Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

If the ship date bag-n-tag date were to be eliminated (allowing a team to work on their robot all the way up to the competition), the return on investment/advantages gained by a lower or middle percentile team would be significantly larger than the R.O.I. gained by a top percentile team.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

Sad but true.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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

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

Re: Practice bot morality
 

An example of it was that rookie team at Midwest last year who's robot was not competition ready and a student from your team helped to make the robot functional enough to be the first alternative.

Re: Practice bot morality
 

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