Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

On what do you base that statement?

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

A grotesque misunderstanding of the benefit of a practice bot.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Exactly! Learning never stops. Why try?

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

I was hoping someone would catch my reference.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

(emphasis mine)

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

Jane

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Jane

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Oh. I like this better. May I steal?

Re: Practice bot morality
 

One last post on this.

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

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

Jane

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Steal away!

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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


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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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



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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

One pregnant woman takes 9 months to have a baby.

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

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

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

Ether has mentioned books by Malcolm Gladwell before, I read them and Gladwell has lots of good ideas on the subject.

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Mike I couldn't disagree with you more.

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Well said IKE.

/Thread perhaps.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

What he said! ^^^^

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Amen IKE!!!!

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Honestly?

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Just my 2 cents.

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

What do I mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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



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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Hang in there, keep working hard!

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

-Brando

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Hard to believe no?

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Since when are any of us owed victory?

A couple of rambling thoughts on this meandering topic:

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

That is stunning actually.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Actually the odds are even worse than that...

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

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

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

The highest number team of the 24 is 1218.

The highest number team of the 12 is 968.

The highest number team of the 6 is 294.

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

This is completely wrong.














359 says ham and pineapple is where its at.
.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Definitely read IKE's response to this.

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Ouch.

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

Jane

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

JM(NS)HO

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

All -

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

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

Be civil or this will be locked.

:)

Re: Practice bot morality
 

(Emphasis mine)

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

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

Jane

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Sounds like it's a good year for FIRST to take on basketball since only 9 teams have won the NBA championship in the last three decades (and almost half of them were by the Celtics and Lakers combined) and that's with a salary cap.
Sometimes it's not about being fair. Some people are just very good at what they do.