Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST

[archiver]

Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.



Team 121 is setting up a petition to FIRST for the
following issues:

1. To bring back head on competition, or 2 vs. 2

2. To expand the material list, and where the
materials can be bought.

Thank you to all that participate in this Petition

Remember, the people who are involved in FIRST
listen to each other. To make FIRST better, we
need people to speak up, because everybody
makes a difference.

http://www.rhodewarrior.org/Petition.html

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton at 04/26/2001 12:43 AM EST


Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST:



I was privileged to be the second signer of petition #1 during my visit to see the VERY COOL articulated Rhode Warrior in FL. Bring back exciting head-to-head matches!

I didn't sign #2.

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/26/2001 5:56 PM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST:



Hmm... I'm looking for the right imagery here. I know. Trying to get #1 passed is about as productive as using a zip tie for a motor coupling. Alright, it sucked, I know. Finals are coming up, ok?
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that trying to change the competition back to 2v2 now seems like a pretty futile passtime to me. You did here Dean and Woody's speeches, didn't you? They love this idea and they love the fact that they can have a fairly exciting competition without teams directly competing. I think it would take a lot to get them to change their minds. Something on the order of a quarter of the teams threatening to quit or something.

Don't get me wrong. I kinda like 2v2, and I'd like to see it back if we could do away with the more violent defensive aspects. I just don't think it's gonna happen. Feel free to prove me wrong, though. That's been happening a lot lately. Maybe my professors just don't like me.....

[archiver]

Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/27/2001 2:18 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.


In Reply to: Hmm....
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/26/2001 5:56 PM EST:



This is the time we can change it. If we get enough
people to sign the 2v2 petition. They might change
it because this is the first year they have done this.
And a lot of people hated it. If we let them continue
with all teams participating together, than it would
be almost futile. Because they will say that this is
there bedrock principle of FIRST.

So if you want to change it. Right now, is the time to
do it.

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty at 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST


Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.


In Reply to: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST:



Sorry Kyle, I can't agree even a little bit with your push to return to wheel to wheel competition. In the six years of our involvement in FIRST, this competition was, by far, the most exciting, electrifying of them all at the three events we were in. There were more folks watching and cheering at the final matches then there have been for a number of years. I can't imagine a design engineer or design team that can create a high capability, high scoring robot would ever want a slug of a do nothing robot to block, pound, or in any way restrict it's ability to perform. Could it be, that in actuality, the folks who are pushing for head to head and defensive competition are really fearful of putting their design and construction ability on the line? Maybe the ones that are saying they want competition really do not want to try and compete. Interesting.......

[archiver]

Posted by Dan at 04/27/2001 1:26 AM EST


Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



What about the high-capability, high-scoring robots that were turned into "a slug of a do nothing robot" when they were simply asked to crossed the field and sit or just pull the ramp down, etc?
Don't you think there are two sides to the story? I have a feeling you never felt this first hand considering your robots performace. I also have a feeling your circumstance was in the vast minority. Dean and Woodie are always sensitive to rookies but I think this competition was less exciting and inspiring for those whose very prized robots were turned into "do nothing robots" for the sake of the greater good.
This is all heresay since I didn't have a hand in this year's competition, but I think it's good heresay.
Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST


Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.


In Reply to: Re: Defense-TWO sides to the story
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 1:26 AM EST:



As with any truly divisive issue - both sides are right on this one.

Bill, I agree that this years game - compared to all previous years - was most likely to end with the best designed, built, and functional robots at the top. Which CLEARLY was the outcome, as the best designed, built robot, and most deserving robot in the country was the lead robot in the champion alliance :)
(congratulations again by the way - you guys should be SO PROUD of what you built this year)

I would also agree with Dan that many teams, who spent just as much time & work on their robots as all those in the playoffs, did not get to use their robots as designed because of the game this year - and that is not a good situation either.

Having truly experienced both sides of the following statement - I can say this with complete confidence...

head-to-head gives teams with less money & resources the chance to out strategize and out drive the big money & resource teams - and in this way does level the playing field.

I agree with Bill 100% that ideally the top engineered robots want the opportunity to perform their skills.
I also agree with Dan that ALL TEAMS should be given a fair chance to control their robots as THEY designed and built them.

I see this issue as somewhat of a Catch 22.

Head-to-Head is the only way to legitimately give teams with less funding, less resources, few/no volunteer engineers, and little to no machine shop access a chance to defeat teams with all of those things.
(it is tough to argue that this is not a valid desire)

HOWEVER - Without head-to-head, it is MUCH more likely that the winners each year will be: teams which had the best mechanical designs, teams with the ability (resources, funding, & machine shop access) to build those designs exactly as they intended to, and teams which consistently performed well.
(it is tough to argue that this is not a valid desire also)

My hope is that there is a middle ground - that FIRST can create a game that in some way combines both values so many people are arguing for, and that teams can accept that neither extreme will ever be good for all teams as a whole.

Only one thing is guaranteed in FIRST - no matter what game they create - many people are going to complain about it depending on the amount of, or lack of, defense.

Regardless, as we do every year - we will accept the game next year for what it is, try to figure out the best strategy we can, build the best robot we can, compete the best we can, have a great time doing it, and focus on all of the positive & rewarding aspects of the FIRST experience instead of the tough aspects (which will always exist, especially if going out of your way to find them).

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/27/2001 8:04 AM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Bill & Dan both have GREAT points
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST:




: My hope is that there is a middle ground - that FIRST can create a game that in some way combines both values so many people are arguing for, and that teams can accept that neither extreme will ever be good for all teams as a whole.

Basketball. Offense... defense... exciting... media friendly... it sure would be nice.

I can see it now:

"...and the Cheesy Poofs bring the ball up the court, pass it over to the soft touch of the Tigerbolt, and they go for the three pointer... but wait! CyberBlue rejects the shot and we have a break-away! CyberBlue passes to the Full Metal Jackets in full stride... and for a tundering slam dunk! And the crowd goes wild!..."

Ok, there's my weekly robotic basketball plug.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Deej- T190 at 04/27/2001 11:41 AM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompeii, from Mass Academy and WPI.


In Reply to: Basketball!!
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/27/2001 8:04 AM EST:



Hey, since you like basketball so much, as do I, any chance of getting a game going one of the nights that T-190 is there in Kokomo...Im always looking for a pickup game and figured if there enough people, lets do it...

Deej

[archiver]

Posted by Erin at 04/27/2001 12:39 PM EST


College Student on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: Hey Andy
Posted by Deej- T190 on 04/27/2001 11:41 AM EST:



In the memorial gym, there is an auxillary gym located behind the beachers that the pits are put up against (if its anything like last year). You bring a ball and I bet you'll have game.

(picks up phone, calls Jordan...)

erin

[archiver]

Posted by Deej- T190 at 04/27/2001 1:28 PM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompeii, from Mass Academy and WPI.


In Reply to: basketball!
Posted by Erin on 04/27/2001 12:39 PM EST:



Ball is packed and ready to go!!!!!!!!!!!! Who's in?

Deej


: In the memorial gym, there is an auxillary gym located behind the beachers that the pits are put up against (if its anything like last year). You bring a ball and I bet you'll have game.

: (picks up phone, calls Jordan...)

: erin

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/27/2001 1:44 PM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: Re: basketball!
Posted by Deej- T190 on 04/27/2001 1:28 PM EST:



: Ball is packed and ready to go!!!!!!!!!!!! Who's in?

: Deej

No basketball for me. I can't play basketball or shoot baskets to save my life. One of my worst memories is catching the T-shirt with the autograph on it during an EMU basketball game so I had to go on the court during halftime to shoot free throws for prizes. Of course, I threw an air-ball and got booed by 8000 people. :(

The biggest reason I stink at basketball is because I grew up playing hockey during the winter. Since the seasons are at the same time, you can only play one or the other, and in Northern Michigan, hockey is where it's at. I actually still play a little. Now if anyone wants to play some hockey, let me know and I'll bring my stuff.

-Chris

[archiver]

Posted by Erin at 04/27/2001 2:01 PM EST


College Student on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.


In Reply to: Basketball? Blah! Hockey -- Now THAT'S a sport!
Posted by Chris Hibner on 04/27/2001 1:44 PM EST:



(eom) means end of message

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 2:17 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: And MSU is better at both :) (eom)
Posted by Erin on 04/27/2001 2:01 PM EST:



I think RIT could take a challenge on that. ;) We
were number 2 in the country this year and undefeated
until the championship game I believe (Division
III....there's talk of going IA). Unfortunately the
Frozen Four we're the same weekend as the NJ regional
so I missed them (they were hosted at RIT).

Matt

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/30/2001 9:40 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: And MSU is better at both :) (eom)
Posted by Erin on 04/27/2001 2:01 PM EST:



I'll give you basketball.

However, as to hockey:

U-M national titles in the last 10 years: 2
MSU: 0 (that's right - big fat ZERO)

I'll admit that MSU has the head to head in the last two years, but two years doesn't make a tradition.

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker at 04/27/2001 2:51 PM EST


Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: Re: basketball!
Posted by Deej- T190 on 04/27/2001 1:28 PM EST:



DJ,

There is a hoop and a court at my house. We'll be playing until the wee hours Sat. night. Last year, the guys and gals from NEW Apple Corps (team 93) ruled the court. We'll see about this year.

I gotta go out and get a new ball anyway, so don't worry about packing one, Erin.

Andy B.

I'm not really that good at b-ball... I just like the game. Go Pacers!

[archiver]

Posted by Deej- T190 at 04/27/2001 2:57 PM EST


Engineer on team #190, Gompeii, from Mass Academy and WPI.


In Reply to: OK, OK...
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/27/2001 2:51 PM EST:



Im a big bball fan, but I can't go with the Pacers though... I understand the Indiana thing, but my team is the Miami Heat..(although they are getting embarrassed by the Hornets). Can't wait to play though

[archiver]

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 12:49 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: Basketball!!
Posted by Andy Baker on 04/27/2001 8:04 AM EST:



If we do Basketball we already have experience with
shooting.... ;)

Matt who knew that would come in handy some day ;)

[archiver]

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/27/2001 11:44 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Bill & Dan both have GREAT points
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST:



C'mon. I know some of you people played it. Little cartoon guy tossing vitamen pills? Kinda of like tetris? I KNOW you've played tetris.
The whole point is that head to head competition without direct interaction could be a possibiity. Granted, I have no idea how to design a game based on this concept, but a year ago I would've said a 4 person alliance with no competition was impossible too. So I say next year's game should somehow physically divide a pair of two person alliances, yet allows for defense of the goals somehow. Something along the line of double trouble, with a barrier under the goals and across the ramp.

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty at 04/28/2001 12:13 PM EST


Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.


In Reply to: Bill & Dan both have GREAT points
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/27/2001 3:47 AM EST:



Jason

Thanks for the good words. They are very much appreciated.

Your points are well made. One thing though, there is no right or wrong here. We are exchanging thoughts on what direction each of us would like for FIRST to go.

Before you compromise too far toward some sort of defense allowed format, think about this. Cheesy Poofs had a super capable machine that won two regionals and their division. Would you have been willing to give up one or more of those wins to a box of rocks that hindered your machine's performance? I'll bet not.

Regards,

Mr. Bill

P.S.
I totally agree with your last paragraph. I love the direction FIRST seems to be going and posted such within a few days of the game announcement. However, there are some folks who are voicing the opposite. FIRST does listen I therefore feel compelled to voice my thoughts.

I don't think some of the participants are truly aware of all the interesting and complex aspects of this year's competition, but that is another subject.

[archiver]

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/28/2001 11:51 PM EST


Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.


In Reply to: No Right-No Wrong
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/28/2001 12:13 PM EST:



: Before you compromise too far toward some sort of defense allowed format, think about this. Cheesy Poofs had a super capable machine that won two regionals and their division. Would you have been willing to give up one or more of those wins to a box of rocks that hindered your machine's performance? I'll bet not.
: Regards,
: Mr. Bill

Bill,

Actually, that is what I was referring to when I said we (The Cheesy Poofs) have been on both extremes of this discussion. Last year we were fortunate to have almost the same success as this year (won 2 regionals & 5th at Nationals). But last year, while we were a versatile robot in the qualifying rounds, in the playoffs our robot (by design) became the defensive "shut the other alliance best scoring robot down" robot. (as many noticed, the game last year was TWO TOTALLY different games in qualifying & playoffs, and we designed for the game we thought would be played in the playoffs)
I'm kind of in the middle about the "box of bolts that does nothing but block" arguement - because I felt our team was successful in 99 & 2000 at defeating more complex or offensive designed robots because we either had a better strategy or our drivers out drove the other teams. Also, to defend the "defense" side a little - our program was not capable of building the robot we built this year in 99 or 2000. We had much less experience, fewer ideas to build off of, and less support.
By this year, our third year, we finally felt we had the experience and could build a more complex & offensive machine. We analyzed the game, and decided it was the year for us to go for a robot capable of seeding high as oppossed to a good playoff robot which would compliment the top seeds, make a tough alliance, and hopefully get us picked.
But you are right in that we would have scrapped a few of our advancements in our drive system and arms this year if we were worried about hard contact and trying to build a stronger, defensive machine. There are trade offs to any game.

I didn't mean to imply there is a right and wrong, if I did. I think it is a valid discussion with great & valid points to be made by both sides.

[archiver]

Posted by ChrisH at 04/27/2001 11:45 AM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Re: Defense-TWO sides to the story
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 1:26 AM EST:



: What about the high-capability, high-scoring robots that were turned into "a slug of a do nothing robot" when they were simply asked to crossed the field and sit or just pull the ramp down, etc?

Kris Unruh, one of our team leaders, correctly identified the great flaw in this years game at a "lessons learned" meeting we had earlier this week.

He stated that there was one difficult task that absolutly had to be accomplished for a good score, but that only one robot on the field could perform the task. Since most teams figured out the necessity of goal balancing, a large number built goal balancing robots. Most had additional capabilities as well.

So what do you do when you walk into a strategy session and there are three balancing robots, and at least two of them can handle big balls. But none of them are consistent? Who gets to make the "big play"?

I know our team made a deliberate decision NOT to push to do the balancing. We were quite capable of doing so, we could also put up big balls and quite quickly too. But we didn't necessarily push to do that either.

Our motto is "To Learn, To Compete and To Serve" We felt that pushing our way into doing a critical task was not necessarily living up to who we are. But that did on occasion result in our being turned into a "slug-of-a-do-nothing-robot". So be it

I think that FIRST expected us to push more towards niche designs than we did. I think the ideal alliance would be 1 balancer, 2 bigball limbobots and 1 small ball limbobot. But I didn't see any of the later.

I know that next year it would improve the game if there was either more than one crucial task, or more than one opportunity to perform it during a round.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots

[archiver]

Posted by Chris Hibner at 04/27/2001 8:40 AM EST


Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



In the past head-to-head competitions, avoiding a blocking robot was part of the design challenge, in my view. We always had debates: should we be fast and maneuverable, good traction and powerful, shift gears and do both? There is just as much good engineering in getting around or through a blocker as there is in putting an inner tube and a tree limb. To me, eliminating blocking eliminates half of the design process and 75% of the strategy.

If someone were to try blocking the TechnoKats this year while they were trying to score a ball, they would have been able to push them out of the way and score anyway (good design). If a blocker completely destroys a team's scoring chances, perhaps the problem is that that team missed something in the design process, not that the game needs to be changed.

-Chris


: Sorry Kyle, I can't agree even a little bit with your push to return to wheel to wheel competition. In the six years of our involvement in FIRST, this competition was, by far, the most exciting, electrifying of them all at the three events we were in. There were more folks watching and cheering at the final matches then there have been for a number of years. I can't imagine a design engineer or design team that can create a high capability, high scoring robot would ever want a slug of a do nothing robot to block, pound, or in any way restrict it's ability to perform. Could it be, that in actuality, the folks who are pushing for head to head and defensive competition are really fearful of putting their design and construction ability on the line? Maybe the ones that are saying they want competition really do not want to try and compete. Interesting.......

[archiver]

Posted by Kyle Fenton at 04/27/2001 2:58 PM EST


Student on team #121, Islanders, from Middletown High School and NUWC.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



Bill Beatty,
That is of course your own opinion. Which I have
no problem about. Everyone is entitled to their own
opinion.
"Maybe the ones that are saying they want
competition really do not want to try and compete."
But this year, it was not a competition, it was a
performance. A competition is where when 2
opposite forces meet, and the objective is trying to
work together with an outside force hindering you.
And for the most part, the people were cheering to
teams that screwed up, so their own teams were
bumbed up. Now, this is not a good way to display
gracious professionalism.
Unless there are multiple challenges next year, it
is not a really good idea, to bring back all 4. It is
usually 2 robots who do everything, and others just
sit and park. This year one picked up a big ball,
and the others tried to balance it. Well what about
the other 2? And what if robots you were picked
with, are the same abilities that you are, now what!.
If your robot wasn't agile, it didn't go far. And trying
to plan a strategy with team you only know 2
minutes in advance was very difficult.
"this competition was, by far, the most exciting,
electrifying of them all", you said. But yet, you also
won the national championship, so even I would
be happy of the competition if my team did that.

Look, I'm not trying to diss you, the only thing I'm
trying to say is all the people working together, is
not the real world!. And the real world people
compete.

With 2v2, you get to enjoy the satisfaction of
engineering. Trying to build an agile robot that
works well with another robot, to not only
accomplish a goal, but to compete with the other
team to get it.

[archiver]

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/27/2001 9:49 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: Defense-A Fancy Word For Poor Ability
Posted by Bill Beatty on 04/27/2001 12:42 AM EST:



As I read your post, I cannot believe you are talking about the same competition that I was involved with this year. Although I have only been involved 3 years, I think the competitions were by far the most boring and unexciting of the three. More importlantly, I saw an incredible amount of disinterest amoung high school students which was not indicitive of the type of enthusiasm I have witnessed the past two years. I even saw a team that had to rotate their scouts during nationals because they could not stand watching match after match. From the viewpoint of a spectator, the strategy is the same every match -- there is no significant variety in matches -- and more often than not this strategy ends up in disaster. There weren't that many people watching the finals this year... Why? Because the results are easily predictable. Everyone knew team 71 would win likely with a score of 710.

With all respect, you have a great team and robot this year, but surely your opinion is biased since you won the competition and never really had to look at the competition from a spectator's point of view.

Then there's the fact that when you are one robot out of four on the playing field, you're ability to decide your own destiny is cut in half from that of the previous two years.... But that's another point, and it's already been talked about over and over.

Patrick

: Sorry Kyle, I can't agree even a little bit with your push to return to wheel to wheel competition. In the six years of our involvement in FIRST, this competition was, by far, the most exciting, electrifying of them all at the three events we were in. There were more folks watching and cheering at the final matches then there have been for a number of years. I can't imagine a design engineer or design team that can create a high capability, high scoring robot would ever want a slug of a do nothing robot to block, pound, or in any way restrict it's ability to perform. Could it be, that in actuality, the folks who are pushing for head to head and defensive competition are really fearful of putting their design and construction ability on the line? Maybe the ones that are saying they want competition really do not want to try and compete. Interesting.......

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Taylor at 04/27/2001 8:36 PM EST


College Student on team #461, West Side Boiler Invasion, from West Lafayette High School and Purdue University .


In Reply to: Calling for everbody to sign a petition to FIRST
Posted by Kyle Fenton on 04/25/2001 10:28 PM EST:



Kyle,
I really don't think expanding the number of places from which teams can purchase materials is a good idea. Small Parts is a FIRST corporate parter just like any other company, only they make a contribution by giving us huge discounts on parts and materials. If you compare small parts offerings and prices to other industrial suppliers (such as mcmaster-carr and grainger) you'll find small parts isn't far off the mark in price. thier selection may be more limited, but the freedom of the additional parts list more than makes up for it. Perhaps you should lobby for a more diverse additional parts list, or for increased freedom in special ordering items from small parts, but to try to cut them out of the equation as a primary supplier is a real slap in the face to a company thats done alot for FIRST.

Thanks,
Joe Taylor
Technical Director, team 461