View Full Version : Why do we bother bagging?
Michael Hill
19-02-2014, 12:04
I'm glad we went from shipping to bringing our own robot to competitions, but why do we even bag anymore? Many teams build nearly identical twin robots so that work can continue after build season and into the competition. Yes, generally there is less stress for students and mentors after the robot is bagged, but many teams will still meet to work on the "practice bot". Many teams, however, can't afford to buy/make two of everything, so they're really stuck with the robot in the bag. Why not make it fair for everyone to just leave it out so teams don't need to waste money building a second robot to continue work? Let teams manage their own schedules so mentor and student burnout doesn't happen.
Just my opinion.
Ty Tremblay
19-02-2014, 12:06
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126728&highlight=entire+robot
This has been debated before. I'm sure you can find a thread using the search function if you would like to see more opinions on it.
The majority of replies to such threads can be summarized to: It is fair. Teams with practice bots worked to obtain the resources and skill it takes them to make two robots. The only thing stopping your team from being like them is more hard work.
Michael Hill
19-02-2014, 12:15
This has been debated before. I'm sure you can find a thread using the search function if you would like to see more opinions on it.
The majority of replies to such threads can be summarized to: It is fair. Teams with practice bots worked to obtain the resources and skill it takes them to make two robots. The only thing stopping your team from being like them is more hard work.
Clearly our definitions of "fair" differ. Surely you can't think that a rookie team building out of a parent's garage is expected to be able to afford and build two identical robots in the same manner as teams with access to CNC waterjet, milling, lathe, etc. All that stuff doesn't appear over their first year just by "working hard". There's a clear analogy to socioeconomics we have today, but I'll refrain from going there.
Clearly our definitions of "fair" differ. Surely you can't think that a rookie team building out of a parent's garage is expected to be able to afford and build two identical robots in the same manner as teams with access to CNC waterjet, milling, lathe, etc. All that stuff doesn't appear over their first year just by "working hard". There's a clear analogy to socioeconomics we have today, but I'll refrain from going there.
On the other hand, you can't think that every team should have to build out of a parent's garage. I have seen more than one rookie team that looks like a FIRST veteran even without a mentor with prior FIRST experience. I suspect it was because they did their research before jumping in, reached out to other veteran teams, and used the resources available to them to succeed.
There are multitudes of resources for all teams, not just rookies, to help them obtain more sponsors, help, and other types of resources.
PayneTrain
19-02-2014, 12:27
Really the question we need to start asking is "Why do we bother bagging at all anymore?"
When the competition landscape shifts to a majority district system, will we see the robot lock-ups disappear? Before? After?
Don't say FRC will be keeping these kinds of restrictions forever. Some members of the community who have been doing this for far longer than I have (6 going on 7 years) think that bagging/locking up the machine is an archaic a practice as regionals in dense areas.
Surely you can't think that a rookie team building out of a parent's garage is expected to be able to afford and build two identical robots in the same manner as teams with access to CNC waterjet, milling, lathe, etc. All that stuff doesn't appear over their first year just by "working hard".
Powerhouse teams don't pop into existence overnight. It can take years to reach the level where building two robots is within a team's grasp. This year said rookie team may be building out of a garage but that is precisely where many big teams started. The year after though they can collect more sponsors and grow their team... and the next year even more- and although it won't happen overnight if there is a strong enough passion and drive to improve and succeed, that former rookie team will be waterjetting practice robots in no time.
I know how tough it can be to feel "left behind" when you see these huge teams with massive resources but they were rookies too at one point and likely not that different than yourselves.
Duncan Macdonald
19-02-2014, 12:30
610 is not lacking resources but builds 1 robot.
Michael Hill
19-02-2014, 12:30
On the other hand, you can't think that every team should have to build out of a parent's garage. I have seen more than one rookie team that looks like a FIRST veteran even without a mentor with prior FIRST experience. I suspect it was because they did their research before jumping in, reached out to other veteran teams, and used the resources available to them to succeed.
There are multitudes of resources for all teams, not just rookies, to help them obtain more sponsors, help, and other types of resources.
Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.
Really! It has been shown with RI3D that we don't need 6 weeks to build. Many of us have jobs and family that if build gets longer we will not be around. As you have been told many times, life is not fair. Some teams have more, some less but all must be completed at the required time. This is just like the world we live in. Get the job done on time or your out. Best to learn these lessons now than when you are trying to feed your family.
If I got to decide, I would eliminate the bag deadline.
To be fair, there would still be high resource teams building two robots if we didn't have to bag. Instead of building two identical ones in 6 weeks, they'd build one before competitions and then build a second one using what we all learn from the early competitions.
I still say that would be better. It would be easier for a lot of middle of the pack teams to build better robots with the same resources.
People would have to get used to the idea that you don't necessarily want to meet 7 days a week for 3-4 months of the year. "But we have to, because Team ABCD does." No, you don't have to.
This thread is an excellent read, and covers this topic pretty in depth. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116658)
Post 204 is biggest thing you could take away from the thread, quoted below.
So, after all the back and forth in this thread, and all of the anecdotal and revisionist commentary on the history of what we do and why, I decided to do a little archeology. I went back and reviewed the actual game manuals from the early years (92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98). There is no available 94 Game Manual I could find in any of the archives.
In 92 and 93, there were no machine access restrictions at all. There was a kickoff, and there was a tournament. That was it....make a robot and show up to play.
In 95 we see the first indication of limits, as FIRST expanded to have more than one event. The rules of engagement were the same in 95 and 96. The excerpt from the 1996 manual is below:
-------------------------------------
Shipping Deadlines
To provide every team, regardless of events in which they participate, approximately the same number of design and build days, the following shipping regulations and dates apply:
New England Tournament (Manchester, NH) Competitors
1. Teams may either ship of bring their machine with them to the tournament.
2. After the tournament, all teams competing in the National Championship will have five days to make repairs and/or changes to their machines, within all rules outlined in this document
3. By end of business on Friday, April 5, machines must be picked up by a shipper for transport. This will give all New England teams five additional days to work on their machines.
National Championship participants only
1. Teams must ship their machines by end-of-business on Tuesday, April 2, 1996.
2. This will give all teams competing in only the National Championship an equal number of days to work on their machines as team competing in both events.------------------------------------
So, if you notice, this was not done to limit involvement by participants. It was done to try to equalize the number of workdays depending on if teams went to one or two events. You were allowed to work on your robot all the way upto and through the regional if you chose. Since the CMP required shipping robots to Disney, equalizing dates were imposed. Teams had 5 days to work on their robots after the first event before being required to give it up.
Actual "shipday" rules were not imposed until 1997. From the 97 manual:
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Machines MUST BE OUT OF TEAM HANDS by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb 25, 1997. This means you many ship the robot or drive the robot to the drayage/storage facility of your first event by 5:00 p.m. on February 25.
Regional Competitors
1. After competing in a Regional, any teams competing in another event will have two days to make repairs and/or changes to their machines, within all rules outlined in this document.
2. Machines MUST ARRIVE as the next site by the next Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
-----------------------------------------------
After talking with some oldtimers from this era, they believe that the main reason for these changes in 1997 were due to LOGISTICS concerns. When events started to be scheduled on back to back weekends in 97, FIRST had to reduce the amount of time teams had to do repairs in order to make sure the crates could get to their destination in time.
Eventually (2002) the weekend hold back period was eliminated completely, again this was mainly to avoid the logistical complexity of hundreds of teams trying to all ship from various locations and instead allowed FIRST to control all of the logistics of all of the machines from the beginning to the end of the season by shipping direct from event to event. Again, the removal of these hands on repair and improve windows had nothing to do with limiting access by team, it was for LOGISTICS.
Phase forward to today. ALL of the Logistics for ALL of the teams are now entirely up to the teams and not any centralized control. So why does FIRST still maintain these rules? Seriously, they are nothing more than an artifact of an obsoleted system. Everyone who put the original rule in place at FIRST HQ is gone, yet these rules remain. Teams now attend anywhere from 1 to 6 events per season, so equalization of access time is functionally impossible, yet these rules remain.
So ask yourself, are we really doing something smart with the machine access rules, or is all of this just a collection of old rules, imposed for obsolete reasons which have been forgotten?
Post 207 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1273815#post1273815) and post 233 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1274004#post1274004) are also very insightful.
What I took away was, Jim Zondag is very smart, listen to him.
sanddrag
19-02-2014, 12:45
As a team that builds two identical robots (to very high standards of quality), I'd like to offer my perspective which you may find interesting.
Last night at 12:30 AM when trying to move this darn thing all bagged up, I found myself asking this same question. It's entirely an honor system anyway. Not that anyone would, but you could just put it in the bag the night before the regional and no one would ever know. I could sign a form saying I didn't touch it, and that's the same as signing a form saying I bagged it, just, without the bag. It's just a pain to move while in the bag, and I'd be happy if it went away.
We continue work every day starting this afternoon on our second robot anyhow. There is no real end of the build, especially not with a 45 pound withholding allowance. (and I know we've discussed this in other threads, so I don't want to repeat it all).
To us, all that the current bagging rule does is cause us to spend thousands of more dollars and hundreds of more hours that wouldn't be necessary if we didn't have to bag. Imagine how far all that time and money would go in other efforts if it wasn't spent on building a twin robot, because the real one is off limits by a millimeter of plastic.
The bagging does not stop anyone from continuing to build their robot. It only makes it more expensive to keep doing so. When you build a practice robot, you're literally buying time. We do this, and I don't like it. It becomes a competition of who has more dollars and who has more adults with more hours to spend away from their families and responsibilities. This is one area that there is really a disparity in FIRST, and I say this coming from the upper end of this spectrum. It's easy to tell the others to work harder if they want your results, but not always practical for them to do so. It all boils down to who is involved with your program, and to what extents they're willing to go to make it awesome.
The only real issue with not bagging is, nobody would attend the first two weeks of events if the build season extended right up to the events, and for that problem, I have no solution.
Either let everyone keep working, or (preferably) go back to the real, hard limit 6 weeks, so we don't have this 3 month build season.
Let's not continue this whole build two robots thing. I'm out of space to put them, and out of money to fund them.
Max Boord
19-02-2014, 12:46
Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.
Ok, first the garrage thing: code orange has built out of a garrage up till this year and they are a powerhouse in there area.
2nd: the practice bot does a lot of things. It alows students to get 2x the machining experience, 2x the drivers and 2x the troubleshooting. We have never built a practice robot before this year and it was our most organized and ontime build season ever.
Michael Hill
19-02-2014, 12:57
Ok, first the garrage thing: code orange has built out of a garrage up till this year and they are a powerhouse in there area.
2nd: the practice bot does a lot of things. It alows students to get 2x the machining experience, 2x the drivers and 2x the troubleshooting. We have never built a practice robot before this year and it was our most organized and ontime build season ever.
I never said anything about if you're building out of a garage, you aren't a powerhouse. I did say, however, that there are many teams who start out building in a garage and by that, I imply that, like most garages, they don't have access to the machines that many others do (I don't know many garages with a Bridgeport mill or a lathe), and therefore is MUCH more difficult to reproduce nearly identical parts that are exchangable. I say this coming from a team who did build two robots this year. Two robots that have had some of the most machining and CNC waterjet parts of any robot I've ever helped make. The bottom line is that it's just really expensive to do and we'd rather spend money elsewhere (tools? machines? more outreach?). So yes, students get 2x the machining experience, but, to quote one of my favorite movies: "...[W]hy build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
The only real issue with not bagging is, nobody would attend the first two weeks of events if the build season extended right up to the events, and for that problem, I have no solution.
There would be a bigger difference between weeks 1-2 and weeks 6-7, but teams would still go to early events. Several reasons:
1) Teams sign up for events that have open slots and that fit their schedules and geographical reach. Space in events is scarce.
2) You can still qualify for the Championship at early events, and you can do it with a less amazing robot than you'd need at a later event. If you're a team that is capable of building a reasonably polished robot in 6 weeks, maybe you'd be able to dominate at an early event.
3) Logistically, qualifying early in the year is nicer than qualifying really late. You get more time to plan your trip. Also, if your team wants to make significant upgrades for the Championship, you get a longer time to plan that out and execute it without having to focus completely on shorter term, less ambitious goals required to qualify at the regional level.
4) Having a big gap between regional or district events is pretty nice for giving upgrade time after the first competition experience. So I'd much rather attend week 1 and 5 than weeks 5 and 6.
That doesn't mean every team would LIKE that system better, but I don't think it would be a big problem to get teams to attend early events.
Rynocorn
19-02-2014, 13:24
The only real issue with not bagging is, nobody would attend the first two weeks of events if the build season extended right up to the events, and for that problem, I have no solution.
See I actually think the opposite for my team. We typically come up with really good strategy while not building as great of a robot and use it to our advantage. We have won two regionals 2005 and 2010 (week 1) and did not have the best robot at either event but executed a strategy well. Also, our team cannot support a longer build season as we are all exhausted. Just another take from a different team
IronicDeadBird
19-02-2014, 13:25
Consider the fact that this is a High School level competition and a lot of students procrastinate. Having a deadline that isn't right next to the comp's means that a lot of high school students can actually balance out the time they have. I know freshmen who have put too much into Robotics and not enough into doing things like homework and have had to get kicked off the team because of bad grades. I know from experience that this community is fun and you can get wrapped up in it. When I was a sophmoron I made the mistake of not properly balancing my academic life with my robotics life and my GPA took a solid hit. Grades went down, parents got concerned, questions were being asked like "Well are you really at robotics till 11 at night or are you off being a little hooligan?" it wasn't good.
First Robotics is a wonderful thing for highschool students to participate in but I do not imagine the founders would ever want to hear students were held back because they got too into robotics.
So yeah maybe bag and tag puts teams without the resources to make a second robot at a disadvantage, but the biggest disadvantage I could see is a team pushing too hard and tearing apart just because they didn't have a little time off.
Rynocorn
19-02-2014, 13:26
Nemo beat me to it- I echo his points with less eloquence :p
waialua359
19-02-2014, 13:38
The only issue we have with bagging our robot, this year especially, is trying to anticipate what position to leave it in OR what pieces to take off when bagging.
Our robot gets shipped to every competition, and without actually packing the rest of the stuff in our 1000 lb crate before we ship makes it tough.
techtiger1
19-02-2014, 13:49
My team tries to push the envelope with robot design as much as we can. The team is lucky enough to have some nice resources available and a handful of extremely dedicated mentors that come back year after year. I have searched over the past few years for the answer to this question as well and have decided the rules are the rules. The only true answer I have come up with is to design a simple, effective robot using the wide variety of COTS items now available and push during the early parts of the build season to get things done. This theory leads to both the practice bot and competition bot getting done earlier in turn minimizing the stress associated with the ceremonial " bag and tag". Right now it is just a theory because my team has never executed it ::ouch:: .
An interesting aspect of the switch to the district model is that of the 'robot access' period. We're allowed a six hour window between bag day and our competition in which to unbag and work on the robot, in an effort to make up for the lack of a day in the pits a normal regional would get us. We get another access period between district events.
It's sort of strange bagging and tagging the robot knowing that we'll just be breaking the tag again in a couple days to resume the build. I understand the reasoning behind it and, frankly, it works well in our favor (six hours in our shop broken up as we see fit vs. sort of 6 hours in a pit broken up by practice matches). Still, it seems sort of silly and does make you wonder why we bother with the bag at this point in the season at all.
MrForbes
19-02-2014, 14:01
I like the end of the build season...today I get to spend relaxing in my garage, working on my car. No robot stuff. Except working on the BOM.
Incidently, if we built the robot in my garage, it could be far more sophisticated...I do have a mill and lathe here, there are none at school. Although we still have the nagging little issue of getting students intersted in designing stuff that needs such fancy equipment to make.
"...[W]hy build one when you can have two at twice the price?"
Ahh- but this is not the case! If you do your design work properly and make drawings of major components etc. it doesn't matter if you are working on a $100000 waterjet or a table saw. Setup time is typically more than half the battle. If you have the material in the machine and the machine is set up to run it usually doesn't cost much more to make two of a part rather than only one. This is especially true with CNC equipment so the cost of building a second robot is typically just a little longer run time on your machines and a bunch of old components stolen from last year's robot.
Last week I had made this "meme" for my team's facebook page inspired by some funny photos. Having a practice robot means that the long hours and restless nights don't end till your last competition. It doesn't make these things any easier, it actually equates to much more work.
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u218/fox22photos/1622763_10152235464594265_1835226835_n_zps55268758 .jpg (http://s169.photobucket.com/user/fox22photos/media/1622763_10152235464594265_1835226835_n_zps55268758 .jpg.html)
DjScribbles
19-02-2014, 14:17
Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.
^This
This year, one of our sponsors was awesome enough to (laser?) cut and bend our sheet metal chassis (we simply supplied the materials) within a few days of our design being completed. We've had various other sponsors help us here in the past, but typically not completely free, and not on such a quick time table.
Is it right for us to ask them to build another frame for a practice bot?
Sure, some sponsors are happy to do this, but to me it seems inconsiderate to waste their time on a copy of the entire frame.
Expanding on that, is it right to use your sponsors donations to build something that is only necessary because of archaic rules?
Sure, many are willingly giving the money, but couldn't that money be put to better use elsewhere in the community (FIRST or otherwise), rather than being spent on a bunch of materials, electronics, etc.
Waste is waste, and practice bots are largely that. I understand that teams work hard to raise the funds, and put in the effort to build a practice bot to make themselves more competitive; but that is a lot of good-will you are receiving, and it just seems wrong to accept it for the sole purpose of exercising a commonly used loophole in an archaic rule.
As someone who works in the manufacturing industry; how much sheet is in your chassis? a 4x8 sheet? So for say an extra $150 in material you could have had a second chassis. I am sure your sponsor would not have minded at all had you asked them to run two of each part. They had the machine time scheduled, the material mounted and running- for them to have made two more of each part likely would have only cost them less than an hour or so of run time. Instead though, if you were to ask them now they would have to schedule the production time, tool the machine to accept your material, install the material and then run the parts. The setup on something like this is often just as costly or even more so than the actual cutting of the parts which is why many companies have a "minimum setup charge". This is why it is far cheaper per unit to make 100 of something instead of 1. When I run production at work we always make more than we need so that we can keep the extras in stock. Down the road if we need extra parts, we have them on the shelf. This results in massive cost and time savings since we don't have to set up a machine to run one or two components. Something to keep in mind for next year. I am sure your sponsor would oblige.
OK, repeat after me "FIRST is not about the robot".
They are trying to give the experience that most engineers and technology people face on a regular basis. "Design it, build it, ship it, compete in the marketplace with it". People do not pay for products that they can't get (spare me the pre-order games, iThings, etc. nonsense) and walk away with.
Ship product. I do it. GM does it. We all do it. You do it too. All said and done it goes out the door, warts and "well we could have" and "well just 10 more days it will do ..."
And "pfft" to the entire "we are new, we are poor, we want pity". Look to all the rookie all stars. There are teams with three digit team numbers that would be happy to have rookie all star years.
You are getting an amazing life lesson in 17 weeks. 6 weeks to design and ship a product to the marketplace. 11 weeks of the marketplace responding to your ideas and you get chances to tweek. PROFIT!
I'm glossing over the "well we only compete in one week, etc." Sorry. Your life lesson this year is shorter, next year it will be longer.
Repeat after me "FIRST is not about the robot". It's never been about the robot.
(Oh and this: "What I took away was, Jim Zondag is very smart, listen to him." +1, Jim is a very smart guy, you should be happy he's doing this" )
(Oh and JForbes writes "I like the end of the build season...today I get to spend relaxing in my garage, working on my car. No robot stuff. " +314156!)
Hot topic for sure, every year. IMO:
1) For the most part life is fair.
2) Hard work doesn't have to be punishing to be rewarding
3) You shouldn't abandon your family for anything
4) We are building robots that shoot balls
Christopher149
19-02-2014, 16:09
I don't have a strong opinion about the bag, but I Need as stop build day. Us college mentors have homework to do (and sleep, and the FAFSA, and life in general). I'm glad it's "over".
nxtmonkeys
19-02-2014, 17:02
Well, even with the robot "bagged" one still has to work on the program. In fact, My team just got a Kinect for our driver station.
Something that I don't like about bagging is that I can't work on my robot anymore.
Kernaghan
19-02-2014, 17:24
The only real issue with not bagging is, nobody would attend the first two weeks of events if the build season extended right up to the events, and for that problem, I have no solution.
I believe this may not be an issue. At early season events all teams will have had the same amount of time to work on their robot, and thus be on a level playing field. The neatest part about no bag and tag would be seeing the level at each competition progressively get better. This would also help low resource teams - because they do exist, FIRST is expensive - who can't afford to attend multiple competitions, where other teams get to work on their robot and practice.
With only a few exceptions, including the legendary Coyotes; having a practice robot gives teams a significant advantage. Looking at our twin robots before bag and tag last night, I couldn't help but think to myself, with all these resources used we could have completely funded another team. No bag and tag would improve the competition level, making the sport more spectator friendly and potentially lower the amount of resources used by teams, allowing space for new teams.
Just my thoughts.
Dave McLaughlin
19-02-2014, 18:03
Clearly our definitions of "fair" differ. Surely you can't think that a rookie team building out of a parent's garage is expected to be able to afford and build two identical robots in the same manner as teams with access to CNC waterjet, milling, lathe, etc. All that stuff doesn't appear over their first year just by "working hard". There's a clear analogy to socioeconomics we have today, but I'll refrain from going there.
I guess I would argue that there is no good way that I can see to make this competition "fair" for rookies. But I would also argue that that is okay. FIRST, For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, not Fair yet Inspiring for Rookies and Second year Teams. If your team can inspire your kids by building and bagging one robot that is fantastic. If not bagging your robot so that you can keep working on it inspires your kids that is also fantastic. On my team we build two robots and I hope that we are inspiring our kids, and I hope that you think that is fantastic as well.
I can tell you this from personal experience. Team 1983 started in 2007 when I was a sophomore and the robot that we produced in Coach Steele's portable was no mechanical work of art. We could drive, and... well... that was about it. The idea of making a practice robot was something we had never thought of, nor would it have been something we could have completed. We crated our robot just like everyone else did on ship day and we waited to compete. When we got to competition our robot was nothing special, and we didn't win many matches, but we were very proud of the robot that we built. We were fortunate enough to compete at the Las Vegas Regional during our rookie year, which afforded us the opportunity to sit on the carpet with some of the great teams in first. We played with the Poofs, and we played against Pink and the High Rollers, and those teams inspired US to strive to be better.
To this day I am still inspired every year when I see the machines that teams produce. I am also a bit taken aback by your statement that teams are wasting money on a practice bot.
I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built.
Our team thinks that it is worth it to spend the extra money and time to reap the benefits that building a practice bot can bring. I don't think it is a waste for our team in the slightest. However, if you prefer not to build two robots, don't! From reading this thread it seems 610 was able to win a world championship without a practice robot, bagging on stop build date just like everyone else.
DanielPlotas
19-02-2014, 18:32
We (1948) would like to see the bag and tag go, because we only have 1 cRIO, (i know we're getting the new things next year, but we might not be able to afford another one) and in the rules the 45 lb of parts you don't have to bag cannot include parts of the control system (cRIO). Also, our robots aren't built to exact dimensions, its more of, "does it shoot too far? just bend this piece back and shorten that one.", so it would be very difficult to make two identical robots, even if we had the funding.
The only thing stopping your team from being like them is more hard work.
Just going to point out that this is the same "poor people deserve to be poor" nonsense that you see thrown around in modern politics, and is not necessarily grounded in reality. Success does not correlate perfectly with effort; if you deny that there is a very large "lottery" element then you are fooling yourself.
It is very likely true, as Dave said, that there is no real way to make this competition "fair" for teams with limited resources. However, it certainly can be made more fair or less fair by certain rules, and I think this is pretty clearly in the latter category.
I must ask, why exactly would reworking the system to remove the benefit of a second robot be a bad idea? Even if we concede that the only factor allowing teams to build a second robot is "hard work," this is wholly irrelevant to the impact of the proposed change on the competition in all capacities except for motivation for well-off teams (keep in mind that "fairness" is a heuristic; the real question at hand is whether the competition would be improved by the rule change). Does anyone honestly think that this change would so demotivate teams with the resources to build two robots that it'd be a detriment to the competition? On what basis? That seems patently absurd to me.
As it stands, the current rules very clearly widen the gap created by access to resources; it seems obvious to me that, within reason, FIRST should do all it can to promote the opposite.
nxtmonkeys
19-02-2014, 18:38
Just going to point out that this is the same "poor people deserve to be poor" nonsense that you see thrown around in modern politics, and is not necessarily grounded in reality. Success does not correlate perfectly with effort; if you deny that there is a very large "lottery" element then you are fooling yourself.
Sure. I think that evil people deserve to be poor. That way, they can't make all of the evil machines to take over the world.
Dave McLaughlin
19-02-2014, 19:17
I think that you make a "fair" point Eli. ;) However, I would counter with the opinion that effectively extending build season until a teams first competition would do more harm than good. If a team is indeed building their robot in a garage with hacksaws and hammers I would be of the opinion that 1-5 more weeks of build would have little impact on the final robot that competes. It is not their fault, especially if they are rookies, there is just only so much you can do with limited resources.
On the other hand, if you give a team with high end manufacturing capabilities, and a comfortable budget 1-5 more weeks to refine a single robot I think that the end results would be astonishing. The bag day provides all teams the same deadline, and the withholding allowance gives all teams the same opportunity to make changes to their competition robot at competition, or during a work window.
I'll admit, I got through to about five-responses-ago and I'm seeing a lot of talking in circles. But hey, here's my two cents anyway.
I found this quote in the unbagging-for-demos thread, and I thought it explained things kind of nicely, so here ya go:
Leave the bot sitting on the bag, or the bag next to the bot by your display, and it will invite questions. This will give you an opportunity to talk about other key aspects of FRC, regarding how it is a mini version of a real world engineering project, with real world deadlines and contingency plans that involve working hard to make the bot complete at the competition.
Part of the FIRST challenge is not having enough time. That's ALWAYS been a part of the constraints. Doing things like fundraising for the resources build a practice bot are things that some teams do to prepare for that. Remember, even crated robots 'back in the day' had practice twins. This has nothing to do with what container your competition robot is in - it's about making sure all teams have (roughly) the same amount of time to work on the machine that goes to competition. Would you sign up for a Week 1 district if you knew the Week 4 & 5 events meant you got another few weeks of build?
In the interest of full disclosure -1923 builds in a donated retail space - used to work in a garage. We have a drill press, a few different saws, and then just power drills and other hand tools. (No machining sponsor either.) I wouldn't call that a 'nice shop', but we do what we can. Yes, we build a practice robot. We have 100+ students, so it's our way of getting more hands on machines. It's just a bonus that it means we get extra driving practice & tweak time. They're not twins right now - in fact, "Robot B" is a nice way to test some things we didn't have time for that might make it into our withholding.
Just like we used to crate the robot up, the bag is a nice reminder that time is a constraint in the challenge. It makes sure that all teams have (roughly) the same time to work on the competition 'bot. I agree that the unbagging between districts feels odd - but it's a pretty decent way of making up for not having a Thursday at our first two events.
On top of all that - how burned out would you be if build were even longer? I know personally, I'm tapped out. I'm done. It's time to give everyone - our kids, our teachers, our mentors, our parents - a break so they can be ready for competition.
I think that you make a "fair" point Eli. ;) However, I would counter with the opinion that effectively extending build season until a teams first competition would do more harm than good. If a team is indeed building their robot in a garage with hacksaws and hammers I would be of the opinion that 1-5 more weeks of build would have little impact on the final robot that competes. It is not their fault, especially if they are rookies, there is just only so much you can do with limited resources.
On the other hand, if you give a team with high end manufacturing capabilities, and a comfortable budget 1-5 more weeks to refine a single robot I think that the end results would be astonishing. The bag day provides all teams the same deadline, and the withholding allowance gives all teams the same opportunity to make changes to their competition robot at competition, or during a work window.
This is a "fairly" (;)) polarized representation of the capabilities of FRC teams. I guarantee that there's a huge number of fairly capable teams with limited resources that would benefit hugely from the type of extended build time that a second robot currently provides; it's not only teams with 6-axis waterjets who put out winning robots and teams with hacksaws and hammers who are hopeless.
Moreover, I'm not all that certain that removing the bag requirement would have much impact at all on the higher-end teams, given the size of the witholding budget and the fact that all parts they build between bag day and competition can be interfaced with an exact copy of the bagged robot and tested. There might be some complete rebuilds that would be enabled by this that wouldn't otherwise be possible, but much of the work is stuff that teams are already able to do.
We (1948) would like to see the bag and tag go, because we only have 1 cRIO, (i know we're getting the new things next year, but we might not be able to afford another one) and in the rules the 45 lb of parts you don't have to bag cannot include parts of the control system (cRIO). Also, our robots aren't built to exact dimensions, its more of, "does it shoot too far? just bend this piece back and shorten that one.", so it would be very difficult to make two identical robots, even if we had the funding.
Actually, due to a recent team update, you are allowed to withhold anything, or even everything, from the bag. This includes the CRIO. I hope that not knowing this did not affect your team too much.
About bag and tag: I think that getting rid of it makes sense. I have seen a lot of reasonable, logical arguments for why it should be done, but not many for why it shouldn't. Although I'm not particularly passionate about the subject, so next year if it hasn't changed I won't be too upset.
Dave McLaughlin
19-02-2014, 19:34
This is a "fairly" (;)) polarized representation of the capabilities of FRC teams.
I will concede that I was perhaps a bit hyperbolic in my analogy. At this point though we are both just speculating. Do I know that teams with opulent resources will benefit more from a longer build? No. Does my gut say they would? Yes. I can see reason in both sides of the argument to remove bag day.
I'd very strongly argue that team "lottery" or "fortune" or rookieness has not as much to do with bag and tag success as is being said. I'm going to bring up this build season as an example. As anybody familiar with my team knows, we have a close allegiance off the field with another FRC team in our city. I'm not going to name numbers. If you know, you know.
This team's rookie year was 2012. They're high school is in the wealthier part of our city and they have no shortage of money and mentors compared to us.
My team, 159, on the other hand, is a different story. We are run out of the more middle class side of town. We've been around since '98 which means no rookie grants or big cash donations for us. This season, we lost our biggest sponsor, Ottercares. Coming into the 2014 season, we had a shortage of both students and money.
We (the students) had to make changes in how things were run. We persevered, and finished our robot working and on time this year. That doesn't usually happen with us. We were able to bag our robot at 11:59 and were very proud of our accomplishment.
The other team had been sharing our shop this weekend, because theirs wasn't open. They had over engineered and their robot was 55 pounds overweight. This is Tuesday. They worked for the whole weekend and right alongside us till midnight, taking apart their robot, re engineering, drilling holes, doing whatever they could to cut weight. They reassembled and bagged with no time to spare and still overweight.
Now, I'm not trying to knock these guys in any way. But did their protobot and electronics testing kit help them? Did their many mentors and superior funding help them get bagged in time with a legal bot? They had fancier tools. They had more people. They had shinier wires.
I wish their team the best of luck at regionals this year and hope they can make things work.
In my experience, your team's success during build season comes down to your team itself. While I will certainly agree that having a nicer machine shop for example helps a lot, it is by no means the only factor in a successful build season. The bag date levels the playing field. Everybody gets the same amount of time to build. Life isn't fair. There's always luck involved. Welcome to the real world. :)
Mike Martus
19-02-2014, 19:50
This debate in one form or another has been going on since the start of FIRST. Is there a magic answer - NO , Only opinions.
Interesting how it keeps resurfacing........and the debate goes on as long as we are all civil and are nice to each other as we are all entitled to our opinion.
as the famous philosopher has said, "Keep your stick on the Ice".
Ian Curtis
19-02-2014, 22:39
Part of the FIRST challenge is not having enough time. That's ALWAYS been a part of the constraints.
There won't magically be enough time when Stop Build Day joins the Shipping Crate and IFI Control System as icons of an era gone-by. I would confidently wager that lack of time will always be part of the FIRST challenge. You can always make things a little bit better if only you just had a few more hours. :o
With the a 45 lb withholding allowance and the games you can play with COTs parts, I'm sure there will be teams that bring an entire new superstructure install it Thursday. Meanwhile we unbagged for a demo today at one of our sponsors, but our best driver couldn't strut her stuff since it might be called driver practice? It all just seems a little bit silly.
Seth Mallory
19-02-2014, 22:46
I for one like the stop date. While the students will keep on working it will be at a lower level. No more nights or weekends. The main problem is that the main mentors need the break. By this point families want their members that they loaned to the team back. College work needs to be caught up. Yards and houses that have been ignored need worked on. Prepping for classes and other jobs needs to be done. Winding down and catching up on sleep is a health problem that needs to be addressed. I also miss being home enough to cook some meals.
sanddrag
20-02-2014, 00:23
I for one like the stop date. While the students will keep on working it will be at a lower level. No more nights or weekends. The main problem is that the main mentors need the break. By this point families want their members that they loaned to the team back. College work needs to be caught up. Yards and houses that have been ignored need worked on. Prepping for classes and other jobs needs to be done. Winding down and catching up on sleep is a health problem that needs to be addressed. I also miss being home enough to cook some meals.This is the point that I think FIRST misses, and does not get brought up often enough. For many of us, FRC completely sidelines everything else we do, for 3 or 4 months out of a year. I want the stop build day to be a stop build day. Currently it isn't. You can keep going with 45 lbs more, and you can keep going on a practice robot. The current system is broken and creates a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
/circles
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 00:26
The current system is broken and creates a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
It allows a sizable disparity between those teams who choose to keep working, and those who don't.
We stopped working. You can too, if you want to.
It allows a sizable disparity between those teams who choose to keep working, and those who don't.
We stopped working. You can too, if you want to.
This doesn't change if there were no bag day. Take a day off. Go for it. Nothing stopping us. In fact many teams already take days off during the build season anyways.
To me it is a money thing. We just finished a third season with building two robots. We fundraise extra money to do this. But I feel it is somewhat wasted money. That money could go towards so many more things... more laptops that students could use for programming, more machining and fabrication equipment so more students could learn, more students could travel to a competition. If we want FIRST to reach more students, then things like this bag-day timeline (build 2 robots & witholding allowance) needs to stop. VRC seems to do just fine without it.
If you argue that in the real world there is deadlines, so too must there be in FRC. In what industry are you allowed to ship 62.5% of your product to the customer.
Willyspu
20-02-2014, 01:18
I'm glad we went from shipping to bringing our own robot to competitions, but why do we even bag anymore? Many teams build nearly identical twin robots so that work can continue after build season and into the competition. Yes, generally there is less stress for students and mentors after the robot is bagged, but many teams will still meet to work on the "practice bot". Many teams, however, can't afford to buy/make two of everything, so they're really stuck with the robot in the bag. Why not make it fair for everyone to just leave it out so teams don't need to waste money building a second robot to continue work? Let teams manage their own schedules so mentor and student burnout doesn't happen.
Just my opinion.
Why would the 6 week limit on build time be relevant if you keep working on it or another bot?
I guess we have been pretty naive to figure it was an honor system of 6 weeks and not more. Our robot is in the bag. We will finish our bumpers and wait until our first competition to open the bag.
What value is gracious professionalism to your team? And what other rules is your team trying to skirt?
Jim
Anupam Goli
20-02-2014, 01:36
To me it is a money thing. We just finished a third season with building two robots. We fundraise extra money to do this. But I feel it is somewhat wasted money. That money could go towards so many more things... more laptops that students could use for programming, more machining and fabrication equipment so more students could learn, more students could travel to a competition. If we want FIRST to reach more students, then things like this bag-day timeline (build 2 robots & witholding allowance) needs to stop. VRC seems to do just fine without it.
I've never viewed the 2nd robot as a waste of money. It's always a great tool to have. It allows us to get more students hands on the robot, giving them more machining experience, and showing them how we can iterate offline and perfect those iterations and apply it to the master product.
Why would the 6 week limit on build time be relevant if you keep working on it or another bot?
I guess we have been pretty naive to figure it was an honor system of 6 weeks and not more. Our robot is in the bag. We will finish our bumpers and wait until our first competition to open the bag.
What value is gracious professionalism to your team? And what other rules is your team trying to skirt?
Jim
FIRST can't stop anyone from having a second robot and developing mechanisms offline or tell us how to use our own team resources. They give us a witholding allowance each year to develop mechanisms offline and bring them into competition. One of the better ways to keep iterating and refining these mechanisms is to build a second robot and steadily improve it after bag day. It's not so much skirting of the rules, just making use of the witholding allowance rule.
I've always been under the assumption that design is an iterative process, correct me if I'm wrong. Eliminating a withholding allowance kind of downplays the importance of iterative design. How else do I apply the lessons I learned at my week 1 regional when I'm unbagging my robot from week 5? It's not like I can fabricate everything needed using the crowded machining center at the regional.
Brandon_L
20-02-2014, 03:33
I want the stop build day to be a stop build day. Currently it isn't. You can keep going with 45 lbs more, and you can keep going on a practice robot. The current system is broken and creates a huge disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
/circles
You don't need to be in the "haves" club to take advantage of the 45lb, or 30lb, or any withholding allowance. I wouldn't place us in the "haves" group of teams, more fortunate then others, sure, but not a "have". What did we do before bagging? Popped off an inconsistent intake to hopefully make it better by the time competitions roll around. You don't need a CNC mill and a $10,000 budget to pop a few screws off something you want to make better before you put the robot in its bag. Any team can do that. You just need the will to want to do better.
Do we build a practice robot? no. Could we? Maybe, maybe not. We never tried it. We just don't have the people, time, or money for it. Lack of resources is something we as a team have to recognize, deal with, and overcome. Unless FIRST wants to throw money and machining resources around, working within your limits is something teams have to master to succeed. To the teams who decided to build a practice robot: Congratulations. It is within your limits to do so, and you see it as worthwhile to spend your resources on. I see nothing wrong with this. If I were in a position to do so, I would do the same exact thing. As a team that does not build a practice robot, do I see this as unfair? No, not really. If it floats your boat then more power to you. It just makes me want to push harder to succeed over you. One of the most important lessons I try to teach on 2495 is perseverance, to never give up. Especially when you get your ro-butt handed to you by some fancy powder-coated CNC'd machine. You can sit there and complain that they cheat the system with their practice robot or you can try to manipulate our available resources to outsmart them. After complaining about teams like that myself for quite some time in earlier seasons, I think after the last few years I like the active approach much, much more.
Alan Anderson
20-02-2014, 08:44
I wonder if team size correlates with attitude about the Stop Build Deadline. Larger teams can have more students actively involved with building a robot if they build two of them. Smaller teams might lack the manpower to build a practice robot before bag day. I'm just not sure how best to craft a survey in order to get useful data.
Akash Rastogi
20-02-2014, 08:49
You don't need to be in the "haves" club to take advantage of the 45lb, or 30lb, or any withholding allowance. I wouldn't place us in the "haves" group of teams, more fortunate then others, sure, but not a "have". What did we do before bagging? Popped off an inconsistent intake to hopefully make it better by the time competitions roll around. You don't need a CNC mill and a $10,000 budget to pop a few screws off something you want to make better before you put the robot in its bag. Any team can do that. You just need the will to want to do better.
Do we build a practice robot? no. Could we? Maybe, maybe not. We never tried it. We just don't have the people, time, or money for it. Lack of resources is something we as a team have to recognize, deal with, and overcome. Unless FIRST wants to throw money and machining resources around, working within your limits is something teams have to master to succeed. To the teams who decided to build a practice robot: Congratulations. It is within your limits to do so, and you see it as worthwhile to spend your resources on. I see nothing wrong with this. If I were in a position to do so, I would do the same exact thing. As a team that does not build a practice robot, do I see this as unfair? No, not really. If it floats your boat then more power to you. It just makes me want to push harder to succeed over you. One of the most important lessons I try to teach on 2495 is perseverance, to never give up. Especially when you get your ro-butt handed to you by some fancy powder-coated CNC'd machine. You can sit there and complain that they cheat the system with their practice robot or you can try to manipulate our available resources to outsmart them. After complaining about teams like that myself for quite some time in earlier years, I think after the last few seasons I like the active answer much, much more.
Just to add onto this - it really is about hard work and allocating your resources. Having worked with 11 and 2495, teams with very different resources, it was clear to me that almost any team can accomplish a certain level of success if they put in the time. 11 has many sponsors, many machines, and a lot of man power. 2495 has the exact opposite, all in addition to being in a terrible school near Trenton. In 2012, $500 was a good robot budget for us. The next year, it was increased to about $1000. There's literally nothing stopping any team from using the 45 pounds, so I don't get what the issue is.
Additionally, we have found that having the district model and the unbagging rules, in addition to the withholding allowance, has really made it a lot easier for us to compete at a much higher level, and close to some teams who do create a 2nd robot. There's teams who build practice robots but still manage to be pretty mediocre.
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 09:04
You just need the will to want to do better.
I think that is "big thing".
We don't seem to have that will, so we finish our robot and do other stuff for a few weeks, until the regional competition. Sometimes we do well at the competition, other times we don't. Life goes on.
Galaxy Knuckles
20-02-2014, 09:23
This has been debated before. I'm sure you can find a thread using the search function if you would like to see more opinions on it.
The majority of replies to such threads can be summarized to: It is fair. Teams with practice bots worked to obtain the resources and skill it takes them to make two robots. The only thing stopping your team from being like them is more hard work.
You know....except money too. Which is a huge issue for the poorer teams who can get no funding and whose parents aren't rich enough to supply them with money either meaning that to even compete or get tools they have to spend almost as much time fundraising as building.... It changes nothing as far as the time spent a majority of the time just the cost. Fairness was never the issue here I (outdatted logistics? maybe fairness...no)
Rob Stehlik
20-02-2014, 09:45
This is an interesting debate that seems to be ongoing. Since 610 was mentioned here as an exception to the rule, I thought I would chime in.
Back in 2011 we built a practice robot. It was our first year with our CNC router, so we thought it was doable. Unfortunately the new machine wasn't as magic as we hoped, and it took a huge amount of time to build two robots. After putting in all of that extra work, I'm not even sure we benefited much from the practice robot. Our autonomous code that worked on the practice robot didn't work at competition. Our drivers didn't even get a lot of practice time since they were away on outreach trips and march break. The time between build season and regionals is very busy at our school, so there isn't much reason to build a second robot.
After that, I swore off practice robots. I see them as a waste of time and money. That doesn't stop our students from asking me to build one every year, but until our situation changes drastically, I refuse to consider it. We work hard during build season, making the most of the time we have. Then we stop. It's a conscious decision.
You don't need a second robot to be competitive.
geomapguy
20-02-2014, 09:45
Getting money takes time and persistence,...
If you want to win regionals or at least contend, work at it. Get more money, get a sheet metal sponsor or whatever. Do what is needed to get to the level you want to be at.
2495 is a great example of this, Brandon and Akash have both echoed the fact that the team has gradually increased its budget despite being in a bad school with almost no resources. (Which means they have pushed and pushed to get more sponsors). It's also worthy to note that 2495 won a district event last year (note sure if it was their first)
PandaHatMan
20-02-2014, 09:47
I agree with the bagging policy. It gives all teams an equal timeframe to work on their competition bot. If teams work after bag date on an identical bot to improve it, they have to spend time at their first competition to make identical changes to that bot or swap mechanisms.
The concept behind FIRST is to make a marketable product in a 6-week timeframe, and compete with it. Bagging the robot makes it possible to keep build season separate from competition season. However, you can't exactly shut the team members brains off after bag and tag, so FIRST allows you to carry in a certain amount of fabricated parts for last minute adjustments.
Last year, our team went into our first regional a 3rd level climber. We failed miserably, and between our first and second regional, built a shooter to replace our climber. We spent almost half of the first day changing our robot over and missed several practice matches. It's a sacrifice we had to make to improve our bot after bag.
Akash Rastogi
20-02-2014, 09:51
You know....except money too. Which is a huge issue for the poorer teams who can get no funding and whose parents aren't rich enough to supply them with money either meaning that to even compete or get tools they have to spend almost as much time fundraising as building.... It changes nothing as far as the time spent a majority of the time just the cost. Fairness was never the issue here I (outdatted logistics? maybe fairness...no)
If you think teams are just handed money without any work, you need to talk to way more well-off teams.
If you think teams are just handed money without any work, you need to talk to way more well-off teams.
I think the point is you're not guaranteed access to money and sponsors simply by dint of hard work. It'd be pretty naive to deny the roles of socioeconomic status of team members and luck in determining team resources.
Having had this discussion with a lot of folks that I have a ton of respect for, I will say that there are a few different camps and folks are they are pretty well entrenched in them.
The "second bot" debate is actually very similar to industry. I work in Defense, and we often have a date when we ship our vehicles to USG for testing... even the prototypes. Some companies choose to make a duplicate that they can continue development and learn from. Some companies don't. They have the same debate about resources and efforts and...
************************************************** *******
It is a healthy debate to have as long as both parties understand that people have different values and different value systems. This is the crux of a lot of debates with the program. Some teams are focused on program excellence and strive for excellence in the area they choose. Think of this as being similar to the Olympic athelete that devotes all their spare time to skiing down a hill or skating the perfect routine, or running a particular distance really fast.
If you have ever devoted yourself to "a" goal with all your heart, sole, and being for an extended period of time, you may understand the benefits and/or the losses associated with such a strong single minded effort. You learn a lot about your limits. You learn a lot about the details that make a difference. You learn a lot about what it takes to succeed at an effort.
This video does an excellent job of expressing "the desire for excellence":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok8OHYQdDDI
From the outside, witnessing the performance, you may find an Olympians performance admirable and maybe even inspirational. I would garauntee you that every person that has dug that deep has had a fight with someone that doesn't understand the time being invested, doesn't understand the money invested, doesn't the hardship, the late nights, the blood, seat, and tears involved. Many don't understand.
Some do understand what is involved. They may haev even gone through the process, and found that the sacrifice was not worth the efforts. This is a real result of chasing the passion for excellence. Divorces, loss of friends (cause you never there), grades slip, personal injuries that cause a person to live the rest of their life in pain (physical or emotional).
These hardships though are not universal, and for many that experience them, often it was a worthwhile exchange.
I bring these up, because it comes down to values. It is not my place to tell someone else what their values should be. It isn't your place to tell me what my values should be.
************************************************** ********
I do think there is a lot of value to the stop build day. I do, personally, believe that FIRST would/should allow for some development windows outside the stop build day. I would love to see 6-8 hrs/week unbag time, and do away with the "with-holding allowance". The folks chasing perforamnce excellence will still likely build a second bot. Most will utilize it to make development improvements. Some will not utilize that timeframe at all. This would most accurrately align with my values, and I think it would help teams learn about the importance of development.
With the Current FRC system, I think the "with-holding" allowance is a poor substittue to development comapred to controlled windows of access to the "competition robot". You have virtually un-limited time with a frustrating chunk of the system.
************************************************** *******
MrForbes shows a lot of wisodm when he says "We stopped working. You can too, if you want to." He seems to have a ton of dedication to his team, FIRST, and the effort involved in making a competitive robot. He also shows his team values balance of other activities.
It is perfectly fine to go skiing without going for the gold. You can smell the fresh air. See some interesting sites, and enjoy the exhileration of speed.
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 10:05
I think the point is you're not guaranteed access to money and sponsors simply by dint of hard work.
Quite true.
But you're also not guaranteed to build a great robot just because you have money and sponsors. I don't see a very high correlation.
Chris is me
20-02-2014, 10:07
I think the point is you're not guaranteed access to money and sponsors simply by dint of hard work. It'd be pretty naive to deny the roles of socioeconomic status of team members and luck in determining team resources.
In most other aspects of life, I agree that socioeconomic status is a huge determinant of success, but I don't honestly see how that can be the case in robotics. Unless team members of financial privilege are literally giving thousands of their own money to their teams, everyone seems to be on a roughly level ground in FRC. You start with not a lot, you develop relationships with sponsors and donors through outreach and communication, and the more work you put in the better your result. For me, it's a far more idealized version of what the real world is "supposed to" be, and that's one of the program's greatest strengths.
The way socioeconomic factors come into play with regards to robotics teams is if the region the team operates in as a whole is economically advantaged or depressed. In those cases, there's simply more access to potential sponsors and donors by virtue of the location. There's not a lot that FRC could do about that, and what they can do (max robot cost limits, etc) is already being done.
If someone could explain to me how "rich teams" somehow get money more easily, or how financially privileged team members result in an easier time finding success, I'd love to hear it. I'm willing to have my mind changed here.
Akash Rastogi
20-02-2014, 10:09
I think the point is you're not guaranteed access to money and sponsors simply by dint of hard work. It'd be pretty naive to deny the roles of socioeconomic status of team members and luck in determining team resources.
I can agree with that and I don't deny it (much of my undergrad work involves studies in this), but implying that it is as easy as just asking parents to drop in money is also naive. Also, teams shouldn't be raising money during build season anyway. If that is a problem, they should raise money all year.
I guess I'm pretty biased on this issue, but my anecdotal evidence comes from helping teams from Philly, Trenton, Newark, Texas, Cali, Louisiana, Oklahoma, etc. all teams who thought they were in too tough of a place to raise money or find resources. It takes a long time and a lot of baby steps to create change. I think too many teams aim for too much too quickly and get disappointed when they can't acheive their goals.
A shop full of 5 axis waterjets and Mazaks won't build a thing by themselves, to be long term competitive you need talented people. As the FIRST program stretches outward, fulfilling it's ultimate goal, the "unfair" factor will grow. As poorer schools from distresed communities become more involved, the disparity in technical assets will become even more clear.
Akash Rastogi
20-02-2014, 10:10
Quite true.
But you're also not guaranteed to build a great robot just because you have money and sponsors. I don't see a very high correlation.
This too.
But you're also not guaranteed to build a great robot just because you have money and sponsors. I don't see a very high correlation.
You don't see a high correlation between team access to resources and robot quality?
I disagree heartily. Money and sponsors certainly don't guarantee team success, but they offer a huge amount of help along the way.
Anecdotally, this year 4464 had a robot budget of $1000 and about 7-8 regular students. We were only able to hobble together the parts for a working robot due to the extraordinary generosity of several local teams. Moreover, the mentors made a conscious decision to step back and give more responsibility to the students, which we think gave them a much more valuable experience.
As a result, while our robot was mechanically finished and fully wired on stop build day, we have not had time to debug essentially any of the code. If we had a couple thousand more dollars in our budget, we would have a huge advantage over our current position, simply by being able to test. No withheld parts, no redesigns, simply access to a copy of our robot to test code. This is not possible with our current team, both due to monetary constraints and limited manpower.
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 10:33
You don't see a high correlation between team access to resources and robot quality?
I disagree heartily. Money and sponsors certainly don't guarantee team success, but they offer a huge amount of help along the way.
I guess things are different out here in Arizona. We do pretty well without spending much money at all on our robot, or on equipment. Last year we were top seed, and won the AZ regional, with a robot made with a dozen students armed with nothing more elaborate than a table top band saw, and a few cordless drills. With two engineering mentors and a couple teachers, taking turns watching over us.
I've also spent some time hanging out with 842. I'd say robot building and competitive success have a lot more to do with the particular people there are on a team, than with socioeconomic factors, etc.
DanielPlotas
20-02-2014, 10:44
I wonder if team size correlates with attitude about the Stop Build Deadline. Larger teams can have more students actively involved with building a robot if they build two of them. Smaller teams might lack the manpower to build a practice robot before bag day. I'm just not sure how best to craft a survey in order to get useful data.
we effectively have three people working the entire six weeks, so we have absolutely no chance of building another one unless we completely finish the first one in about four weeks.
You know....except money too. Which is a huge issue for the poorer teams who can get no funding and whose parents aren't rich enough to supply them with money either meaning that to even compete or get tools they have to spend almost as much time fundraising as building.... It changes nothing as far as the time spent a majority of the time just the cost. Fairness was never the issue here I (outdatted logistics? maybe fairness...no)
Every team has equal abilities to fundraise.
There are many teams in poor areas of the country with big sponsors, and many teams in wealthy areas with very limited sponsorship.
Sponsorship dollars on most teams generally has little to do with the wealthiness of the team's location.
In my experience: The teams with little sponsorship tend to treat FIRST as "that thing we do for 6-12 weeks in the winter/spring", and the teams with big budgets tend to treat it as "a year round thing with off-season competitions and learning in the fall, and constantly fundraising and approaching companies"
Most of those big-budget teams? They worked hard for those dollars, during the off-season, so that when it comes time for build season, they don't have to worry so much about money.
Back to the original topic of this thread:
I agree with an earlier poster that because of how bag+tag is run, there is literally nothing but my honour saying that the robot was in the bag on stop build day and hasn't left its bag until competition. I'm certain that there are at least a few teams who cheat, and bag it the night before competition and lie about it. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't really care if teams do this. They cheapen the experience for themselves, but they don't really affect other teams by doing so, since big-budget teams just build a practice robot and achieve essentially the same result: more time to work.
The bags make robots unwieldy to move, and achieve nothing (plus add a whole bunch of headaches for inspection when transporting the robot tore a hole in the bag, etc). The same thing could be achieved by still having stop build day, and just making a mentor sign off that they've been hands-off since stop build day.
For that reason, I would be in support of abolishing the bag, but keeping a stop build day.
DanielPlotas
20-02-2014, 10:55
You don't see a high correlation between team access to resources and robot quality?
I disagree heartily. Money and sponsors certainly don't guarantee team success, but they offer a huge amount of help along the way.
I think its more being able to consistently year after year produce a competitive robot. every once and a while, a small team will have a very good design and perform well, but the next year, more than likely they wont repeat this success.
Anupam Goli
20-02-2014, 10:56
You don't see a high correlation between team access to resources and robot quality?
I disagree heartily. Money and sponsors certainly don't guarantee team success, but they offer a huge amount of help along the way.
There might be some correlation, but I don't think it's high. It's my personal belief that excellent engineering mentors are enough to overcome any disparity in money and resources. This is the type of engineer and mentor I strive to become. There are a lot of teams that have large budgets and resources, but still don't field winning robots. There's plenty of teams that live on $50-$100 microsponsorships and buy parts out of pocket that do field winning robots. The difference lies in how these teams use their resources and how they build within those resources. Excellent teams will then work hard to increase the amount of resources they have.
EricWilliams
20-02-2014, 11:56
Every team has equal abilities to fundraise.
There are many teams in poor areas of the country with big sponsors, and many teams in wealthy areas with very limited sponsorship.
Sponsorship dollars on most teams generally has little to do with the wealthiness of the team's location.
Disregarding everything else about this discussion, (I'll leave that to much smarter people) I just can't let this go without comment. Socioeconomic and demographic disparities between groups is something that will always exist - that's just the way it is. And while no plan/solution/method is going to make things "fair" for the (wonderfully) diverse teams that compete in FIRST or anything else, everyone certainly has a responsibility to understand how those disparities affect all groups to facilitate the greatest amount of opportunity available to everyone.
My personal observations after having lived in vastly different areas of the US: the biggest difference between (and I'll focus here on STEM extracurricular activities, but it's a fairly universal concept) affluent areas and struggling areas is community/parent engagement. Please keep in mind this a generalization required to investigate and solve problems, so counter-examples remain exactly what they are: exceptions to rules.
Things like lack of reliable transportation, inability to take time from work, and household responsibilities are not mitigated simply by "hard work" and "working in the off-season". They are real, persistent problems, and they directly relate to a team's ability to fundraise and prepare for success. When your parent base can't mobilize around and in support of your team, when you don't have the community connections to potential corporate sponsors, and when schools are more worried about simply keeping classrooms running instead of providing resources for extracurriculars, "hard work" becomes a fairly moot point.
FIRST has been smart in promoting lower-bar-for-entry programs (Jr.FLL -> FTC), but even at those levels the differences are clear. Not that there aren't a ton of examples of great teams from poorer areas or struggling teams from wealthy areas (Chicago FTC Qualifier and SBPLI FRC Regional are my personal examples), but simply identifying exceptions is not good enough. We need to find out what makes these exceptions possible and evangelize it.
If it's culture change and opportunities to succeed we (as the FIRST community) seek, sweeping these disparities under the rug of "you get what you put in" is not only unhelpful, it's downright damaging.
We're all passionate about great STEM education and enabling young people to be successful in life, but that passion has to be extended to all corners. And if there are problems in delivering those opportunities, everyone should be aware of them and work to overcome them.
I guess things are different out here in Arizona. We do pretty well without spending much money at all on our robot, or on equipment. Last year we were top seed, and won the AZ regional, with a robot made with a dozen students armed with nothing more elaborate than a table top band saw, and a few cordless drills. With two engineering mentors and a couple teachers, taking turns watching over us.
Last year, 4464 were top seed and rookie all-star at DC. Even with our limited means, though, we were far better off than most other rookie teams I've seen.
It doesn't change the fact that right now, compared to teams with more resources, we're severely hampered by our budget limitations in a way that could be completely avoided if the bag and tag rules were more sane. I simply do not see the benefit of pretending to have a hard deadline when teams with sufficient funding and manpower can effectively circumvent it. If the deadline is to exist, it should be equally stringent for all teams. You should not be able to, as was said earlier in the thread, "buy time."
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 12:25
One of our alliance partners last year built a practice robot, and they ended up spending Thursday rebuilding their competition robot. The robot did good, they were our first pick, but they also seeded poorly because of that darn practice robot causing them to spend Friday doing the practicing they should have been doing Thursday.
btw that's a team from a socioeconomically disadvantaged area, struggling to get funds.
I think that each team's situation is quite different. I don't see the bag rules helping or hurting too much...it seems to me that there are a few teams that have their act together enough to take good advantage of the "long" build season, but those teams are the same ones that would be figuring out how to win without the "long" build season.
In other words, it doesn't really make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I personally like the deadline.
nxtmonkeys
20-02-2014, 12:46
How about this: Build a practice robot drive frame over the summer.Then, you can spend less time on building the practice robot. Then, you can spend more time on the real robot. :eek:
:cool:
This is my first year mentoring and I'm fortunate enough to be working with a very well established team. Personally, I think bagging is a bad idea that gives a huge advantage to veteran well-funded teams and penalizes new teams and ones without a lot of financial resources.
At the very least, it seems like exceptions should be made for first year teams and/or teams that have had trouble raising funds. I'd prefer everyone be able to work on their robots up until inspection, that way we can all bring our very best to the field.
nxtmonkeys
20-02-2014, 12:53
That is the best idea that I've heard so far. us rookies have such a disadvantage. :mad:
One thing to note is that not all of a team's funding is required to come from what would be considered as a sponsor in the normal way. Team 1619, over the fall, had a leaf raking business that was student run and organized to raise money. We got the idea from a previous Team Driven (1730) mentor who is now a mentor of us. They do lawn aeration in the falls to raise money, but that does require some equipment. Regardless of how you do it, every little bit of money counts! That lawn mowing is what is allowing us to attend a second regional competition this year.
nxtmonkeys
20-02-2014, 13:31
Just wondering:
What if no one would sponsor a team?
This is my first year mentoring and I'm fortunate enough to be working with a very well established team. Personally, I think bagging is a bad idea that gives a huge advantage to veteran well-funded teams and penalizes new teams and ones without a lot of financial resources.
At the very least, it seems like exceptions should be made for first year teams and/or teams that have had trouble raising funds. I'd prefer everyone be able to work on their robots up until inspection, that way we can all bring our very best to the field.
The thing with this argument is that usually, people make it as a way of saying "Those teams that are always at the top? We could beat them if only we were given more time.", completely forgetting that the only way to give you more time fairly is to ALSO give the powerhouse teams more time. Those powerhouse teams? They're already making better use of the time they're given than the complaining teams, that's why they're powerhouses. Giving them more time will only serve to make the performance gap bigger, not smaller.
MichaelBick
20-02-2014, 13:33
I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.
ehochstein
20-02-2014, 13:33
Just wondering:
What if no one would sponsor a team?
You wouldn't have a team? Or the team fundraises all of the funds for itself, check out the FIRST Fundraising Toolkit (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/first-fundraising-toolkit) if you are interested in ways to increase funding for your team.
Just wondering:
What if no one would sponsor a team?
There exists some grants, and some regional FRC directors have access to some cash to give out on a case by case basis, but if your team can't find a sponsor at all? Its probably because you're not doing a very good job of singing the praises of the program.
That is the best idea that I've heard so far. us rookies have such a disadvantage. :mad:
One of my biggest FRC related pet peeves is rookie teams pulling the "woe is us" card.
I can think of plenty of examples, from several recent FRC seasons, of rookies that show up and perform well on AND off the field.
2013: 4814, 4451
2012: 4334
2007: 2056
I really, truly believe that FRC does a pretty good job of being able to transcend socioeconomic status of its participants, and that in 99% of cases, the result a team has is directly proportional to the effort they put in, and has little-to-nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the teams members OR its geographical area.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The powerhouses aren't great because they have great sponsors. They have great sponsors because they have a great program that the sponsors feel is worthwhile to support.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The powerhouses aren't great because they have great sponsors. They have great sponsors because they have a great program that the sponsors feel is worthwhile to support.
I agree. After we won Rookie All Star it was a lot easier to get sponser support. With the extra sponsership we started a new team, who also won Rookie All Star. Now mind you, neither #3381 nor #4531 has ever finished in the top 15% of teams.
Even if it is easier, our students still go out every year and give 30+ sponsorship presentations to companies all over our area. A lot of our sponser only give between $500 to $1000, but due to the sheer number of sponsers we have, our program supports 2 FRC teams, 2 FTC, and ~15FLL teams.
The harder the students work, the more funding they can get.
I agree. After we won Rookie All Star it was a lot easier to get sponser support. With the extra sponsership we started a new team, who also won Rookie All Star. Now mind you, neither #3381 nor #4531 has ever finished in the top 15% of teams.
I can testify that winning Rookie All-Star is not an instant ticket to money and sponsors; we're still struggling for monetary support at 4464 and it most certainly isn't for lack of effort.
I really, truly believe that FRC does a pretty good job of being able to transcend socioeconomic status of its participants, and that in 99% of cases, the result a team has is directly proportional to the effort they put in, and has little-to-nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the teams members OR its geographical area.
I think this is really, incredibly naive; I believe this about as much as I believe FIRST cures cancer or rescues cute kittens. Socioeconomic disadvantage is a deep-rooted social problem that no high-school program is going to completely (or even mostly) transcend.
I can testify that winning Rookie All-Star is not an instant ticket to money and sponsors; we're still struggling for monetary support at 4464 and it most certainly isn't for lack of effort.
Perhaps your approach could use work?
Its usually not terribly effective throwing a sponsorship packet onto the desk of some company exec that essentially says "give us money... because.... yeah, we do this robotics thing... and it like... helps kids... somehow."
In my experience, the most effective sponsorship seeking is done by the students, not the mentors. It seems to be most effective if the students can meet with the prospective sponsor, and have a conversation in the student's own words about why the program is important to them, and what they get out of it. It's also important to demonstrate to the sponsor how the program gives back. Maybe your team raises money for cancer research, or builds robots to help enrich the lives of disabled people, or other community support things. When sponsors see a team that is helping their community, and is visible? Its MUCH easier to get sponsorship, because a sponsor can look at the team doing these things and say yes, I want to put my name on that.
Perhaps your approach could use work?
Its usually not terribly effective throwing a sponsorship packet onto the desk of some company exec that essentially says "give us money... because.... yeah, we do this robotics thing... and it like... helps kids... somehow."
I find your assumptions about and caricature of our fundraising efforts (which you really don't know anything about) rather insulting. Please, be a bit more respectful.
I think this is really, incredibly naive; I believe this about as much as I believe FIRST cures cancer or rescues cute kittens. Socioeconomic disadvantage is a deep-rooted social problem that no high-school program is going to completely (or even mostly) transcend.
If you think I'm being naive, can you show some real data that proves that on average teams that hail from regions with higher socioeconomic status do better than teams from poorer areas? I just don't believe the socioeconomic status of the region a team comes from has much to do with their success.
nxtmonkeys
20-02-2014, 14:19
One of my biggest FRC related pet peeves is rookie teams pulling the "woe is us" card.
I can think of plenty of examples, from several recent FRC seasons, of rookies that show up and perform well on AND off the field.
2013: 4814, 4451
2012: 4334
2007: 2056
I really, truly believe that FRC does a pretty good job of being able to transcend socioeconomic status of its participants, and that in 99% of cases, the result a team has is directly proportional to the effort they put in, and has little-to-nothing to do with the socioeconomic status of the teams members OR its geographical area.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The powerhouses aren't great because they have great sponsors. They have great sponsors because they have a great program that the sponsors feel is worthwhile to support.
I'm not pulling that card. I'm just saying that some other teams may have problems. My team doesn't have a second anything.
I think that our robot is awesome. We'll have no trouble with it, but it would be nice to practice.
If you think I'm being naive, can you show some real data that proves that on average teams that hail from regions with higher socioeconomic status do better than teams from poorer areas? I just don't believe the socioeconomic status of the region a team comes from has much to do with their success.
Can you show me evidence that it doesn't? I think it's pretty clearly a less-burdened hypothesis that, like with essentially every other comparable academic exercise, poorer kids are disadvantaged in FIRST than the contrary. Occam's razor states that we should thus expect it to be more probable than the contrary.
I find your assumptions about and caricature of our fundraising efforts (which you really don't know anything about) rather insulting. Please, be a bit more respectful.
I did not mean to suggest that necessarily your approach was like that. I have seen some pretty poor approaches to seeking sponsorship over the 12 years I've been a part of FIRST.
I only meant to suggest that if you're having consistent problems being successful when seeking sponsorship, that perhaps its your approach that needs work, rather then simply throwing ones hands up in despair and blaming the socioeconomic status of their region.
Can you show me evidence that it doesn't? I think it's pretty clearly a less-burdened hypothesis that, like with essentially every other comparable academic exercise, poorer kids are disadvantaged in FIRST than the contrary. Occam's razor states that we should thus expect it to be more probable than the contrary.
Give me a few minutes and I will attempt to compare team zip codes median household income with a metric of team success for a similar timeframe (OPR, using 2008 data?)
I only meant to suggest that if you're having consistent problems being successful when seeking sponsorship, that perhaps its your approach that needs work, rather then simply throwing ones hands up in despair and blaming the socioeconomic status of their region.
I'm not blaming the socioeconomic status of my region; there is also a large factor of luck involved. We also are not "throwing our hands up in despair," and are constantly trying to better our fundraising efforts.
I am suggesting that your assumption that somehow FIRST manages to transcend all the pitfalls of our economics and correlate perfectly with effort in "99% of cases" is not particularly likely.
nxtmonkeys
20-02-2014, 14:25
We're going to go into some parades (hopefully) and maybe get some sponsors.
Chris is me
20-02-2014, 14:26
If you think I'm being naive, can you show some real data that proves that on average teams that hail from regions with higher socioeconomic status do better than teams from poorer areas? I just don't believe the socioeconomic status of the region a team comes from has much to do with their success.
This can be done with some data analysis, I can work on it after exams. But think about it - say you are rural enough to only have one machine shop in a 50 mile radius. Low economic status, no *option* to acquire resources. The underlying assumption of your post is that every area every team is in has a surplus of local entities willing to sponsor teams. Geographically, this just isn't true. Also consider that engineers tend to be more economically advantaged than the mean. So they will very likely live in higher income areas. Consider the difficulties of traditional fundraising in areas where there exists far less disposable income. It's fairly easy to see why a disadvantaged economic REGION makes FRC success take more effort.
I don't like the idea that you can just put in X units of work and success pops out. Success is not equal to work inputted, but it is proportional to it. So yes, try as hard as you can, obviously, but there is a lot more to it than that. I would also add that anybody good enough to win is clearly trying extremely hard regardless of circumstance.
Rangel(kf7fdb)
20-02-2014, 14:27
Perhaps we should keep this thread focused on the topic at hand. Their are plenty of other threads about fundraising and the fairness of it that has been discussed extensively. As for whether to have a stop build day or not we would love to not have to build a second robot but we do so in order to be as competitive as possible. The money building a second robot is a waste really when we could have spent it towards another competition such as Robosub or maybe even take more students to championships and out of state trips.
Give me a few minutes and I will attempt to compare team zip codes median household income with a metric of team success for a similar timeframe (OPR, using 2008 data?)
So:
I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761
and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/Features/tract2zip/index.html
Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.
16343
I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.
Allison K
20-02-2014, 15:05
[Snipped for being off topic]
Anyway, the topic at hand. I could do without "stop build." We continue working using a practice bot and our withholding allowance anyway, and we effectively pace ourselves regardless of the external controls placed on us. It's not the extra expense of the practice bot that gets to me, as we would build a second robot regardless, but the extra layer of bureaucracy with the paperwork and signing and deadlines. I think as more areas switch to districts and attending 2-4 events in a season (two districts, plus a third district and/or district championship) becomes more commonplace the deadlines and bagging/unbagging will become more cumbersome. As long as "stop build" exists we'll manage just fine and all, but I won't be sad to see it go if it ever does.
cadandcookies
20-02-2014, 15:13
To come back to the OP:
We bag our robots because those are the rules of the competition. FIRST has decided to use those rules, and I like FIRST and the people who work there (like that Frank guy :P). Since they run the competition and I trust their decision making process, I trust that if/when they determine that it makes more sense to get rid of bagging and tagging they will make that decision. Clearly they have not determined that yet, so I'll be fine competing under current rules until they do.
To come back to the OP:
We bag our robots because those are the rules of the competition. FIRST has decided to use those rules, and I like FIRST and the people who work there (like that Frank guy :P). Since they run the competition and I trust their decision making process, I trust that if/when they determine that it makes more sense to get rid of bagging and tagging they will make that decision. Clearly they have not determined that yet, so I'll be fine competing under current rules until they do.
^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.
The original question was, "Why are we bagging?"
The short answer is: Because FIRST wants it that way.
This is despite all the good reasons people have given for eliminating the bagging requirement:
- less stress on mentors and students (this has been debated to death)
- money currently spent on practice bots could be better spent
- more time for rookies to become minimally competitive
- better quality robots at any given competition for everyone
A more useful way to look at this issue is, given that every year this same issue is raised and debated, why has FIRST not changed things? Why do they seem to be ignoring the expressed desires of many of the teams to eliminate bag day? They seem to be pretty responsive to other legitimate complaints people raise.
My theory is that FIRST has made a management decision that keeping bag day is more supportive of the long term interests and goals of the FIRST organization than eliminating it. To me, the most persuasive and least debatable point in favor is that being able to work on your competition bot until game day saves teams money. It seems to me that helping teams save money is way, way down on the priority list of the FIRST organization. If they wanted to help keep the costs down, they could do so very simply: reduce the budget allowable for the robot. FIRST, in fact, has gone the other direction, raising the budget in 2013 from $3500 to $4000.
Why would they do such a thing? Because it forces teams to do more fundraising to stay competitive. It increases the amount of community relationship building a team must engage in.
Everyone says over and over that FIRST is about inspiration. It's not about making things easier or less stressful or cheaper or even more competitive. It's not about the robot. It's not about the competition. It's about spreading the message.
Read through the criteria for the highest awards FIRST gives, Chairman's, Dean's list and Woodie Flowers. These awards are only peripherally about technical excellence and success on the field. They are given for communications skills and successful PR.
Think about that. The organization which hosts "the super bowl of smarts" gives it's highest awards not for technical excellence, but for excellence in PR.
So, when asking why are we still bagging robots, the question really is, "which is better PR, bagging or not bagging?" I think the answer lies in the line all our students and mentors deliver to everyone who asks us about FIRST. "We have six weeks from kickoff day to design, build and test our robot before it has to go in the bag." That line is PR gold. Why would FIRST ever give it up? To make things easier on the teams? To make it cheaper? To REDUCE the amount of community relationship building necessary to be top tier? I don't think so.
[Full disclosure... I hope FIRST proves me wrong and eliminates bag day. I'd love to be able to work to improve our competition bot right up until our final competition. But, I don't think that's going to happen.]
minhnhatbui
20-02-2014, 15:22
Perhaps we should keep this thread focused on the topic at hand. Their are plenty of other threads about fundraising and the fairness of it that has been discussed extensively. As for whether to have a stop build day or not we would love to not have to build a second robot but we do so in order to be as competitive as possible. The money building a second robot is a waste really when we could have spent it towards another competition such as Robosub or maybe even take more students to championships and out of state trips.
This. Especially in Québec, where at the moment we only have a regional, and the next closest is, notwithstanding districts, at a 4-hours drive from Montréal to the US, or 6-hours drive to Toronto (GTR-W, GTR-E, Oshawa), teams prefer to build a second robot to focus and be competitive for the Montréal regional instead of attending a second event, and IMHO, that's a shame. Stop build day, if there is one, should be as late as possible, i.e. the weekend before week 1 events. If FIRST is "not all about robots" as Dean and Frank often say, letting teams work on their single robot could shift money towards improving their robotics team, finding new mentors or giving students a chance to compete abroad and gain more experience.
cadandcookies
20-02-2014, 15:51
^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.
Exactly. And I trust them to use that data in addition to internal discussion to make the decision that they consider best.
The original question was, "Why are we bagging?"
The short answer is: Because FIRST wants it that way.
This is despite all the good reasons people have given for eliminating the bagging requirement:
- less stress on mentors and students (this has been debated to death)
- money currently spent on practice bots could be better spent
- more time for rookies to become minimally competitive
- better quality robots at any given competition for everyone
A more useful way to look at this issue is, given that every year this same issue is raised and debated, why has FIRST not changed things? Why do they seem to be ignoring the expressed desires of many of the teams to eliminate bag day? They seem to be pretty responsive to other legitimate complaints people raise.
My theory is that FIRST has made a management decision that keeping bag day is more supportive of the long term interests and goals of the FIRST organization than eliminating it. To me, the most persuasive and least debatable point in favor is that being able to work on your competition bot until game day saves teams money. It seems to me that helping teams save money is way, way down on the priority list of the FIRST organization. If they wanted to help keep the costs down, they could do so very simply: reduce the budget allowable for the robot. FIRST, in fact, has gone the other direction, raising the budget in 2013 from $3500 to $4000.
Why would they do such a thing? Because it forces teams to do more fundraising to stay competitive. It increases the amount of community relationship building a team must engage in.
Everyone says over and over that FIRST is about inspiration. It's not about making things easier or less stressful or cheaper or even more competitive. It's not about the robot. It's not about the competition. It's about spreading the message.
Read through the criteria for the highest awards FIRST gives, Chairman's, Dean's list and Woodie Flowers. These awards are only peripherally about technical excellence and success on the field. They are given for communications skills and successful PR.
Think about that. The organization which hosts "the super bowl of smarts" gives it's highest awards not for technical excellence, but for excellence in PR.
So, when asking why are we still bagging robots, the question really is, "which is better PR, bagging or not bagging?" I think the answer lies in the line all our students and mentors deliver to everyone who asks us about FIRST. "We have six weeks from kickoff day to design, build and test our robot before it has to go in the bag." That line is PR gold. Why would FIRST ever give it up? To make things easier on the teams? To make it cheaper? To REDUCE the amount of community relationship building necessary to be top tier? I don't think so.
[Full disclosure... I hope FIRST proves me wrong and eliminates bag day. I'd love to be able to work to improve our competition bot right up until our final competition. But, I don't think that's going to happen.]
The other angle though, is that more competitive robots = a more exciting competition to watch = more sponsors attracted from passers-by who happen to see a regional and go "Oh this is cool, I want to support this."
More competitive robots = more exciting competition = easier to sell to sponsors (both at the team level, and the HQ level).
More competitive robots make it easier to make FIRST loud.
Joe Ross
20-02-2014, 16:36
At the risk of further derailing this thread, for those interested in anecdotes of socioeconomically disadvantaged teams and robotics competitions, this is a great read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 16:39
@ Joe: :)
zinthorne
20-02-2014, 16:43
My team has built out of a garage for its entire existence, last year was our first year with a second robot. We do not have access to a water jet cutting machine or cnc machine, yet we still made a second bot and a very good one too. It only took us an extra few days to finish the second robot.This was made possible by planning ahead and getting the parts for the second robot during the 6 weeks when parts on the final bot were finalized. Granted our second robot was not perfectly identical, but it was very close. Bagging the robot should be used, because it simulates real world deadlines. Yes, it is an honor system, but all teams should be trustworthy enough to bag their robot.
Monochron
20-02-2014, 16:45
I have two main points here to make.
1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.
2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.
The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.
FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.
falconmaster
20-02-2014, 16:58
At the risk of further derailing this thread, for those interested in anecdotes of socioeconomically disadvantaged teams and robotics competitions, this is a great read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html
You got it Joe, we learned to make up our differences by maximizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses.
@ Joe:
when you lose enough times you start to figure out how to win. The solution is not always money, although it helps. Human resources are far more important so we reach out to all for help, as you well know. :) We also post everything we discover in the hopes of helping others....
Thanks to all to have helped us, I can't say this enough!
falconmaster
20-02-2014, 17:06
I have two main points here to make.
1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.
2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.
The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.
FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.
A practice bot gives the teams that are struggling more time to come up with a better solution for their bot. Also keep in mind the withholding limits and the time it takes to make the adjustments at the tournaments. Its part of the game to work within those constraints. For us where we don't have the resources and the man power of the power house teams, the practice bot has helped level the playing field for us. If there are no practice bots allowed our chances would be greatly diminished.......We will live with in the rules
I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.
Actually it is a lot more work when you don't have the resources, materials or the dollars to purchase said resources. We have cannibalized last year's robot to build this year which is a good use of resources, but not enough for two bots. Fortunately we have a couple great sponsors that allows us to get parts we need to build a robot that does the tasks it needs to, but we try to budget so we have money to start next year, so there is not a lot of fluff to work with.
We are a second year team and I agree with others on here that some of these rules need to be looked at. I don't get having a $100,000 budget for a team. I don't care were you are from. How is that in the spirit of FIRST? In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations. If you get the big corporate sponsorship, then I guess more power to you, but I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.
I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot. That is were we see some really sophisticated robots that other teams will most likely never have a chance to build based on resources. Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.
Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot. We did what we were suppose to do. Get our kit of parts, put it together and build up from there. We used last years robot to learn programming, use it for presentations and driving practice until we had to start robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the spirit of FIRST I thought the rule was for you not to build components that would be used for build season. You can argue with me about the semantics in the rules, but I am sure in "the spirit of FIRST" that was the idea behind the rule. Not to have a jump start on the drive train or other pieces before build season.
What started out to be for kids to get interested in STEM is turning out to be almost commercialized in the fact as in life money becomes the deciding factor of who comes out on top unless you are picked to be on the winning alliance team. Life isn't fair and we have to deal with what we have to work with, but I also don't think FIRST is about helping promote that idea. If it is, maybe I don't understand why FIRST exists then.
I would like to see FIRST consider the following:
1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.
2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.
3) Look at starting an FRC Open class. Teams that want to go all out can. If you are not in open then you use a standard drive base and allowed to change gears. You could still run the same amount of matches and teams at a regional, just group them accordingly.
4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.
We are all coming off of a 6 week build and for some of us a challenging one due to weather issues, but speaking from a young team, I would say it is time for FIRST to evaluate some of these rules to allow new teams to feel encouraged they have a chance. There will always be those who find the loop holes and loose interpretations and go beyond them. After all that is why have them to begin with. In the end it comes down to the people involved. Like basketball, the ball is the same ball for every team, but it is the coaching and the players that make the difference. I would just like to see FIRST be more about having each team use close to the same ball and let the rest be decided for itself.
waialua359
20-02-2014, 17:18
I have two main points here to make.
1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.
2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.
The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.
FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.
Brian,
I can see your point........although not saying I agree/disagree with it.
Our program has the resources to build 2,3,4 or even 5 robots if we really wanted to. But we dont have the manpower, passion, or time to make even 1 practice bot at this time.
It also doesnt bother me that other teams do and have a lot more practice/refinement time than us. My body needs a break, my family needs me at home more often, and my day job needs attention after a long 6 weeks and all the preparations leading up to it.
I think the spirit of the build season is as you have described to create an even playing field with respect to time.
But the reality is, over the years, more and more teams have access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience to do a second robot while competing in more and more events.
I think FIRST has to figure out how the rules should evolve, if any to either stop it, or support the reality of the changes that hundreds of teams now employ.
So:
I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761
and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/Features/tract2zip/index.html
Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.
16343
I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.
But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.
While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.
Alan Anderson
20-02-2014, 17:44
There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:
In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations.
I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".
FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.
One way would be to not allow any extra parts to come in to the competition. "Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.
There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:
I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".
Excellent point.
One way would be to not allow any extra parts to come in to the competition. "Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.
You don't have to think very hard to imagine what kind of problems this might cause. Drag racers aren't (supposed to be) colliding at high speed, getting tangled together, reacting against anything other than the ground. FRC robots get banged up. I doubt this is a rule change you'd be asking to make if, say, in your first qualifications match something causes your shooter tensioner to break, or a pneumatic cylinder to get bent, or your electrical system to short out.
My body needs a break, my family needs me at home more often, and my day job needs attention after a long 6 weeks and all the preparations leading up to it.
I agree - I think that FIRST has recognized that stop-build (I still call it "Ship Day" even though I've never seen a robot shipped on "Ship Day" in my time in FRC) is more of a soft-stop than anything. Students, mentors, and other volunteers need a break, and this "deadline" of sorts encourages a rest. And as far as I'm concerned, this deadline helps speed up progress. There's a deliverable due on stop-build day, and that encourages completion of the goal in my eyes.
Anupam Goli
20-02-2014, 18:07
I would like to see FIRST consider the following:
1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.
4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.
I don't see how either of these two make sense.
For 1, what do you gain from restricting people to specific drivetrains? What if a team wants to build a swerve drive, or a jump/H/octocanum drive? Our team likes to use 8020 and build a custom chassis, since it is so much easier to prototype and play around with frame geometry on 8020. If you want to use the kitbot (which is certainly a good drivetrain), then you are welcome to. Don't force it down the throats of teams that want to go the extra step and come up with something innovative.
For number 4, you could argue this would improve a lot of things, but it'll also be unfair for a lot of teams. There are teams that have been vets of FIRST for a long time that can't do what some rookie and 2nd year teams are capable of now. Allowing an extension for teams that have been in existence for only 3 years, regardless of their state of readiness, but ignoring those vet teams that still need help won't help.
I think this thread has derailed enough, and we should bring it back to the topic of discussing stop build day and the bagging rule.
Caleb Sykes
20-02-2014, 18:12
But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.
While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.
I don't think that you understand what his graph represents. OPR is not a measure of how well a team finishes. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with elimination matches, only with qualification matches. Also, I don't believe he used a multi-year average. I think he just used the data from 2008 since OPR is generally considered to correlate well to robot ability that year. For more information about OPR, read the presentation referenced in this thread, especially slides 14 onwards. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114980&highlight=OPR
cadandcookies
20-02-2014, 18:20
A
I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot. That is were we see some really sophisticated robots that other teams will most likely never have a chance to build based on resources. Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.
Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot. We did what we were suppose to do. Get our kit of parts, put it together and build up from there. We used last years robot to learn programming, use it for presentations and driving practice until we had to start robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the spirit of FIRST I thought the rule was for you not to build components that would be used for build season. You can argue with me about the semantics in the rules, but I am sure in "the spirit of FIRST" that was the idea behind the rule. Not to have a jump start on the drive train or other pieces before build season.
1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.
2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.
If you would like a more restrictive competition, they're out there. The way I see it, there may be more affordable, more restrictive, more "realistic" programs, but FRC is the high end "flagship" program. It is expensive, big, and flashy. It is not for everyone. It doesn't make sense for some areas to support FRC teams-- look at Iowa, where there are a few hundred FTC teams and (if I remember correctly) less than ten FRC teams.
If you want a cheaper, more controlled program, try FTC, VEX, or BEST. It may sound selfish, but I like the spectacle of FRC-- and so, I believe, do sponsors.
MrForbes
20-02-2014, 18:56
"Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.
I thought that saying applies more to heads up drag racing...????
Run what ya brung, and hope you brung enough
xXhunter47Xx
20-02-2014, 19:45
Bagging and tagging is part of the fun.
We used it as a means of celebration.
And then we had to high tail outta the school because it was midnight.
I don't get having a $100,000 budget for a team. I don't care were you are from. How is that in the spirit of FIRST?
I don't know what teams you're looking at, but I can only think of a couple that might have $100,000 budgets.
Most of the ones I can think of? They have 2 or 3 FRC teams which they take to multiple events. The Robodawgs from MI, teams 216, 244, and 288, all went to two districts plus GTREast and Western Canadian regionals in 2013. That's $35,000 in entry fees alone, never mind travel expenses in to Canada twice, plus the cost of 3 robots.
I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.
What exactly about going to more events, building more robots, and reaching out to your community more doesn't fit with FIRSTs mission to Inspire and Recognize Science and Technology?
I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot.
We maybe agree on this point. Except: I don't think I've ever seen an FRC robot that was particularly close to being at $4000 BOM cost, by 2014 accounting rules, which allow you to count any item in the KOP, in unlimited quantities, at $0.
Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.
I disagree that budget is anywhere near the top of the list of reasons why teams aren't competitive.
Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot.
Where do you see this? It is definitely against the 2014 rules (and every year's rules back at least as far as 2003) to start building anything for your 2014 competition robot before kickoff.
There are definitely teams that work on various drive train prototypes in the off season to gain experience, but I've never seen anyone have a fully finalized design that they built before kickoff and then used.
What started out to be for kids to get interested in STEM is turning out to be almost commercialized in the fact as in life money becomes the deciding factor of who comes out on top unless you are picked to be on the winning alliance team.
You are just patently wrong on this point. Dozens of teams with little to no resources DO perform well and win events. Yes, there are several powerhouses that have big budgets and spend lots of money, but that's not required for success here, its an artifact of success. Those big budget teams? They got the budget by being successful and inspiring sponsors to give them more money by showing what they could do with it.
1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.
I agree that the AM14U kitbot is a considerable improvement over the C-Base kitbot it replaced. I additionally agree that many teams will find that the kitbot is their best starting point to building a competitive robot. What I don't understand is what you think limiting teams to it would achieve, besides stifling creativity.
2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.
I already explained why I don't think lowering the budget will change anything. Extending the build season by a week is a no go for many logistical reasons (for starters, FIRST HQ play tests games with team built robots at Week Zero events on the last weekend before stop build, and then often adapts the game field for function and durability before Week 1 competitions.), and extending the build season would only make the gap between the best and the average bigger, because the best (who are already more efficient than average at perfecting their mechanisms) get more time to perfect them.
3) Look at starting an FRC Open class. Teams that want to go all out can. If you are not in open then you use a standard drive base and allowed to change gears. You could still run the same amount of matches and teams at a regional, just group them accordingly.
There are too many reasons to list why this is a bad idea. If you want a more restrictive competition, go play in FLL, VEX, or FTC.
4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.
As others have mentioned, there is no simple metric like team age that correlates well with team success. Any system like this would give unfair advantage to strong rookies and unfair disadvantage to weak veterans.
We are all coming off of a 6 week build and for some of us a challenging one due to weather issues, but speaking from a young team, I would say it is time for FIRST to evaluate some of these rules to allow new teams to feel encouraged they have a chance. There will always be those who find the loop holes and loose interpretations and go beyond them. After all that is why have them to begin with. In the end it comes down to the people involved.
The people involved are what makes rookie sensations like 2056, 4334, 4451, and 4814 happen. None of those teams started with big bags of cash as far as I know, and all 4 of them were hugely successful in their rookie years, because they all had great mentors that understand what this game is all about and how to be successful at it.
The #1 mistake I see teams make is that they try to do too much, and end up not being able to do anything well. Teams that are less fortunate in the resource department are best served by doing a single game function really well. See: 4334 in 2012, 2200 in 2009, numerous teams that only had a really good minibot in 2011.
Monochron
20-02-2014, 20:55
Brian,
I can see your point........although not saying I agree/disagree with it.
Our program has the resources to build 2,3,4 or even 5 robots if we really wanted to. But we dont have the manpower, passion, or time to make even 1 practice bot at this time.
It also doesnt bother me that other teams do and have a lot more practice/refinement time than us. My body needs a break, my family needs me at home more often, and my day job needs attention after a long 6 weeks and all the preparations leading up to it.
I think the spirit of the build season is as you have described to create an even playing field with respect to time.
But the reality is, over the years, more and more teams have access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience to do a second robot while competing in more and more events.
Actually, the point I am making is that a team like yours DOESN'T have the resources to make two bots. Manpower is a finite resource just like time is. The old team I was on was large enough, and had enough skilled mentors, that we could work just as productively in tandem on two different robots. We had the money, the materials, and the manpower to do it.
FIRST's ultimate goal however is to create competent and impassioned students, and I am not sure that giving teams who have amassed "access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience" an advantage is the best way to accomplish this.
To be fair, I understand that those teams who work the hardest and fight to become successful deserve that success. I think showing students that in reality hard-work brings access to better equipment, design, etc. is a positive thing. I don't, however, think that because they are so successful and large that they should get to continue testing and tinkering on-robot when everyone else is barred from that by their team-size, money, or other factors.
We built our robot in a portable classroom that is used for school materials storage, girl's gym changing area and former elementary classroom without a bathroom that worked.
We have the sum total of: 1 drill press, 1 chop saw, 1 90 degree drill, 1 battery operated small rotary saw, 1 Dremel tool and accessories. The rest of our tools are classic hand tools like...wait for it....screwdrivers, hack saws and the like.
I think we had a great build season. I much rather would walk into a regional knowing my STUDENTS designed, built with sweat equity and actually knew how and why their robot does what it does than outsource all the parts just to keep up with the big spenders. Sometimes we do forget what this is all about. It's about having fun, learning some tech, learning how to operate in work teams, dealing with obstinate mentors (like me), and buying into knowing our robot may not be very "pretty" but it works, works well and does the following consistently: score, catch, pick up and can play "D" if necessary. Our mentors are wood working guys, and our robot looks it. My students walked out of the bag/tag on Tuesday with smiles on their faces knowing they'll be able to compete quite hard in March. We have the funds for 2 robots but neither the technical/mechanical/student numbers to do the second machine. We'll settle for our second/demo CRio and dummy electrical system to fine tune code.
You won't hear any whining from 3355. We learned a long time ago the old Darrell Royal adage: "You dance with who you brung to the prom". Buck up y'all. See ya' at the Dallas Regionals!
Steve Miller
Coach 3355
Purple Vipers
I thought that saying applies more to heads up drag racing...????
Run what ya brung, and hope you brung enough
Only used the analogy in response on how to strictly enforce a stop build day. It is obviously impractical for a mired of reasons.
And before I get taken too far out of context on my original post, my comments are from a 2nd year team/mentor that had challenges beyond just being a 2nd year team. We lost a week and half in terms of build days due to weather and school cancellations. We still managed to get a robot that can pick up a ball, pass a ball and shoot it into the goal or over the truss on limited resources. I am not saying it can't be done.
I also know in reality and in our area we will be challenged to have the fund raising opportunity and the ability to build two robots every year.
I by no means meant to offend veteran teams or any other team. I am concerned for teams in our situation that if FIRST raises entry fees, or budget for robots where will it leave many teams and how competitive can we be. I would hope FIRST would not make it cost prohibitive that teams would have to drop to lower costing organizations. There is a lot of good things going on here and we want to be a part of it for the long haul.
In the meantime we will work to be as competitive as we can with the resources at hand and like many teams will get better towards that goal each year.
Brandon_L
20-02-2014, 21:42
Being a new team isn't about 'having a chance'. You're not going to end up at the Superbowl the first time you pick up a football*, expecting to do so is just silly. Being a first year team is about going out and giving it what you got, and seeing how the pros play. See what works, understand why it works, and what doesn't work.
I really think FRC would be a better place if we all learned from the top tier teams instead of complained that they always win. Don't ask for the bar to be lowered, try to raise it.
*There are exceptions, 4334 or 2056 for example. But, look at who was guiding them.
geomapguy
20-02-2014, 21:43
^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.
^^^^ This is awesome!! I can definitely see some correlation between CD and the Team Updates
Adam Freeman
20-02-2014, 21:51
FIRST's ultimate goal however is to create competent and impassioned students, and I am not sure that giving teams who have amassed "access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience" an advantage is the best way to accomplish this.
Actually, the ultimate goal of FIRST is to inspire students to pursue a STEM related higher education, so they can become competent and impassioned STEM professionals...thus bettering the entire world.
Back on the original subject (ie; bagging) our team worked tonight and probably will be continuing our regular build schedule for practice, spare parts, iteration, etc...up until we atleast play our first district event. Then we will see what additional work is required to continue improving to obtain our goals. Bagging after 6 weeks or not, does not change the process we follow, it just make it more of a hassle to do them once on a practice bot then again on the competition bot.
For our team, we want to inspire through success first and foremost (inspiring through failure when we have too).
This process works for us. What works for you, is for you to decide.
Courtneyc303
20-02-2014, 22:44
The point of the program is to provide a learning experience to high school students. When we get into the real working world we will have to face deadlines. Just like in the engineering field you have a project and a deadline for said project. Our project is to build a robot and have a well working team, while working with limited resources, by the time that deadline rolls around.
I really think FRC would be a better place if we all learned from the top tier teams instead of complained that they always win. Don't ask for the bar to be lowered, try to raise it.
Just making this distinction again. "Hey, these people are great - how can I be like them?!" is much better for the community as a whole than "Those people are great - how unfair is it that I don't have that right this second?"
Regarding the actual topic at hand of bagging: I vouch for all the posts here of people who are bone tired, whose real jobs have suffered, and whose families are at the end of their patience. I NEED stop build or I will go crazy. A bit of practice bot work, or light show coding, is fine, but low pressure.
Regarding the zombie topic of how the spirit of FIRST is being lost, I will ignore most of it except the budget issue. My team's budget has never been as large as it currently is. It is beginning to approach about 1/2 of the number that was tossed out as ridiculous. Guess what? We still cannibalized last years bot. We spend our money on trips to explore technology fields, hosting luncheons for young women who meet with a panel of women with careers in advanced technology, paying for our school's Science Olympiad team to compete, buying a spare cRio to share with another team in need of one, and providing the ONLY funding for our school's teen mothers support group. And, for once, the entry fee for a second regional. I'll bet that other teams with large budgets and major sponsors are finding equally worthy ways to spend their money, probably even better and more organized ways.
To me, the real issue is that the current system is a mashup of the six-week build period and a vague unlimited one that, as far as I can tell, not too many people really like. Almost everyone seems to advocate for either a deadline or the absence of one, and the soft deadline we've ended up with seems to be the best way to keep both sides... at least sort of happy, anyway. Is this really a good long-term solution, though? Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be when it doesn't end up helping anyone...
Actually, the ultimate goal of FIRST is to inspire students to pursue a STEM related higher education, so they can become competent and impassioned STEM professionals...thus bettering the entire world.It annoys me when people use a statement like this essentially as a counterargument to anyone saying that FIRST can do other great things. Why can't it be both?
This may be a controversial statement, but here goes: Given the massive amount of time, money, energy, etc. put into FIRST, if all it does is convince a few students to switch their college majors, it's not a very efficient program. There's so much more FIRST can and should be doing, and just pointing to the mission statement isn't a very good argument to begin with.
Duncan Macdonald
21-02-2014, 03:49
Please don't interpret this as an attack but I feel you have made many statements in this thread without fully supporting them.
So:
I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761
and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/Features/tract2zip/index.html
Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.
16343
I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.
Every teacher I've ever had would give you at most half credit for not labelling your axises. To the best of my interpretation your sample size is 26 teams in a single year. Why did you choose Maryland? Do you think factors like years of experience or that individuals on those teams might be completely masking any meaningful correlation? (We've seen what team Copioli made in 3 days using some drills and extrusion.) Would you mind sharing your data analysis experience?
I'm for this study to be completed seeing as it has the potential to effect actual funding.
FIRST Canada is very fortunate to be working with Queen's University who is doing an arms length study for us on the effectiveness and benefits of the FIRST program . This study will be used to help with government and corporate funding submissions. In the past these funds have been used to support teams, events and scholarships. WE NEED YOUR HELP! http://queensu.fluidsurveys.com/surveys/maryanne-nfD/first-robotics-canada-mentor-survey/
The thing with this argument is that usually, people make it as a way of saying "Those teams that are always at the top? We could beat them if only we were given more time.", completely forgetting that the only way to give you more time fairly is to ALSO give the powerhouse teams more time. Those powerhouse teams? They're already making better use of the time they're given than the complaining teams, that's why they're powerhouses. Giving them more time will only serve to make the performance gap bigger, not smaller.
Do you not believe in diminishing returns? How much better do you expect 118 or 148 to get if the build season was lengthened?
timytamy
21-02-2014, 06:35
I've been through most of the discussion, but I haven't found anyone who has brought up the topic of international teams.
For arguments sake, if there were no bagging restrictions: From Australia, we must ship at least a week before the regional, as the robot is next to useless if it's not in the right country. When we attended a week one regional, we actually had to cut a few days off our build season, to ensure the robot made it.
In terms of resources, the vast majority of our budget is spent on travel. We prioritizes taking as many students to a regional, which means that a lot of [robot] options are closed off to us. For many international teams, the cost of attending a regional can be orders of magnitude more than the actual robot. The only viable solution [that I can think of] is to get enough teams to have our own regional, but that is still at least a year off [in Australia]
Up until this season, our mechanical lab has been no larger than a shipping container, even with this, last year we built a practice robot (although it was built almost completely AFTER stop build day), and in comp we came to three points from getting to the finals. I suppose this supports the anecdotal data that you don't need massive resources to build a competitive robot.
All said, I'm not sure what the best solution is, but it certainly is complicated...
Adam Freeman
21-02-2014, 07:55
There's so much more FIRST can and should be doing, and just pointing to the mission statement isn't a very good argument to begin with.
I did not say that every team should only do what the FIRST mission statement says. That is up to each individual team to decide how they want to pursue their goals. But it still is the mission statement or "ultimate goal" as stated in the post I referenced previously.
We follow our interpretation of it and set our goals for how and what we want our students to get out of the program. I think we do a decent job at it, both on and off the field.
If other teams have different priorities, more power to them. That is their choice as to what they want to emphasize.
1) Eliminate exact replica practice bots
or
1) restrict modifications that can be made to competition bot, gained from practice bot from the period between "bag/Tag" and competition.
2) Restrict modifications gained from multi regional/district competitions
3) Systems specification (Mechanical/ Programming) : teams would submit a Robot Specification along with bag and Tag.
4) Restrict holdback to 24lbs. or 20% of robot weight.
5) extend the build for one week, programming/practice purposes only.
Every teacher I've ever had would give you at most half credit for not labelling your axises. To the best of my interpretation your sample size is 26 teams in a single year. Why did you choose Maryland?
I was rushing to create it in a short break from my day job. I was merely trying to create a visualization of the data, and with the information I gave with it, its easy to figure out what the graph shows.
I agree a sample size of 26 teams is not enough to make a conclusive argument, but it certainly appears to be evidence that there is only a very limited correlation between socioeconomic status of a team's area and their success on field, which is all I was trying to do. I was asked for evidence of my theory, so I delivered some.
I used Maryland, because the person asking for the data was from there, and I know Maryland is a medium sized area for FRC (so I could quickly process the data). Choosing Delaware would have made the data useless (there's only 2 or 3 teams there AFAIK) and choosing Michigan would have taken prohibitively long to process for the time I had. I didn't use Canada because I don't know of any data for median income by postal code.
Do you think factors like years of experience or that individuals on those teams might be completely masking any meaningful correlation? (We've seen what team Copioli made in 3 days using some drills and extrusion.) Would you mind sharing your data analysis experience?
Certainly I think those factors impact the data, but there aren't many 2056s or 1114s in any particular area, and powerhouses don't seem to hail from a particular end of the socioeconomic spectrum, so I would say that with a large enough data set, it would have limited impact on the average.
While doing this exercise, I noticed that of the team numbers I recognized from Maryland as being successful enough teams that I've heard of them, many were from lower income ZIP codes. Hard to tell if that is just an artifact of my sample size though.
Do you not believe in diminishing returns? How much better do you expect 118 or 148 to get if the build season was lengthened?
Certainly diminishing returns are a thing. My only really good frame of reference though, is watching 1114 and 2056. What I see there? Every year, 1114 doesn't make it to their practice matches much on the first day of their first regional, because they're busy toiling away applying everything learned between ship and competition on the practice bot to the competition robot. That tells me a longer build season would still benefit them.
To the other points being made in this thread, particularly the ones about raising the bar, instead of trying to drag down the superstars? The other really cool thing about FRC is that the superstars are for the most part eager to help. Go talk to them, and they'll help you to be more like them.
Chris is me
21-02-2014, 09:42
On the side discussion: looking at a single event in a single year is a terrible way to establish a trend or lack thereof. It's not good data. How about this: Take a sample of teams with different global OPR ranks and compare them to median income of their home city. See what the general trend is. This data won't prove anything about the sturcture of FRC being flawed, but I bet you would get a nice linear fit. Don't pick a single state or region.
On practice bots: Anyone who wants to keep saying or implying that practice bots take minimal extra effort and just require money can go ahead and talk to my team full of exhausted students, teachers, and mentors. The extra budget (I'd guess $2000 more) is nothing compared to literally doubling your entire workload. Anybody who pulls off the feat of doing twice the build work in six weeks has earned it.
Don't get me started on how your team is "incapable" of building a practice robot, and thus you have to stifle anyone who worked their butts off to make one. First of all, you could always build two less capable, simpler robots. You would have a more competitive season than the single "do everything" doohickey you likely have now. Second, what's less inspiring then telling a team of kids "yeah, I know you want to work extra hard to achieve excellence, but we have to hold ourselves back to match other teams effort"?
Monochron
21-02-2014, 09:55
Actually, the ultimate goal of FIRST is to inspire students to pursue a STEM related higher education, so they can become competent and impassioned STEM professionals...thus bettering the entire world.
I intended to put STEM in that sentence of mine but, now that you mention it, I am fairly certain that FIRST's goal includes shaping professionals of all disciplines.
But to my point, proxy robot's are very useful, and they likely do a lot to help your team be great, I just don't think it conforms with the spirit of "build season" which has existed since FIRST's inception.
Monochron
21-02-2014, 10:03
Don't get me started on how your team is "incapable" of building a practice robot, and thus you have to stifle anyone who worked their butts off to make one. First of all, you could always build two less capable, simpler robots. You would have a more competitive season than the single "do everything" doohickey you likely have now. Second, what's less inspiring then telling a team of kids "yeah, I know you want to work extra hard to achieve excellence, but we have to hold ourselves back to match other teams effort"?
I'm sorry to "get you started" but many teams literally do not have the resources/money. It isn't always a matter of just putting in more hard work. And that last bit there is really making a lot of assumptions that are only going to apply to some teams. Working extra hard to achieve excellence has NOTHING to do with building multiple robots; you can put that energy into more prototypes, a more modular design, higher goals, etc. And the fact that you would be limited to off-bot work after Stop Build day engenders more creativity in the way you do that work.
I'm not saying that disallowing proxy bots is the objective better way in all situations to inspire students, I'm just saying that is has some really great merits and seems much more true to the spirit of FIRST. I think it would make the competition more of a factor of how well and how efficiently you can work in 6 weeks.
An interesting discussion for sure.
My 2 cents:
Back in 1999 when Lassie was still a puppy we got started in FIRST with team 311. That year there were 8 Regionals in TOTAL. Not in just in one weekend and then Champioships.
The team signed up built a robot for “Double Trouble” and off we went to Philadelphia for the Regional.
When we got there we uncrated and started making last minute adjustments to our machine. That’s when we noticed many other teams taking apart their machines and installing different mechanisms. Being Rookies we realized later that they were installing upgrades based on information they had found out from attending a prior Regional.
Thinking back to that first FIRST competition for us, we did not perform well overall but we sure learned a lot about what to do and what not to do. 15 years later working with teams we still follow some of the basic things we learned on that trip and from very year since then.
OK enough ancient history.
Look at FIRST robotics, Bag & Tag and the differences between the “have” and “have not” teams as a reflection of real life:
There will always be teams/companies/people with MORE resources than you have. Aspire to be like them IF they are indeed good role models.
In real life not everyone that wins or is good at something is a good role model.
There will always be other with LESS resources than you. Reach out to them and Inspire them to learn and grow.
In both your personal and business life there will always be the have’s and have not’s . The answer to this is to make the best use of whatever resources you have.
If you want to build cars and be like FORD. Great, but it takes time. Nobody ever started at the top.
Just ask Elon Musk! ;)
Do you think Dean Kamen started where he is now? Do a little research and find out how long he’s been inventing, how he started as a teen in Rockville Centre NY. What he initially designed and built to fund what he REALLY wanted to do.
It’s OK to be frustrated when you think that life, or a competition isn’t fair. But instead of taking a stance of “let’s change the rules” as your only suggestion.
Take a line from another successful organization:
Improvise, adapt and overcome. *
In the end you will be better for it.
* USMC
Back in 1999 when Lassie was still a puppy we got started in FIRST with team 311. That year there were 9 Regionals in TOTAL. Not in just in one weekend and No Championships. Champioships came along later.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Championship has been around since at least 1995: http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/team/211491/?ProgramCode=FRC
And there were 8 regionals in 1999, plus the Championship for 9 events total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Trouble_(FIRST)
Sorry, but you're wrong. Championship has been around since at least 1995: http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on/team/211491/?ProgramCode=FRC
And there were 8 regionals in 1999, plus the Championship for 9 events total.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Trouble_(FIRST)
Fixed! Thanks for the reminder. My CRS kicks in sometimes...
I like how YOU had to go to Wikipedia though. :D
Knowing where to look things up IS important!!
Fixed! Thanks for the reminder. My CRS kicks in sometimes...
I like how YOU had to go to Wikipedia though. :D
Knowing where to look things up IS important!!
Heh. To be fair, I wasn't around until 2003, so it would be hard for me to remember what the landscape was like in 1999.
Mark McLeod
21-02-2014, 11:23
I call it a tie.
Try not to use Wikipedia as a source.
That article seems to have errors and the source links are mostly broken.
Does anyone have first source evidence of any event in 1999 at
FIRST Southwest Open - Space Center Houston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Center_Houston), Houston, TXOne was originally talked about, but I don't believe that it ever materialized.
Here's the FIRST website from the Internet Archive listing the events for that year.
Due to low team registration, the 1999 FIRST Southwest Regional in Houston, TX has been cancelled.
1) Eliminate exact replica practice bots
or
1) restrict modifications that can be made to competition bot, gained from practice bot from the period between "bag/Tag" and competition.
2) Restrict modifications gained from multi regional/district competitions
3) Systems specification (Mechanical/ Programming) : teams would submit a Robot Specification along with bag and Tag.
4) Restrict holdback to 24lbs. or 20% of robot weight.
5) extend the build for one week, programming/practice purposes only.
If your going to advocate for such extreme changes, at least try to provide your reasoning. Just writing down this list isn't really helping the discussion. I would be interested to hear why you think so.
I am still on the fence with this issue, but I will say this: just because something is more fair doesn't mean it's better. If a little bit of unfrairness helps FIRST to better achieve its goals, than it is a good thing.
How this plays into the issue at hand, I am still not sure. Maybe the unfairness of bag and tag (if it even is unfair) is deterring students from persuing STEM carreers. But fairness in and of itself is not a justification for anything in my eyes.
Michael Corsetto
21-02-2014, 13:02
Back on the original subject (ie; bagging) our team worked tonight and probably will be continuing our regular build schedule for practice, spare parts, iteration, etc...up until we atleast play our first district event. Then we will see what additional work is required to continue improving to obtain our goals. Bagging after 6 weeks or not, does not change the process we follow, it just make it more of a hassle to do them once on a practice bot then again on the competition bot.
For our team, we want to inspire through success first and foremost (inspiring through failure when we have too).
This process works for us. What works for you, is for you to decide.
+1
I would welcome some of the well thought out improvements from IKE in this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275166&postcount=363). Until then though, we have found a process that works for us and is a huge benefit to our students.
It also happens to be a lot of work (shhh, keep this between us, but I think the students working hard is the best part of FIRST ;))
-Mike
Working backwards:
5) Low resouces teams often find themselves in a position that their robot is primarily complete but programming and testing is not. This is why I have seen many teams including ours not make a single practice round. There is very little help available at competitions, as everyone is very busy with their own robots. An extra week for programming and testing only, would provide the relief mentors need from the build and also provide relief from the highly stressful Thursdays.
4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.
3) System specifications would keep everyone honest.
2) The major financial commitment that multi regionals require, prohibit many teams from going to more than one. This is a direct relation to cost/performanance. One extra regional and a practice robot would double our budget.
1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.
If the rules require that these bots be built in 6 weeks, then let's keep it 6 weeks.
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
Anupam Goli
21-02-2014, 13:19
4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.
1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.
I don't understand how so many people can complain about practice bots, but not about withholding allowance. A practice bot is just an effective way of using your withholding allowance to continue to develop components. You can't just ban teams from making practice bots, but keep a withholding allowance when you argue that practice bots are against the spirit of FIRST build season. Either be content in the argument that practice bots are a way to utilize the withholding allowance, or eliminate both.
EDIT: Fun fact, there used to be a time in FIRST where there was no withholding allowance. It was just 6 weeks, can't bring anything into competition except tools, and you couldn't even write code between ship day and competition day. It would be interesting to see if there was any data on average scores before and after withholding allowance was a rule.
My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.
MichaelBick
21-02-2014, 13:30
My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
Where in the "real world" do you have a safety net
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
Not saying it is good for consumers, or acceptable, but almost every single video game with an online multiplayer component made in the last few years fit this definition.
Working backwards:
5) Low resouces teams often find themselves in a position that their robot is primarily complete but programming and testing is not. This is why I have seen many teams including ours not make a single practice round. There is very little help available at competitions, as everyone is very busy with their own robots. An extra week for programming and testing only, would provide the relief mentors need from the build and also provide relief from the highly stressful Thursdays.
4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.
3) System specifications would keep everyone honest.
2) The major financial commitment that multi regionals require, prohibit many teams from going to more than one. This is a direct relation to cost/performanance. One extra regional and a practice robot would double our budget.
1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.
If the rules require that these bots be built in 6 weeks, then let's keep it 6 weeks.
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
I'm sorry but this is just absurdly ignorant.
Your point 5 is valid for way more teams than those who just have "low resources."
Your point 4 is alos bad because withholding isnt just for entirely new systems. If any team wants to create backup parts for alot of their robot knowing that it is very likely to be damage or take damage over time, they wont be able to because the withholding allowance you propose is too little; thus cutting their season short for not have a competition capable robot.
Your point 3 is just pointless.
Your point 2 is probably the absolute worst one you made. Limiting teams to 1 regional is a slap in the face to those students and team members who worked for 6 weeks to build a robot and however long to fundraise there travel/competition money to only be told that they can only go to 1 competition; you tell those kids that they only get 10 matches guaranteed a year and watch how quick the life drains out of their faces.
Your point 1 also emphasizes the fact that you really dont understand what a practice robot is. Most teams that I have known to build practice robots build the entire robot simultaneously with their competition robot. That means they bag the whole thing and just use the extra for driver/programmer practice. Also, you seem to think teams with enormous resources only build practice robots; I know for a fact that teams without enormous resources and tons of students build practice robots no problem. Like many others have said, it truly does depend on student drive.
Also, I guess you've never heard of Beta testing.
Anupam Goli
21-02-2014, 13:49
My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.
Why have your own interpretation when R18 and Team Update 2-11-14 clearly outline FIRST's intention with regards to the withholding allowance
Also, I never implied in my post that all teams that withhold have practice bots. I simply stated that practice bots are a way of utilizing the withholding allowance.
Where in the "real world" do you have a safety net
Unemployment Insurance benefits
Not saying it is good for consumers, or acceptable, but almost every single video game with an online multiplayer component made in the last few years fit this definition.
The world does not exist on video games alone
I'm sorry but this is just absurdly ignorant.
Your point 5 is valid for way more teams than those who just have "low resources."
Your point 4 is alos bad because withholding isnt just for entirely new systems. If any team wants to create backup parts for alot of their robot knowing that it is very likely to be damage or take damage over time, they wont be able to because the withholding allowance you propose is too little; thus cutting their season short for not have a competition capable robot.
Your point 3 is just pointless.
Your point 2 is probably the absolute worst one you made. Limiting teams to 1 regional is a slap in the face to those students and team members who worked for 6 weeks to build a robot and however long to fundraise there travel/competition money to only be told that they can only go to 1 competition; you tell those kids that they only get 10 matches guaranteed a year and watch how quick the life drains out of their faces.
Your point 1 also emphasizes the fact that you really dont understand what a practice robot is. Most teams that I have known to build practice robots build the entire robot simultaneously with their competition robot. That means they bag the whole thing and just use the extra for driver/programmer practice. Also, you seem to think teams with enormous resources only build practice robots; I know for a fact that teams without enormous resources and tons of students build practice robots no problem. Like many others have said, it truly does depend on student drive.
Also, I guess you've never heard of Beta testing.
You assume much about me and my experience and speak for a large group of other teams. I off no personal attacks, withdraw my post and cancel my account good luck to all.
1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.
To this point.
So is attending more than one event. How would you address teams that build a Betabot for practice and attend only 1 event.
These Betabots aren't necessarily fully compliant and up to date with this years rules. Most are modified versions of prior year machines. The ones that are identical twins to the bagged machine are in the very very low miinority.
Remember, there is a very large contingent of teams that attend only 1 event.
Would you restrict teams to the number of events they can attend?
It's interesting once you bring up questions about how things are done that, after researching it a bit you find out that pretty much everything is a compromise.
This applies to many things outside FIRST too.
The world does not exist on video games alone
You asked for an example in the real world. I gave you one.
It seems that many people are missing the real issues here. It's far, far less about money than it is about two other things.
First the minor one: Space to practice. Yes, I know that some teams perform well having nothing less than a classroom with a low ceiling to practice in, but having space for a full practice field or even a full competition field is a huge advantage. In some places, this real estate is by far the greatest donation a team has. It doesn't make sense to build a practice robot or even have access to your competition robot if you have no space to practice with it.
But the most important "resource" any team has is MENTORS skilled and experienced in doing this robotics thing. Specifically MENTORS who have TIME. I would argue that this is most likely the single difference between "powerhouse" teams and struggling teams in terms of their performance on the field. FRC is a game of mentors. For some teams, it is a struggle to get 60 mentor-hours during the 6 week build season and then they show up at a regional. Other teams have up to FIFTY TIMES more mentor-hours starting well before kickoff and on through the competition season.
If you don't have the mentors who can spend the time away from their jobs/families/schooling/other commitments, it doesn't matter what your other resources are. In order to buy the time with a practice robot, you have to have the time in the first place.
I, for one, would like to see a "build one, bring one, no withholding" system, but even then, the difference will be the mentors each team has.
- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
Akash Rastogi
21-02-2014, 15:15
It seems that many people are missing the real issues here. It's far, far less about money than it is about two other things.
First the minor one: Space to practice. Yes, I know that some teams perform well having nothing less than a classroom with a low ceiling to practice in, but having space for a full practice field or even a full competition field is a huge advantage. In some places, this real estate is by far the greatest donation a team has. It doesn't make sense to build a practice robot or even have access to your competition robot if you have no space to practice with it.
But the most important "resource" any team has is MENTORS skilled and experienced in doing this robotics thing. Specifically MENTORS who have TIME. I would argue that this is most likely the single difference between "powerhouse" teams and struggling teams in terms of their performance on the field. FRC is a game of mentors. For some teams, it is a struggle to get 60 mentor-hours during the 6 week build season and then they show up at a regional. Other teams have up to FIFTY TIMES more mentor-hours starting well before kickoff and on through the competition season.
If you don't have the mentors who can spend the time away from their jobs/families/schooling/other commitments, it doesn't matter what your other resources are. In order to buy the time with a practice robot, you have to have the time in the first place.
I, for one, would like to see a "build one, bring one, no withholding" system, but even then, the difference will be the mentors each team has.
- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
Definitely going to 3rd this.
Lil' Lavery
21-02-2014, 15:21
I'm a little alarmed at the hostility at which people are treating the minority opinion on some of these issues. Just because an opinion is not popular on Chief Delphi doesn't mean a large portion of FRC competitors feel that way. It's more important to understand why they feel that way than it is to attempt to convince they're wrong through vigorous debate. I don't mean to squelch the debate on this topic, but try to be more empathetic.
I'm a little alarmed at the hostility at which people are treating the minority opinion on some of these issues. Just because an opinion is not popular on Chief Delphi doesn't mean a large portion of FRC competitors feel that way. It's more important to understand why they feel that way than it is to attempt to convince they're wrong through vigorous debate. I don't mean to squelch the debate on this topic, but try to be more empathetic.
<Cue comments about how CD is disproportionately heavy on teams and people that make up those powerhouses>
Nick Lawrence
21-02-2014, 15:34
I've been reading this thread since the beginning, and only have one simple thought:
I'd love to only have to build one robot, (and not be at a huge competitive disadvantage,) and spend the money previously allocated for a practice robot on travel for the students to outside regionals, championships, etc.
It's still about the students. I want them to enjoy the benefits of fielding a competitive robot, but I also want them all to see it perform.
-Nick
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
When the part you ship first is the beta version.
wireties
21-02-2014, 16:23
Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?
I'm not sure how I feel about the bagging. We just kinda do what FIRST asks of us. It seemed a natural evolution from shipping the robots everywhere so we could have regionals one week sooner and not press the ceiling on the Fedex sponsorship.
But I have spent much of my career in the "real world" designing and delivering systems (or modifications to systems) in weeks, not months. It is called quick-turn engineering. And sometimes we deliver a sub-functional product if that helps our customer work out any issues and pull their schedule in. Like my signature says "Fast, cheap or working - pick any two" - I spent most of my career in the working fast mode with less regard to cost. It happens.
I suspect... whatever changes are made (or not made) to the system won't significantly change the "gap" between "powerhouse" and "not-powerhouse" teams. I believe the gap will shift, but not to any major extent. 67 will still build a powerhouse robot. 1114 will still be a "Vegas odds" favorite to win their division. 254 will still build a machine which stands above others.
However, I do believe that the overall quality of machines could decrease if we limit things more in a significant way, as some have suggested.
Imagine if FIRST said "don't work after 6-weeks... don't build a practice bot... if you do, you're cheating.":
I suspect teams will attempt lower-performing robots which they know they can finish during the 6-weeks, instead of relying on the 45-lb safety net to catch them if they fail spectacularly.
I suspect more teams will over-reach, and have no means to finish the machines they do attempt. I imagine these teams will fall-back to defensive play as a strategy which requires only driving. We'll have a lot of such teams playing.
I suspect great teams will continue to build great robots, but they won't be as great as they could have been. (If we're only allowed to use plywood, 254 will build a very cool plywood robot... and be very grumpy about it.)
However, I agree that mentors will burn out less. I agree that students will burn out less. I personally, would get more sleep.
My opinion, is that this would be good for individuals, but bad for the program.
I am one of those people who believes that exciting robots, and exciting matches are good for this program. I worry about the impact any of these changes would have on the overall gameplay at the elite level (which, I personally believe is important to the viability of this program).
I watched a bunch of old matches the other day with my students. It is surprising to me how badly these games have aged. Robots are slow and clunky. Things which I remember being incredible now seem ho-hum. I personally wouldn't want to go back to that level of performance.
Everything involves tradeoffs. Everything requires balance. Nothing is black and white. Shifts in one thing will cause other things to also shift; some of these shifts will not be predictable.
-John
<Cue comments about how CD is disproportionately heavy on teams and people that make up those powerhouses>
So are they powerhouses because they are on CD or are they on CD because they are powerhouses? :confused:
Steven Donow
21-02-2014, 17:30
I've been reading this thread since the beginning, and only have one simple thought:
I'd love to only have to build one robot, (and not be at a huge competitive disadvantage,) and spend the money previously allocated for a practice robot on travel for the students to outside regionals, championships, etc.
It's still about the students. I want them to enjoy the benefits of fielding a competitive robot, but I also want them all to see it perform.
-Nick
This is one of the major benefits of the district system.
Brandon_L
21-02-2014, 17:39
This is one of the major benefits of the district system.
Seconded
So are they powerhouses because they are on CD or are they on CD because they are powerhouses? :confused:
Yes.
wireties
21-02-2014, 18:49
I suspect... whatever changes are made (or not made) to the system won't significantly change the "gap" between "powerhouse" and "not-powerhouse" teams. I believe the gap will shift, but not to any major extent. 67 will still build a powerhouse robot. 1114 will still be a "Vegas odds" favorite to win their division. 254 will still build a machine which stands above others.
However, I do believe that the overall quality of machines could decrease if we limit things more in a significant way, as some have suggested.
Imagine if FIRST said "don't work after 6-weeks... don't build a practice bot... if you do, you're cheating.":
I suspect teams will attempt lower-performing robots which they know they can finish during the 6-weeks, instead of relying on the 45-lb safety net to catch them if they fail spectacularly.
I suspect more teams will over-reach, and have no means to finish the machines they do attempt. I imagine these teams will fall-back to defensive play as a strategy which requires only driving. We'll have a lot of such teams playing.
I suspect great teams will continue to build great robots, but they won't be as great as they could have been. (If we're only allowed to use plywood, 254 will build a very cool plywood robot... and be very grumpy about it.)
However, I agree that mentors will burn out less. I agree that students will burn out less. I personally, would get more sleep.
My opinion, is that this would be good for individuals, but bad for the program.
I am one of those people who believes that exciting robots, and exciting matches are good for this program. I worry about the impact any of these changes would have on the overall gameplay at the elite level (which, I personally believe is important to the viability of this program).
I watched a bunch of old matches the other day with my students. It is surprising to me how badly these games have aged. Robots are slow and clunky. Things which I remember being incredible now seem ho-hum. I personally wouldn't want to go back to that level of performance.
Everything involves tradeoffs. Everything requires balance. Nothing is black and white. Shifts in one thing will cause other things to also shift; some of these shifts will not be predictable.
-John
well said - I concur and we are definitely not a "power house" team
TikiTech
21-02-2014, 19:52
Howzit!!
As an outer island team we have no other option but to crate our robot. Yes in its' bag..
As a small team with 3 volunteer mentors, burnout is one of the hardest thing to avoid.
This year was especially difficult. We had numerous supply issues. We started ordering aluminum stock as well as drivetrain parts in early December. Just to have it all delayed until the end of January.
When we did finally did get our stock we had the misfortune of our competition frame warping during welding of the upper structures to it. Sadly a student clamped the parts far too hard before he welded it...
Tough learning moment, and as it turns out, we are turning it into a practice shooting bot.
We decided to withhold our shooter system for it. We now have plans to repair the frame and turn it into a tee shirt cannon during the off season. An ideal moment to turn a negative into a positive!
When our transmissions did arrive, they were not complete. VexPro did come through and ship us the missing parts in record time, thankfully.
All these “setbacks” caused us to have to complete our robot in a little less than 3 weeks.
We helped maximize our build time and reduce the “burnout” by working in shifts.
Even so, we are quite spent… Not to mention we have other competition during this time taxing our students as well…
That said.. I think the tag and bag is a good end to the build season. It gives completion to the process.
Yes I would of just rather crated it and ship it off, since we have to do it anyways, but with the bag process it gives us a few days to properly load what is needed in our crate prior to shipping.
The first year or two, for us, the stop build day was a stressful event. Just to get everything tossed in the crate and make the robot fit as fast as possible was crazy.
The bagging process reduces a lot of packing and shipping stress on us and THAT is a good thing.. We get about a week to properly gather the correct spares and tools needed properly crated and safely secure our robot.
I like the idea of district competition but out here it is not feasible yet. There just isn’t enough teams locally. Even if there was, half of us will still need to ship our robot to the venue. If the competition is over multiple weekends that would be costly to do, even if the robot was stored at the venue for the weeks of the competition. The costs for travel and lodging would not make it feasible for most of the teams here. Shipping is the biggest killer to the teams in Hawaii. Everything is either boated, takes a minimum of 11 days from California, or air freighted which is super expensive and still take 3-4 days at best.
If Hawaii was added as a district competition, with all the additional travel and time, it would sure add to the mentor burnout..
Sorry for the long winded post. Good luck to everyone this season,
Aloha!
DampRobot
21-02-2014, 20:52
It seems that many people are missing the real issues here. It's far, far less about money than it is about two other things.
First the minor one: Space to practice. Yes, I know that some teams perform well having nothing less than a classroom with a low ceiling to practice in, but having space for a full practice field or even a full competition field is a huge advantage. In some places, this real estate is by far the greatest donation a team has. It doesn't make sense to build a practice robot or even have access to your competition robot if you have no space to practice with it.
We just bought a half field of carpet from Home Depot that's reasonably close to field spec for about $300. We just lay it down outside whenever we want to practice, and roll it up and put it back into our shop when were done. Maybe $300 is a lot for other teams, but when you consider all the seasons you'll use the carpet for, it's a really great investment.
I'm a little alarmed at the hostility at which people are treating the minority opinion on some of these issues. Just because an opinion is not popular on Chief Delphi doesn't mean a large portion of FRC competitors feel that way. It's more important to understand why they feel that way than it is to attempt to convince they're wrong through vigorous debate. I don't mean to squelch the debate on this topic, but try to be more empathetic.
This too.
I suspect great teams will continue to build great robots, but they won't be as great as they could have been. (If we're only allowed to use plywood, 254 will build a very cool plywood robot... and be very grumpy about it.)
I don't know, they seemed to be pretty psyched about Skystalker...
What most people don't understand about powerhouse teams like 254 is that even if you took away all their resources, money, and facilities, they'd still be quite good. It's their insane drive, experience, and belief that nothing is good enough that make them so amazing on the field. If you believe that lots of resources, funds, time and practice robots are all that's necessary to make a winning team, there are tons of great counterexamples, including 100.
Why do we bag? Because it's part of the challenge. I'm not sure that removing bag and tag would result in more competitive robots, but it probably would reduce the cost of being competitive, at least for some teams.
4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.
I'm sorry, you think this is a bad thing?
We just lay it down outside whenever we want to practice
grumble grumble California sun grumble grumble.
DampRobot
22-02-2014, 01:22
grumble grumble California sun grumble grumble.
Hey, it's not all fun and games here in Northern California! We had to wear jackets at the practice field ship weekend. It was almost 55 degrees!
z_beeblebrox
22-02-2014, 01:46
Hey, it's not all fun and games here in Northern California! We had to wear jackets at the practice field ship weekend. It was almost 55 degrees!
It must be so hard on you guys. I've been wearing sandals for weeks.
orangemoore
22-02-2014, 01:59
Hey, it's not all fun and games here in Northern California! We had to wear jackets at the practice field ship weekend. It was almost 55 degrees!
I don't know what you would wear for sub zero temperatures! And even 20 below. I feel SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad for you.
4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.
I'm sorry, you think this is a bad thing?
As a matter of fact... it's not even a problem with bagged robots. 71 and 233 are legendary for their demonstrated ability to come out of their crate (or bag, lately) with a pile of parts, either from the crate/bag or brought in, and make semis or higher.
grumble grumble California sun grumble grumble.
Not for Torbots. We have to break out the lights to practice at night--our outdoor practice space is also used as a parking lot, but is poorly lit at night. (During the day, we use solar lighting.)
Oh, and with regards to practice robots: ours was running around by Week 2 with rough prototypes fully added by Week 3. It helps when last year had a similar drivetrain, and similar lower frame design, AND a practice robot that is functional again. We'll also be bringing quite a few spares of one of our key items in the withholding. (And quite possibly some dead weight--we're a smidge under.)
MichaelBick
22-02-2014, 07:05
As a matter of fact... it's not even a problem with bagged robots. 71 and 233 are legendary for their demonstrated ability to come out of their crate (or bag, lately) with a pile of parts, either from the crate/bag or brought in, and make semis or higher.
As far as I remember 1717 has come in with little more than a bagged drivetrain the past two years to LA, and won both times.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.