Is allowing a practice robot good for FIRST?

[Matt Adams]

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.

It's been recently ruled that it's perfectly legal for FIRST teams to build a practice robot for students to practice with during the time after the ship date and between competitions. It appears that a number of voters agree that practicing between competitions is good for the students.

But is it good for FIRST?

Knowing that a number of teams build practice robots and that a number of influential team mentors have advocated this openly on these forums for a number of years makes this a somewhat delicate issue, especially because of my opinion will not be popular with many of them. I hope this starts a discussion that can offer a variety of input and worthwhile discussion.

FIRST is supposed to (and fortunately does!) mirror real life engineering problems in many ways. Each team having the same number of motors, a spending limit, and a size constraint attempt to somewhat 'level the field' for all teams, such that they're all playing by the same rules.

I think we can all acknowledge that this fairness does not make every team equal. Some teams have more money, more talent and more experience then others, and will consistently build better machines than new teams year in and year out. Not all teams are even. Making them even is absolutely impossible.

However, I would like to think, that in the end, FIRST should genuinely try to reduce areas of the competition that separate the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. You can't take away good engineers, make robots free to build or give every high school a six-axis CNC from which to cut their parts. Teams will have inherent advantages. Again, making them even is absolutely impossible.

However, there is such a glaring advantage which only 'have' teams can gasp on to: building a practice robot. I think FIRST really needs to address in the years to come.

Can't we all agree, that having a 'No Practice Robots Allowed' rule in the future would be very a simple and effective way to reduce the gap between teams with lots of resources and those without?

FIRST often explains itself as a 6 week robot competition, but in all reality, for many 'have' teams, FIRST is a year-round, comprehensive program. The build season is simply split into 6 weeks of building followed by 6 weeks practicing, design tweaking and coming up with 8 hour buildable upgrades for the Thursdays of competition.

The 'have-nots' simply have a 6 weeks of building followed by a few weekends of competing.

FIRST should strive, in my opinion, to create guidelines around reducing the gap between the teams with massive amounts of resources and teams with a limited amount. These rules, however, should not not inherently limit the creativity of robot designs or strategy.

For instance, FIRST has gradually been allowing a greater number of parts and suppliers to be used to build machines. To ensure that teams with million dollar budgets don't build machines purely out of titanium, the cost rules are in effect to provide checks and balances.

In my opinion, the glaring exception to the checks and balances system is allowing the practice robot. The incredibly simple way to ensure that every team has the same amount of time to construct and practice would be to simply disallow the construction of a second robot, effectively making the "6 weeks" a true 6 weeks.

Let's say you, a common non-FIRST person, standing from the outside, heard that there was a 6 week long robot competition and you only had a limited amount of time to build, test and practice with you robot. Then you heard that the biggest and most effective teams actually built a second robot so they could practice after their real robot shipped. Wouldn't you just call it what it is? A loophole. I certainly would, because that's exactly what it is.

The fact of the matter, however, is that FIRST says it's okay and not a loophole. I respectively disagree, and hope that in future years they'll change their mind, and that the FIRST community does too.

Matt

[SteveO]

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.

It's been recently ruled that it's perfectly legal for FIRST teams to build a practice robot for students to practice with during the time after the ship date and between competitions. It appears that a number of voters agree that practicing between competitions is good for the students.

But is it good for FIRST?

Knowing that a number of teams build practice robots and that a number of influential team mentors have advocated this openly on these forums for a number of years makes this a somewhat delicate issue, especially because of my opinion will not be popular with many of them. I hope this starts a discussion that can offer a variety of input and worthwhile discussion.

FIRST is supposed to (and fortunately does!) mirror real life engineering problems in many ways. Each team having the same number of motors, a spending limit, and a size constraint attempt to somewhat 'level the field' for all teams, such that they're all playing by the same rules.

I think we can all acknowledge that this fairness does not make every team equal. Some teams have more money, more talent and more experience then others, and will consistently build better machines than new teams year in and year out. Not all teams are even. Making them even is absolutely impossible.

However, I would like to think, that in the end, FIRST should genuinely try to reduce areas of the competition that separate the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. You can't take away good engineers, make robots free to build or give every high school a six-axis CNC from which to cut their parts. Teams will have inherent advantages. Again, making them even is absolutely impossible.

However, there is such a glaring advantage which only 'have' teams can gasp on to: building a practice robot. I think FIRST really needs to address in the years to come.

Can't we all agree, that having a 'No Practice Robots Allowed' rule in the future would be very a simple and effective way to reduce the gap between teams with lots of resources and those without?

FIRST often explains itself as a 6 week robot competition, but in all reality, for many 'have' teams, FIRST is a year-round, comprehensive program. The build season is simply split into 6 weeks of building followed by 6 weeks practicing, design tweaking and coming up with 8 hour buildable upgrades for the Thursdays of competition.

The 'have-nots' simply have a 6 weeks of building followed by a few weekends of competing.

FIRST should strive, in my opinion, to create guidelines around reducing the gap between the teams with massive amounts of resources and teams with a limited amount. These rules, however, should not not inherently limit the creativity of robot designs or strategy.

For instance, FIRST has gradually been allowing a greater number of parts and suppliers to be used to build machines. To ensure that teams with million dollar budgets don't build machines purely out of titanium, the cost rules are in effect to provide checks and balances.

In my opinion, the glaring exception to the checks and balances system is allowing the practice robot. The incredibly simple way to ensure that every team has the same amount of time to construct and practice would be to simply disallow the construction of a second robot, effectively making the "6 weeks" a true 6 weeks.

Let's say you, a common non-FIRST person, standing from the outside, heard that there was a 6 week long robot competition and you only had a limited amount of time to build, test and practice with you robot. Then you heard that the biggest and most effective teams actually built a second robot so they could practice after their real robot shipped. Wouldn't you just call it what it is? A loophole. I certainly would, because that's exactly what it is.

The fact of the matter, however, is that FIRST says it's okay and not a loophole. I respectively disagree, and hope that in future years they'll change their mind, and that the FIRST community does too.

Matt
I think this is an incredibly valid argument.

Teams with the ability and resources to build a second robot definitely have an edge in competition over teams without this luxury. Our team most certainly does not have the money or resources to do this.

Is it bad for FIRST? I don't think so. The competition is one aspect of FIRST experience, but the aim is to inspire and recognize Science and technology. I think holding back teams that could build a second robot is contradictory to this ideology.

While it may give teams with more resources an advantage, it doesn't take away the underdog's spirit :) The advantage is only in the competition.

A team with the resources building an incredible robot (or two) and winning the competition and an inner city team with relatively few resources struggling, but still managing to build a working machine in six weeks and compete when few thought it possible are equal engineering triumphs in my opinion.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Matt and Steve,
Learning doesn't stop with the build season. Practice robots are good for so many reasons, I am not sure I can count that high. When we complete a robot, pack it up and ship it, we get a chance to relax for a little while, but our students are still fired up and open for more knowledge. (don't forget that for many schools, this program is also a credit class and that requires constant class time throughout the year.) It is the practice robot that allows them to practice what they have already learned. It gives electrical students a chance to see what can go wrong in mechanical systems. It gives mechanical a chance to see what small software changes can make in a perfectly working mechanical system. It allows teams that build them, a robot to use for demonstration at schools in their area and to show off to potential donors and school board members. If it were not for the practice robot, our students would not be prepared to help out other teams, recognize hardware weaknesses, software bugs, or electrical problems. And above all, it gives teams a testbed to find problems with new hardware that were not obvious during build. I do not believe FIRST would have advanced as far as it has without this additional time to play and learn. If you take away practice bots, you might as well take away post season events, workshops, white papers and CD.

[ShadowKnight]

I agree that allowing a practice robot creates a wide gap between the have and have-nots in competition. However, FIRST realy isn't about competition. The game is only one very small facet of a much more complex aim, inspiring students to get fired up about cool robots and how awesome technology can be. As Dean said at kickoff, whether the robot wins or not doesn't matter. That robot is simply a vehicle to get kids inspired to learn more about technology. Ultimately that is the goal of FIRST. Sure, there are aspects of this competition that mirror the real world, with deadlines and building relationships and other things as well, however those are secondaring to the ultimate goal of FIRST, For Inpiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. That's why practice robots are good for FIRST.

[JamesCH95]

I come from a veteran team, team #95, but we are in the "have not" category. Right now we are $100 in debt and have no $ to buy materials for our robot. We have never had a practice robot ever, yet most years we are incredibly competitive. The biggest thing that makes a team competitive is how well the team functions as a unit. Since we have an all-student pit crew and drive team, and virtually only students build the robot, we can diagnose any problem almost instantly on the field and we know the limits of our machine. But of course the second most important thing to being competitive is having a driver and operator with good skills that work well together and a drive coach that knows how to use them. I believe that any team can sport these few traits and can therefore be very competitive. Having huge resources to draw upon does make life much easier for the well-sponsored teams, but it makes me feel good to win matches when everything is stacked against us.

[Adam Y.]

.

FIRST is supposed to (and fortunately does!) mirror real life engineering problems in many ways. Each team having the same number of motors, a spending limit, and a size constraint attempt to somewhat 'level the field' for all teams, such that they're all playing by the same rules.

Yeah but the problem is that real life engineering does involve the creation of practice robots for prototyping and other things. NASA has working?? prototypes of the rovers sitting here on earth to practice with. It's practically the same reason why people build practice robots in FIRST. Your robot is somewhere else so you need something to work with to test potential failures. So the problem is that if you take away practice robots then you take some of the aspects of engineering.

[IMDWalrus]

I'd have to agree with Matt, but one question comes to mind.

If the rule is made, would it do any good?

It doesn't mean a $@#$@#$@#$@# thing to some teams if a rule prohibits what they're doing; it would be naive to think that there aren't teams who are going to violate the Fix-It Window or who won't bend or break rules in other ways. The practice robot has become a large part of the strategy used by the bigger and richer teams, and I'm not sure if telling them that it isn't allowed would accomplish anything. Since this would be a relatively easy rule to break - after all, who sees the practice robot beyond the team that owns it? - I've got a feeling that a lot of teams would break it. As much as we try, we can't get everyone to exhibit GP and follow the rules.

I might just be pessimistic, but I really don't know if this would have an effect.

[Chris Hibner]

Personally, I think the practice robot CLOSES the gap between the haves and the have nots. Okay, maybe this is not true for the real hardship cases that can't afford to buy materials, but I think this is true for the majority of teams.

Here is why I believe this: Take two teams: team A has a small machine shop at the school - your basic mill, lathe, a drill press, a band saw, and some hand tools; team B has a fancy professional shop complete with 3-D CNC machines, wire EDM, and all of the latest technology to kick out whatever parts they want.

Team B is much more likely to be able to kick out a robot with two weeks to spare giving the software team time to test and debug and the drive team a lot of time to practice.

Team A is much more likely to barely finish the robot, throwing it in the crate with a few things to finish up. They were lucky to get any practice in whatsoever.

Allowing practice robots gives team A a chance to get some practice in so they are not at such a huge disadvantage to team B that had two weeks to practice before shipping.

While team B can obviously make two robots faster than team A, I argue that the build cycle of a 2nd robot is much faster than that of a first robot, especially when the robot is built at a meager shop. Anyone that has made anything knows that it takes usually less than half the time to make the 2nd part than it took to make the first (since you learn a lot while making the first). While the mill is already set up, why not make two copies?

Anyway, for the real hardship cases that can't afford materials, I can agree that they won't be able to make two robots. But for the average team that can afford materials but can't afford CNC machines, a 2nd robot is the only way they'll be able to compete (from a driving practice standpoint) against the teams that can bang out parts with fancy technology.

[russell]

The thing that most worries me about practice bots, and some of the richer teams, is that to rookies it seems as if those teams have a mentor to student ratio of about 3:1, and that basically this competition is designed for teams like that. I worry that many rookies will not return because of this. On the other hand FIRST is supposed to be about learning. The best solution would be for them to supply teams with enough stuff to build two robots. This would promote the concept of designing before you build (something my team sees no reason to do), so that you have a design to work off of, even after ship date. It would also level the playing field by bringing the bottom up, rather than the top down. Then again it would be incredibly expensive. Whatever.

[Marc P.]

Matt and Steve,
Learning doesn't stop with the build season. Practice robots are good for so many reasons, I am not sure I can count that high. When we complete a robot, pack it up and ship it, we get a chance to relax for a little while, but our students are still fired up and open for more knowledge. (don't forget that for many schools, this program is also a credit class and that requires constant class time throughout the year.) It is the practice robot that allows them to practice what they have already learned. It gives electrical students a chance to see what can go wrong in mechanical systems. It gives mechanical a chance to see what small software changes can make in a perfectly working mechanical system. It allows teams that build them, a robot to use for demonstration at schools in their area and to show off to potential donors and school board members. If it were not for the practice robot, our students would not be prepared to help out other teams, recognize hardware weaknesses, software bugs, or electrical problems. And above all, it gives teams a testbed to find problems with new hardware that were not obvious during build. I do not believe FIRST would have advanced as far as it has without this additional time to play and learn.


Would not the previous year's robot serve the same purpose though? Inspiration and learning aren't specific to any particular game or setting. As Matt so eloquently put it in his post, a practice robot based on the current game would give the higher resource teams an advantage over teams without. If Software people want to learn about mechanical systems, or electrical to learn about pneumatics, or any other group learning any other aspect of the machine, the same can be learned from a machine not geared towards the current game.

That's not to say there aren't advantages to a practice robot, as have been stated in other threads. Of course, there's plenty to learn about the current game in terms of strategy and robot capability, and naturally these are good things. The big problem (and main purpose of this thread) is that not all teams have this capability, and positive as the experience is for one team, another team can see it as an unfair advantage in competition.

If you take away practice bots, you might as well take away post season events, workshops, white papers and CD.

The main point in this thread is that practice robots can give teams an unfair advantage in official FIRST competition. Once nationals and the official season has ended and the off-season begins, the sky is the limit in terms of development. Teams can work on robots and do essentially anything they wish without fear of rules (unless they plan to compete in post-season events, in which case modifications are governed by each event's specific rules). There is no fix-it window or guidelines on building things for learning/inspiration. The white papers and workshops really have nothing to do with this either. Workshops are designed to build skills and enhance knowledge of available parts and capabilities, but otherwise have nothing to do with the specifics of the game. Same for white papers, and ChiefDelphi is a resource where it all comes together year-round. They are all tools to directly aid teams in building a competitive robot, but are available to all teams at all times. Practice robots serve only teams with the resources available to build them, and while providing insight into how said teams will perform in competition, they detract from the meaning of the six week build period by extending prototyping and testing past the ship date. And again, for purposes of learning and inspiration, other machines can serve the same purpose, without giving extra time to work on an already shipped robot past the deadline.

[Matt Adams]

I've got a feeling that a lot of teams would break it. As much as we try, we can't get everyone to exhibit GP and follow the rules.

I might just be pessimistic, but I really don't know if this would have an effect.
I'll have to disagree with you.

I think that one of the most fantastic parts about FIRST is that the biggest and most successful teams are also the most abiding to the rules. The stereotype of the 'haves' being dishonest, un-GP, or perpetual cheaters is absolutely untrue. While it's true that this ruling would be nearly impossible to police, it doesn't mean that teams would blatantly disobey it.

Matt

[shotgunking777]

yes i think its a great idea.

[Ricky Q.]

Personally, I think the practice robot CLOSES the gap between the haves and the have nots. Okay, maybe this is not true for the real hardship cases that can't afford to buy materials, but I think this is true for the majority of teams.
This is absolutely true. By allowing teams to build a practice robot the gap between the "haves" and the "have-mores" becomes narrower. However, building two robots is about a lot more than having an advantage.

When a team decides to build two robots it is a pretty large decision. More money must be spent, a significant portion of team resources must be directed away from the main robot during the 6 week build to start a practice robot, and they risk not finishing it and wasting everything. In most cases a team has to start assembling their practice bot while finishing up their competition bot because it is not worth it to finish a practice bot 3 days before your regional. The 2 robots will usually be built side by side.

This process is more a challenge than an advantage. Teams that decide to build two robots take on much more that teams that just build their competition robot.

I believe that if teams want to take on the additional challenge that building 2 robots presents, let them have at it. They will earn the right to practice more and tweak to perfection.

Allowing practice robots is good for FIRST.

[ShadowKnight]

Would not the previous year's robot serve the same purpose though? Inspiration and learning aren't specific to any particular game or setting. As Matt so eloquently put it in his post, a practice robot based on the current game would give the higher resource teams an advantage over teams without. If Software people want to learn about mechanical systems, or electrical to learn about pneumatics, or any other group learning any other aspect of the machine, the same can be learned from a machine not geared towards the current game.

That's not to say there aren't advantages to a practice robot, as have been stated in other threads. Of course, there's plenty to learn about the current game in terms of strategy and robot capability, and naturally these are good things. The big problem (and main purpose of this thread) is that not all teams have this capability, and positive as the experience is for one team, another team can see it as an unfair advantage in competition.

But can you honestly say that working on an offseason robot and learning from that is as inspiring as working on your competition robot? I don't think you could make that statement. There's an excitement, a rush, involved with working on a robot that will compete in a regional or nationals. It trumps, in my oppinion, any kind of inpiration that can be fueled by an off season event or activity. FIRST is learning yes, but a lot of kids will choose not to learn about stuff if they're not too terribly interested (we're lazy). The FIRST season creates an atmosphere that really can't be beat, and it's learning and working with robotics in that setting that gets kids fired up about science and tech, particularly, learning and working to perfect something that will compete. A practice robot helps to further this goal of inpiring kids to learn, getting them that much more excited and involved.

[Matt Adams]

And above all, it gives teams a testbed to find problems with new hardware that were not obvious during build. I do not believe FIRST would have advanced as far as it has without this additional time to play and learn. If you take away practice bots, you might as well take away post season events, workshops, white papers and CD.Al,

Since your expertise is more electrically oriented and mine is more mechanical, we haven't had a lot of exchanges on CD, so as a precursor I'd like to say that I truly have a lot of respect for you and your experience. That said, I think that the part of your point I highlighted above actually exemplifies the problem I see with the practice robot.

Your statement of:
it gives teams a testbed to find problems with new hardware that were not obvious during build. is essentially saying

it gives teams with more resources the testbed to make their machines more competitive after the build time is over. And I think there's the problem with that.


If you take away practice bots, you might as well take away post season events, workshops, white papers and CD.I'm certainly not proposing this, and for obvious reasons. Though I've never taken a course in logic, this is somewhat of a straw man' type of counter argument. All of the above learning tools are either free or have a much low budget and time commitment than building a second robot. They're in a separate category.

My argument isn't that we should handicap the better teams to make the equal, limit the engineering quality of well designed robots, or limit learning to students. My stance is that FIRST should try to increase the fairness of the competition by giving all teams the same amount of time to build, test and practice with their robots. The current loophole of a practice robot should be addressed and fixed in future competitions.

Matt

[Beth Sweet]

As someone who has been on both sides of this spectrum, I would have to side with the "allow practice 'bots" argument.

I am currently the team leader for a rookie team who is, to say the least, classified in the "have-nots" category. We're struggling right now to get enough money to just make a robot. But we have good kids and good mentors and we're going to make it because of our passion.

When I was on 67 the HOT Team, we always had practice 'bots. Anyone who has seen team 67 would classify them in the "have" category. They work hard and continue to do so, to gain and keep a good relationship with their sponsor who provides them with such things as the materials and machines to create a practice machine. Therefore, they have a bit more than others.

The way I see it, these are just byproducts of the fact that some teams will always have more than others. Those who want it, who have dedicated students and mentors, and who really care about the program will come back year to year and will work to get things that they want such as practice 'bots. This gives groups, like the one that I'm in charge of now, something to work for, something to look forward to. Give people something to want, to desire, all of a sudden you'll see them work harder than they ever have.

(This is solely my opinion and does not neccessarily reflect the views of my team or the rest of its members)

[Gabe Salas Jr.]

Wow. Great arguments.

This sort of reminded me back when teams with great sponsorship and dinero ('haves') were able to get their own portable machine shop for competitions. If something needed repair, the team simply went to their trailer and were able to work on it with their equipment. I felt FIRST was right in saying that it was an unfair advantage at competitions for teams to do this, and that the only way to allow this, is if you opened up that portable machine shop for all teams at competition. And I know that some teams, in fact, shared their equipment which is really nice of them. :D

Back on topic. I feel that FIRST should not put too many restraints that would actually hinder a team's ability for students to learn more about math, science, and technology. However, I do believe that FIRST does its best every year to make the game as fair as possible, to quote, "... to make jumping on the train a bit easier." Even though team's are not created equal (equal experience, equal sponsorship, etc.) they do have the same problem, the same kit, and the same deadline. I also believe that it is important for each team to look at other team's "solution" to the same problem. Furthermore, it is important for people to congregate and share those ideas with one another, in order to better appreciate everybody's "solution" and to learn more ideas, techniques, and information to make their "solution" more effective.

So does making a practice robot make students understand their robot better? Maybe so depending on how it is used. I cannot honestly say at this point. But our team last year built a a really basic plywood robot (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?&action=single&picid=6529) during the build season. We used it to allow our programmers to practice and make programs for autonomous and to figure out how to make the sensors (specifically the IR sensors last year) to work.


"But in the end, we all have to remember, it is not about the robots."


Sidenote:
*Keep in mind that teams actually building a main robot and a practice robot are technically building two robots in six weeks. More work for them. The only real problem I see with practice robots are teams that are able to tweak their practice robot after the deadline, and use it as the competition robot instead. As ungracious professional as it sounds, this may tempt teams to do so.

[Alexander McGee]

I think that one of the most fantastic parts about FIRST is that the biggest and most successful teams are also the most abiding to the rules.

And I will have to disagree with you. While it is nice to think this, many teams don't. Behind the shroud of GP, many teams have alternative strategies, as well as ways to not only bend the rules, but also go completely around them.

I agree 100% that GP is extremely important, and that many teams exhibit wonderful practices emphasizing GP. However, don’t kid yourself; this isn’t a perfect organization full of perfect, rule abiding teams. Many care much more about winning than following the rules, or the practice of GP. Even some of the "biggest and most successful". They may hide it well, but it is there.

On the topic of practice robots, it provides an excellent way for teams to get driving practice, as well as a way for more students to get their "hands dirty". This is especially true for large teams. However, I don’t think it is beneficial to have this robot readily available. Weather or not it is legal, I don’t like the idea of a team swapping out two robots when one is damaged (I’ve seen it done). I think this takes away from the “repair” and pit aspects of the competition.

Tis’ a double edged sword.

[dhitchco]

For all the "have not" teams, we must assume that the game will go on with the practice robots for the "other" teams. Therefore, a "have not" team can do the following:

1) Become a "have" team by doing a lot more fund-raising and awareness-generating in their community to fund a 2nd robot.

2) Partner with another team in their town that has a 2nd robot. You never know if those two teams will be pitted against each other or will be drawn as alliance partners; so just ask the other team to time-share their practice robot, field, etc.

3) On your own "have not" practice field, just simulate a robot by pushing a team member around in a wagon or shopping cart. Sure, the actual driver skills are important, but even more important to the driver is the strategy of the game (traffic on-field, other alliance robots, own alliance robots, etc.)

4) Look on E-Bay for used FIRST robots...ha, ha.

The game moves forward ONLY.......

[Mr. Van]

The issue here between "haves" and "have-nots" is far, far less about money or CNC machines. It is about mentorship. How many teams have the MENTOR / COACH / TEACHER resources to expand the season from six weeks (and a few weekends) to four months? Or to year-round?

In addition, how many teams have a space where they can build a full field where they can really practice?

One of the major issues that FIRST must address is what kind of time is it going to ask from its volunteer mentors and coaches?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

[KathieK]

The issue here between "haves" and "have-nots" is far, far less about money or CNC machines. It is about mentorship. How many teams have the MENTOR / COACH / TEACHER resources to expand the season from six weeks (and a few weekends) to four months? Or to year-round?
We're definitely a "have" team. But it's taken 11 years of hard work to get there. We invite anyone in our area to come use our practice field. We host workshops at our facility. We've spent the last four years working VERY hard to build up our parent mentor base. It's allowed us to be able to work with 6 different high schools and different school boards and paperwork, etc. It's allowed our engineers and teachers to have some "time off" when they need it. We meet year-round doing community service projects and fundraisers and a teambuilding weekend. Yes, we build two robots (when we can) so that we can have more student involvement. But I'm sure there was a time when we didn't have the resources to do that. There will always big conglomerates, big companies that have money and resources to accomplish great things. But that doesn't stop the entrepreneur from starting his/her own business and growing it.

[Josh Fritsch]

I think that there is two sides when a team decides to build a practice bot. You may say only the rich or the teams with many people build a practice bot. But I know first hand that this is untrue. I am a mentor, former 4 year team member of team 27. We are very much a veteran team however in the past three seasons we have lost almost all funding including all sponsorships this year. We have 12 students on the team this season compared to some with 40 or more and we still decided to build a practice bot. Our team feels that it is more important to focus on building two identical bots instead of devoting all the time into building one. If you look at it that way you could say that people that build one bot may have a superior bot to a team who builds two, and the people that build two rely on that the extra practice time that you get with making a second bot is more important.

Building a practice bot is perfectly OK and legal and shouldn't be taken away. Teams who do build a practice bot get the same amount of time to complete their bot as a team who builds one they just allocate their time different to allow them to do this. I don't see how you can say it widens the gap between the have and have-nots when it is not a money or facilities issue but a team preference issue. FIRST is meant for students to learn team work and communication skills working with real engineers in the real world but also for the students to build the bot to their ability. If they think they can accomplish this in a different way than another I don't see how you can justify taking this away.

If building a second bot to practice with should be taken away, should teams who choose to build a practice field to get a better understanding of the game be taken away too? You could argue that this gives the team and advantage over other teams because they can actually see the field? Whats next? saying teams can only have x amount of adult mentors because it will give that team an advantage of a team with less? It will never be equal between teams. There will always be teams with more experience or with a bigger budget or better facilities to build at. I consider my team to be a "have" team just because of that reason, we have a 9 year old team which helps us immensely when it comes to build time, but to "close the gap" we do help any team/mentor teams that asks us and provide them with some knowledge that they may not have had before. Getting a little off topic but just my 2cents

[patTeam241]

The practice robot can have positive and negative effects. I'm a member of a 'have not' team, but I can still see both sides (I think). They can give an advantage, especially in training drivers to operate the robot well, and allowing the development of new parts and code. I think that FIRST should help stop this (is that what the Fix-it window does, I didn't understand that), by allowing only certain modifications, and forcing you to run at least one round with your original code. This cuts down on people using their time to rebuild their robots, then just taking stuff to competition.

However, training drivers isn't neccessarily bad. It gives teams a slight edge, but could also be done easily enough with the EDUbot or other remote control vehicles. Also, many teams don't have much time to practice. Generally we only have a week or so between ship and the Granite State Regional.

To be totally 'fair', FIRST would need to do alot. Someone mentioned teams working all year long. This is something that, for the most part, can't be avoided. The only thing FIRST could do would be change the challenge drastically every year, so the teams would need massive redesigns. Beyond that, there isn't much to prevent rolling design work.

The simplest solution (which 'have not' teams don't want to hear), like many have said, FUNDRAISE. When you take the initiative to build team with resources, you can accomplish a lot. Also, teach the students early on what they need to know, so that they can design and build the robot a lot faster, allowing you to train on it, and test code.

[kevinw]

The issue here between "haves" and "have-nots" is far, far less about money or CNC machines. It is about mentorship. How many teams have the MENTOR / COACH / TEACHER resources to expand the season from six weeks (and a few weekends) to four months? Or to year-round?

In addition, how many teams have a space where they can build a full field where they can really practice?

One of the major issues that FIRST must address is what kind of time is it going to ask from its volunteer mentors and coaches?

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

You'd be surprised how many mentors are willing to donate more time. I know I continue to be surprised. That's probably why the CDI, OCRA, and all the other pre-season competitions, as well as the IRI and all the other post-season competitions sprouted up. Students expressed an interest, and mentors were more than willing.

Regarding practice fields, I know of teams that take a classroom, move the tables and chairs, and use the classroom for practice. Or a hallway in the school. Or, if you're really lucky, the gymnasium during a school break when there are no athletic events. It's not perfect, but it saves money, and gets the job done.

[Gui Cavalcanti]

So, I'll reiterate my opinion from an earlier thread to say that, for no other reason, FIRST should not allow practice robots simply because a deadline is a deadline. Real engineering firms have ship dates, and refining and testing should be scheduled in the time allotted to the design. If you want to build an advanced robot, fine, but make sure you have the resources to finish it in the time that you have. Knowing your team/company's limits is a big part of the engineering process, isn't it? When students are in high school, should they be taught that they can finish assignments after deadlines pass, once they know the best way to finish the assignment?

I think something that hasn't really been addressed has been the difference between teams attending early and late competitions. The skill gap between teams who have been practicing for a week and those that are just showing up to the first competition may not be that great. Once a month passes, however, a pit crew could've taken a practice robot apart many times and drivers could have practiced for tens of hours (time they would never receive in a true FIRST competition). By the end of the regional season, the difference in teams would be substantial. In addition, there is a 20-day gap between the last regional and the championship event. Two-robot teams will have a chance to learn what strategies work well with their robot, what they need to work on, and what they need to learn how to fix quickly. Teams that don't have the resources to build two competition robots can only hope they can remember how to run their robot (It happened to us; we only attended the Richmond regional and championships last year, with a full month and a half between events).

[Amanda M]

So, I'll reiterate my opinion from an earlier thread to say that, for no other reason, FIRST should not allow practice robots simply because a deadline is a deadline. Real engineering firms have ship dates, and refining and testing should be scheduled in the time allotted to the design. If you want to build an advanced robot, fine, but make sure you have the resources to finish it in the time that you have. Knowing your team/company's limits is a big part of the engineering process, isn't it? When students are in high school, should they be taught that they can finish assignments after deadlines pass, once they know the best way to finish the assignment?


I would have to disagree. Even though a team makes a practice bot, it doesn't mean they miss the deadline. They still have to ship their robot at the same time everyone else does.

This is the way I see it. FIRST is an organization that governs the creation of these machines. It kind of oversees everything. As long as a team takes a robot to competition, and during that competition that team follows all of the rules, FIRST has no right to tell a team what they do during their build season, outside of what rules are listed in the manual and understood (i.e. a team should make their own robot and not completely steal another or.. maybe buy one.. just for the sake of an example.)
If you look at it from a sports angle: a football team shows up to competition and has an awesome defense or something. They're unstoppable. As long as the team is following all the rules, the NFL has no right to tell them how to practice. Its the same way with FIRST. Any team can practice anyway they wish. Building a practice robot is a very good way to do this.

And I personally do not believe in the "have" and "have-not" team thing. ANY TEAM CAN BECOME A "HAVE" TEAM. All they have to do is venture forth and find the resources. They're there. I come from a small town. I have worked to raise thousands of dollars from my community of 15,000. I personally believe that any team can find money as long as they approach businesses the right way.

And I believe FIRST is a year-round program (in reply to a message at the beginning of this thread). There is so much more to learn fron FIRST than in that 6 weeks. You can do LEGO League, Marketing, comunnity service. That's what FIRST is for. And I think having a practice robot allows students to further learn about engineering, and I think anything that teaches more to students should be in the best interest of FIRST.

[Matt Adams]

And I think having a practice robot allows students to further learn about engineering, and I think anything that teaches more to students should be in the best interest of FIRST.A major counter argument in favor to allowing a practice robot is summed up well by Amanda's post above. The argument is something like this:

1. The more students are working with robots, the more excited they get about science and technology.
2. Allowing a practice robot to be built gives a good number of students more time to work more with robots.
3. Hence, a practice robot is good for students, and hence good for FIRST.

The flaw I see with the practice robot is:

1. All students should be allowed to get the same amount of design, building and testing time with their robots for a given robotics season.
2. Many teams do not have the resources to build two robots.
3. Hence, teams should not be allowed to build two robots.

Wouldn't the compromise be:

1. The more students are working with robots, the more excited they get about science and technology.
2. All students should be allowed to get the same amount of design, building and testing time with their robots for a given robotics season.
3. The design, building, and testing time should be longer.

What if the 6 weeks were actually 8 and no practice robot was allowed? What is the 6 was actually 16? This would eliminate the advantage of the practice robot, while still allowing students more time to build and get inspired by FIRST.

This has been hashed out before.. but perhaps this is a different context to the argument about having additional time.

Reply away. Thanks for the good discussion so far!

Matt

[Ellery]

Another Aspect of this discussion would be that teams who travel to more Regionals have more practice and time to improve as well vs. those who just go to 1 or 2 events. Either way the Practice robot would be fine in my eye if you can make it happen with students involved in all aspects especially if you're only able to compete in a limited amount of competitions.

My team has never built a full practice robot in the 14 years we've been involved base on the fact that we tend to concentrate on the process not necessarily the competition. If you haven't noticed we have not won a single robot competition yet but we've always been very competitive. You just have to balance the focus so that your team has a competitive machine without sacrificing the interaction of the students.

IMHO having a practice robot or not doesn't matter, as someone else put it, that's reality! The student should understand how to use their resources efficiently. The message of FIRST has not changed in the 14 years. Just get back to the basics and not worry too much of all these details of who's better off or not. Just concentrate on your kids and let the destiny work its charm.

Ellery

[Gary C]

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.


Can't we all agree, that having a 'No Practice Robots Allowed' rule in the future would be very a simple and effective way to reduce the gap between teams with lots of resources and those without?

FIRST often explains itself as a 6 week robot competition, but in all reality, for many 'have' teams, FIRST is a year-round, comprehensive program. The build season is simply split into 6 weeks of building followed by 6 weeks practicing, design tweaking and coming up with 8 hour buildable upgrades for the Thursdays of competition.

The 'have-nots' simply have a 6 weeks of building followed by a few weekends of competing.

Matt

How does FIRST expect to let any drivers have any practice at all? If that rule were existing, I mean. But, yeah, I envy all those teams with the money and the talent and the capabilities to build two robots, but until someone does something, all we can do is watch and learn

-Gary (The Onion) Chaboya

[Winged Wonder]

Wow. Great arguments.

blah blah a good points about a few years back with portable machine shops blah blah

more about FIRST and solutions to problems yadda yadda

blah plug to ghettobot 2k4 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?&action=single&picid=6529) blah blah

"But in the end, we all have to remember, it is not about the robots."


sidenote on building 2 robots in two weeks yah

nice points.... :p (sorry; had to make a plug to my older brother... and totally butcher his quote in the process. ^^; sorry bout that Gabe…)

Anyways; everyone had valid arguments which were backed up with a good amount of persuasive detail, yet I still wish to insert my two cents.

From my personal experience and knowledge from past years, team 233, which I wouldn't consider a "have" or a "have-not" team, has never built a second robot identical to the one shipped for competition. Although we do always (at least try to) build a prototype of some sort to test out autonomous programs and how sensors work, we never really have felt the necessity to build a second robot for practicing driving. Every year we build a high caliber robot, yet it’s a one shot deal. We spend tons of time designing the robot before we even start to think of building the real thing because we only have enough resources to build one awesome robot, which, in my eyes, is better than building two mediocre bots, even though every year drivers never get more than two or three days to practice before we ship off 6 weeks of hard work, dedication, and love. We are very blessed to be able to have mentors from NASA (KSC) help us, but we are not exactly that well off financially. We are constantly doing fundraising, ranging from car washes during the summer to gift-wrapping at holiday time and everything in between, yet instead of devoting those funds to lets say, building a second robot, we decide to donate that money to other teams who really need it or to help us pay for expenses related to competing out-of-state.

I suppose in the best interests of your own team and from your experience in FIRST, you can logically deduce what to do with your time and money not only in the six week build period, but throughout the entire year as well. If you decide that building a second robot to allow drivers to have more practice time after your robot is shipped is the best course for you, then by all means, expend your time and resources to fit your expectations best.

From a drivers perspective, a second robot identical (or close enough) to the robot shipped off to practice with in between competitions would be wonderful. It would be great to really get a feel for the robot and really get used to it so that when competition time rolls around, you're not just lost in an abyss of not knowing what’s going on. From a separate perspective though, I feel that in the great scheme of all things, extra driving practice is really not that essential. Hey, that’s why we have Thursdays for, right? To practice, get used to the field, and get a taste of what’s to come. :D That little taste is enough to fuel my adrenaline and get me pumped up enough so that I can let my instincts take over and I can not worry about messing up or figuring out how to drive the robot, but rather focus on getting the job done, achieving my objectives, and focusing more on cooperating with my fellow driver and developing our strategies.

However, that is not the issue we are discussing. we are discussing whether or not illegalizing the ability to build a second robot if a team so choses would be better for FIRST as a whole or not.

A lot of good points have been made about the parallelisms between FIRST and the real world, and since FIRST is geared toward high school students, almost as a preparation for the real world, it should enforce guidelines like the real world does, such as obeying deadlines and things of that such. But FIRST is also For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, and it should be used as a tool to whet the appetites of teenagers who will become the foundation of tomorrow's society. Personally, in the scheme of all things, I believe whether or not teams should be able to build a practice robot should be left completely up to them, because in the end it is meaningless. Sure, your drivers get more hours of practice, but that doesn’t really mean anything. That’s NOT what FIRST is about. FIRST is NOT just about your robot, how good it is, if you win at a regional or even at nationals. FIRST is about teamwork, gracious professionalism, getting along, learning from your mistakes and learning to get through crunch time alive. FIRST is about family, making new friendships, belonging somewhere, doing something you love, and finding out what your real love is in life so when you're old and wrinkly you can look back at high school and say "This is when I found myself." FIRST is about so much more than just robots. Sure it’s awesome to go to competitions and get carried away in all of the hype, but that’s really not the point. That’s just a brilliant grand scheme that Dean came up with to get us teenagers off our lazy butts and excited about science and technology. :D

[Dave Flowerday]

What if the 6 weeks were actually 8 and no practice robot was allowed? What is the 6 was actually 16? This would eliminate the advantage of the practice robot, while still allowing students more time to build and get inspired by FIRST.
I believe a big motivator for the 6 week build period is the burden on mentors. Many mentors have families who kindly put up with not seeing their family member much for 6 weeks. Asking those mentors to put in 8, or 10, or more weeks will decrease the number of willing mentors. Additionally, there's scheduling issues. With many weeks of regionals to fit in, and with not wanting to interfere too much with the end of the school year activities, it's just not practical to have a longer build season.

On a more general note, I'd like to add this: of course teams that can build a practice robot have an advantage over teams that can't. Is this far? Not at all. But if you say teams can't build a practice robot, does that suddenly make the competition fair? No. Teams with more resources will always have an advantage. The only way to take away this advantage would be to dictate everything: budget (TOTAL budget, not just materials for robot), suppliers, manufacturing methods, minimum number of students per adults (i.e. "You are not allowed to have more than 1 mentor for every 10 students"), etc. On my team we are lucky to have a large number of adult mentors. We have a sheer manpower advantage over teams with 1 mentor and a handful of kids, regardless of the other build rules & limitations. The flip side of that, though, is that we also have a LOT of students on our team. If we only build our competition robot, there's a practical limit on the number of kids that can be working on it at one time (there's only so many kids that can cram around a robot on a table). With a second, practice robot we can get twice as many kids up close and working on the robot. For example, sometimes we set up 2 crews - the "prime" crew which takes care of building and maintaining the competition robot (and serves as pit crew at events) and the up-and-coming crew where newer members get a chance to learn by building and maintaining the practice robot. Take away the practice robot and we will not be able to let as many kids get their hands dirty working on the robot (or each kid will get to spend less time doing it). This seems like exactly the opposite of what FIRST is trying to accomplish.

{edit} I also want to add that in high school I was on a team that, while still decently funded, did not have the same kind of resources that my current team has. We did not have nearly as much success as my current team, either. It didn't matter, though. We always had a great time and learned a lot. Losing isn't fun, of course, but we didn't really expect to win the whole thing anyway and just enjoyed the experience for all that it was. There's still things that I miss about that team; many people may not realize it but there are a few advantages of being on a small team. There were times as a student where I was able to go off and design a small feature of the robot and build it on my own. This isn't always practical with a big team because there's just not enough features to go around. There was also a great deal less pressure to win. Successful teams seem to experience a lot more disappointment when they lose which can in turn take away some of the fun of competition if you're struggling more than normal. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that average teams end up enjoying the competition more than successful teams because winning and losing is taken more in stride. {/edit}

[Al Skierkiewicz]

My argument isn't that we should handicap the better teams to make the equal, limit the engineering quality of well designed robots, or limit learning to students. My stance is that FIRST should try to increase the fairness of the competition by giving all teams the same amount of time to build, test and practice with their robots. The current loophole of a practice robot should be addressed and fixed in future competitions.

Matt

Matt,
I think you are missing my point, (as well as some of the other folks here.) You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more". I am applauding the ability for students (and mentors) to learn more. Throughout history, learning has been suppressed, delegated to a select few, or dismissed in the name of some ideal. When one team learns, other teams benefit, through this forum, team interaction, and assistance and mentoring at competitions. If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today. We don't measure our success by the number of wins we achieve, but by the number of students who find themselves, decide to attend an educational institution beyond high school and become productive citizens and future mentors, parents, teachers. Weigh this in the balance of your mind...On one side the number of boys who made Eagle Scout while I was a leader (23) + the number of students who passed through Wildstang (during the time I have been a team member) and went on to college (200+) against National Wins (1). Does it seem a little lopsided? In that 200+, two perfect ACT scores, numerous above 30 scores, MIT, Purdue, Bradley, U of I students, countless engineering graduates and I am proud of every one of them. Now I know a practice robot didn't make those statistics but if one practice robot got one student to go to school and graduate it was worth every penny, every hour of time, every drop of sweat, every tear.
If you want to know how to build a more competitive robot, ask. GP demands we tell you, help you, guide you, teach you.

[Amanda M]

Matt,
I think you are missing my point, (as well as some of the other folks here.) You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more". I am applauding the ability for students (and mentors) to learn more. Throughout history, learning has been suppressed, delegated to a select few, or dismissed in the name of some ideal. When one team learns, other teams benefit, through this forum, team interaction, and assistance and mentoring at competitions. If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today. We don't measure our success by the number of wins we achieve, but by the number of students who find themselves, decide to attend an educational institution beyond high school and become productive citizens and future mentors, parents, teachers. Weigh this in the balance of your mind...On one side the number of boys who made Eagle Scout while I was a leader (23) + the number of students who passed through Wildstang (during the time I have been a team member) and went on to college (200+) against National Wins (1). Does it seem a little lopsided? In that 200+, two perfect ACT scores, numerous above 30 scores, MIT, Purdue, Bradley, U of I students, countless engineering graduates and I am proud of every one of them. Now I know a practice robot didn't make those statistics but if one practice robot got one student to go to school and graduate it was worth every penny, every hour of time, every drop of sweat, every tear.
If you want to know how to build a more competitive robot, ask. GP demands we tell you, help you, guide you, teach you.


I completely agree with Al.

But I don't really understand why this is such a big deal. Honestly, take a step back and think "How Important is it?" Is it really going to matter that much that some teams have an advantage over others? If FIRST is a program that brings students to real life problems, then this is a classic example. Some people will have the resources, and some wont. However, I still firmly believe that the resources are there, if you can find a way to attain them.

I guess that's what I mean to say.

How Important is it? Is it important enough for you to go out and find the resources so that you can create a second robot? If you want to have the advantage, just like everyone else, it's out there, you just have to try and attain it. And for the rookies, who will find it very hard, there is a great forum here that you can find veteran teams to help you with money, parts, CADs, etc.

It's all out there.

[Matt Adams]

Honestly, take a step back and think "How Important is it?" On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being critically important to the future of FIRST, and 1 being completely inconsequential... I would put the practice robot issue at about a 3. Maybe a 2.

But boy does it make for great discussion!

Matt

[dtk]

Many people have already expounded on the educational benefits to the teams who employ practice robots. Also the concerns of less funded teams who don't want to give away any more ground to the big budget teams is also valid. Perhaps there's another solution and it's one we have already tried.

Very few, if any, people will argue that being able to utilize a practice robot during the entire competition season (March/April) does not improve the performance and overall quality of a robot. It is inevitable that given extra time software will improve, mechanical issues will be solved, and drivers will become better able to control the machine. Thus if everyone had a practice robot the quality of robots attending competitions would be higher than it currently is. If no one gets any extra practice time it is likely the overall quality would decline. Whether it would be a large change is immaterial the point is simply that more time with robots leads to a higher level of competition.

Now for a question. Is it more inspiring, not only to current team members but to everyone watching and judging the program, to have robots that are well driven, break down less often, and can do what they are designed to do or, instead, to have more than a few robots who fail to even drive successfully in a match? Please don't take this to mean that I think a poor performing robot does not inspire those who worked on it, but, rather, that to many people, especially those who have not already been through the program it will certainly be more inspiring when the level of play is high.

To me a solution that brings up the level of the competition is infinitely preferable to one that is likely to bring it down. So, since some teams are unable to build a second robot to practice with why not let everyone have access to their primary robot. This is akin to some years ago when a repair/retest/practice period was included after each regional. Sure there are still problems, and many details that would need to be addressed. But, allowing teams a few days with their robot after each competition does some to level the playing field while giving everyone a chance to improve on their robot.

The major concern that FIRST seems to have with this solution is that it in essence lengthens the "build" phase of the season. This in turn increases the stress on the mentors and students who may then feel compelled to increase their time commitment. However there is no reason that every team MUST utilize any additional time with the primary robot. The fact of the matter is right now the teams that want the extra time and have the resources to get it are already lengthening the build season and many of them find it to also increase the benefits of the program. All adding access to primary robots would do is to allow other teams that wish to do the same, but lack the finances to also get this opportunity. Those who wish to abstain as they are doing now would still be free to do so. It's just that the option would be available to everyone.

As far as leveling the playing field goes. It is impossible to make the argument that a highly resourced veteran team would not be able to make more improvements or get better practice (VIA a full practice field) in this time period than a low budget rookie. So the "Have" teams will most assuredly still have an advantage, but the point is they have it anyway. The benefit of allowing access to the primary robot is small to a team that already learns 99% of what they were going to by using a practice robot. However the benefit to a team with no practice robot can be huge. Therefore despite being a rule which will continue inequity among teams it will reduce the gap and, as removing the gap is impossible, reducing it is the next best thing.

-Daniel Kimura

[AHallows]

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.

It's been recently ruled that it's perfectly legal for FIRST teams to build a practice robot for students to practice with during the time after the ship date and between competitions. It appears that a number of voters agree that practicing between competitions is good for the students.

Matt


Isn't that what this is all about?

[Matt Adams]

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.

It's been recently ruled that it's perfectly legal for FIRST teams to build a practice robot for students to practice with during the time after the ship date and between competitions. It appears that a number of voters agree that practicing between competitions is good for the students.

Matt

Isn't that what this is all about?Good catch. I didn't make this clear.

The point I was trying to make is simply this:

The students who are on teams that are big enough to support a second robot get this extra time to learn and become more competitive. The students who aren't on large teams don't get this extra time to learn and are at a competitive disadvantage. I am hoping that through we can steer this discussion to propose ways to still give students the additional experience they'd have by working on a practice robot while making strides to reduce the competitive advantage gained by having it.



You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more".I'm don't think I've attacked much of anything. I'm just calling it how I see it - allowing a second robot is a loop hole (something within the rules that allows for an unexpected outcome). The 'unexpected outcome' is simply that only 'have' teams can get this critical advantage. Again, I'd like to see a way for this advantage to be evened out, either by removing it, or (preferably) by allowing it to happen for all teams. Note that my preference is a change of opinion from my original post. I've been persuaded by the benefits that have been discussed.

If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today.First, I never meant to imply that building a practice robot is not GP or unethical. We'd be building one this year if we could. Though I hope everyone has given me the benefit of the doubt, this isn't about MY team not being able to build a practice robot, it's about making the competition fairer and hence more competitive for all teams. I think that's something that we should all strive to make happen.

As to the main point you wrote here... let's be candid for a second: of course 'have' teams are more competitive because they are a 'have' team.

'Have' isn't just about money... teams with incredible engineering talent, incredibly dedicated mentors, incredibly dedicated students, incredible facilities, and incredible machining resources will always build incredibly robots. This incredible combination along with building a practice robot is what makes 'have' teams competitive year in and year out. I don't think making this obvious statement is a diservice to any engineer, mentor, teacher or student on your team. 'Have' teams didn't become that way overnight; a lot of people put in a lot of hard work to make it so. Everyone knows that most of the 'have' teams are incredibly generous with offering their resources to other teams. There's nothing shameful about being a 'have' team - I think every team should strive to become a 'have' team so they can share their 'have' with the 'have nots'.

If we only build our competition robot, there's a practical limit on the number of kids that can be working on it at one time (there's only so many kids that can cram around a robot on a table).
...
Take away the practice robot and we will not be able to let as many kids get their hands dirty working on the robot (or each kid will get to spend less time doing it). This seems like exactly the opposite of what FIRST is trying to accomplish. This is among the most legitimate arguments I've seen. +1,000 points to you.

That's all folks,

Matt

[dlavery]

Many people have already expounded on the educational benefits to the teams who employ practice robots. Also the concerns of less funded teams who don't want to give away any more ground to the big budget teams is also valid. Perhaps there's another solution and it's one we have already tried.

Very few, if any, people will argue that being able to utilize a practice robot during the entire competition season (March/April) does not improve the performance and overall quality of a robot. It is inevitable that given extra time software will improve, mechanical issues will be solved, and drivers will become better able to control the machine. Thus if everyone had a practice robot the quality of robots attending competitions would be higher than it currently is. If no one gets any extra practice time it is likely the overall quality would decline. Whether it would be a large change is immaterial the point is simply that more time with robots leads to a higher level of competition.

Now for a question. Is it more inspiring, not only to current team members but to everyone watching and judging the program, to have robots that are well driven, break down less often, and can do what they are designed to do or, instead, to have more than a few robots who fail to even drive successfully in a match? Please don't take this to mean that I think a poor performing robot does not inspire those who worked on it, but, rather, that to many people, especially those who have not already been through the program it will certainly be more inspiring when the level of play is high.

To me a solution that brings up the level of the competition is infinitely preferable to one that is likely to bring it down. So, since some teams are unable to build a second robot to practice with why not let everyone have access to their primary robot. This is akin to some years ago when a repair/retest/practice period was included after each regional. Sure there are still problems, and many details that would need to be addressed. But, allowing teams a few days with their robot after each competition does some to level the playing field while giving everyone a chance to improve on their robot.

The major concern that FIRST seems to have with this solution is that it in essence lengthens the "build" phase of the season. This in turn increases the stress on the mentors and students who may then feel compelled to increase their time commitment. However there is no reason that every team MUST utilize any additional time with the primary robot. The fact of the matter is right now the teams that want the extra time and have the resources to get it are already lengthening the build season and many of them find it to also increase the benefits of the program. All adding access to primary robots would do is to allow other teams that wish to do the same, but lack the finances to also get this opportunity. Those who wish to abstain as they are doing now would still be free to do so. It's just that the option would be available to everyone.

As far as leveling the playing field goes. It is impossible to make the argument that a highly resourced veteran team would not be able to make more improvements or get better practice (VIA a full practice field) in this time period than a low budget rookie. So the "Have" teams will most assuredly still have an advantage, but the point is they have it anyway. The benefit of allowing access to the primary robot is small to a team that already learns 99% of what they were going to by using a practice robot. However the benefit to a team with no practice robot can be huge. Therefore despite being a rule which will continue inequity among teams it will reduce the gap and, as removing the gap is impossible, reducing it is the next best thing.

I have been watching this thread with interest, and would like to thank all of you for a rational, well-reasoned discussion that has brought out a number of legitimate concerns and perceptions. But I do need to jump in for a moment and say tell Daniel that if Woodie Flowers were here right now he would probably give you a massive hug and "thank you!" for your comments. This is exactly the point that Woodie has been pounding into the heads of many of us for a while now - we have to look at the competition from a very broad perspective, and try to understand how to increase the impact it can have. There may be elements of the FIRST program that, at an individual or team viewpoint, seem to be contrary to what one might expect. But when the same element is examined from the viewpoint of a sponsor or competition audience or local community, all of a sudden the advantages become clear.

-dave

[misterfoo]

One thing that is the big equalizer at First competitions is the random pick of the partners. Last year in Atlanta our team made it to the Semi-Finals in the Newton division. We clearly were not the best robot in the pool, but we were paired with awesome partners for 2 days. In then end we picked a partner team that won their regionals but was in 50th place (or so) at the finals because of partner pairings that did not work out. So everything else said, about resources, rookies experience, it all gets washed out in the random pairings.