able to continue to work and make improvements. The hard part for teams might be the discipline that would be needed to keep yourselves to the 5-6 week build schedule and use the rest for improvements.

Burnout can be an issue, but individual teams need to figure out where that limit is. Weigh the desire to do well vs. the busy schedule. It all comes down to what the team goals are and how much the team is willing to work to attain those goals.

[JamesCH95]

What would be the advantage of building 3 or more robots? If the build limit were lifted there would be little advantage in even building 2 - wear and tear is the only reason I can think of that a team might make 2 robots. By lifting the build limits, teams that can't afford the practice robot would be able to continue to work and make improvements. The hard part for teams might be the discipline that would be needed to keep yourselves to the 5-6 week build schedule and use the rest for improvements.

Burnout can be an issue, but individual teams need to figure out where that limit is. Weigh the desire to do well vs. the busy schedule. It all comes down to what the team goals are and how much the team is willing to work to attain those goals.

The advantage to 3+ robots is not having an extra practice robot, but significantly changing the design of the robot over and over.

I agree with your second point, that teams need to self-regulate in that manor. Consider that teams with significantly more students and coaches due to population density or local specialty high schools and tech companies would be at an even greater advantage because they will be able to leverage their increased people-power for a longer period of time, potentially increasing the disparity between large and small teams.

I am not arguing that FRC is fair (and I don't think it should be), but I do think it's a pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# good recipe for a robotics competition, and I think the 6-week build is a key ingredient.

[Brandon Holley]

One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the effort behind a practice robot.

Building more than one robot is flippin' HARD! Teams and individuals who feel that another team building more than one robot is unfair, should really look themselves in the mirror. As has been said, all teams have the ability to go out and find resources. This program is all about what you put into it. The more put you in, the more you get out, plain and simple.

Building more than one robot comes with advantages, sure. As with all things it comes with tradeoffs. NO TEAM has infinite financial resources therefore money is one thing to consider in another robot. Time is another massive issue. Resources both in terms of mentor commitment, machine shops, etc. All of these things need to be considered when deciding to go past one robot.

The teams that do this, work extremely hard to make that other robot happen. To maximize the value of the second robot, your team now must work extra hard after build season ends. Again, time, money, mentors all need to be considered in this.

I've done it. It's really hard to pull off. I respect teams who can do it on an annual basis knowing the commitment it takes. I applaud those teams for pushing themselves to their maximum potential.

-Brando

[Craig Roys]

The advantage to 3+ robots is not having an extra practice robot, but significantly changing the design of the robot over and over.

Good point...I suppose a rule could be made that lifts build season time limits, but restricts teams to building only 1 robot.

[JB987]

987 has made a practice bot for the past 5-6 years now and have benefited from the extra practice time it has given us before/between Regionals and Championship events. It does mean that we put in more hours and resources but everyone has been willing to sacrifice for improved competition performance. That said, I think we would be less likely to suffer "burn out" if we could stretch out the hours allotted for build and revision in such a way that we wouldn't have to work 6-7 days for 6 weeks straight with late and all night sessions. I think FTC and FLL have it right. An open build season would put a lot less stress on everyone involved. Maybe we could even have more that a Friday off every week (which we went to this year to help avoid burning out).:)

[IraJason]

Let's be honest, things like this are just a fact of life.

In the real world, there are companies that have vast resources, that can afford the time, people, and finances needed to play around with concepts, ideas, and prototypes that they know will never see the light of day. At the same time, there are small or start up companies that don't have those same resources, but may be competing in the same markets. What is the smaller company to do? Give up and say that it's not fair that the large, established companies have so much while they have so little?

It's the same thing with FIRST teams. You have the larger, more established teams, that have worked hard to get where they are now. You also have the smaller teams, which strive to compete in the same competition as these "powerhouses". So what is a smaller team to do? Say its not fair?

The point I'm trying to make is, no matter what, whether you're a FIRST team or in the real world, there is not going to be a balance. The key is taking what resources you have and being smart about it. If you know you don't have the resources that other teams have, be clever about using what's available to you. Set realistic expectations and don't try to work on designs that are outside your scope. We all can't build a world class robot, but sometimes the simplest robot can be just as competitive, and make or break any team's season.

There are going to be teams that have the ability to build a second robot, and that is truthfully a feat in itself. It's hard enough to slap one robot together, but if a team has the drive to not only design and build one robot, but to replicate it, it's a major accomplishment. Smaller teams shouldn't be intimidated by this, but should strive to reach that point. For some teams, they may not be able to get there, but they can at least try to use what they have to build a robot that will give those teams a run for their money. Building a competitive robot is not out of reach for any team, as long as they are smart about what they have available to them.

[Taylor]

So every year, Woodie Flowers says during the kickoff that this challenge is one that mirrors the real world. We have not enough time, not enough money, not enough labor, to complete a project that's too vast, too intricate, and too difficult. The six week barrier is a studied, optimized constraint. FIRST has shown that if something doesn't work, they're not afraid to tweak it or dump it all together. The fact that the six-week build continues to exist speaks to their belief in its efficacy.
As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

[jvriezen]

An FRC team's success should not be measured in how many robots it can build or how many blue banners it can collect. It should be measured by how many engineers (and other professionals) it 'builds'.

That's easier for mentors to see than students, but its true. My son was a founding student on our team in its rookie year. Frankly, competition wise, the team stunk its first few years. But he and others were instrumental in getting the team formed, organized and off to a strong enough start to where in its fourth year, it came in 2nd in the Lake Superior regional and first in the MN Robotics invitational. That's a success in itself for those who were willing to start the team.

[pfreivald]

As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

Yup -- and that's no choice at all. I am stretched to the limit of what I can handle now, and much prefered the days before the withholding allowance, where you were allowed to work on nothing -- not programming, not mechanisms, not anything -- unless you were at competition. I'm willing and able to do what we do now, including the withholding and practice bot and all that, but an unlimited season would be untenable for me as a human and husband.

(It would also seriously skew which regionals people would sign up for...)

[Chris Hibner]

As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

[JamesCH95]

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

There are teams that would have the population to work full-bore for the entire time. These teams have a well-earned advantage now, but the advantage would become astronomical if they could work for the 6-week build, the two weeks before week 1, and then the 5 weeks until week 5 and 6 competitions. Not to mention there would be a huge disadvantage of week 1 and 2 regionals.

[artdutra04]

There are teams that would have the population to work full-bore for the entire time. These teams have a well-earned advantage now, but the advantage would become astronomical if they could work for the 6-week build, the two weeks before week 1, and then the 5 weeks until week 5 and 6 competitions. Not to mention there would be a huge disadvantage of week 1 and 2 regionals.If the ship date bag-n-tag date were to be eliminated (allowing a team to work on their robot all the way up to the competition), the return on investment/advantages gained by a lower or middle percentile team would be significantly larger than the R.O.I. gained by a top percentile team.

Think of it like the graph of natural log, with the x-axis being man-hours of work and the y-axis being robot performance. There is a minimum amount of man-hours of work it takes to just build a Kitbot drive train, but the more and more man-hours you put into prototyping, testing and refining, the lower and lower your returns will be for the amount of time/work invested in it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Log.svg/500px-Log.svg.png

Many top percentile teams have robots that are nearing the physical performance constraints of what can be accomplished with the given motors and electrical systems. And having more time to build wouldn't impact these teams for driving practice either, as many of these top teams already build an identical practice robot and build or have access to a full-size practice field.

The other reason why eliminating the ship date would help lower and middle percentile teams more than top ones is turnaround on parts. Finding a machine shop willing to donate time and labor to help make parts for your team is a lot easier if you tell them you have a two week turnaround time rather than a 5 day or less turnaround time.

Or for vendors like AndyMark or Banebots, being out of stock of a critical motor or gearbox is not as crushing to a team who lacks the resources to design a custom one in short order if the ship date is eliminated. How many teams were burned last year receiving gearboxes after ship date? How many of those struggled on practice day at their regional to mount these gearboxes and power up their robots for the first time? How many of these teams could have performed much better on the field if they had the ability to mount these motors and test their robots a week before the competition?

I also think the mentor/student burnout would be eased if ship date were eliminated and we have another several weeks to work on the robot. Given the extra time, why burn the midnight oil early in the build season? Why stress about trying to have Mechanism X completed and working in exactly 32.4 hours to make ship date?

Every other high school or college level robotics/competitive competition allows their teams to work right up to the competition, and every competition is exactly the same: all but the last three or so weeks are spent mostly easy-going, and then everyone crams like crazy in the last few weeks to get everything done. So even if the amount of man-hours of work is the same, the lessened stress from waiting for parts ordered from the Internet is definitely worth it. A one or two week turnaround for out-of-stock parts is not something to stress about then you have 7-10 weeks, but is a major source of anxiety when you only have 6.

Edit: And the "advantages" of teams who compete at later regional would be severely curtailed as District-style events spread throughout more of the country, as with multiple events, the likelihood you won't compete until late in the build season is reduced.

[RDX1466]

IMO, it is not immoral or against the rules to build and use a practice bot if you have the resources. Yes you are gaining the advantage of having a bot that your driver can practice on and that you can make improvements to after the ship date, but you also will be using up valuable resources from your team that could be used making your REAL robot better. It's a classic situation of quality vs. quantity.

[JesseK]

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

Project schedules always grow to fill the maximum allotted time. There's a theorem or law or something in the software world that more elegantly states it.

If even 1 or 2 people on the 'team' isn't on board with arbitrarily cutting a build season down from an 'unlimited' amount of time, then they can easily convince the rest of the team that their view is better when the end of the arbitrary deadline hits. This is especially true if they're someone with a critical system that isn't finished.

[XaulZan11]

If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks.

FIRST HQ wouldn't force teams to work beyond 6 weeks, but the pressure to keep up with the elite teams essentially would force teams to work past that point if they want to be competitive. I already think most competitive teams work too much as I don't think its healthy for high school students to work 7 days a week or till midnight. The reason teams are pressured to work long hours is so they can be competitive with the 111/1114/254/148s of the world. Now if you extend 'build season' until the competitions, we all know the elite teams won't just stop working but will be working on improving every facet of their robot. In order to stay competitive with them, your team will have to work after the first 6 weeks.

I also think that for the teams that show up to the competition with just a box bot, adding more time won't solve their problems. Those teams likely suffer from lack of mentors, lack of tools, lack of resources, and procrastination. Giving them 10 weeks opposed to 6 weeks won't take them from a box bot to a successful basket making, balancing robot.

[Koko Ed]

I also think that for the teams that show up to the competition with just a box bot, adding more time won't solve their problems. Those teams likely suffer from lack of mentors, lack of tools, lack of resources, and procrastination. Giving them 10 weeks opposed to 6 weeks won't take them from a box bot to a successful basket making, balancing robot.
Sad but true.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I also think that for the teams that show up to the competition with just a box bot, adding more time won't solve their problems. Those teams likely suffer from lack of mentors, lack of tools, lack of resources, and procrastination. Giving them 10 weeks opposed to 6 weeks won't take them from a box bot to a successful basket making, balancing robot.

So, to put it bluntly, you can lead a horse to water but, short of drowning the dang thing, you can't make it drink. You can give a team all the time in the world but can't make them use it effectively.

[Koko Ed]

So, to put it bluntly, you can lead a horse to water but, short of drowning the dang thing, you can't make it drink. You can give a team all the time in the world but can't make them use it effectively.

or money.
What I usually find those teams sorely lacking is mentor support.
The one thing that sticks out with the better FIRST teams is they have SEVERAL veteran mentors to lead them year after year after year. They are the constant on these teams that keep the standards high and lead the new generation.
A veteran mentor is worth a thousand practice bot to a FIRST team.

[XaulZan11]

So, to put it bluntly, you can lead a horse to water but, short of drowning the dang thing, you can't make it drink. You can give a team all the time in the world but can't make them use it effectively.

Obviously teams don't use their time as well as they chould. I think this is true for 99% of teams from rookie to elite teams.

But, more importantly, if I tell 10 rookie students to build a robot but don't give them any tools, parts outside the kit and anyone with any FIRST or engineering experience, it likely won't matter if they have 6 weeks or 12 weeks, they will struggle at building a robot that can sucessfully score.

[Koko Ed]

Obviously teams don't use their time as well as they chould. I think this is true for 99% of teams from rookie to elite teams.

But, more importantly, if I tell 10 rookie students to build a robot but don't give them any tools, parts outside the kit and anyone with any FIRST or engineering experience, it likely won't matter if they have 6 weeks or 12 weeks, they will struggle at building a robot that can successfully score.
An example of it was that rookie team at Midwest last year who's robot was not competition ready and a student from your team helped to make the robot functional enough to be the first alternative.

[KennyLives]

We build a replica of our robot every year. I see nothing wrong with this. It really takes the strain off the drivers as they are able to get a ton of practice hours. And really... once you get to the pits at a competition, you are going to modify it outside of the build season, so...

[Squillo]

Would you consider expedited shipping to only the continental US an unfair advantage? No probably not.

I would. But then again, we're twice removed - once from the mainland, and again from Oahu.

Yet, we persevere. 'Cause it's just :cool: to live on Kauai.

[JamesCH95]

[well articulated argument]

Very interesting points, I didn't think of it that way. You may very well be correct.

[Craig Roys]

Project schedules always grow to fill the maximum allotted time. There's a theorem or law or something in the software world that more elegantly states it.

If even 1 or 2 people on the 'team' isn't on board with arbitrarily cutting a build season down from an 'unlimited' amount of time, then they can easily convince the rest of the team that their view is better when the end of the arbitrary deadline hits. This is especially true if they're someone with a critical system that isn't finished.

So change your allotted time...set you own robot completion date with benchmarks to hit along the way, and stick to it. This does require team buy in and holding people accountable for getting tasks done on time (or explaining why they weren't able to and proposing how to catch back up).

[Bill_B]

I noted in my semi-committed review of this topic, that the FLL and FTC unlimited seasons were mentioned. Those programs have the unmentioned restriction of definite materials lists for the machinery. IoW they have the time extended but allowable components are much more restrictive than FRC. Would you be in favor of extending the build time IF the FRC components were more restricted?

[artdutra04]

So change your allotted time...set you own robot completion date with benchmarks to hit along the way, and stick to it. This does require team buy in and holding people accountable for getting tasks done on time (or explaining why they weren't able to and proposing how to catch back up).One compromise solution that I think would be a good balance between the current status quo and a "no ship date" option would be to still require bag-n-tag on a specific date, but have one or two access windows per each subsequent week available to all teams.

If all teams were granted the opportunity to have up to 2x 8-hour access windows per week following the ship date, this would allow all teams to have the ability to practice driving, add/modify mechanisms, work on programming, add parts that may have arrived after "ship date", and would overall mitigate the "need" that many teams have for a practice robot. At the same time, these access windows would be a limitation to prevent teams from burning themselves out by working on the robot every day from Kickoff to competition.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

One compromise solution that I think would be a good balance between the current status quo and a "no ship date" option would be to still require bag-n-tag on a specific date, but have one or two access windows per each subsequent week available to all teams.

If all teams were granted the opportunity to have up to 2x 8-hour access windows per week following the ship date, this would allow all teams to have the ability to practice driving, add/modify mechanisms, work on programming, add parts that may have arrived after "ship date", and would overall mitigate the "need" that many teams have for a practice robot. At the same time, these access windows would be a limitation to prevent teams from burning themselves out by working on the robot every day from Kickoff to competition.

Thats unenforcable, and there will always be alligations of "they kept it out far more than 8 hours".

[Andrew Schreiber]

Thats unenforcable, and there will always be alligations of "they kept it out far more than 8 hours".

Tell that to Michigan?

[JamesCH95]

Thats unenforcable, and there will always be alligations of "they kept it out far more than 8 hours".

The current 'bag and tag' system is unenforcible. I also think it would be ignorant to believe that absolutely every team obeys this rule.

[Clinton Bolinger]

The current 'bag and tag' system is unenforcible. I also think it would be ignorant to believe that absolutely every team obeys this rule.

That is why it is most likely just a matter of time before FIRST goes to an unlimited build season.

As for Week 1 competitions having a "disadvantage", I would have to disagree because week 1 teams are still figuring out how to play the game. If you focus your design on one task an do it well (Minibot 2011, Hanging 2010), you could have a better chance winning a week 1 event rather then a week 5 event.

As for overloading Mentors and Students, that is something that all teams need to manage. Everything in life needs to be done in moderation, even FIRST.

-Clinton-

[SteveGPage]

The current 'bag and tag' system is unenforcible. I also think it would be ignorant to believe that absolutely every team obeys this rule.

While I agree that we cannot say that absolutely every team obeys this rule, I would say most do. There is something to be said for having mentors not only model what it means to be an engineer, but to also model what it means to have integrity. It would be more important to lose with integrity than win without it.

[JamesCH95]

While I agree that we cannot say that absolutely every team obeys this rule, I would say most do. There is something to be said for having mentors not only model what it means to be an engineer, but to also model what it means to have integrity. It would be more important to lose with integrity than win without it.

I completely agree with you.

[Taylor]

While I agree that we cannot say that absolutely every team obeys this rule, I would say most do. There is something to be said for having mentors not only model what it means to be an engineer, but to also model what it means to have integrity. It would be more important to lose with integrity than win without it.

I've seen instances in which students have confronted mentors who were engaging/about to engage in what the students viewed as unethical behavior. Mentors aren't the only role models out there. Inspiration is a two-way street.

[thefro526]

The current 'bag and tag' system is unenforcible. I also think it would be ignorant to believe that absolutely every team obeys this rule.

For what it's worth, there was a team at one of the Canadian Regionals in 2010 that admitted to working on their robot after bag day (Built a 469 copy is memory serves me correctly) and they were still allowed to compete. As far as I know, there was not, and is not a mechanism in place to address instances like this - by the letter of the rule, an offending team should not be allowed to compete with that machine, but it's hard to turn a team down at an event.

Inspiration is a two-way street.

Spotlighted.

[AdamHeard]

Who are we kidding? Most elite teams work just as much after ship as they do before; the only thing stopping other teams from doing so is their lack of desire to do so.

Making it an open event will hardly "force" other teams to work more.

If they do an open style, they should just shorten the time between kickoff and week 1 events.

[Craig Roys]

I know that we follow the build restrictions rules very strictly - to the point of counting down seconds (if needed) to to when the bag needs to be sealed. I like to believe that most every team follows these rules also. Either way I don't waste any energy worrying about it because the only thing I can control is what my team does.

The only time I worry about what other teams are doing is when I'm looking for ways to improve the way our team operates. Do I envy the perennial powerhouse teams? Yes. Do I begrudge them? Definitely not. I try to emulate what they do. From my experience, the thing that separates the powerhouse teams from the rest of the pack, more than even money, is their work ethic and preparedness. If we're not happy with our level of success (or lack thereof), we know we just need to work harder to get where we want to be.

[1986titans]

I don't think an unlimited build is the way to go. For those teams already struggling to get a robot done, it really won't do much at all and I have a feeling it could just make the first day of regionals/districts even more hectic for those teams.

With the current system, you can only bring to the competition 30# (I'm not sitting here with a manual open) of what are essentially "improvements"/spares for your robot. This keeps teams in later weeks from completely redoing a robot or something close to it after the first week, and holds your team accountable for having something done after six weeks. I like the idea of being held accountable and not being able to redo everything. I think it's more in the spirit of competition. If you could redo everything, there would eventually be a huge amount of design equality, for lack of a better term. That may sound like a good thing, but it takes some fun out of the competition too.

Cheaters will always find a way to cheat. I'd say that they simply don't get "it", with "it" the point of FIRST, if the wind up cheating.

[AdamHeard]

I don't think an unlimited build is the way to go. For those teams already struggling to get a robot done, it really won't do much at all and I have a feeling it could just make the first day of regionals/districts even more hectic for those teams.

With the current system, you can only bring to the competition 30# (I'm not sitting here with a manual open) of what are essentially "improvements"/spares for your robot. This keeps teams in later weeks from completely redoing a robot or something close to it after the first week, and holds your team accountable for having something done after six weeks. I like the idea of being held accountable and not being able to redo everything. I think it's more in the spirit of competition. If you could redo everything, there would eventually be a huge amount of design equality, for lack of a better term. That may sound like a good thing, but it takes some fun out of the competition too.

Cheaters will always find a way to cheat. I'd say that they simply don't get "it", with "it" the point of FIRST, if the wind up cheating.

Currently, elite teams have been able to nearly complete redo large amounts of their robot.

Within the current rules, they are the only teams really capable of doing so however.

[JesseK]

They could reduce the rule down to 10lbs or so -- just enough to bring in the CNC'ed stuff, but not enough for a drop-in full assembly. Want to iterate your design between Regionals and Champs? Then prepare to show just how elite you are by doing it in the time crunch of Championship Inspection Day.

Of course, that's unenforceable too. So maybe they should just eliminate withholding altogether except for the as-needed basis when snow removes and entire 2 weeks from the build schedules of some teams.

[AdamHeard]

They could reduce the rule down to 10lbs or so -- just enough to bring in the CNC'ed stuff, but not enough for a drop-in full assembly. Want to iterate your design between Regionals and Champs? Then prepare to show just how elite you are by doing it in the time crunch of Championship Inspection Day.

Of course, that's unenforceable too. So maybe they should just eliminate withholding altogether except for the as-needed basis when snow removes and entire 2 weeks from the build schedules of some teams.

This style rule makes it more difficult for all teams; Elite teams will still be able to remake systems and succed, lesser teams won't.

More regulation leads to favoring the elite teams.

[Clinton Bolinger]

Want to iterate your design between Regionals and Champs? Then prepare to show just how elite you are by doing it in the time crunch of Championship Inspection Day.

You mean like adding a ramp for minibot deployment?

Every team should be iterating their designs between Regionals and Champs, continuous improvement. This is exactly like real life, if someone settles for their design and think that there isn't anything better to do they will be left behind (example http://www.buggy-whips.com/).

Like many people have already said the time contrant and rules only allows for the strong team to achieve greatness and limits the teams with less resources.

-Clinton-

[Aren Siekmeier]

Currently, elite teams have been able to nearly complete redo large amounts of their robot.

Within the current rules, they are the only teams really capable of doing so however.

Restraints like a 6 week build season only make the elite teams more set apart from the rest. The elite teams will be perfectly capable of turning the 6 weeks they are given into the most they can, while other teams may struggle to stay on schedule.

Also, having a common cut off point to the build season doesn't really accomplish much. Everyone at a given event will have had the same amount of time since Kickoff to refine their machine. Currently, if you have only one event in Week 5, you don't get to see your robot for 6 weeks, and that week 5 event is the first you really put it through any strain. Teams that attend, say, a week 2 and then a week 5, have already had an entire regional and the time at that event to access their robot and make any changes, and they are far more prepared for the week 5 event than the former. If you didn't have to bag your robot, you could still be sending those five weeks testing your machine and refining it in preparation for your one event. Elite teams invest in practice robots for this very reason, so ship day is separating the best from the rest even more.

[AdamHeard]

You mean like adding a ramp for minibot deployment?

Every team should be iterating their designs between Regionals and Champs, continuous improvement. This is exactly like real life, if someone settles for their design and think that there isn't anything better to do they will be left behind (example http://www.buggy-whips.com/).

Like many people have already said the time contrant and rules only allows for the strong team to achieve greatness and limits the teams with less resources.

-Clinton-

Agreed.

the greatest lesson we can teach our kids is how to win.

How to set a goal to achieve some task, while at the time being fully aware that you are probably unaware of and currently incapable of solving half the battles along the way. Then, how to achieve that task.

[JesseK]

I like comparisons to the vague, esoteric, "real life". Real life has deadlines and engineers have to live with their choices, good or bad, after those deadlines.

Products have ship dates, projects have delivery dates, and software has launch dates. Iteration after those dates are usually due to a continuous cycle (cars improve every year), a public black eye (the iPhone 4 antenna, the 2007 Banebot transmission), or the need to adapt to market conditions after the fact (in which case you've already lost market share).

Allowing teams to work on their robot between Week 6 and Championships would be more like real life than leaving build season completely open. It'd also give mentors on all teams a break.

I'm not advocating a 'level playing field' by any means. I'm completely against removing the 45 day build season deadline on both principle and from a burn-out perspective. I'm also simply pointing out that I don't remember a 30 pound withholding allowance before the 2009 snow storms, so it's not like FIRST tried to balance elites and non-elites with that either.

Teaching kids how to win is one thing. Encouraging them to adopt a design paradigm that isn't pragmatic is entirely something else.

[Mark Sheridan]

I thought the Spirit and Opportunity robots had exact copies on earth for NASA to test with (one could call it practice) before having Spirit and Opportunity try it for real. Someone correct me if I am wrong. With aerospace, one cannot afford to make mistakes. You have to test before to be sure (often many times before).

Practically, I think all industries have some sort of equivalent of the practice robot. If an engineer receives a customer complaint or wants to improve the product, he or she should have a copy of that product to replicate the complaint or identify a potential improvement.

[EricH]

I thought the Spirit and Opportunity robots had exact copies on earth for NASA to test with (one could call it practice) before having Spirit and Opportunity try it for real. Someone correct me if I am wrong. With aerospace, one cannot afford to make mistakes. You have to test before to be sure (often many times before).

Practically, I think all industries have some sort of equivalent of the practice robot. If an engineer receives a customer complaint or wants to improve the product, he or she should have a copy of that product to replicate the complaint or identify a potential improvement.
True. Well, one "close enough" copy that I know about. They also had a "Mars Yard" to test in.

I think you're right about the industry, as well. Sometimes, that company copy isn't quite enough, but if an issue is known, it can be used to test solutions.

[Ka'elaPruitt]

I don't believe that teams should do this because, like other people will say, it kinda goes against the spirit of FIRST.
FIRST wants this whole experience to be a friendly and fair competition, as well as a learning period. Team spirit and teaching student to compete and not care about winning.
THAT is what these competitions are about.
If a team can't complete a robot in 6 weeks... it's a learning experience.

[pfreivald]

I don't believe that teams should do this because, like other people will say, it kinda goes against the spirit of FIRST.

On what do you base that statement?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Team spirit and teaching student to compete and not care about winning.
THAT is what these competitions are about.


If there wasn't an emphasis on winning why do we keep score? Make no mistake, this is a competition and a competition has winners and losers. If your robot doesn't move no amount of good feelings is gonna make that anything other than a complete failure at the goals of this competition. FRC is an engineering challenge to further the goals of FIRST. It is not supplemental education, it is not a learning experience, it is a competition in which industry partners with students to inspire them and show them that engineering is cool. This isn't about teaching. This is about making kids realize that Andy Baker is cooler than whoever won Survivor (or whatever it is kids these days watch).

On what do you base that statement?
A grotesque misunderstanding of the benefit of a practice bot.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

FIRST wants this whole experience to be a friendly and fair competition, as well as a learning period.

If a team can't complete a robot in 6 weeks... it's a learning experience.

Exactly! Learning never stops. Why try?

[Taylor]

This is about making kids realize that Andy Baker is cooler than whoever won Survivor (or whatever it is kids these days watch).

What if those were one and the same (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=270382#post270382)?
----
A team motto that I think captures the spirit of this competition is 973's simple two-word phrase, "OUTWORK US." If a team chooses to work to the best of its ability within the rules of competition, why should we try to project shame on them?
If my team had deep pockets and dozens of adult and student members, I'd have them build 3 or 4 robots just to keep everybody busy! (we've already had to mend our fender twice due to basketball mishaps)

[Andrew Schreiber]

What if those were one and the same (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=270382#post270382)?

I was hoping someone would catch my reference.

[JaneYoung]

If there wasn't an emphasis on winning why do we keep score? Make no mistake, this is a competition and a competition has winners and losers. If your robot doesn't move no amount of good feelings is gonna make that anything other than a complete failure at the goals of this competition. FRC is an engineering challenge to further the goals of FIRST. It is not supplemental education, it is not a learning experience, it is a competition in which industry partners with students to inspire them and show them that engineering is cool. This isn't about teaching. This is about making kids realize that Andy Baker is cooler than whoever won Survivor (or whatever it is kids these days watch).


A grotesque misunderstanding of the benefit of a practice bot.

(emphasis mine)

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

[JamesCH95]

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. While teaching and learning frequently occurs on FRC teams, FIRST's goal isn't to teach science and technology. The goal is to increase awareness of STEM fields and make them appealing to students as a career choice. Learning and teaching are no doubt a very frequent and beneficial side effects, but students who participate in FIRST still have (need) four years of college in which to learn about STEM topics and prepare for a career in a STEM field.

I.E. if a hypothetical high school senior spent one afternoon watching the elimination matches at a regional, and that inspired them to go to college and be an engineer without actually gaining a shred of knowledge from the event, I think FIRST would mark that in the "win" column.

[Taylor]

you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

As a teacher who might be considered a lead mentor on his team (at least lead door unlocker and pizza orderer), I also believe teaching is a by product of FRC. My larger goal is to create relationships between students and industry professionals, give the students a glimpse of life beyond the high school walls, and help them find applications for the things they're learning in the traditional classroom.
There is no doubt teaching happens, but it's not about that.

[JaneYoung]

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. While teaching and learning frequently occurs on FRC teams, FIRST's goal isn't to teach science and technology. The goal is to increase awareness of STEM fields and make them appealing to students as a career choice. Learning and teaching are no doubt a very frequent and beneficial side effects, but students who participate in FIRST still have (need) four years of college in which to learn about STEM topics and prepare for a career in a STEM field.

I.E. if a hypothetical high school senior spent one afternoon watching the elimination matches at a regional, and that inspired them to go to college and be an engineer without actually gaining a shred of knowledge from the event, I think FIRST would mark that in the "win" column.

Your post, and the way you posted, provides insight and a broader scope with regard to STEM and future career choices. It would make a great elevator speech.

There is a lot of opportunity for learning to take place on an FRC team. There is a lot of opportunity for inspiration to take place on an FRC team. There is a lot of opportunity for growth to take place on an FRC team. That's what makes the partnership of the mentors and the students so powerful. It's also why the value of 'team' is so important. Especially at the FRC competitions.

Right now, in this thread, there is an opportunity to learn from each other. That is more than just a beneficial side effect. For many, it is a hope. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

Edit: I see little red flags pop up when I start reading statements about what FRC is and what it isn't. If I want to help someone understand what FRC - is or isn't - I often use the FIRST website as a reference and cite it. Kind of like the game manual.

Jane

[Alpha Beta]

For what it's worth, there was a team at one of the Canadian Regionals in 2010 that admitted to working on their robot after bag day (Built a 469 copy is memory serves me correctly) and they were still allowed to compete. As far as I know, there was not, and is not a mechanism in place to address instances like this - by the letter of the rule, an offending team should not be allowed to compete with that machine, but it's hard to turn a team down at an event.


I love the things I hear about the district system, and the EWCP podcast with Jim Zondag was fantastic. One question about the system. During the unbagging window (which was meant to repleace the Thursday time at a traditional regional) is there a limit to how much you can change on the robot? In other words can a team bag a minimal robot, continue to work on a practice bot, and then swap the two during the unbagging window?

At a regional you are limited to 30 lbs of custom parts, which is a number I wouldn't mind seeing reduced. At the same time I wish we would all go to a district like system. Just curious how it works on the other side of the fence.

[Andrew Schreiber]

(emphasis mine)

I dunno, Andrew... you would have to convince a lot of teachers (who are lead mentors on their teams) that it isn't about teaching.

Jane

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you about this.

[EricH]

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you.
Well... You could argue that mentoring (which is included in FIRST's mission statement) has a strong element of teaching. But I'd agree that teaching learning is a side perk. If it doesn't happen, but mentoring does, mission accomplished.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Well... You could argue that mentoring (which is included in FIRST's mission statement) has a strong element of teaching. But I'd agree that teaching learning is a side perk. If it doesn't happen, but mentoring does, mission accomplished.

Oh. I like this better. May I steal?

[JaneYoung]

I dunno, Jane... FIRST doesn't contain the word Education or Teaching anywhere. In all the speeches I've heard there is a lot of talk about STEM professionals as rock stars but not a lot about how we should be teaching students.

Is it a nice side perk? Oh yes. I do this for the "Aha!" moment when students get a concept. But you'd have to basically get Dean and Woodie to tell me that FIRST is about teaching before I'd believe you.

One last post on this.

You don't have to believe me. I'm aware of the confusion regarding teaching and inspiration and the opportunities that the robot competitions provide in promoting STEM awareness and in celebrating possibilities. There is confusion within the FRC community as to what FRC is about. I learn about the confusion on a regular basis by talking with mentors, teachers, parents, and students. The discussion of the use of a practice bot is an excellent example of what people think about FRC and what it is, in their opinions and their practices.

I've also heard that FIRST is dope. For some, it is. If they understand what that means and how it applies to the program.

Jane

[gren737]

FIRST wants this whole experience to be a friendly and fair competition, as well as a learning period..

Sorry, no. FIRST is not fair. Never has been, never was meant to be, Dean has come out and said it blantantly. It is not fair. Neither is life.

Getting on my soapbox here for a minute about "elite" vs. non elite and what that means to winning, because I have a pretty good personal example.

I was a member of Team 40 and 190 basically from 1995-2006 (off and on, but you get the point) Well established teams, full machine shops, good sized budgets etc. On 40 we had access to a full shop as well as numerous CNC machines that the kids can program and run because intelitek makes educational CNC equipment. I was used to designing and building 100% custom machined robots and ordering pretty much whatever I wanted. I don't think I need to post about the success of either of those 2 teams.

2009 - I get a new job, I now live in Tennessee and start team 2775 with Greg Needel. We have about $3000 to build the robot, nothing fancier than a band saw and drill press and a small closet out of which we can work in and all brand new kids many of whom had never used a screwdriver before (not exaggerating here).

We were finalists (3rd overall pick) in 2009 to 16&71 and Rookie All-Stars in St. Louis and picked by 1717 at Champs and finalists on Galileo to the eventual champs.
In 2010 we won St. Louis (first overall pick) and also made elim's at Champs and won a few awards on the way.

How did we do it? It wasn't with money or fancy machining because we didn't have either of those things. It was with organization, knowing HOW to build a robot in 6 weeks, building a very cheap practice robot, keeping everything as dirt simple as possible (for money and manufacturing reasons) and practice practice practice. We won and did well because our drive team had tons of practice. We had a very small budget, it was worth it to direct 1/3 of it towards a practice robot and lower the overall amount we could spend on the competition bot.
And you have to be organized. You have to come to each meeting with a plan, and materials. It takes as much time to organize a build season as it does to build a robot...that is the most important piece that alot of teams are missing. You think being elite means being a well oiled machine, well yeah, it does, but that doesn't happen by accident. It's being the well oiled machine that makes you a better team, not the other way around.

So please stop complaining that it's not fair. It's not, but you can still be very successful if you make the right choices with the resources you have. The robots we built in 2009 and 2010 can be built by ANY team, it's more about decision making than what you do or don't have.

[thefro526]

I love the things I hear about the district system, and the EWCP podcast with Jim Zondag was fantastic. One question about the system. During the unbagging window (which was meant to repleace the Thursday time at a traditional regional) is there a limit to how much you can change on the robot? In other words can a team bag a minimal robot, continue to work on a practice bot, and then swap the two during the unbagging window?

At a regional you are limited to 30 lbs of custom parts, which is a number I wouldn't mind seeing reduced. At the same time I wish we would all go to a district like system. Just curious how it works on the other side of the fence.

As far as I know, there is no limit to the amount of work that can be done other than the amount of time your robot can be out of the bag. We walked into Philadelphia last year with 20lbs or so of upgrade parts and rebuild our arm, claw and minibot deployment in about 8 hours - so a substantial rebuild is possible in a relatively short amount of time.

That being said, it took us a good portion of Friday to work out all of the kinks of the new system, so it may have hurt us a bit. A team rebuilding their robot during an unbag window could run into the same issues if proper time isn't left for integration. So yes, you could swap parts from a practice robot to a competition bot in a pinch, but the real question to ask yourself is how smoothly will the system integration go? Two robots, even 'identical' ones will have their own quirks and require their own tuning to reach maximum efficiency. (Manufacturing Tolerances, Differences in weight, Differences between new and used parts, etc contribute to the differences between two 'identical' machines)

[EricH]

Oh. I like this better. May I steal?
Steal away!

[Mike Martus]

WoW! This thread has gone from the Morality of building two robots to stealing and many, many issues in between.

My bottom line. End the 6 weeks and all or most of this goes away.

We can debate this to death ( has been on old threads dating back 15 years of CD), and there are always great opinions and rational for both sides of this subject. No one is wrong or right as there are good and bad.... this is the fun part.

I thought I would join this Great thread and be part of the ongoing dialog of one of the GREATEST debates in CD history.

[nickdog8891]

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

[nickdog8891]

There is no unfair, just a personal lack of desire to improve one's own circumstances.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Whole-heartedly, unequivocally disagree. And not just in regards to FIRST

[connor.worley]

The challenge is NOT your friend. Successful teams aren't going to shy away from any sort of opportunity (provided it's legal) to get ahead of the pack because it's not "in the spirit of the challenge." The same goes for those who are successful in the real world.

[Grim Tuesday]

Maybe I've spent too much time on Chief Delphi and been influenced by the greats around here, but I agree with them:

If you don't have a practice bot, then you have the opportunity to. If you can't, then work harder, and you will. There is nothing unfair about it.


Unfair would be FIRST offering the rules to rookie teams a week early, or changing the rules to make the game harder for veteran teams. Utilizing your resources is not unfair.

[AdamHeard]

I couldn't disagree with you more. Whole-heartedly, unequivocally disagree. And not just in regards to FIRST

My point was that one can always improve their circumstances through hard work (applied in the right direction, hard work the wrong way does no good).

Unfair is only brought by people who are unwilling to do the above.

I'm not claiming everyone can become a billionaire, astronaut or other wildly lofty goal merely through hard work. I'm claiming that one can always improve through proper application, and therefore there is no unfair.

My team is a perfect example. We used to be a have-not, and now we're a have. This was achieved exclusively through hard work.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Whole-heartedly, unequivocally disagree. And not just in regards to FIRST


On what grounds? Basically you are just sitting there saying "NO!" with your hands in your ears. Explain exactly what part it violates? One of the requirements for a discussion is that you can't just pretend that you have veto authority, you have to convince me you are right.

[JamesCH95]

Maybe I've spent too much time on Chief Delphi and been influenced by the greats around here, but I agree with them:

If you don't have a practice bot, then you have the opportunity to. If you can't, then work harder, and you will. There is nothing unfair about it.


Unfair would be FIRST offering the rules to rookie teams a week early, or changing the rules to make the game harder for veteran teams. Utilizing your resources is not unfair.

The only serious inequality here (I hesitate to say "unfairness") is what I would call 'enthusiastic student and mentor population density.' Not every team will have the same result if they involved every single interested person within a practical travel radius simply because of where they are located. For this reason alone some teams will be more capable than others, all else being equal, because they can simply recruit more mentors and students because there is a larger pool to draw from.

To highlight this I would compare Stuypulse (694) and The Grasshoopers (95, my team) simply because I am somewhat familiar with Stuy HS and 95. Stuy is a high school dedicated to science and math with ~3300 students, a fantastic student body to draw from by any stretch of the imagination. 95 draws students from three local public high schools with a total combined student population of ~2300 students. One of these teams will probably wind up with more students than the other when all interested students are recruited :rolleyes:

[SteveGPage]

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

How does building a second bot violate anything? I, like Mike mentioned above, agree there is no right or wrong answers in this debate. Opinions will vary on whether or not you should - but saying it violates anything, without any rational behind that statement does not advance the discussion.

[AdamHeard]

The only serious inequality here (I hesitate to say "unfairness") is what I would call 'enthusiastic student and mentor population density.' Not every team will have the same result if they involved every single interested person within a practical travel radius simply because of where they are located. For this reason alone some teams will be more capable than others, all else being equal, because they can simply recruit more mentors and students because there is a larger pool to draw from.

To highlight this I would compare Stuypulse (694) and The Grasshoopers (95, my team) simply because I am somewhat familiar with Stuy HS and 95. Stuy is a high school dedicated to science and math with ~3300 students, a fantastic student body to draw from by any stretch of the imagination. 95 draws students from three local public high schools with a total combined student population of ~2300 students. One of these teams will probably wind up with more students than the other when all interested students are recruited :rolleyes:

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything ;)

[Peter Matteson]

Currently, elite teams have been able to nearly complete redo large amounts of their robot.

Within the current rules, they are the only teams really capable of doing so however.

I disagree. I think ANY team can do this. My team has proven this many times that if you design with as many COTS, super Vex, and standard stock as possible you can build/rebuild a robot cheaply at an event. In 2009 We replaced our entire frame because of a bad design forced by part availability.

We have believed for several years since that happened that if you go to 2 events you can completely convert your robot within witholding. This is why we joke about a Thursday robot build off to show how stupid the rules are. If you plan a modular design well anyone can do this.



Slightly of topic:
I thought the Spirit and Opportunity robots had exact copies on earth for NASA to test with (one could call it practice) before having Spirit and Opportunity try it for real. Someone correct me if I am wrong. With aerospace, one cannot afford to make mistakes. You have to test before to be sure (often many times before).

As an engineer at an aircraft engine company I can attest to how true this is. For commercial aircraft engines we build and test engines on the ground first. Then we put them on a flying test bed, by replacing an engine on a 747SP. We have to do all kinds of ingestion tests and structural tests to certify parts before we can even fly a plane powered solely by these new engines.

Even when I worked at a commercial industrial division of the company building power plants all upgrades and software was exhaustively bench tested then implimented on a company owned test unit before the customers ever saw anything. This is the way the real engineering world does business. You never risk hurting a customer asset or your reputation by trying unproven systems in the field.

[JamesCH95]

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything ;)

What am I going to do? Hold a gun to people's heads? It's hard to wrap my head around, but a large portion of the student population around here simply isn't interested in anything like FRC.

My team has demo'd the robot for many high school classes and watched many students' eyes completely glaze over. We'll offer to let anyone drive the robot and get cricket chirps. We demo at every local high school. We demo at the local FLL event. We demo at sponsor's businesses and at trade shows. Trust me when I say lack hard work is not the issue here. Maybe we're doing something wrong, but a lot of it is a pure and simple lack of interest in anything related to robotics.

[Ian Curtis]

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything ;)

One pregnant woman takes 9 months to have a baby.

Nine pregnant women still take 9 months to have a baby.

"If it can't be done with brains, it won't be done with hours" - Kelly Johnson (or something like that, the internet doesn't seem to agree on the original phrasing)

On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment. Not everyone can be a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett. But you can be absolutely sure that Bill and Warren wouldn't be where they are today if they were lazy. Hard work is a necessary prerequisite for luck.

Ether has mentioned books by Malcolm Gladwell (http://www.gladwell.com/) before, I read them and Gladwell has lots of good ideas on the subject.

Mostly Unrelated:
This is my favorite comic (http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh32ivjflw1qz6f4bo1_500.jpg), and it ties in directly with comments about aerospace not being able to afford mistakes. I think you certainly work to avoid mistakes, but not making any is impossible. That is why aerospace requires so much testing, as when you do make an error you want to catch it in a non-critical situation.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

My bottom line. End the 6 weeks and all or most of this goes away.


Mike I couldn't disagree with you more.

I believe that strict enforcement of the 6 week build cycle is the way to go.

No withholding allowence, no assemblies (other than COTS) brought to the competition, etc will serve to make all this go away. The 6 week build season is an integral part of FIRST (or has been since its inception) and I believe should continue to be.

While practice bots are an unfair advantage (compared to those who don't build them), they are an advantage born of hard work and dedication ... and should be, not only, allowed but praised.

[IKE]

Once upon a time, there was a competition called the Fair Robotics Compeition. The principle of the competition was fairness first (even before safety). It was the fairest compeition in all the land. The one guiding rule was that fairness was in the eye of the beholder, and thus if someone thought something was unfair, the Fair Robotics Compeition would make a change. The first year of the competion was a lot like the FIRST Robotics Competition, but there were a ton of complaints. The next year, practice bots, and going to more than one compeition were dissallowed. Everyone noted that the scoring was much lower, and the action much worse, but it was more Fair, but still not fair enough. Many teams were larger and had more money, so the Fair Robotics Compeition board put a cap on total team budgets. There was also a lot of complaints about tool useage, so there were strick enforcements of which tools would be allowed. The actual compeition at the event suffered more. Most agreed that it was more fair, but there were still a few naysayers that thought it was unfair that some teams had more man-hours because they were larger. Also, not every team had a technical mentor, so those were not allowed. Lastly, not every team had a programmer, so only base code was allowed. That year, the robots really suffered, and scoring got even lower. By this point, the GDC had lowered the bar to the most rudimentary tasks, but without any technical mentors, most of the robots suffered to drive around much at all. The following year, Texas got hit with a Blizzard, that made everyone have to stay home. In order to be fair, a temporary stop work was placed on all teams in order to be fair. Unfortunately, it was the last week of build season, so virtual no robots were ready for compeition. That year really sucked. Because of it, the GDC got together and decided the next year, teams would build and assemble their robots at the compeition. In order to do this, there robots were greatly simplified. The task was also greatly simplified to essentially driving around a course on the carpet. While everyone agreed the competition was extrememly fair, it was universally agreed that it was incredibly un-inspiring. Almost everyone left the Fair Robotics Compeition for something more interesting and exciting. It was called the FIRST Robotics Compeition. While not as fair as Fair Robotics Competition, it was a lot more challenging, exciting and inspiring.

In racing, there are tons of series that try to promote "fair" racing. The tighter the control, then the closer the field is. The closer the field is, the more powerful tiny "cheats" become. I raced in Spec Neon for a few years. At the event I raced at, a good time was around 1:21 to 1:22s per lap. A 1.25% cheat would remove basically 1 second from your lap time. For a car that produces 138 HP, this was finding an engine cheat that would increase performance by just 1.7 HP. That 1 second was usually the difference between 1st place and around 5th place. SCCA racing is even worse. If you do too good with a particular car, it may get promoted to the next class where it suddenly is a slow worthless piece of junk.

I would recommend spending less time worrying about "fairness" and more time worrying about your team achieving its objectives. If your goals are wanting to perform at a really high level with respect to the peers on the playing field, than you better learn what they do that makes them perform well, and compare/contrast that to your program. If your objectives are to learn some neat stuff and not really concerned about the outcome, great. One thing I do not understand though, if a team's goal is just to show up and learn a bunch of neat stuff, why would they care if a compeition was "fair"? Wouldn't they just be concerned with whether or not it was a good learning platform?

Back slightly on topic, trying to produce a second robot "practice" robot that acts the same as your competition robot is very difficult. There is a ton of learning that comes out of just trying to get the two to act the same...

[Justin Montois]

http://www.professionalcarsociety.org/forums/images/smilies/junk2/applause.gif

Well said IKE.

/Thread perhaps.

[SteveGPage]

What he said! ^^^^

[BrendanB]

Amen IKE!!!!

I can bet that everyone who says practice bots are unfair doesn't have the resources to build one. If they pushed their team harder to get those resources, completely different story.

[Ninja_Bait]

Just to add one more insight along the lines of IKE's, from our friend Kurt Vonnegut: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

[2544HCRC]

I've also been involved in car racing. I take a slightly different view. What happens in most racing series is that a few teams start to dominate the field because of resources. Pretty soon all of the other teams start to think "what's the use?" and quit showing up and pouring money down an unfillable hole. So racing groups including SCCA institute a class system. Imagine racing without the class system. You would have far fewer racers. It turns out it's much more fun when you show up and have a shot at winning. If the rules aren't adjusted the field dwindles and dies. I see that in FIRST. Rookie teams are sold one thing and show up to another. My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller. We did BEST this year as a trial and will probably switch over to FTC and BEST next year. For us as a small team with kids that aren't interested in building a big team and very limited resources, FRC has proven to be just too much. If you have a successful FRC program, great but this entire discussion seems to hit a nerve that most of us feel and that is, robotics is great, the idea is awesome as a tool for teaching kids, but FRC might not be the best fit for many of the teams. It's only fun being a back marker for a little while. Pretty soon the newness wears off and you have to make a decision, do you want to do what it takes to win in the class your in or do you want to find another class that might be a better fit.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller.

I would like to point out that there is rather large number of rookies in picking position at each regional and many are on winning alliances. I would also like to remind folks of 2041 (coming from an inner city, largely Hispanic population) taking Silver medals with one robot, eight students total and only three engineering mentors in both the Minnesota Regional and 2010 Champs. And let us not forget my all time favorite hardworking team, 842, Falcon Robotics. When I think of what a team can accomplish, I think of what that team, student and mentors, are able to accomplish.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I've also been involved in car racing. I take a slightly different view. What happens in most racing series is that a few teams start to dominate the field because of resources. Pretty soon all of the other teams start to think "what's the use?" and quit showing up and pouring money down an unfillable hole. If the rules aren't adjusted the field dwindles and dies. I see that in FIRST. Rookie teams are sold one thing and show up to another. My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller. FIRST has a bad reputation already in most school circles as being expensive and difficult to be competitive, at least that has been my experience when talking with principals and school board members. We did BEST this year as a trial and will probably switch over to FTC and BEST next year.

And how is this any different than competing at the top tier in high school athletics? They have trained staff (equivalent to engineers except the school PAYS them), they have facilities (shops that the school, again, paid for), and they have entire fields built for them that, AGAIN, the school paid for.

[KrazyCarl92]

My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller.

That statement seems fairly loaded with misconceptions in my opinion. Engineering or technical expertise in some form (almost always mentorship) I agree is a necessity to be competitive. However, other resources like a sophisticated shop and resources for 2 robots are hardly necessary to be competitive. Sure they can help, but there are teams with sophisticated shops that do well and those with sophisticated shops who don't. There are those with 2 robots who do well and those that don't. Likewise there are teams WITHOUT sophisticated shops or 2 robots that do well and ones that don't. Sure the extra practice time, machining capabilities, and expertise can help, but it's certainly not impossible to be competitive with limited resources.

Plus search the web and you'll find things like kit bot on steroids...great way for teams with few resources to build a good (highly competitive) drive base.

[Ninja_Bait]

And how is this any different than competing at the top tier in high school athletics? They have trained staff (equivalent to engineers except the school PAYS them), they have facilities (shops that the school, again, paid for), and they have entire fields built for them that, AGAIN, the school paid for.

Honestly?

The difference between FRC and sports is that a lot of people show up to watch sports events, a lot of people pay for those events or the snacks or the jerseys or the hats, and a lot of money gets back to the school. In comparison, FRC looks like a mediocre, financially unsound, and dull waste of time.

However, once you're on the inside, you realize that what we're really doing is training the next generation of big thinkers. Regardless of how competitive we are against each other or against other forms of entertainment, we're preparing our nation to be competitive in the long run. And that is a great thing.

(EDIT: I actually have no idea how this applies to the morality of a practice bot, but I figured it was worth saying. :rolleyes:)

[Ian Curtis]

FIRST has a bad reputation already in most school circles as being expensive and difficult to be competitive, at least that has been my experience when talking with principals and school board members.

The real world is expensive, and difficult to compete in. "This is hard!" should be a call-to-arms, not an excuse to do something else. Students who go on to compete in technical fields should be well prepared for this, else they get steamrolled when they show up to college or the workforce. I tutor for introductory engineering classes here at RPI, and I see a lot of kids get steamrolled because no one ever taught them how to work. I was most inspired by my high school teachers that pushed me, the ones that made me work to find the solution in math class, and the ones that made me write draft after draft of my paper. I know a lot of teacher's take pride in getting the best out of their students. If the teachers have to work hard, think of how hard their students will be pushed?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
-JFK, Rice University September 12, 1962

Just my 2 cents.

(Best of luck in FTC & BEST, I'm sure your FRC experiences will serve you well!)

[XaulZan11]

I would also like to remind folks of 2041 (coming from an inner city, largely Hispanic population) taking Silver medals with one robot, eight students total and only three engineering mentors in both the Minnesota Regional and 2010 Champs.

I agree with your overal point, Al, but I think there are a ton of teams that would kill for one let alone three engineering mentors (especially one with the knowledge and experience that Rich Olivera has).

[nitneylion452]

Honestly?

The difference between FRC and sports is that a lot of people show up to watch sports events, a lot of people pay for those events or the snacks or the jerseys or the hats, and a lot of money gets back to the school. In comparison, FRC looks like a mediocre, financially unsound, and dull waste of time.

However, once you're on the inside, you realize that what we're really doing is training the next generation of big thinkers. Regardless of how competitive we are against each other or against other forms of entertainment, we're preparing our nation to be competitive in the long run. And that is a great thing.

(EDIT: I actually have no idea how this applies to the morality of a practice bot, but I figured it was worth saying. :rolleyes:)

His point was that in high school athletics, there are schools that have top facilities, and those that don't. But just because a team has a better weight room and better coaches, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to win a championship. It's more about motivation and desire. We often hear the phrase "Who wants it more?" This applies well to sports and FRC. In FRC, you need to want to do well. That's not to say that having better facilities and more resources doesn't help, but where do you think the teams with those facilities and resources came from? They also probably started with limited facilities and limited resources. Everyone starts somewhere, it's about building up from where you are to where you want to be.

[Tom Line]

I've also been involved in car racing. I take a slightly different view. What happens in most racing series is that a few teams start to dominate the field because of resources. Pretty soon all of the other teams start to think "what's the use?" and quit showing up and pouring money down an unfillable hole. So racing groups including SCCA institute a class system. Imagine racing without the class system. You would have far fewer racers. It turns out it's much more fun when you show up and have a shot at winning. If the rules aren't adjusted the field dwindles and dies. I see that in FIRST. Rookie teams are sold one thing and show up to another. My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller. We did BEST this year as a trial and will probably switch over to FTC and BEST next year. For us as a small team with kids that aren't interested in building a big team and very limited resources, FRC has proven to be just too much. If you have a successful FRC program, great but this entire discussion seems to hit a nerve that most of us feel and that is, robotics is great, the idea is awesome as a tool for teaching kids, but FRC might not be the best fit for many of the teams. It's only fun being a back marker for a little while. Pretty soon the newness wears off and you have to make a decision, do you want to do what it takes to win in the class your in or do you want to find another class that might be a better fit.

FRC isn't meant to be fair. We go into it each year knowing full well we'll never have the funding of the Chickens, the facilities of the Robonauts, or the machining systems of the Wranglers. We've been a team for 6 years, and we've never won a regional. The kids still show up and have a great time. If you make it all about winning competitions, you're going to be disappointed and so will the kids. If you make it about personal successes and learning, you'll have a much better experience.

How much money does it take to create a good business plan and win some business awards?

[Aur0r4]

I think some folks on this thread, and probably most of our society, have forgotten that a fraudulent advantage is completely different from a fair advantage. Without getting too philosophical, this concept is rooted deeply in some pervasive worldviews in recent history, and has created major problems in our nation and in history. Earned advantage must never be treated the same as stolen advantage and cut down when found.

What do I mean?

Well, to use a sports analogy, a HS football team who happens to have 20 big, fast, talented students has a major advantage. School teams get their athletes from their student body and some years there are better players, some years not. An unfair advantage would be if the team paid players from other schools, or even students who had graduated, to play on their team.

To use an economic analogy, a company that owns its own equipment, fabrication, or materials supply chains has a major advantage over one that doesn't. This is a fair advantage gotten by hard work and forward-thinking business strategy. A company that uses fraud and intimidation to secure suppliers and to squash competition has an unfair advantage. We make laws to prevent this.

So it is in FIRST. Teams that hire an engineering firm or fabrication company to build multiple robots would clearly have an unfair advantage. However, a team that works hard, is clever with resources, and seeks every possible opportunity for space, parts, and recruiting (within the rules) is probably going to be able to build multiple machines, a field, etc. This is a fair advantage in the FIRST system gotten by their hard work.

Yes, hard work alone isn't enough, but its a vital component of success. But, it must be balanced with initiative, creativity, and courage.

Hard work without cleverness results in wheel-spinning.
Initiative without creativity leads to marginal results.
Creativity without courage to act results in a whiteboard full of good ideas.

Engineering, like life, is most likely successful when its many parts are in balance.

[2544HCRC]

The real world is expensive, and difficult to compete in. "This is hard!" should be a call-to-arms, not an excuse to do something else.

By this logic FIRST should just pitch the rule book and open the taps too everyone. If you can raise 100k for your program great. There also seems to be some contradictory thinking. I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

[nitneylion452]

By this logic FIRST should just pitch the rule book and open the taps too everyone. If you can raise 100k for your program great. There also seems to be some contradictory thinking. I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

But again, the primary goal of FRC isn't to win the competition. The competition is used as a motivation to build a robot and learn about engineering, math, science, and technology. Sure, the glory comes on the field, but the actual successes of a team happen in the workshop and in the pits.

My team (3167) started in 2010. We had a very small workshop, no metalworking tools, and only one engineering mentor. For that year, we didn't build a second bot for 2 reasons: 1) we didn't know we could, and 2) we couldn't afford it. So in the offseason, our primary goal was to get new sponsors to support our efforts. We asked any company that was willing to listen and as you can see, we are now supported by ETC (a local company started by an alumnus of my high school), Comcast, Crown Holdings, Airline Hydraulics, JCPenny, Boeing, and MAC Tools.

Like I said earlier, all teams start somewhere. If you really want to make winning a #1 priority (though that's not really in the spirit of FIRST), then work to get the three things that you perceive to be the keys to winning.

[Ian Curtis]

I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

Anyone who says it isn't a serious competitive advantage is definitely wrong. It is a huge advantage. It isn't an end all though, there have and will continue to be pretty successful teams that don't build two robots. My HS team only built one and was a picking team or first round pick for 5 straight years. Definitely not "elite", but we marked that down in the success column as we were more successful than any of our high school's sports teams.

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

I agree with this. I think where we differ is the viewpoint that if you don't have those things you can't get them. I grew up in a rural fishing community with no real industry, and it was our experience that over time our resource net kept expanding and we got those things. My first year we once left a copier on at the school and got a 3 page complaint the next morning, by the time I graduated we had full run of a machine shop with students running most of the machines (under supervision, of course). I recognize not everyone's path to success will follow that pattern, but I think if you keep pushing you'll find you will continue to meet people that can help you in their own way, and by using them you will find sustainable success.

That has been my experience at least. I'm sure my experiences aren't the only way that things can turn out. :)

[Koko Ed]

FRC isn't meant to be fair. We go into it each year knowing full well we'll never have the funding of the Chickens, the facilities of the Robonauts, or the machining systems of the Wranglers. We've been a team for 6 years, and we've never won a regional. The kids still show up and have a great time. If you make it all about winning competitions, you're going to be disappointed and so will the kids. If you make it about personal successes and learning, you'll have a much better experience.

How much money does it take to create a good business plan and win some business awards?
1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

[Andrew Schreiber]

His point was that in high school athletics, there are schools that have top facilities, and those that don't. But just because a team has a better weight room and better coaches, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to win a championship. It's more about motivation and desire. We often hear the phrase "Who wants it more?" This applies well to sports and FRC. In FRC, you need to want to do well. That's not to say that having better facilities and more resources doesn't help, but where do you think the teams with those facilities and resources came from? They also probably started with limited facilities and limited resources. Everyone starts somewhere, it's about building up from where you are to where you want to be.

Actually that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that schools already have programs that cost* them at least as much (if not much much more) that provide similar benefits to a select group. These schools have decided that this is worth their time and money to be competitive at the highest levels for those students. However, they complain when our program asks for the resources to compete at the highest levels for our students. If the schools don't want to compete at those levels they don't have to put up the resources. There is VEX or FTC or BEST for those schools. I fail to understand why schools expect the varsity program for engineering to be any cheaper to run than a varsity football team.

What I'm saying is, we all accept that, with our program, you get out of it what you put in. Why should money not work that way? If you want a top tier team you need to ensure that you have the proper resources and one of them is money. Another is committed students. Saying that a low resource team that spend $5000 a year and builds out of a garage with 3 students and a parent making sure they don't cut off each other's hands should be on the same level with the 254 type teams is just plain dumb. In many of those teams cases they put in significant effort to get where they were at.

TL;DR - Wanna run with the big dogs ya gotta take the time to train.



*Yes, I am well aware that SOME schools make money off their athletic programs but I highly doubt that every school does.

[Ben27Lacrosse]

My team (1296) is greatly looking forward to having a practice robot this year. We have made two of everything and assembled it all as we go.

[AlexRoberts]

Our team (3556) isn't planning on using a practice bot at all; we're putting all of our efforts into the actual bot.

[1986titans]

I'm saying that schools already have programs that cost* them at least as much (if not much much more) that provide similar benefits to a select group. These schools have decided that this is worth their time and money to be competitive at the highest levels for those students. However, they complain when our program asks for the resources to compete at the highest levels for our students. If the schools don't want to compete at those levels they don't have to put up the resources. There is VEX or FTC or BEST for those schools. I fail to understand why schools expect the varsity program for engineering to be any cheaper to run than a varsity football team.

It makes sense to throw support behind athletics for most schools. Why? Sport is something that's been established for a long time. Most sports at the high school level have been around for decades or longer. They've been tried over and over again. They generally keep students out of trouble. Newer sports (like lacrosse, at least around here) don't start out with the huge budgets right away.

Robotics doesn't have that security of being something established. At least not yet. Yes, there are teams that have been around for 10+ years, but the age of most teams is far less than that -- I'm sure there's a stat somewhere on the Registration thread. Budgets are tight for a lot of schools/school districts, and it's an easier argument to throw money at something that's seen as "it has been good for the students" rather than "it could be good for the students."

The right argument? Being a FIRSTer, I'd have to disagree. I was just trying to see it from both sides / devil's advocate. Robotics also has more of a club vibe to it and not a sports vibe - it's just the nature of what comes to mind when people hear the word "robotics". FIRST seems to be changing that perception, which is good.

Practice bots aren't something for a team to just jump into and do. Reading through some of the recent posts, I got the vibe from a few posts that everyone should be building them. I think that it's something a team has to mature towards, and I'd say after the second year would be a good time to start considering building a practice bot.

Teams have been and can be successful without building a practice bot.

One final thing to chew on: What's more useful, building a practice bot or going to a second regional?

[PayneTrain]

That's a toughie, and why I like how the district system gives teams two for the price of one.

A practice bot can teach the importance of iteration and practice behind the scenes to create a solid project to put in at one regional. However, you would be cashing in all of your chips for an event that can be about luck of the seeding as much as skill (unless you are a 254 or 1114 that both have the resources for both regionals and practice bots and the skill to build top-tier robots that wipe the floor anyway).

If you go to two regionals, you can end up putting a poor product on the floor that lowers team morale and really damages the look of your team (2011 for us), then fix it by the second regional.

Even though we do the opposite, I would suggest a second robot over a second regional competition.

[Craig Roys]

It seems that some have the idea that the rules should tilt in favor of the rookie teams and I disagree with that. I'm not against rookies being successful, I just believe that the success should come from hard work...not from an advantage in the rules.

When we started in our rookie year (2006 - a game many of you have researched this year!) we expected nothing to be handed to us and we expected it to be hard. We weren't disappointed...we went 1-7 in our first competition and the one win happened because we were lucky enough to be paired with 1114 in that match. But we learned from all of it and used it to improve. We played better at the next competition...and at the FIRST Championship.

Every year we've used our own experiences as well as learning from the successful teams around us to continually improve. We don't expect to be better just because we've been around another year...we expect to be better because we work hard to do so. Maybe one of these days we'll get that blue banner! Not having one just gives me more incentive to keep going and work to continuously improve.

[Craig Roys]

1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

[Brandon Holley]

Every year we've used our own experiences as well as learning from the successful teams around us to continually improve. We don't expect to be better just because we've been around another year...we expect to be better because we work hard to do so. Maybe one of these days we'll get that blue banner! Not having one just gives me more incentive to keep going and work to continuously improve.

Hang in there, keep working hard!

It took us 8 years on team 11 to get our first regional win, and it took us 10 years to get one on team 125 (although 125 won the Championship in 2001).

-Brando

[Andrew Schreiber]

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only won 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

[lemiant]

I would like to point out that there is rather large number of rookies in picking position at each regional and many are on winning alliances. I would also like to remind folks of 2041 (coming from an inner city, largely Hispanic population) taking Silver medals with one robot, eight students total and only three engineering mentors in both the Minnesota Regional and 2010 Champs. And let us not forget my all time favorite hardworking team, 842, Falcon Robotics. When I think of what a team can accomplish, I think of what that team, student and mentors, are able to accomplish.

Al, this is one thing I think you are mis-representing. Yes the rookie class has elite teams and the veteran class has elite teams, but these two are not comparable. What is the highest team number ever to win champs? 1114.
Some awesome things can be done with a lot of dedication and very little resources but I don't remember the last time one of those brand-new, little teams knocked out your alliance at champs.

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to compete with the best your going to need comparable resources.

[EricH]

Al, this is one thing I think you are mis-representing. Yes the rookie class has elite teams and the veteran class has elite teams, but these two are not comparable. What is the highest team number ever to win champs? 1114.
Some awesome things can be done with a lot of dedication and very little resources but I don't remember the last time one of those brand-new, little teams knocked out your alliance at champs.

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to compete with the best your going to need comparable resources.
Two rookies made Einstein in 2010. In 2009, a single rookie made Einstein. Two years before that, in 2007, a sophomore team made Einstein (and that same team almost went the year before; their robot started having parts fail in division finals). And it took 2056 multiple years to make Einstein; they still haven't won it, despite having not lost a single regional they've attended since starting up. (They were Galileo semifinalists their rookie year.) If you're looking for winning the Championships as your measure of winning, 3/2353 teams will win it this year; that's 0.127%, which means it's pretty tough on just about everyone to win it. (Odds improve to about 0.88% if you just factor in the roughly 340 Championship teams.) Yes, those are under 1% chance for any given team.

[pfreivald]

Since when are any of us owed victory?

A couple of rambling thoughts on this meandering topic:

One of the coolest moments in 1551 history was when the Thunder Chickens were worried we weren't going to pick them at FLR in 2010. (We did pick them, and we won, and it was another of the coolest moments in 1551 history!) No one gave us that; we earned it, and it's more special because of it. ...and yet the trip to championship was near disaster on the field, thankyouverymuch, as we learned some important lessons about durability when you do multiple events. (Murphy camped in our pit in Atlanta, but everything that went wrong was, ultimately, our fault.)

There's nothing wrong with the bar being set very high (as in, as high as other teams choose to set it within the bounds of the rules), but there could be something to better educate the rookie teams on what they're getting into. Pulling in kids and adults from other districts for a year or two before spinning them off into their own team gives them a much firmer foundation, and a much better idea of what they're getting into.

Talk to the mentors of 217 and 254 and 1114 and 2056 -- they'll happily tell you what they've done to get to where they are. Use that information as you see fit, whether it's a team overhaul or incremental improvement. Don't bemoan the circumstances that put your school or team at a disadvantage, or do, but either way take them as a challenge and circumvent them as best you can.

[Koko Ed]

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only one 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

That is stunning actually.

[lemiant]

Two rookies made Einstein in 2010. In 2009, a single rookie made Einstein. Two years before that, in 2007, a sophomore team made Einstein (and that same team almost went the year before; their robot started having parts fail in division finals). And it took 2056 multiple years to make Einstein; they still haven't won it, despite having not lost a single regional they've attended since starting up. (They were Galileo semifinalists their rookie year.) If you're looking for winning the Championships as your measure of winning, 3/2353 teams will win it this year; that's 0.127%, which means it's pretty tough on just about everyone to win it. (Odds improve to about 0.88% if you just factor in the roughly 340 Championship teams.) Yes, those are under 1% chance for any given team.

This is what I said. Rookies can be great, and I don't doubt that it is only a matter of time until one of them actually wins champs, but the odds ARE against them. Resources help you win, I don't think anyone here is going to challenge that.

And just for fun here's some math (Admittedly filled with all sorts of assumptions):

Last year, with numbers almost all the way to 4000, the un-weighted odds of a single team on the winning alliance being below 1000 was 25%... All three teams on the winning alliance were below 1000! The odds of that were 25%^3 or ~1.5%. that means that statistically the odds of all three teams on the wining alliance being below 1000 were just higher than the odds of any individual championship team winning. Obviously that is absurd! I could predict that the same will happen this year with at least a 50% chance of being right, you couldn't pick a winning team with anything approaching certainty.

Or take it one step further. 1114 was founded in 2003 so no team founded in a year after that would has ever won the championship. Assuming the ~2800 teams founded between 2003 and 2011 were founded in even increments of 350 teams per year the odds of none of these teams winning championships between 2004 and 2011 are:
((1200/1550) * (1200/1900) * (1200/2250) * (1200/2600) * (1200/2950) * (1200/3300) * (1200/3650) * (1200/4000)) ^3
or .00000054%.

I believe we can effectively determine from that number that veterans winning is not just statistical variation ;)

[IKE]

While i generally applaud folks that do the math, with 2400 teams and numbers well into 4,300+, there is nearly a 50% total attrition rate in FRC. The probability of a team winning the 2010 championship when they were a one year wonder in 2008 is 0%... ;)
********************************************

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to compete with the best your going to need comparable resources.

Let me fix that for you...

FIRST is H-A-R-D!!! And to beat the best often, your going to need comparable resources or a bit of luck.

Often times, the #1 alliance is the winner of the event. The #1 alliance (especially when it wins) is generally comprised with the 2 best robots in the division and then the 20th to 28th best (2nd round pick). If you want to repeatably beat the best, you must be around the top 4 at an event which is generally the area filled by the high resource teams. At many events, the 2nd round pick by the number 1 alliance is around the 50%-tile for the event. So, to compete with the best at a regional, you generally need to be top 20-ish of 40-60 teams, and for the world championship top 20-ish of 80-90 teams. This is easily achieveable for most teams with some organization and preparation, and delivering on relatively modest performance goals.

Per comments above, 27, 33, 1718 and approximately 300 (6-10 slots x 50+ events) others fall into a category of being really good but generally not the top 2-3 teams at any given event. When you are around the 3-10th best team at an event, you will more than likely fall into a valley of making elims, but not in an alliance strong enough to win. I would still consider this competing with those amazing teams, though not being able to beat them on most occasions. Within those 300 teams, you will find hundreds of examples of teams with significantly less resources maximizing their potential through benchmarking, smart design, hard work, and determination. Every year on Einstein, you will find teams that many might consider "lucky" for getting picked by 2 other awesome teams. More often, these teams have made their luck by performing really well and putting themselves into a position to "be lucky".

Notice, I mentioned 300 teams above. That leaves about 2100 other teams within FRC. Many of those are young teams some of which are over their heads and/or don't know what to do. A significant chunk though are teams that have the resources to be the 2nd round pick, but instead over-reach or are underprepared. There are a host of relatively young teams doing well year after year by coming up with good reasonable goals that challenge them, and then executing on those goals. While I do not know many of them outside of michigan, I can tell you 1718, 1918, 2054, 2137, 2337, 2612, 2619 2834, and 3098 have been steadily improving the last several years and have been beating many a vetran team. There are a large handful of other young teams that have shown a lot of promise but it takes more than 1 year to see how consistent they are going to be.

Of the 9 teams above, I could go on for probably an hour or more on how impressed I am with those teams executing their plans. The more informed will also note that the above teams not only are competitive on the field, but have also won business, website, Chairman's, and rookie-allstar awards. Some of them have even fostered a rookie team themselves (with the rookies being aprt of the handful I am watching/looking out for). These are teams that are operating at or near the highest levels of what FIRST is trying to achieve.

If you are only paying attention to the 12 teams making it to Einstein, then you are missing 99.5% (2400-12)/2400 of what FIRST is really about. It is really humbling to compare yourself to those guys. If you start focusing in on the success of the 300 I mentioned above you will find a lot of teams that regard their season successful without having to measure it against other teams success. You will find many improvements your team can make with little or no cost to your team towards becoming one of those 300 (hopefully this number will get larger).

Back on topic:
You will also find a lot of the 300 are teams with practice bots (who spent the $2-3K on making a practice bot instead of flying everyone to XYZ), or maybe they rebuilt their 2011 bot to be like one of the other teams they admire. Or maybe they made serious robustness improvements and competed at some off-season evnts for $100 or... maybe your team will talk with them at your next event and find some of the things they are doing right that you can do and then instead of debating the morality of in-equalities of FRC we can talk about how 4XXX learned a ton from team 2XXX in 2012 and is now kicking bot in 2013...

[Craig Roys]

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only won 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

That's what keeps us working hard...we know that it's just as hard for everyone else. It wouldn't be fun if it was easy!

[Peter Matteson]

This is what I said. Rookies can be great, and I don't doubt that it is only a matter of time until one of them actually wins champs, but the odds ARE against them. Resources help you win, I don't think anyone here is going to challenge that.

And just for fun here's some math (Admittedly filled with all sorts of assumptions):

Last year, with numbers almost all the way to 4000, the un-weighted odds of a single team on the winning alliance being below 1000 was 25%... All three teams on the winning alliance were below 1000! The odds of that were 25%^3 or ~1.5%. that means that statistically the odds of all three teams on the wining alliance being below 1000 were just higher than the odds of any individual championship team winning. Obviously that is absurd! I could predict that the same will happen this year with at least a 50% chance of being right, you couldn't pick a winning team with anything approaching certainty.

Or take it one step further. 1114 was founded in 2003 so no team founded in a year after that would has ever won the championship. Assuming the ~2800 teams founded between 2003 and 2011 were founded in even increments of 350 teams per year the odds of none of these teams winning championships between 2004 and 2011 are:
((1200/1550) * (1200/1900) * (1200/2250) * (1200/2600) * (1200/2950) * (1200/3300) * (1200/3650) * (1200/4000)) ^3
or .00000054%.

I believe we can effectively determine from that number that veterans winning is not just statistical variation ;)

Actually the odds are even worse than that...

Since FIRST went to the current divisional format in 2001 52.4% (74) of all Einstein slots (140 total) have been filled by just 24 teams with 2 or more Einstein trips!

35.7% of the total slots are taken up by just 12 teams with 3 or more trips.

42.9% (15) of all Championship Winner spots (35) in the same time frame were won by just 6 teams that have won 2 or more championships in divisional era!

The highest number team of the 24 is 1218.

The highest number team of the 12 is 968.

The highest number team of the 6 is 294.

All this said I'm willing to bet a coffee that with a list of 12 teams I can hit on 4 of the 12 Einstein competitors this year before I even know what anyone's robot looks like.

Edit: I forgot to cite my source, Jim Zondag's wonderful championship history white paper that he has published the last 2 years.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Alex,
I have to point out that those teams that made it into the finals are not there because of their team number. However, those teams have recognized the advantage to scouting the division partners and being prepared to pick the best alliance. Our decisions are based on a variety of factors observed by our scouting team and long discussions in a strategy meeting.
I think it is also necessary to point out that there are holes in the numbering sequence for the teams that have dropped out over the years. While we are now over 4000 in team number, there are not 4000 teams. There is likely more drops in the three digit numbers than in the other groups.

[pfreivald]

Alex,
I have to point out that those teams that made it into the finals are not there because of their team number. However, those teams have recognized the advantage to scouting the division partners and being prepared to pick the best alliance. Our decisions are based on a variety of factors observed by our scouting team and long discussions in a strategy meeting.
I think it is also necessary to point out that there are holes in the numbering sequence for the teams that have dropped out over the years. While we are now over 4000 in team number, there are not 4000 teams. There is likely more drops in the three digit numbers than in the other groups.

At the same time, it would probably be false to assert that name recognition has no value in choosing alliance partners, especially on the highest levels. All else being equal, you go with what you know, and you're more likely to give known commodities the benefit of the doubt (or more likely to avoid them) based on their reputation.

That's not a repudiation of anything at all FIRST-related, just an observation of human nature.

[2544HCRC]

Edit: I forgot to cite my source, Jim Zondag's wonderful championship history white paper that he has published the last 2 years.

Is there a link to this white paper? I would love to read it.

I would like to give 2 examples of the problem as I see it. The first is from a local wrestling club. They started as a way to expose young kids to wrestling and as a way of promoting the sport. They were very successful for awhile. They were recruiting 4 and 5 year olds into the wresting club and it was a fun thing for kids to do on a Saturday. Instead of being a fun activity for the kids, it became all consuming. If you wanted in you had to submit to all kinds of fundraising activities and travel as a parent. Kids all of the sudden "needed" warm up suits, etc. The team "needed" to travel hundreds of miles for competitions etc. 9 and 10 year olds were pretty much excluded by default because if the difficulty breaking into the sport. The casual crowd fell and left behind the fanatics.

example 2 are the local volunteer fire departments. They have the same problem. The training that is required, combined with the fundraising has left most of the departments with fewer and fewer members. There are very few people that want that kind of commitment.

I see the same sort of thing happening in FRC. Our kids aren't that into robots or robotics. The dozen or so kids that are part of the team will commit (kind of) to a 6 week build season and do a little fundraising, but overall it's a side thing. For most, everything else comes first. I've had kids miss practice because of the swim team, tennis, the school play, bowling, and even because they had an opportunity to go to a friends party or just because they wanted to sleep in and take it easy on a Saturday. I end up (thank god) with 1 or 2 kids that are into it and commit more time than they should. I have no help outside of a couple of parents. The local engineers have been burnt out by the other local teams (both in the double or tripple digit range). They aren't interested in commiting to being away from their family multiple nights a week and the weekend. FRC is becoming more and more competative. Practice bots, multiple regionals, etc, etc, are all leaving the casual teams further and further behind. I'm sure in some minds that's a good thing but if the goal is to expose kids to STEM in an engaging way I see it as very limiting.

[Peter Matteson]

Is there a link to this white paper? I would love to read it.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2383

It's actual just factual statistical data applying weighted rankings to teams based on championship performances. The idea was to settle some of the "whose the best" discussions IIRC.

[E. Wood]

I see the same sort of thing happening in FRC. Our kids aren't that into robots or robotics. The dozen or so kids that are part of the team will commit (kind of) to a 6 week build season and do a little fundraising, but overall it's a side thing. For most, everything else comes first. I've had kids miss practice because of the swim team, tennis, the school play, bowling, and even because they had an opportunity to go to a friends party or just because they wanted to sleep in and take it easy on a Saturday. I end up (thank god) with 1 or 2 kids that are into it and commit more time than they should. I have no help outside of a couple of parents. The local engineers have been burnt out by the other local teams (both in the double or tripple digit range). They aren't interested in commiting to being away from their family multiple nights a week and the weekend. FRC is becoming more and more competative. Practice bots, multiple regionals, etc, etc, are all leaving the casual teams further and further behind. I'm sure in some minds that's a good thing but if the goal is to expose kids to STEM in an engaging way I see it as very limiting.

A FRC team without engaged and motivated students is like a car without wheels... it isn’t going to go very far.

I think one thing that you will find on most "elite" FRC teams is a team full of students who are willing to put robotics before other things in their lives. Dare I say that some of these students make their team a priority, right behind school work? I think you will also find that the mentors of these teams with these students play a huge part in creating that attitude. As an FIRST mentor, our goal should not be to simply expose students to STEM. It should be to inspire them, to create a passion or at least a respect for it. Without this, very little is accomplished. I have been exposed to many different things in my life, very few of which inspired me like FIRST. Many of those other things I could care less about. Do your students a favor and find ways to create that passion. In the end, it’s not resources or time or practice bots that make a team great. It’s the passion that the team possesses.

Now for practice bots. You don’t have to have one to win a competition... but practice does make perfect (or at least close to it).

[IKE]

Is there a link to this white paper? I would love to read it.

I would like to give 2 examples of the problem as I see it. The first is from a local wrestling club. They started as a way to expose young kids to wrestling ...
example 2 are the local volunteer fire departments. They have the same problem....

I see the same sort of thing happening in FRC... .

How does limiting others potential improve your situation? Should the fire department allow for less skilled individuals to put out fires? Should they use old worn out equipment?
For the wrestling, should you tell a kid to stop working out? Should you tell them they are not allowed to practice and improve until the others catch up?

I wrestled in middle school and high school. The coach talked to me quite extensively about doing free-style and doing Grecco Roman in order to be better. My choice was to do other things (4-H, Supermileage, chess tournaments...). My parents supported my choices. My senior year, I won my confernce, but lost sectionals. If I had listened to my coach, I might have been good enough to win sectionals. Possibly even do well at regionals, but I was not gifted enough to win semi-states or states in wrestling. While I did have a little regret at the time, my parents supported and overall, it helped me realize the power of my choices (I would make the same choices looking back). That being said, I would not want to disallow any of the semi-state or state level wrestlers from doing summer camp or travel league or ... If their choice is to be the 4th best wrestler in the State of Indiana for the 135 lb weight class for 1997... So be it. It wasn't my choice, but they should be allowed to make that choice. Their efforts might get them a wrestling scholarship. I made the choice to persue other things, and thus had lower than ideal results.

If your kids are not that interested, then they do not deserve to win awards against those that are trying harder and doing better work, and that is OK. Your job as a mentor is to help them realize the ramifications of not taking the initiative. In my opinion, you should also help coach them with dealing with the dissappointment*. If the team didn't fund raise enough to go to the championship... then you don't go to the championship. Your team didn't work as hard as team XYZ, then don't be upset with team XYZ when you are beat by them. It is perfectly fine to be dissappointed with poor results. It is a choice though to use that dissappointment to improve, stay the same, or fold up camp. What I find frustrating in this thread, is there is a lot of good advice on how to improve for relatively smalle means with big returns. If your team doesn't want it to get too crazy, that is fine. If your team wants to do better... they should begin to follow the advice others are willing to give.

*Also, in my opinion, the worst thing you can do is comfort your team by calling the winners cheaters. Unless you have proof of a team deliberately breaking a rule, you need to put a stop to the cheater talk right away. Having access to a resource your team hasn't developed is not cheating. Going to multiple events is not cheating. Talking with companies and presenting FIRST in order to get sponsorship dollars is not cheating. Many students will automatically come to the "they cheated" conclusion on their own. As a mentor you can choose to foster that behaviour or stop it.

[SteveGPage]

I see the same sort of thing happening in FRC. Our kids aren't that into robots or robotics. The dozen or so kids that are part of the team will commit (kind of) to a 6 week build season and do a little fundraising, but overall it's a side thing. (...snip...) FRC is becoming more and more competative. Practice bots, multiple regionals, etc, etc, are all leaving the casual teams further and further behind. I'm sure in some minds that's a good thing but if the goal is to expose kids to STEM in an engaging way I see it as very limiting.

Yes, all these things would leave a casual team behind. However, no one said it was going to be easy if you want to compete at the highest levels. You can certainly build a kit bot, and can effectively compete with a well built one. FRC 1114 has a great series of videos and a iPad/iPhone app that will help a team to achieve those kinds of goals - just do a search on "Kitbot on steroids". Our team, as well as many others, work with local teams to assist them to build a robot like that as well, sometimes on the Thursday of the competition. Teams that build a kit bot, go to a local regional, compete against teams from around the world, seem to enjoy themselves and say "That was fun, I'll do it again next year." So there is a place for a casual team to be in FRC, just don't expect to compete at the same level as teams who work a lot harder than that. Would you expect a high school football team to be successful if team members only showed up on Friday night, expecting to be the starting quarterback? Why don't kids who play HS Varsity sports complain about the number of days they have practice - because they expect to work that hard if they want to be on the team. Why should we expect less for our teams?

I admit, we had a similar attitude many years ago. We did a little in the fall, we built the robot in 6 weeks, went to a regional, had a team dinner, and said, see you next year. We had 20 kids or so, who were "committed" at the level you mention. A couple of years ago, we decided working 10-12 weeks a year wasn't enough. If we wanted to really compete, we needed to have a year-round program. Our season now officially starts the day after our end-of-year team dinner. Since then, we have started to see the fruits of those labors. Instead of burning out mentors, we have now seen a growth in the number of mentors, who work longer hours. We have seen a growth in the number of kids actively participating on the team. We have 50+ kids who now are at almost every meeting, working their way through our training program, and into the team leadership. Twice, we have come within a single poorly timed penalty, from winning a regional. We have won the Regional Chairman's Award. We also won, with our FTC Team, the 2010 World Championship. We aren't in the highest levels of competition, yet, but we committed to working harder and harder every day to get closer and closer to being at that level.

How do you do that? How do you build a team like that. It's simple - Do your homework. It is our primary job to change the culture around us. When we were still a "casual" team, and long before we started seeing any level of success, we were in the Elementary schools, at the county fair, at Relay for Life, in the libraries, hosting training seminars, etc..... doing Dean's homework in our community.

Now, we engage more kids in STEM then ever before. When I see kids at our many outreach events, they will ask me "When can I be a RoboBee?"

[Andrew Schreiber]

The methods your team uses say a lot about your team. However, the methods you rage against say a lot more about your team.

I don't care how you run your team as long as you don't disparage me or mine. Too often I see comments about how practice bots, multiple regionals, or having engineers is "cheating". I don't care if your team decides that these are not things you want. That's your choice but until such a time as there is a rule against it teams will decide to do it and you owe it to them to let them run their team how they see fit.

I've said it before and I'll probably have to say it again, FIRST is like a pizza. We all have different ideas how to make it great but that's what makes it so great. You can put sausage and bacon on yours and I'll stick with my tomatoes and basil.

[Akash Rastogi]

You can put sausage and bacon on yours and I'll stick with my tomatoes and basil.

This is completely wrong.














359 says ham and pineapple is where its at.
.

[2544HCRC]

The methods your team uses say a lot about your team. However, the methods you rage against say a lot more about your team.

I don't care how you run your team as long as you don't disparage me or mine. Too often I see comments about how practice bots, multiple regionals, or having engineers is "cheating". I don't care if your team decides that these are not things you want. That's your choice but until such a time as there is a rule against it teams will decide to do it and you owe it to them to let them run their team how they see fit.

I've said it before and I'll probably have to say it again, FIRST is like a pizza. We all have different ideas how to make it great but that's what makes it so great. You can put sausage and bacon on yours and I'll stick with my tomatoes and basil.

?? I don't think anyone said it was cheating. If we had the resources and wherewithal we would be building a practice bot! and going to multiple regionals. That isn't where I'm coming from at all. I applaud those teams that do and I definitely don't think it's cheating. We had the pleasure of having the pits next to 1114 in Pittsburgh and seeing how they run their team. I had several great conversations with our students about how they (1114) were an example. I'm not disputing what it takes to make a great team or saying in any way that great teams are doing something bad. What I am saying is that the current rules ratchet up the level at which a team must operate to be competitive and drive more potential competitors out of the competition. When that happens it poisons the well for others. It becomes harder for other schools to start and develop teams when they hear how hard it is too compete. If the goal is to get as many students excited about science as possible, the current setup is a little off. However I do think that total team budgets or the build season could be changed to level the field a bit. Have the regionals all on the same day six weeks after kickoff for example.

[nitneylion452]

...Have the regionals all on the same day six weeks after kickoff for example.

That would be extremely expensive for FIRST. There are only a handful of fields that are built. That's why the regionals are set up as they are. Fields are taken down, packed up on a truck, and shipped to the next location it is needed.

Also, some teams cannot make certain dates, venues aren't available. Plus, why would we punish teams that can afford to go to multiple regionals?

[Aren Siekmeier]

Have the regionals all on the same day six weeks after kickoff for example.

There is absolutely no way FIRST would be able to do this. With over 65 events this year, that would require 65 vs. nineteen and more than 3 times as many volunteers to do all those events, plus all the administration to do it all on the same weekend.

And besides, how is the current regional schedule "unfair" or making the playing field not "level"? Every team at a given regional has the same amount of time to prepare. Going to other events is one way to do that, and it certainly goes a long ways towards inspiring more students. As many of us have already suggested, "leveling the playing field" is only going to make it, to put it bluntly, really lame. If there's nothing more to shoot for, what's the point?

[PayneTrain]

Guys, I just got off the phone with the dead horse. He's wondering why we're still beating him.

Seriously, this debate will never die. If you're a have-not, you just have to deal with it and try to make more money. I, a student, have spent hours and days writing grants for sponsorships, I've made over a dozen presentations and sent a bunch of letters. I've gone to sponsors and asked for more mentors, I've gone to colleges and asked for students... if you want your team to be better, go ahead and work for it. I don't want it to sound like I'm thrusting myself onto this pedestal of sorts, I'm just saying that I have seen teams at competitions and on Chief Delphi have what I don't, and I want it.

No one is giving these students engineering careers, so why are we supposed to be giving them victories out of a desperate plea for "fairness"?

Sure, whining is easier than working, but what's more rewarding?

[Aren Siekmeier]

I see the same sort of thing happening in FRC. Our kids aren't that into robots or robotics. The dozen or so kids that are part of the team will commit (kind of) to a 6 week build season and do a little fundraising, but overall it's a side thing. For most, everything else comes first. I've had kids miss practice because of the swim team, tennis, the school play, bowling, and even because they had an opportunity to go to a friends party or just because they wanted to sleep in and take it easy on a Saturday. I end up (thank god) with 1 or 2 kids that are into it and commit more time than they should. I have no help outside of a couple of parents. The local engineers have been burnt out by the other local teams (both in the double or tripple digit range). They aren't interested in commiting to being away from their family multiple nights a week and the weekend. FRC is becoming more and more competative. Practice bots, multiple regionals, etc, etc, are all leaving the casual teams further and further behind. I'm sure in some minds that's a good thing but if the goal is to expose kids to STEM in an engaging way I see it as very limiting.

Definitely read IKE's response to this.

As he said, it's perfectly fine if you have kids who don't want to commit because they are doing other things. That's awesome that they're doing other things, and if that's what they want to do, they should keep at it. But people have to realize that you only get what you work for. And if there are students who want to do robots day in/day out, why "level the playing field" to make it impossible for them to excel? Your team may not have a student commitment to win on Einstein, but you can still get a lot out of this program. And if you do end up with students who decide that's what they want to pursue, let's keep it enough of a challenge that they can really be proud of it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

This is completely wrong.
[snip]
359 says ham and pineapple is where its at.
.

Akash, you and I both know why I used that example.

?? I don't think anyone said it was cheating.

I don't think I said anyone did. I was making a general statement about FIRST (and to me, life in general).

And if you think FIRST is hard now imagine back in the day when you didn't have AndyMark or Team221 or WCP or even Banebots. Back when the kitbot either didn't exist or required a handful of doctoral degrees and a full machine shop to build. Back when there was very little sample code. Remember how fickle the tetrix motors were? Now imagine that your drive motors for FRC were like that. And ran significantly differently in one direction than the other.

(Warning, the following has very little applicability to the thread at hand but I felt it fits here so deal with it.)

FIRST is not supposed to be easy. It is made to be hard. Made to emulate real working conditions where you don't have enough time, money, or manpower to achieve the goal but you have to. This is the hardest fun you will ever have. And that's why gracious professionalism is so very important. We will be stressed, we will be angry. But we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard, we need to be role models and inspirations to students.

[Marc S.]

The only unfair part about FIRST robotics is that some teams choose not to work hard, thus making for less exciting regionals.

Seriously though, how is the fact that some teams work harder than others unfair? I could see people complaining that it is unfair that they(an individual person) are put on a team that has less immediate sponsors than others, but not that the first robotics program itself is unfair.

If FIRST said in the rules that team X was allowed to build a practice bot and team Y was not, then it would be unfair. But NO, FIRST gives EVERY TEAM an EQUAL opportunity to work hard/build multiple robots/have mechanical engineering mentors/etc.

Take team 973 for example, from 2002-2007 973 was a mediocre team, and like many others looked at the big name teams(60, 254, 294, 968, (from that era, in CA)) and said "WOW, they are just unbeatable, we will never preform as good as them"(taken from a 2003-2006 team parent).
In 2008 members of team 973 decided they wanted to work harder and build higher quality robots. Since then the team has been moderately successful and aims every year at being the best in the world knowing that that is an achievable goal. If you don't believe me just look at 973's record from 2002-2007 vs their record from 2008-2011(and so on). This was all done with HARD WORK. That is why our motto is 'OUTWORK US'. If you don't agree with that motto then simply work harder. A team is only as good as the work they put in. If nothing else, the one thing I have recieved most out of being a member of team 973 is that anything is possible if put your mind to it, and work at it.

[JaneYoung]

The only unfair part about FIRST robotics is that some teams choose not to work hard, thus making for less exciting regionals.


Ouch.

I am to understand that FIRST is unfair because regionals are less exciting because some teams choose not to work hard. Have I got that right? Who are the people that determine that teams are not working hard?

Jane

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The only unfair part about FIRST robotics is that some teams choose not to work hard, thus making for less exciting regionals.

<SNIP>




Such a blanket statement about the work ethics of others. Remember, that your words not only reflect on you, but also on your team ... and to me your words seem arrogant.

[Marc S.]

Such a blanket statement about the work ethics of others. Remember, that your words not only reflect on you, but also on your team ... and to me your words seem arrogant.

I'm sorry if that came out as arrogant, I was only trying to provide a counter example to the original post. If you read further in my post you might have found out why. Also I hope that people will not reflect my personal opinions with the general attitude of a team that I work with.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I'm sorry if that came out as arrogant, I was only trying to provide a counter example to the original post. If you read further in my post you might have found out why. Also I hope that people will not reflect my personal opinions with the general attitude of a team that I work with.

When you make blanket statements about other teams work ethic, it tends to reflect negatively.

I did read further on in your original post. I also noted that your rookie date coincided with your statement that you 'decided' to work harder. In other words, it sounded like "since I've joined, we've worked harder than everyone else". Hence my 'arrogant' remark. Personally, I don't let 1 statement form an opinion of a team ... but it does go into the 'collective' persona of my opinion.

I know GRR is a great team (from those I've talked to). I know that GRR works very hard (again, from those I've talked to). However, I believe that it is the height of huberis if you believe that the reason GRR has been successful and others have not is because you are working harder than they are.

There are many factors that go into success, And yes, hard work is one of the big ones. That being said, there are many more variables that need to be considered. Population density, Availability of skilled mentors, Availability of corporate sponsorships, Support level of the local school (board), the teams machining capability ... these are just a few of the variables that go into a teams success on the field, nevermind the teams success in inspiring the students to go on and do great things.

I guess, in the end, it's better to be humble and try to help than use yourself as an example of being better than others.

JM(NS)HO

[Squillo]

The playing field will never be even. Life is not 'even'.

Some teams just have more resources (and I don't mean money) available to them. No matter HOW hard we work, we will never have the pool of possible mentors that a team in or near a big city has. Our whole island has only 60,000 people, many of whom are working 2 or 3 jobs just to survive. Do they have time to mentor a robotics team? Not likely. Take out the kids, frail elderly, and others who are not realistically in the 'mentor pool', and it's pretty small. We can get all the grants and money possible but if the people aren't here, they aren't here. Maybe one could be convinced to move to Kauai just to mentor a robotics team... doubtful.

The hurdles of the cost and DELAY of shipping, limited local shopping resources, logistical hurdles of getting to even one regional, etc. can be dealt with, but will never go away. We could, I guess, all move to Oahu (better) or the mainland, but that's pretty unrealistic.

But look at 359 - they have almost all of the hurdles we have. And they are doing just fine. Do we begrudge them their practice bot or multiple regionals? Heck no, we aspire to get there some day.

Anyway, geography and demographics will ensure that all teams are never equal. You do the best with what you have. We will have a better practice field this year than ever before. We will have a practice bot. We have better mentors and more focused students. We will never say "we can't win Einstein because we are from a poor little rural island". We just keep on doing the best we can with what we got, and more of our kids are discovering engineering, going into science and engineering careers, getting scholarships, etc., and that's what it's all about.

[O'Sancheski]

I don't even know how to respond to this post. If you have a problem with a member on your team, please talk to them in person before you attempt to ruin their reputation on the internet.
From what I have seen Mark post here on CD he has been very professional and knowledgeable. I hate to see that someone created an account just to call out a specific person so that he/she could ruin their reputation.

[Chris Fultz]

All -

This thread is so done I can almost smell the burnt.

Please be civil. Don't attack individuals or individual teams.

Be civil or this will be locked.

:)

[JaneYoung]

All -

This thread is so done I can almost smell the burnt.

Please be civil. Don't attack individuals or individual teams.

Be civil or this will be locked.

:)

(Emphasis mine)

Chris, I've never quite heard it stated that way before. I just ate some burned peanut butter toast so it drove the point home.

I would just like to share one more thought... as I've said before, we aren't to the point where we are building a practice 'bot but - we have a 'mule' that the programmers can use to work with while our robot is coming together. Yesterday, I stopped by the shop and the robot had spent some of the build time getting its weight lightened in preparation for the the programmers. The programmers were chatty, excited, and busy, working with the 'mule'. I have a great appreciation for our 'mule'. It's not a practice 'bot but it is an amazing tool that has helped our team.

Jane

[pfreivald]

(Emphasis mine)

Chris, I've never quite heard it stated that way before. I just ate some burned peanut butter toast so it drove the point home.

I would just like to share one more thought... as I've said before, we aren't to the point where we are building a practice 'bot but - we have a 'mule' that the programmers can use to work with while our robot is coming together. Yesterday, I stopped by the shop and the robot had spent some of the build time getting its weight lightened in preparation for the the programmers. The programmers were chatty, excited, and busy, working with the 'mule'. I have a great appreciation for our 'mule'. It's not a practice 'bot but it is an amazing tool that has helped our team.

Jane

I call the 'mule' a 'protobot' -- same idea, though.

[Koko Ed]

Actually the odds are even worse than that...

Since FIRST went to the current divisional format in 2001 52.4% (74) of all Einstein slots (140 total) have been filled by just 24 teams with 2 or more Einstein trips!

35.7% of the total slots are taken up by just 12 teams with 3 or more trips.

42.9% (15) of all Championship Winner spots (35) in the same time frame were won by just 6 teams that have won 2 or more championships in divisional era!

The highest number team of the 24 is 1218.

The highest number team of the 12 is 968.

The highest number team of the 6 is 294.

All this said I'm willing to bet a coffee that with a list of 12 teams I can hit on 4 of the 12 Einstein competitors this year before I even know what anyone's robot looks like.

Edit: I forgot to cite my source, Jim Zondag's wonderful championship history white paper that he has published the last 2 years.
Sounds like it's a good year for FIRST to take on basketball since only 9 teams have won the NBA championship in the last three decades (and almost half of them were by the Celtics and Lakers combined) and that's with a salary cap.
Sometimes it's not about being fair. Some people are just very good at what they do.