Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I think this is a pretty cool idea.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I like this. A lot. Exact numbers (hours, increments, limits, etc) are details that could be adjusted year to year. I suggest that there be total limit(s) with respect to how much you can modify the -as bagged- robot during the competition season. These limits could be in terms of money/BOM and/or weight. For instance, with a 30 lb limit, if you started with a 20 lb shooter, removed it, and replaced it with a 10 lb shooter you could alter it multiple times, and that would still only be counted as a 10 lb change. And you could add 10 lbs of climber, to give a total change of 20 lbs. But you could not also make 25 lbs of changes to a drive train or add 25 lbs of disc vacuum.

When you submit that proposal to FIRST, if you need anecdotes, etc., feel free to include me/us in a petition.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Any circumstance that limits our access to a robot to some period less than what we have now with our practice robot will cause us to build a practice robot.

The limited access means we'd have some time to work on our competitive machine simultaneously, so that'd be helpful and means we'd be more prepared to compete on competition days, but I don't anticipate it doing anything to save cost for us.

For me -- for my team -- I don't anticipate it doing anything to fundamentally change how we operate or how exhausted I am at the end. I spend about 10% of my time working on manufacturing and assembly of real robots. The rest of the time is spent working in CAD, handling administrative tasks, awards, etc.; hands-off time doesn't do anything for me.

It's pretty clear that we all approach FRC differently and are exhausted for different reasons. I'd like to see something that allows me to more meaningfully include mentors that cannot provide the same level of commitment as I currently do. It'd allow me to spread the burdens I currently carry around a bit, build experience and knowledge among other people on my team, and maybe not be a raving, crazy person by the time competitions roll around. 9 hours a week isn't going to do that. Two days a week isn't going to do that. In my case, really, any limit that requires me to spend additional time outside of meetings creates an additional burden on me.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I would welcome the changes outlined by IKE and Ed. I agree that it preserves the value of a defined build season while also offering the opportunity to pursue continual improvement (or, in some cases, completion :) ). It provides everybody with an opportunity to become more competitive at a lower overall cost while preserving the ability of teams to choose to invest as much or as little as suits their program and goals.

Having continued to listen to the arguments and think about my personal objectives for our program, this would be my preferred outcome. This process more accurately models my "reality". We deliver a manufacturing process; it starts up and produces product. We use virtual models, prototypes and pilot facilities to solve issues and make improvements. We strive to minimize the time we need to install these improvements on the "real" process so that we minimize our lost production time.

To me, this is a very accurate representation of how it works in real life and is worthy of serious consideration by FIRST.

Well done, IKE and Ed.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I must say that Ed's proposal is definitely better than what is in place now and I will be all for it.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

[quote=Doug G;1275357]I must say that Ed's proposal is definitely better than what is in place now and I will be all for it.[/QUOTE

Include me in Ed's camp too:D

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I am on board for these proposals. I inclined to have Ed's variation of Ike's idea. Both are really good. 9 hours is great, 6 hours would still work. I think if I had 6 hours in between LA and LV this year, the competition robot kinks could have been worked out.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I've read quite a bit of this thread, and off the top of my head there are several issues that have come up with respect to mentor burnout and student inspiration. The variables we've talked about thus far which change the FRC Student Inspiration to Mentor-Burnout ratio (SI:MB)

1. Witholding Allowance, 10 <= ALLOWANCE <= 60, avg=30
   - MB Inverse Proportional to ALLOWANCE ?
   - SI = Direct Proportional to ALLOWANCE ?
2. Deadline Adjustments, DEADLINE = 45 + N, 0 <= N <= 42
   - MB proportionality mixed --some think MB increases, yet some think MB is the same or less
   - SI Unaffected
3. Post-Bag Access Hours, 0 <= ACCESS <= 9 * # of weeks to competition
   - MB Inversely Proportional to ACCESS
   - SI Proportional to ACCESS
4. # of events attended, EVENTS = 1 + M, 0 <= M <= 3 (teams attending 5 events don't seem to do it multiple seasons)
   - MB proportional to EVENTS
   - SI proportional to EVENTS
5. Number of mentors, 1 <= MENTORS <= 20-ish? Anyone know the average?
   - MB Inverse Proportional to MENTORS
   - SI Proportional to MENTORS ?
6. Number of Students, 3 <= STUDENTS <= 100-ish?
   - MB Proportional to # of students, or unaffected
   - SI affected?
7. Cost per Match, $667 (1st Regional, no elims) <= CPM <= $267 (MSC/MAR, with elims)
   - MB Proportional to CPM
   - SI Unaffected ?
8. Cost of Sponsorship Stress (e.g. 341's sheetmetal sponsor), quantified by how much the employee will not get a end-of-year raise by? Or % chance to lose the sponsor the following year?
9. Cost of Shipping? % of costs reduced?

MB = (Time Under Stress - Time Under Eustress) divided by Time Invested? This nullifies the 'save me from myself' argument. What is max(MB)? How many hours did mentors put in this year? My personal was 40-hrs in weeks 1-4, 30 in 5-7, then 20-ish 8-17 except for 3 competition weeks which were 50-ish.
SI = [some calculation of]
- Team student population
- % of students who go to college
- % of 1-year students who change to doing any STEM field because of FRC

In formulating a model, we'd try to maximize SI:MB subject to these and other conditions. If we forget about what the top 1% are going to do (let the Poofs, Simbots and OP go nuts -- they already do) what does the rest of FRC stand to gain from making adjustments?

In formulating this model, we don't have to get the exact numbers right -- just whether something increases or decreases with respect to a constraint. Then we can see how to maximize Inspiration while decreasing Burnout (maybe).

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

Love the idea. This helps level the playing field for those who cannot afford extra tournaments to improve their robots. It also recognizes the advantageous district teams now enjoy (of working in their own shops and practice areas during the week) and provides that for all teams.

Might consider adding the ideas:

• No witholding allowance. Put the changes on the robot at home before you come to the tournament during an unbag window. Come to the tournament ready to inspect! (Do allow identical spares, and on-site modifications.)
  
  
• Don't start the tournament until 4:00 in the afternoon on Thursdays. (Maybe allow load-in after 2:00 on Thursday for a skeleton crew.) Allows local teams to go to school on Thursday before the tournament and possibly allows a cheaper venue rental with a little less time. (Plus non-local teams can sample some of the local culture on a Thursday morning, or save a nights stay by traveling Thursday morning.)

Neither one of those are deal breakers for me. I love the idea just as presented.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I think the ideas presented by Ed and Isaac are awesome compromises.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I like Ed's plan but I would like to see a bit more than 9 hours. I think at 9 hours we would have to be conscious of exactly what we did out of the bag. Something like 12 or 15 would seem better to me, that way we would probably not build a practice bot. About an 1 hour each weekday than 5 hours, Saturday and Sunday.

The week break at the end of build season would that be Tuesday to Tuesday? I think that hurts week 1 teams. What about just Tuesday to Friday so we could have pre-inspection events the Saturday before week 1 events?

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I like Ed Law's Proposal. Our team would love rule changes like that.

Admittedly, 9 hours is a lot of time to play with. The one hour increments would make it possible to unbag the robot every day of the week, which is at odds with the goal of reducing the incentive to work to death.

Two hour minimum increments might be part of a more agreeable compromise for people who don't want to be in the shop every day. The number of hours per week is an important variable in a system like this, too.

I don't think this type of rule change would have a huge impact on the amount of time our team meets after the build season. But it would have some very attractive benefits.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

So you're suggesting that teams work 7 days a week throughout the entire season? With the robot out of the bag every day? With a total break of 4 days? Sorry, how exactly are we reducing burnout again?

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I'm not, we're solving different problems now. Teams that aren't burned out can work when they want. I'm trying to reduce practice robots. Spectrum won't build a practice robot at 12 or 15 hours at 9 we still might.

Not everyone has a problem with burnout. I might at some point in my life but right now I have the opposite problem, and am going through a bit of withdrawal from the season being over.

Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
 

I like Ed's idea. The only 'tweak' I'd like to see would be for teams with a long ship time. Perhaps the total hours could be shifted from week to week (like 'rollover minutes')? So if you have 5 weeks from bag day until your competition, you could unbag for a total of 45 hours - but if you had to ship 3 weeks before the competition, you could use those 45 hours all in the first two weeks.

This would still be a problem for teams shipping to early events. Perhaps the "pit access time" at early events could be longer for those teams? I'm thinking of 359, if they have to ship right after bag day for a week 2 event, the 6 or 9 hours per week won't be available to them at all - but it would be for the other teams at their event, who drive their robots to the competition.

I know our robot was bagged several weeks before they came to pick up our crate to ship it to Oahu. Having time during those weeks to work on the bot, instead of building a practice bot, would have been much more efficient, and great for us. But others at our competition - the international teams from Australia and China - probably had to ship their bots weeks earlier. There should be some way to equalize the 'hands on' time for such teams. I would not mind if they had an extra few hours of pit time, based on when they had to 'bag'. Or a slightly larger withholding allowance. (Say, give us 20 lbs. and them 30; there could be a sliding allowance scale, based on how many total hours of 'out of bag' time you have had from bag day to your competition. Maybe you lose a few pounds for every 10 hours of time. Then, you could choose whether to take the time or the higher allowance. Just another idea...)

We have built a practice bot each year for the past few years. It would certainly be more efficient and a great savings of cost and time to not have to do that. We (and other teams) could decide between building a full practice bot (probably not), building just a copy of the basic drive "mule" for driver practice (possibly - the drivers would like this), or simply planning to share the "out of bag time" between the builders, programmers and drivers (also possible).

C.