A Request
 

Members of the FRC community, hello. I am writing to you as a graduating senior of an FTC team, as someone who has actively participated on an FRC team in ninth grade, and as someone who has enjoyed following the FRC seasons, matches, and discussions online.

I shall be blunt with my request: Please do not view FTC as an inferior and juvenile version of FRC.

I suppose I shall write about the robot-design-aspect of the two programs, as that is what I am most qualified to speak on.

Now, I could compare season lengths. I could compare team sizes. I could compare the number of tasks per yearly challenge. I could compare robot size limits. I could compare existing resources. I could compare autonomous modes. I could compare number of teams. etc. etc.

However, I don't want to turn this into a war over who has the tougher challenge or who has accomplished more. Rather, I want to point something out: regardless of how tough a year's challenge is, what makes it harder or easier is not really the challenge itself; it's the level of the competition. At a tournament, the hardness is not in the task itself, but in how well you do the task relative to other teams. Also, how well do you strategize? How well do you network with other teams?

I think it would be hard to make the case that, on the whole, the smartest, hardest-work-ethic, most capable kids and mentors are all to be found in FRC. Both FTC and FRC have different aspects that will appeal to different people.

Now, if I had to be honest (which I always strive to be) I would say I think (but I'm not sure of this) that if you were to look only at the most premier of all FIRST teams - the top of the top of the top - you would look to some of the elite FRC teams; you would look to those with the storied programs who produce fantastic machines year after year. But I might even push back against that and highlight one of my favorite FTC robots of all time, the Landroids' 2011-2012 machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNBwfN6BFuw).

So, yeah. Those are some of my thoughts. I write all this in goodwill, as someone who loves FRC. Thanks. :)

[Oh, and, of course (movie-type-disclaimer), my views don't necessarily represent my team's.]

Re: A Request
 

I understand how you feel mate. Just remember the competitiveness between the programs is always going to exsist and a lot of the FTC program feels suffocated by how little representation they get at the World Championship level. I expect with the new venue next season, we'll begin to see this change.

I can't wait to see what happens if FTC World allows significantly more teams in to the Championship now that the site is no longer in the dome. FTC has a much higher competitiveness than FRC in terms of a much larger number of high quality teams. Teams that can win worlds one year in FTC might not even make it back in the next. Even if they win their state tournaments as the 1st or second pick on an alliance.

One thing I would like to see happen...if FIRST could manage it. Is that the FTC FINAL Finals be played on a field next to Einstein. That would truly get more respect for the FTC program that it deserves.


You'll never get me to say otherwise. FTC is the best.

PS. THOSE RUBBER BALLS MADE ME SO ANGRY. (That was also a perfect example of what I mentioned before. My team when I was a student won the SC State Championship that year as the first pick of the number one seed alliance. We didn't qualify for any advancement to a higher level event. **Even if we applied the current advancement system we wouldn't advance to a Super Regional. This is highly illogical and unfair to teams.)

Re: A Request
 

I definitely agree that there are equally as amazing students in FTC as there are in FRC. However from my experiences, unless you're involved in FTC, you never hear about them. I know what the challenge is each year, and I have an understanding of what the FIRST Tech Challenge is, but both the competition and the teams don't market themselves as publicly as FRC and many FRC teams do. I can tell you the most famous FRC teams, and odds are my non-robotics friends can name some as well solely based off of what they've heard from our team and the various news articles about competitions. However I've heard almost nothing about FTC. Maybe there's an FTC-version of Chief Delphi I don't know about, but overall it seems like the FTC presence on this forum is extremely underrepresented. I'd love to see more FTC teams post their awesome robots and robot videos to the forums, as well as grow the CD community to include more FTC teams and students.

Re: A Request
 

I always felt that the challenges faced by a FRC team and a FTC are very different. In my opinion a FTC team works a lot more in engineering mechanisms and project evolution. As a FRC team will work a lot harder with trying to master things like material selection.
My 2 cents. Having larger teams drastically affects how much the FTC teams get noticed compared to a FRC team.

Re: A Request
 

I have to echo some of JohnFogarty's and Andrew Lawrence's comments. There are comparatively few FTC teams (it seems) on ChiefDelphi, I don't of anything like TBA for FTC, and there seems to be less spectacle and public excitement over FTC.

And, from what I've seen, FTC robots can often be much more intricate than FRC bots. IMO, FTC is about all the fancy little things you can do, while FRC can often be a struggle to simply achieve the game challenge (though, YMMV, lots of FRC bots do lots of fancy little things and I assume lots of FTC bots struggle).

Re: A Request
 

FTC has what's known as theYellowAlliance.
http://theyellowalliance.net/

Re: A Request
 

May be I have not seen or heard, but personally I would respect FTC and FLL. I have been to World Championship for FLL, somehow we felt it same way as you think. I don't know how FTC teams operate but in my humble opinion FLL team members probably deserve better admiration. They build and run fully autonomous robot to do tasks! Hats off to those team members. Yes, they would have got help from coaches/mentors, but on the field its the two team members and their robot at the competition table. More over too much is expected from FLL teams.... research project, team work, presentation to community/school and what not! And these kids are middle and elementary school.

Re: A Request
 

Pretty cool, how long has that been around?

There is a VEX forum that has been around a long time. It's a help since it's all about VEX and the competitions. For the FTC roboteers is there an FTC forum?

And I agree with the first two posts. FTC is hard. It's different than FRC and each one appeals to different people. I prefer the "table top" robots since there is more "touch the robot time" with ~5 roboteers to a robot. But I love the fabrication process that is the center of FRC.

Re: A Request
 

Since just this year. It's something I personally was going to do, but then someone jumped on it for which I am extremely happy to see.

FIRST actually has a forum for FTC that is hosted by FIRST for things other than the rules. See here. http://ftcforum.usfirst.org/forum.php

Re: A Request
 

Keep in mind the FRC challenge has been around for 25 years and FTC has shifted a little bit, I can't recall the exact year but the did switch from FVC to FTC and FTC was just in its baby steps when I was a freshman, back when you could only use tetrix parts. IMO, I say give it time it will grow.

Re: A Request
 

This is false. FRC began in 1992. This was the 23rd year

Re: A Request
 

I live in Saint Louis, and we were actually at Union Station today, and there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that FTC AND Jr. FLL could run there. We walked around the whole thing, and you would have to move half the things in there, and it still wouldn't work. It NEVER could. Even if they, by some act of the robot god, were able to fit 128 pits and 4 fields in there, you would have to go up and down steps to get everywhere, and I don't know about you, but when you have a 60lb. cart and a 50lb. bot, that would suck on day one. It wouldn't even work for a SMALL qualifier. Maybe the Saudi Arabia qualifier where there are literately 7 teams in the country, but not 128 teams from all over. Is this a joke?

Re: A Request
 

Thanks for making this thread, I get really tired of people thinking of FTC as "FRC Lite"

It's really more like "FRC Mini" if a comparison must be made.

The biggest challenge in FTC (IMO) is in complexity. Think about the ratio of the size of an FRC motor or battery to an FRC robot. FTC robots are much smaller, but the motors are not much smaller. And by ratio, the battery is huge compared to the whole robot (Same goes for the NXT vs the cRIO, and the motor controllers). So now you have to fit all that stuff, and your drivetrain, frame, mechanisms, etc, into a much smaller space.

Oh, and FTC doesn't get a premade drivetrain handed to them every season :p

Which I think is actually kind of a detriment to FRC, because a lot of students don't even understand how a six-wheel drop-center really works. (But I guess that's a discussion for another thread)

Re: A Request
 

To be fair though, if you get a Tetrix kit, you get essentially a Lego set with no instructions to work with. There isn't nearly as much machining and hand tools work to be successful in FTC (this is coming from someone who mentored ten FTC teams last year, two of which won both qualifiers they competed at).

Personally, I love both of the programs dearly, but having worked with both, I wouldn't take the time to compare them. They're different tools in the STEM education toolbox.

Re: A Request
 

I toured the location before I left championships, did you go in and see the large ballrooms? I was able to find ramps to the ballroom from the large areas of the facility, the only area where I had to walk up and down steps was the foodcourt.

Re: A Request
 

Being from a high school FTC team that's been in existence for the past 4 years and just finished their rookie FRC season, this is a topic we've greatly discussed between our team (and yes, I say the singular team because everybody on the FTC team considers themselves just as much a part of the FRC team).

I think we pretty much agreed the core "divide" between the programs that causes the whole looking-down-on-FTC is that FTC isn't just about the materialistic component of the robot and heat of the competition that FRC is so widely known for. FTC delves into, and praises, multiple other factors that FIRST is striving to showcase from its progression of programs, like holding an accountable engineering notebooks and Chairman's like interviews for normal judging just to name a few. FRC is a lot more mentor based, which I'm not saying is a bad thing, but in comparison to FTC, it just has a lot more involvement from multiple other people whereas FTC seems more student based and coerced.
It's just that FTC has been so downplayed by FRC teams, it's just one more thing an FRC team can do for community outreach, but it's not. It's not just a subset of FRC, a less hyped "petty competition" that only middle schoolers seemingly participate in.
When we got the overwhelming experience of being able to compete in the FIRST World Championship this year (as an FRC team), we were so excited because we'd get to see FTC compete and other FTC teams we've seen before at regional and qualifying tournaments. And honestly, when we sat down to see FTC finals play out on the Edison (or was it Franklin? I don't remember :() field, we were so disappointed because it seemed so small and pathetic compared to the loud spirit coming from FRC division qualifying matches. It was basically the Einstein's of FTC, and all that happened was a little bit of clapping before it was just shoved off to the side again from louder MC's elsewhere.
It makes all of us pretty sad when we realize how much smaller and less FTC is in comparison to FRC, because to us, FTC is still pretty freaking great. And it must seem that way to every single other FTC member too.
Like I don't know about anybody else, but winning the Inspire award? That memory itself may overshadow the fact that we were a part of the winning alliance of the FRC LA regional our rookie season.
I don't know. I'm sorry. I got ranty. I'm just really passionate about this subject, and in all honesty, I don't know what to do about it either. I'm torn between the feeling like I have to choose between FTC and FRC, and what sucks is that I love both of them so, so much. It sucks.

#my2cents

Re: A Request
 

Yeah, but the AM14U is pretty much a lego set, with instructions. :rolleyes: And it's pre-built with all kinds of things already accounted for (Drop center, belt center-to-center spacing, gearbox integration, etc.) and so students don't get to learn about the importance and relevance of all those things.

But anyway, I totally agree with you, neither is better or worse or simpler or tougher than the other, they're just plain different.

Re: A Request
 

I'll be blunt and straight to the point. I do not care for FTC and I have no interest in FTC.
My main issue is the inconsistent lack of information about events and teams. FRC is excellent about having information about FRC teams and event. Any information I want is easily accessible. Results. Awards. History. It's all there. Any time I try to look up information on FTC I cannot find it or it's minimal. They have gotten better at it but nearly the level I expect from an organization like FIRST. In my opinion FTC is a lesser event. It is nowhere near as well organized as FRC and until things change I will not dedicate a moment of interest towards it.

Re: A Request
 

But FIRST as an organization began back in 1989. It takes alot of planning to organize such an undertaking.

Re: A Request
 

????

Re: A Request
 

I'm trying to understand why the lack of information on team history makes FTC inferior. Events are actually listed fairly accurately on the FIRST website. One of the main reasons that it is harder to find the information is because FTC events are not on the scale of an FRC regional; instead, there are more events, each with its own organizers and flavor. As a result of the smaller scope of each event, FIRST is less directly involved in each one, and it is up to the event organizers, in large part, to ensure that team performance information is preserved. The events are actually orgainzed, in general, very well by the tournament organizers; the main difference with FRC is that organizing events does not begin at the top in Manchester. This year, a move towards making this information accessible has begun with TheYellowAlliance.net, which should grow in the coming years. [/RANT]

Disclaimer: I am a proud FTC participant who has traveled to the World Championships for 4 years; however, I am also very familiar with FRC through ChiefDelphi.

Re: A Request
 

Information about the event and teams is important to the public perception of the program. FRC is very thorough with information about statistics at the event. Match results. Information about how much the teams have scored and how they scored it and links to teams websites. I ave found no such thing for FTC or their teams. If you can't be forthcoming about who you guys are and what you do why should I care? I need more than some impassioned plea on a messageboard.

Re: A Request
 

I suppose I would be one of those people you are asking to stop looking down on FTC, so I feel like I should explain why I do. I would not say FTC is necessarily inferior to FRC, it does have its strengths. FTC teams are far cheaper for a high school to fund, and make it much more feasible for FIRST to reach its goal of a FIRST team in every school. Coming from a high school in Iowa, almost every 4A school in our area had at least 1 FTC team, while Iowa still only has 6 FRC teams in the entire state.

That being said however, FTC is not as exciting, from an outsiders perspective, as FRC. I know that for those of you who compete, its extremely exciting, but even up close, the robots are just slower, the field is smaller, and once you get to the Edward Jones dome, and people look down on this tiny field you can hardly see, they will start to wonder about that huge field over there where everyone is cheering.

If our goal is to inspire broader acceptance and interest in STEM beyond people in FIRST, if we want a FIRST event on national TV, it will be an FRC event, because FRC is and will be for the foreseeable future, the flagship FIRST program. I'm not saying you can't learn a lot doing FTC, I'm not saying you can't be an amazing engineer after being on an FTC team, but if we want to hook people outside FIRST, we will do it with FRC, not FTC. Thats why I see it as "FRC-Lite".

Re: A Request
 

I was lead que at the Hudson Valley FTC event. It was a cute little event but honestly it felt more like a start up FRC off season event than an official FIRST qualifier. I was expecting more.

Re: A Request
 

We couldn't get inside them, but there were no ramps that we saw. You can BARELY fit 64 teams inside a basketball stadium (Source: FTC North Super Regional). How are you going to fit 128 teams PLUS Jr. FLL (which isn't big but still) in Union Station?

For me at least, when it comes down to it, I don't so much look down on FTC for the structure of the program from what the teams do. I think it's a great and needed program. For me, I have never been impressed with how it's competitions have been organized. One of FRC's strengths is there's strict standards to how events are ran.(Blair always tells us the idea is that your supposed to get the same experience no matter where you are). In FTC, there's clearly no standards to that level, and I've heard stories of affiliate partners making things happen at events that would not even remotely fly at an FRC event. I feel like a lot of FRC feels the same way, as we're used to having those quality standards, and that's why we look down on FTC. If FTC really wants to get out of FRC's shadow, there needs to be higher controlled standards on it's qualifying events. I hope this happens, FTC teams deserve to have the same quality experience at events FRC teams have.

Re: A Request
 

The workable floor of the Carver Hawkeye Arena is probably in the neighborhood of 6000 square feet (regulation hardwood is 4700, plus space from bleachers being moved). The meeting area at the Union Station Hotel is 100,000 contiguous square feet ("ballrooms" according to the website) plus an extra 43000 square feet in advertised flex space.

Am I missing something?

Re: A Request
 

FRC teams pay about $4000-$5000 to attend a regional event. FTC teams pay about $100-$300 for an event. Just based on this fee structure, it would be impossible to expect the same quality of experience at events from both programs. Expecting FTC events to magically run like events with operating budgets of $50k-$200k is just unfair. FTC is a program that is far more affordable and accessible than FRC, and does a heck of a job of teaching and inspiring students. Sure the robots are smaller and the events lack the production values of FRC, but it's still a great vehicle towards working towards achieving a significant culture change.

*Full disclosure: I work for a company that runs similarly scaled robotics competitions to FTC, so I'm naturally sympathetic to their plight.

Re: A Request
 

This right here. As South Carolina's affilate partner for FTC this statement is 100% ACCURATE. We as partners can't scale our events up to the level of FRC because of the lack of funding we get from team registration. All funding to increase the quality of the event comes from the corporate or otherwise funding that I as the partner can solicit.

I don't think FTC teams need to be payying $5000 an event either.

Re: A Request
 

Remember that The Blue Allicance is a third-party, not an official part of the FRC program. And FTC is getting better at this with the newly-created Yellow Alliance.

I think you'll find that FTC teams are very "forthcoming" about who they are and what they do, just as any FRC team would be. But FTC competitions are just generally less of a spectator sport (At least for now). Why does everything have to be defined by how accessible the match results are? I don't see the letters "MR" anywhere in "FIRST"

Re: A Request
 

I could have sworn that Jr. FLL was going to be with FLL in Renaissance Grand, and FTC would have Union Station to itself. :confused:

Re: A Request
 

First off, in Michigan FTC is a middle school program, so it's rather unfair to compare the two here. My biggest problem with it is that team numbers change every year, making it feel like every team is a rookie with no history.

Re: A Request
 

I'll second this. And further, I'll expand it to VEX.

It is the JV to the FRC Varsity. It is slower, less exciting, less of a spectacle. From my perspective it is an excellent tool to use to feed students into the Varsity program which we can use to actually change the culture.

And, before someone says I am unfamiliar with the programs:

2 years FVC mentor, 2 years FTC mentor, 7 years FRC mentor.

Re: A Request
 

FTC team numbers are permanent like FRC, unless Michigan does it differently.

Re: A Request
 

You might be thinking of FLL, which recently switched to permanent team numbers.

Re: A Request
 

I have to assume you didn't see much of the available event space in the DoubleTree. You could fit six NBA basketball courts in the "Midway" alone; it's more than 28 thousand square feet in size. Give 128 teams a 10x10 pit each with 10 foot aisles and you only need the space of four basketball courts. The Grand Ballroom is another sixteen thousand square feet in one chunk.

Re: A Request
 

Nor will you find the letter "C", but that's half of what defines both FRC and FTC.

Re: A Request
 

I think saying that exclusively FRC students, and not FTC students, are going to end up being good engineers and culture changers would be an huge misstatement.

You have to take into account that FTC might actually be helping more then FRC, because FTC can reach way more schools and teams, due to its much lower cost. FTC teams might not be as impressive to an outsider as a FRC team, but FTC helps pull in more students into the ideas of engineering because of that much wider reach.

I personally attend a school where we just can't afford a FRC team because of all the costs that go with it, so we have FTC, and we still get all the lessons we would of gotten from FRC.

Sure, FRC robots are huge compared to FTC robots, however, if FTC outdoes FRC in anything, its competitiveness. Unlike FRC where you see 'regulars', who almost always make it to the world championships, in FTC, due to the amount of teams, it's extremely hard to make it to worlds for one year, let alone several years in a row.

I didn't know elitism was an issue in FIRST, and its definitely surprising to find, as the whole centerpiece of FIRST is gracious professionalism.

Re: A Request
 

It's something that I don't really see much outside of good ole' Chief Delphi. Publicly anyway.

Re: A Request
 

I guess I am just missing something, we explored for a while, but not for THAT long.

Re: A Request
 

Where on earth did I say that? You're mistaking the micro goals of FIRST (inspiring students) with the macro goals of FIRST (cultural change). FRC is better at the macro goal. I did not say anything about the micro goal.

Re: A Request
 

You said -

The way I read it, it seemed to me that you thought FTC wasn't able to help change the culture, something FRC could.

I think it isn't the job of one competition level of FIRST to change the culture, but rather all of FIRST as an organization. That'd be like saying that only doctors with a PhD. have the job of helping people overcome sickness.

Re: A Request
 

You're mistaking the impact on students with the actual goal of culture change. Let me give you an example and maybe you can see why you're wrong.

When a father and son watch football together and the kid is inspired to go outside and toss a ball around because he wants to be like [some football player that I don't know cuz I don't watch it]. What were they watching? peewee football or the NFL? FTC is peewee football. It impacts the students in it but it's a crap tool for inspiring students not involved. For that you need something exciting, something sexy.

Re: A Request
 

/sigh I was going to not jump in, but you said the "V" word.

Vex is to FRC like Varsity to wanna-Varsity, FRC robots lumber across a basketball court like the Seniors League at the Y. Yea, some great shots, but mostly driving into each other like old guys. VEX robots, since they only have 12' of space need to be nimble, pivoting and scoring. FTC has the same space and with 4 robots, need to be agile.

Oh yea three robots on an aliance, so two can be lame and one can score. Not in Vex and FTC world. Only one partner, a dead robot and you are looking at the loss side of a score. Pfft.

But what cranked my started was the "change the culture". Really? All the time hands on with the robot (5 kids on a team means lots of touch time) and multiple design / build / compete iterations, we are changing roboteers lives over here. Nice that you spent $ 18,000 on 20 kids and built a robot and went to 2 events. For $12K I build 10 robots, compete in 4 events and change 50 kids into roboteers. Oh wait, I need mentors, min 2 for each robot, so I have 20 parents working with roboteers. Minor skills needed (righty tighty and maybe some programming) vs machine skills of the stars. One controller and a battery vs PDU, RIO, BDF, CAN, CAM, etc. So FTC and VEX is accessable to average Mom / Dad / Grandparent.

Oh but FRC worlds!!! Sorry, VEX Worlds is bigger than FRC, but wait, 65 FRC regionals vs 500 VEX events? Not quite the same face time. We run more FTC / VEX competitions within 2 hours of Philly than FRC does in a three state area. (No disrespect MAR, your district program rocks)

So, don't mock the FTC / VEX programs.

Oh, I was an FRC mentor for 4 years, but 7 years as VEX. Match you roboteer for roboteer.

Love FRC. Love FTC. Love VEX. Love FLL. Love BEST. etc.

We are trying to change a world, less than 3% of the students in schools have a chance to do the coolest thing in the world, COMPETITION ROBOTICS. Why slam a roboteer and a robotics program that has the same goals and objectives?

/rant

Re: A Request
 

Alright, let's not go around saying people's opinions are wrong. Everyone's entitled to their own thoughts, even if you might disagree with them. But that doesn't mean that they're wrong.

This is one of the reasons why C.D. has gotten so hostile lately, people aren't being considerate of others' opinions.

Alright, really? 25 ~ 23. We don't have to go around being all nit-picky either.

Re: A Request
 

/sigh, I wish you could not type so fast.

Pop and Junior go to FRC and watch. "Gee would like to do that, it looks hard"

Pop and Junior go to VEX/FTC. "Gee like to do that. Welp, that looks like the Erector set I had as a kid, lets go see."

Me: "Why sure it's easy, look here, just nuts and bolts, if you know your right from your left and can button a shirt you can build one. (Need to be able to do righty tighty / leffty loosey and the button shirt means you have the dexterity to put the parts together).

And don't disrespect Pewee or Little League. The Pro guys got started there. You never know what motivates. I see stuff and go "cool, out of my skillset", but I see an easier / lower level and go "Hey, I can do that" and I do and oddly I get better. And soon I have that skillset to.

/rant 2

Re: A Request
 

The hard is what makes it great.

Re: A Request
 

I think everyone's on board with all these competition robotics programs being highly beneficial to the students in them. When a kid wants to be an NFL player, he doesn't go try out of the Eagles, he goes to little league. (Andrew did in fact note this impact.) I'm not saying this analogy applies to competition robotics, but it certainly doesn't indicate a disrespect for little league. That's where kids actually get good at their vision, but it's not the vision in most of our heads at that age. (Ok, so once upon a time I wanted to be in the WNBA.) No disrespect.

My take on the Varsity argument:
For us, FTC is in fact a middle school team. It is, in fact, our JV team for FRC, and I know many other FRC programs that use FTC (or VEX) this way. I also know a lot of programs that don't do this, and I know brilliant high school students on FTC and VEX that will make fantastic professionals (not FRC experience).

I don't think FRC is better than VEX. I do think that FRC is better than FTC in several ways, but none of them have to do with the engineering and teamwork challenges. In my personal experience with each program and events, FTC just isn't as professional and doesn't have the community presence/commitment that I see from FRC and VEX. This--particularly not knowing its root cause--discourages my participation, and I think it's also what Koko Ed is alluding to. I'd like to understand what drives it. I still volunteer for FTC, but it just doesn't seem to have it 'together' yet. That became abundantly obvious to us as we started our FTC team, and we actually had a discussion about it with the high-level FIRST HQ contact person* that had answered us about the problem they'd caused. His/her answer was (no joke), "well, we can't compete with VEX".

I don't think that is reflects poorly on the students in FTC. Their challenges and solutions are just as impressive as FRC and VEX. The program doesn't appear to do them justice, and at least in our case the limit is quite salient.

*Position and gender redacted for privacy.

Re: A Request
 

I'm in no way disagreeing or agreeing with this statement (so don't read too much into my question), but I am just wondering what you mean by FTC being less "professional" and "together".

Re: A Request
 

To muddle the topic, the UP of Michigan (1/3 the population density and 1/10 total population of Iowa) has 1* Vex team, 0 FTC teams, and 18 FRC teams.

*There is one in Iron Mountain, but I'm not sure and don't know where to find if there are any others.

Re: A Request
 

No, I am talking about FTC. We must just be different with the changing team numbers, or maybe I just have a horrible memory.

Re: A Request
 

FTC is in no way an activity for "inferior" students. There are some FTC robots that I would consider to be of higher quality than the majority of FRC robots. Does FRC have bigger and more expensive robots and competitions? Yes. Does FRC do a better job of inspiring kids to do STEM? Yes. Unfortunately, not everybody can afford to participate in FRC. FTC's finals aren't anything like Einstein, but the program itself is much larger. There's two programs because FIRST was not willing to compromise on the "varsity" aspect of FRC, but still wanted to get lots of kids involved in FIRST.

Re: A Request
 

I never said FTC kids were inferior. I just said FTC isn't interesting to me. I don't want to do FLL either. I just want to dedicate my energy to FRC. Simple as that.

Re: A Request
 

No one here was mocking the Vex or FTC programs.

Everyone in the thread so far agreed that the impact on the students of Vex or FTC just about matches the Impact of going through the FRC program. All we are pointing out, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a good a tool as FRC for culture change. It's just not as much if a 'spectator sport'. It's not as flashy. It's harder to draw in your average person with little robots on little fields that can be hard to see from a distance. But I can take my FRC robot out for a spin at the park and interact with the public, play with kids ("munchkin bowling" this season as Sisk would say ;) ). It gets kids interested and want to learn more. Then, once you have them hooked, they can make the Vex/FRC/FTC decision based on individual needs and money resources and what not. It's not like we (frc teams) act like the other programs don't exist, they all get equal airtime under the FIRST name.

Re: A Request
 

I've seen VEXIQ robots better than the majority of FRC robots.

Re: A Request
 

I remember how I got in to FIRST. One of the teachers at my Elementary school said something about robots at a local arena, which happened to be the STL FRC Regional at the time. I thought "Oh that sounds like fun can we go dad?" so we went, and I was blown away watching these huge robots drive around a huge field and it looked like fun, and they had something on FLL there and I saw that and thought "I can do that!" Then we went to a minor league baseball game and a local school un-affiliated
FIRST group was presenting FRC and FLL there, so at one point I got in to FLL through one of the community teams, and I was hooked.

I did FLL for three years, then at one point I was leaving the FLL team for some reason or another and decided I wanted to go bigger, but I didn't think I was ready for FRC, so I joined an FTC team. I have done that for three years, and it was my plan to move up to FRC for my last three years. I was enjoying FTC a lot, and was thinking of staying, but then our team made it to the CMP and I was watching the Einstein matches. That right there convinced me to go. The quality of game-play, the fantastic engineering, 254s BEAUTIFUL machine. It inspired me, but FTC played a part in that as well.

Yes, FTC doesn't have all the glory of FRC, and yes, it is in fact smaller and cheaper, but when that's all you can afford/gain access too, would you rather just not have FIRST at all? The TETRIX kit is like an un-assembled LEGO set, but you are not constrained or grounded (#CADJokes) to that whatsoever, you have a huge set of raw materials to work with. And yes, most FTC teams probably don't know what a 6 wheel drop-center WCD is, and there isn't any point. It turns fine without a dropped center with a simple tank style drive. They are 18" long. Some teams even have a crab style drive, it's really cool actually. You have to do many of the things you have in FRC. Just on a smaller scale and slightly simpler. FLL to FRC is a MASSIVE jump. FTC is a good middle ground.

Don't bash FTC because it's smaller. It recognizes and inspires people about STEM education, it worked for me, and I am not the only one. And unless I am mistaken, isn't that what FIRST is about? (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Yeah, it is.


"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

#2cents.

Re: A Request
 

On the whole culture change thing:

Minnesota was part of the original FLL pilot program in 1998. We've been growing an FLL volunteer basefor sixteen years now, and we have 600+ teams in the state. Our annual growth is around 20%. It has gotten to the point here where FLL is an expected school activity at the majority of elementary and middle schools in the state. Our FLL qualifiers have volunteers who have been volunteering for more than ten years. FTC is smaller, but we're looking at next year a minimum of doubling our teams next year to around 140. I would be very surprised if in the next three years the amount of sustainable FTC teams eclipses that of our sustainable FRC teams.

Why is this important?

By introducing kids to FTC and FLL at an early age, and expanding those programs, we help to make robotics an anticipated activity for elementary, middle, and high school students.

If you want to actually fix a problem, you don't go to the symptoms, you go to the roots-- in this case, the impressionable young students in elementary, middle, and high school. Like it or not, FTC and FLL are as important to culture change as FRC is. FLL is a large program than FTC and FRC combined, and FTC is going to catch up and pass FRC in terms of students and teams soon.

If you personally aren't interested in being involved with FTC or FLL, that's your deal and as intensive as FRC is I don't blame you-- you certainly aren't under any obligation to put even more of your time into it-- but don't diss the programs. They're as essential to the broad picture as FRC is.

Re: A Request
 

Feel better? I've snipped out the parts that are based on a disagreement of terms/particularly needed responding to.

So, here's the big difference that's causing the disagreement and your heartburn, you are trying to do culture change at the Micro level. Nothing wrong with that, I do the same thing. Student by student. It's important. And FTC/VEX/FLL are better at it than FRC. You can have costs an order of magnitude lower (FLL is 2 orders lower). It's great. I'm happy to be involved in these programs and I'm $@#$@#$@#$@# glad they exist. I came up through them.

I'm talking about culture change at the Macro level. I'm talking about the sort of thing I can drag my parents to and they'll say "This is awesome". Something that, after a quick explanation of the rules, I can have my sister and me nieces and nephews cheering and screaming like lifelong fans. The sort of thing that if I pull up a video at work my coworkers will stop and watch. The spectacle, the speed, the size... all of this is important to these goals. FTC/VEX don't meet them. Trust me, I've tried.

From the perspective that I'm looking at, the one I'm more concerned about, FTC/VEX/FLL are inferior programs at achieving the goals I'm looking for.

Micro. I was looking at Macro. See Above.




And as far as saying that there are FTC bots more competitive than FRC bots. Yeah, and there are FRC teams that should be FTC teams until they can hack it in the majors. It's less costly to learn how to play the game there.

Re: A Request
 

As a member of an FRC team for 4 years, a returning mentor for this past year and mentor for FTC since it started as a middle school program here in Michigan this quote is really exactly what I believe FTC was meant to be.

Looking at our team these last three years, with 3 years of FTC gradeschoolers going through our program, the students who come out of FTC and onto our FRC team are far better prepared and skilled in all aspects of the build season. I think you put it best saying all Pro's got started there, in reference to the peewee's or little leagues or in your reference to using FTC to gain that skillset required for aspects of the FRC build season. Seeing how it is ran in Michigan it seems that it makes the most logical, to me atleast, that FTC leads to FRC. It seems as though the natural progression through FIRST programs should be jr. FLL to FLL to FTC to FRC. The robots get bigger as you go, it becomes more and more a spectator sport and the whole thing becomes more exciting.

That being said, FTC definitely has a place in even the highschool environment because it is much lower cost, the longer build season makes it less demanding during a specific six week season that FRC has(that so happens to overlap with midterm exams, not that that is exactly relevant). However funds are not the determining factor because if you work hard enough at it you can always find funds. For the most part, money doesn't just fall into the laps of teams as I'm sure FTC teams know, so it is up to the team to go out and find money.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, because I am a strong advocate and believer in FTC as well as FRC. This is simply what my experience, albeit limited compared to many of the other mentors on this site, has shown me. And it most definitely could vary depending on geographical area and many many other factors.

Re: A Request
 

For the people who like to see numbers:
As of this spring, Florida had 68 FRC teams and ~116 FTC teams.
We have lost 72 FRC teams since 2003. At least two of our 72 lost FRC teams became FTC teams.
There are a couple FRC/FTC teams; For example FRC 233 has FTC 6323 and FRC 4013 has FTC 5070 and FTC 6379. These teams may have the same mentors and/or students.

Here are the links to our Tesla League Page and the overview of Florida Leagues Page.

I also welcome you all to attend the 2015 FTC State Tournament to see how the Top 24 Florida FTC Teams show their team spirit and how Barry keeps the FTC audience fired up (he was on Franklin at Champs).

Re: A Request
 

Not necessarily. The impact on students is part of the point of culture change. They are linked. I do see what you mean, but it's not entirely accurate. There are some areas where the FTC team is the all-star, the cool thing to do, and are changing the culture more so than the (now non-existent) FRC team. Perhaps on the average you're right, but it's not appropriate to make as a blanket statement (and you likely aren't making such a general statement) but clearly people are taking it as such.

fire with fire, man. not off to a good start, and clearly losing me (I'm somewhat in the middle) as a fan.

You clearly haven't seen this year's game. In general, I agree but hopefully more games will be like this years. And this years FRC game was way better (IMO) because of its requirements of good teamwork than other years.


Good point.


The discussion regarding "culture change" does not involve more, it looks for a cool factor. For the average person, FRC looks cooler than FTC. By average person, I mean someone that doesn't know what it takes to build a robot. FRC is a better hook (for most people) than FTC. Albeit, FTC (and likely VEX) is still certainly a hook for others.

I don't think he was mocking either program, he seemed to be indicating what he thinks are differences.


BOTH OF YOU ^ THIS. SERIOUSLY. you know what helps to make a change, if people on the same side stop blowing up at each other and taking things so personal. The tone of both posts seem to be aggressive, if this is not your intent, I'd suggest revising them or taking a minute or two of proofreading.

Most importantly,
So why are you?

Re: A Request
 

What if I told you the flashyness of each competition comes down to the game and how easiy it can be scord in real time.

Every major sport in the world has a perfectly logical and easy to follow scoring system and scoreboard. FRC has this, FTC does not.

There needs to be a better system built to track real time scores of FTC matches for future games. But at the beginning it come down to game complexity. FTC games have to be complex because of the small field space. Meanwhile FRC can remain simpler because of the much larger space. RTS of FRC is much easier in this regaurd as well. If FTC had RTS it would also help it become more spectator friendly. Hearing match scores post match is great, but not as exciting as watching how close it gets live.

Re: A Request
 

I think this is a part of it. The bigger part is actually just the size and production of the events.

FRC events with the pipe and drape and giant screens are more "professional" than FTC events. Although, FRC district events are not that anymore (from what I can tell)

FRC robots are just big, and even without realtime scoring (prior to 2010, right?) it was still exciting to see robots climbing on other robots (07), shooting a ton of nerf balls (06), chasing each other (09). It also definitely comes down to the game and the size.

I don't think it can come to the level of flashiness that FRC has, and I don't think it needs to.

Re: A Request
 

Just out of curiosity, can anyone else that's been to both Vex and FIRST championships comment on their relative sizes. I'm having a hard time imagining a robotics championship that's substantially bigger than FIRST championships (which are already huge).

Also, as for comparative competition footprint, I'd think FRC regional would have a larger footprint than VEX events, given that FRC teams are generally larger and regionals probably host more teams.

Granted, I'm only familiar with FRC so if anyone else if familiar with both and could clarify, that would be nice.

Re: A Request
 

All of these programs are excellent and serve specific purposes, which are different. I think Andrew is right when it comes to impacting non-participants, up to and including a lot of businesses; it has nothing to do with inherent value, the technical challenge, or team size...the deciding wow factor is robot size.

People see FTC and VEX-sized robots and they think, "ooh, neat, toy robots!" People see FRC-sized robots and they think, "ooh, neat, robots!" When it comes to spectacle, scale matters. The fact that you're manipulating objects on a human scale makes it inherently more attention-grabbing, more sports-like, more relatable than the smaller-scale programs.

This isn't particularly fair or reasonable; many common robots manipulate comparatively small things (photocopiers, mail sorters, etc) and are of stunning complexity compared to your average FRC machine. Complexity doesn't scale with size, except insofar as building smaller robots to complete a job is harder than building larger robots for same. Bigger doesn't mean better--except psychologically and therefore sociologically when it comes to wow-factor and spectacle.

Large-scale games are significantly more spectator-friendly, too.

So FRC is intrinsically superior in one particular aspect--but certainly not all, and I'm sure an astute observer can find aspects where the reverse is true.

Re: A Request
 

I'm referring chiefly to how FTC runs as a business vis-a-vis FRC and VEX. Supply chains, recruitment/retention of key professionals (employees or volunteers), customer service, contractor management, etc. It manifests in a lot of different ways, for instance in the gap between FTC and VEX events as discussed here. Also for instance, one might think that a program everyone endorses as being lower cost, easier to implement/spread, and generally more accessible than FRC would have a lot more students, right? How many more? 35,640 less. ...Having experienced the FTC/VEX split, it still seems like FTC is reeling from what they lost back then. VEX, at least outwardly, isn't. It's hard to recruit (teams and volunteers) into a program like the former.

YMMV: I've been to FRC off-seasons (a lot of them), to say nothing of districts (basically all of them), that are infinitely more professional and spectator-sport than any FTC qualifier I've attended. In terms of the view-of-field excitement, my experienced average regional/average district divide is essentially nonexistent--the cozier 'home game' feel actually appears to be a plus for district spectators. (As with everything, some of each are below par.)

This isn't to say that FRC and VEX don't have room to grow in these regards...I've spent like 20 minutes now trying to figure out how many VEX teams/students there even are, and don't get me started on FRC webcasts...

Re: A Request
 

Here is my humble request....

I think its time to stop comparing various robotics programs. As far as I know most if not all of them have the same intention of inspiring students into STEM. Each program comes with its own set of requirements, limitation, expectations, rules etc. Students get to join those programs, sometimes not by choice, programs don't exists in their schools or they don't have resources. Some programs are better organized than others, some teams/schools do better than others, its all about resources and students interest and dedication. Not every team is lucky to get big sponsors and professional mentors, many teams barely manage with parents/grand parents helping out, some even work in their garage or basements. If you happen to be on a established team with resources and if your team is doing good, be grateful to those who started your team, most likely they would have gone through the same challenges that new programs or teams go through. Please don't assume that these teams or programs are not working hard to improve them. Making blanket statements about who or which program is better is taking this discussions into ugly "bully land". Please show GP and if you think the program you are in is better than other, and be happy and move on.

Re: A Request
 

I think this whole thing is a function of a few things. FRC teams especially the big ones now, feel entitled and therefore do not appreciate the other programs. There is a constant brush back since FIRST pushed VEX out between FTC and VEX. This is just the way I see it. I've been happy to see the way robotics programs in general have grown in the ten years I have been involved with FIRST 2004-2014.

Re: A Request
 

While I disagree with this wholeheartedly, I find it especially interesting that basically all the 'big' FRC teams that popped into to my mind have VEX or FTC teams. e.g. FRC HoF Team 365 runs* FTC in the state of Delaware, and some of the best FRC teams in the world are VEX (IFI) teams.


*I suspect that they'd prefer me to say that both FRC and FTC in Delaware are largely operated FIRST State Robotics (though there are other teams as well), which is the 501(c)3 that FRC 365 made for the purpose, but you get the point.

Re: A Request
 

I'm not sure which large teams you're talking about. Large programs tend to help set up and run smaller robotics programs both as a feeder program and as a way to get more people involved in robotics.

In 2012, Team 2220 founded a feeder FTC team to help kids from our 20+ FLL teams transition to FRC and give new team members hands on time with the robot (we already had 70 kids on the team, so it was already difficult to give kids we already had time). Since then, our Eagan Robotics (not 2220!) FTC program has grown to 10 teams and as many students as we have in FRC. Next year it will probably be doubling in size, based on preliminary interest.

Good teams grow. The tree trunk is the most visible part of a tree but it can't exist without roots. Strong, sustainable programs recognize this. 254 has a large VEX program and presence. 1114 got FLL teams all over their local elementary schools. Vertical integration is a marvelous thing for team sustainability and long term strength-- and the cool thing is that any team can get in on the positive feedback cycle. FLL, VEXIQ, VRC, FTC, big teams recognize that these are important for their sustainability or they don't stay big for long. Great teams are like icebergs-- you only see 10% of the massive structure that gets them to that point.

Re: A Request
 

The OP's Request is not "Talk to me about the production value of FTC" or "Talk to me about how you relate to FTC". It is "Please do not look down on FTC". So many of these replies are justifying the superiority complex. Why? Where does this need come from?

I am certain, absolutely certain, that both programs are valuable. You might enjoy one over the other - that doesn't mean that one program is better and there is no need to make the argument.

Yes, in Michigan FTC serves as a JV or training camp for FRC - I've heard of other regions where this is also the case. That's not the model everywhere. And I don't think it's an appropriate way to distinguish the programs as we grow the reputation of FIRST. New York City, for example, does not use FTC as a training program for FTC, with perhaps one exception. FTC allows the engineering program that FRC develops after school to have a more formal component in the classroom. Carnegie Mellon has created fantastic lesson plans for FTC architectures, not FRC. A number of schools implement both programs to address engineering education informally and more formally - using a tangible product. Without the appeal of FIRST, it is rather challenging to build engineering curricula in an "average" New York City" public school.

FTC and FRC are both high school programs in New York City. They might serve the same student groups to scaffold learning in the classroom, different student groups in the same school to navigate challenges of after-school participation, or different schools to navigate the challenges of a rigorous school culture, very limited space, some other related issue.

I will concede that the quality of FTC events and the organization of FTC information can serve to improve, but that's up to the FIRST community, us, to address. FTC is organized very differently. If we say, this isn't FRC and I don't like it, then the program will continue to be marginalized as a result. The advantages and the outstanding results of the FTC engineering notebook and the structural iterative process are too good to pass up. Stop the strifin'.

Re: A Request
 

At a recent gathering of mentors in Indiana [mostly FRC but with other programs represented as well], a recurring theme became apparent. For whatever reason, only FRC seems to have an explicit and highly-celebrated goal of doing outreach and "making it loud" beyond the competition community. All of the competition robotics programs do a fine job of inspiring the participants. FLL in particular rewards finding solutions in realms outside the robot competition. VEX has great support for classroom activity, with FTC getting there as well. But I think FRC as a whole tends to have the biggest and most effective effort in getting the "R" in FIRST out in the wider world where it needs to be in order to achieve the goal of "changing the culture".

Discussions I was part of mostly focused on needing to get the FLL "feeling" to continue through the other programs. Maybe we should also work on getting some of the existing FRC culture to propagate back the other way.

Re: A Request
 

The new VRC season just kicked off two weeks ago, so it's not a good time to try and get a count of teams in the program :) It'd be like trying to figure out how many FRC teams there are the first week of registration, it'll be in flux for a little while. For the 2013-2014 season (that just concluded) VRC was sitting close to 10,000 teams worldwide (I was going to say over 9,000, but I didn't want to invite the memes).

The two world events are hard to compare I think. The production value for both is top notch. I really enjoy a lot of the details that go into the "show value" at VEX Worlds including laser light shows, really nice quality medals, etc. VEX Worlds also has a significant non-North American population in attendance which adds to the "worlds" feel. Numbers wise VEX Worlds has about 760ish teams (VRC, VEX U, VIQC combined) and 15,000ish participants, putting it at least on par with FIRST Worlds if not larger. The VEX Worlds dome is smaller than the FIRST Worlds dome, but it's also completely packed (no large portions of empty seats in the stands or only using a small part of the seats for the big finale) so there's not a good direct comparison. Square footage wise both are huge.

At a local/qualifying event level I think FRC generally takes up more square footage than VRC, although that's an odd pair of programs to compare as FTC/VRC are more comparable in that regard.

On an unrelated note, the thing that I find really odd about FTC is that according to section 3.8 of Part 1 of the Game Manual (page 14), the very first team to advance is the qualifier host team, so long as that team attends one other event and fulfills the criteria set forth in the affiliate partner agreement. Does FTC really have an issue finding organizations that are willing and able to host events? Is it possible that part of the perceived lackluster quality of events is due to teams hosting a competition primarily for the advancement benefits?

Regarding the original topic, I think the perception of FTC as "lesser" is similar to the perception of colleges/universities. An institution that charges 50K per year for tuition is assumed to be of higher prestige than one that only charges 5-10K. In the grand scheme of things though, public perception matters little relative to the time and effort that a student puts into their education. There will always be the idea that FRC is the most elite (regardless of whether it is or not), but if an individual grows and learns from their FTC or VRC experience then that's what matters.

Re: A Request
 

All the different programs have their advantages and appeal to different people. Instead of getting into arguments about who's program is the best, why don't we work together? Because infighting isn't something that should happen in a culture that promotes being gracious and (especially) professional. If you don't care about one program or the other, that's cool. But let's all just get along.

tl;dr We're members of FIRST, not its FRC / FTC.

Re: A Request
 

Thanks for the responses and discussions so far everyone. There were many good points made. :)

To clarify my intent, I wasn't trying to say the programs were equal in all respects. FRC certainly has a stronger external presence, perhaps especially online, and is stronger as far public appeal/spectators. I also don't mean to ask for people to like or to value FTC as much as FRC.

I was primarily reacting to statements that say, to a greater or (much more often) lesser degree, "FRC is for the real roboticists. FTC robots are child's play."

Both programs certainly have their pros and cons both for individual teams and those teams' communities.

Re: A Request
 

In Illinois, there doesn't seem to be a huge issue finding organizations to host events. It's actually easier than FRC, because venue size and layout is not as much of an issue.

I don't think teams hosting a competition is the issue. The biggest issues I've seen in Illinois at least, is that we're not uniform for a lot of how we do things across all of our qualifiers, regarding judging process, inspection process, actual play, etc. It's something that's being worked on.

Other than that, these events will never be as "impressive" as FRC regionals (again I can't speak for FRC districts), but there's no professional A/V at FTC Qualifiers, nor pipe and drape or a giant venue. I don't think quality is the right word here, because the events do what they need to do, and they do them well.

Other points regarding "professional"ness, and thinks I'm actually curious to hear more about are

Re: A Request
 

This is incorrect.

I know in my state when SC State University dropped thier commitment of hosting the competition FIRST spent several months searching for a partner to host the event and in the end they had to turn to me, a second year electrical engineering student alumni of a big FTC program, to find a way to host the SC Championship event.

Don't just assume that hosting an FTC Championship is an easy thing to do. Even at a bare minimum level.

Re: A Request
 

This is an interesting point, and I've got to say my main draw to FIRST is much more towards making a "better" person than making engineers (it's still a draw). I've been struggling with this for a while. From my limited view of 1 season, I'm not sure quite what to gather, but it's the principal reason I'm "more" involved in FRC than FTC.

What I have noticed as a volunteer in all kinds of roles (incl. judge) this year, is that there certainly are FTC teams that "make it loud" and way louder than some FRC teams.

The only difference I can think of that has this effect is simply the number of students. Since there are so many more students in FRC it's easier for FRC teams to "use this resource" in doing more things.

What's the FLL "feeling"?

Yup! FTC Inspire Award winners, should really hook up with other FTC teams and help establish a good outreach program. At our team's school, we have 4 FTC teams and just started a FRC team. We're hoping to build an environment where the FTC teams start to build the outreach/service aspects but then really force them to go wild in FRC.

Re: A Request
 

I'm not saying it's easy. Not at all.

I was responding to his comment about finding organizations to host tournaments, to which I made a blanket statement, and I'll revise to reflect Illinois' situation. My apologies.

Re: A Request
 

This was a huge problem for us in MN this year as well. Fortunately the organization that runs FTC here (High Tech Kids) also runs FLL, so they have a lot of experience running consistent events, and they're only getting better with the feedback from this season. I think that consistency will improve over time and as the regional affiliates get more familiar with the program.

Re: A Request
 

I guess I glossed over that in my earlier post. I apologize.

The other theme that we noted was that FLL students seem to form a balanced mix of technical and social interests. That aligns well with the fact that a large chunk of the FLL challenge is absolutely not about the robot. Successful FRC teams have a significant non-technical side as well. But there's a palpable lack of continuity through the mid-level competitions. They tend to focus on the robot, and it appears that students without the strong technical inclinations lose interest.

The FLL emphasis on real-world problems and solutions seems to provide an environment where many students feel enabled to contribute on a global scale. That is missing from FTC, and is only vaguely present in most FRC teams.

Re: A Request
 

Read what I said and then tell me where I said his OPINION was wrong. There's a difference in saying someone's reading/interpretation of something I said is wrong and saying an opinion is wrong.



Thanks for blaming me for making CD hostile. If you'd like to continue this please take it to a PM.

Re: A Request
 

I was not attempting to blame you. I pointed out people in general, saying that the aggressive attitudes of many users, myself included, have been plaguing CD lately.

"This is one of the reasons why C.D. has gotten so hostile lately, people aren't being considerate of others' opinions."



Sorry that your thread got derailed, Justus. I enjoyed reading the civil conversations that were going on. Personally, I have never felt that FTC had the 'hype' that was shown regarding FRC.

Re: A Request
 

High Tech Kids is AWESOME! I know it will be better next year. Lots of awesome stuff is happening! With the continued exponential growth of the FTC program in Minnesota, it is important that all of the events are consistent.

Re: A Request
 

Here is my opinion. I've got a bunch of small things.

#1: Keep it civil. I'm not going to name names, but some folks here need to go on vacation by the lake for a week or two--and yes, they should jump in the lake while they're there.

#2: I think a lot of the looking-down-on is due to the move away from VEX some years ago, and more particularly the way it was handled. Also, there could be some ill-feeling left from 2011's minibots, and their associated Tetrix motor issues.

#3: Each program has its own benefits, and its own drawbacks. FRC is "the big show"; you put an FRC robot out in a public place and it will draw a crowd. It costs appropriately, too--high costs on both the team side and the event side. As such, it is probably the best "hook"--for anybody that isn't in elementary school. That distinction goes to FLL, with its low costs, plentiful competitions, and restricted team size. As noted, FLL also has a pretty tough non-robot component with its research presentations and other social items. But... there's that age limit, and team size limit. FTC is middle-of-the-road: big enough to be bigger than FLL, small enough to open the venue selection for events a bit, but small enough that if you set an FTC robot out in a public place, the crowd won't be as big. For the participants, I would say it's FRC's equal--or more, if the team is small enough--but for the show, not so much. VRC has the same benefits and drawbacks as FTC, though with the addition of being able to run both ways on the age scale (the "lower age divisions", including VEXIQ, and the university division). Incidentally, the scale difference was shown at IRI 2012, when IFI sent out their interns' VEX robot built for Rebound Rumble along with the RoboWranglers' robot from that year for a quick demo.

tl;dr: They all have pros, and they all have cons. Do your analysis, and figure out which fits your situation and goals the best.

And #4, my final point:
"Give me more tools; I’ll use the ones that are most useful for the job."--Natchez, FRC118, and well worth the read. (Do note: this one is from '02, before FTC or VRC, and even before the Edubot, which was the forerunner to the VEX Kit and FVC, which split into the above. Would you believe... that two full robotics competitions started because a third one wanted some small-scale, quick-build prototypes? Whodathunk?)

Re: A Request
 

As an engineer, I look at as:
You can build a laser in your garage that takes up most of the garage space.
How do you build a laser to fit in a tiny box and it still be useful?
The smaller-scale challenge of FTC.

Re: A Request
 

314A from VEX IQ World Championships this year may be the best robot I've ever seen.

Re: A Request
 

It reminds me of 71's 2002 robot.

Re: A Request
 

Any photos or video?

Re: A Request
 

[Oh yes. Yes there is.

Re: A Request
 

May I suggest that a possible reason behind the disparity is that FRC is FIRST Robotics Competition while FTC is FIRST Technical Challenge?
The words used in their titles, to me, suggest that the former is more exciting, while the latter is more academic.

Re: A Request
 

I've been watching this thread, and I was going to just observe, but I decided I would throw my perspective in. I'm not going to comment or add on to anything else anyone has said.

I started out my robotics career in FLL during 8th grade. While it was initially interesting because you were using LEGO's and motors and it's all very exciting, it lost its appeal quickly. Now my team had some issues with kids quitting 4 weeks in (wasn't their thing) so my team was basically two people, myself included, the whole season. While this was great as I had hands on experience, it came to a point where you end up having to do a lot on your own. Also, I remember not being a fan of the "Research Presentation" and the "Teamwork Presentation" because I just couldn't buy into the whole skit/song and dance stuff. What really kept me going in robotics was seeing the VEX (FVC) teams works on the other side of the room during our meetings and wanting to work with those. It was that draw of "the big show" that propelled me to keep going with it. Keep in mind at the time our FRC team had not started yet (2008). This isn't to say I didn't learn anything from FLL, I certainly did, and I think if anything it probably taught more about working with the people on your team and how to follow through with something.

Freshman year came and I moved on to VEX. This was the first year that VEX had it's own separate competition as FTC went to the tetrix stuff. While our organization did start an FRC team for this year, it was mostly the kids that had been doing VEX, so we decided I wasn't ready for that. This first season of VEX is where I really learned a lot of the base principles of thinking design through strategically, working with tools, all the basics. There is a lot to be said about what can be gained from participating in VEX. Probably the biggest thing is it teaches you so much about the iterative process because it allows you to change designs after testing things out on the fly much easier. I had a great season and learned a lot, and I did not feel like I was missing out on anything.

Then came next year, when my perception would change.

Before the next season (2010-Breakaway) our FRC team split into two teams (differing parent opinions about how mentors should be involved, etc.) so the group that stayed with our organization was only 3-4 students and we lost the sponsorships they had. I wasn't going to do FRC as the team was not looking to be in good shape and we figured I would learn and gain more from competing in VEX then building a robot out of supplies from ACE Hardware in a classroom or wood-shop. Then in early December, about a month before kickoff, we found this company. We initially asked them for a space to work in since the space they had used before was being used by the other group from the old team. The company invited some of the kids from last season and the main parents to the building to meet and talk about what FRC is, etc. By the end of that exchange, not only were we given a fantastic place to work with a full machine shop, but they were going to support the team financially and have some of their engineers help with mentoring the team.

If it had not been for Genesis Automation in December 2009, I'm not sure what Team 2949 would have done that season; in fact there's a good chance the team might not exist today.

Once this happened, I decided to join FRC right before kickoff and we started the 2010 season with roughly 8-9 kids. I learned so much more just in that first season of FRC then I ever have in VEX. And it's not because we were able to have some super custom robot with fancy sheet metal and custom wheels. Our robot that year had an 80/20 frame, a shop vac retro-fitted with a CIM, and a surveyors pole with wire shoved into it to extend and hang. It was Genesis' first FRC season as well, so we all had a big learning curve, and I learned so much. Working alongside those engineers taught me so much even though they were guessing about things sometimes too. Before this season (2014) I don't think I've ever been prouder then when we made it to the finals at the Midwest Regional after finding a way to get past 111 and 1625 in the semis. And we were given the Engineering Excellence. The 8-9 kids we had on that team learned so much in such a short amount of time. I don't think there's any chance I could have learned the things I did in that year alone in any amount of years of VEX.

That being said, without having done VEX, I'm not sure I would have been ready for FRC, or that I would have been able to get as much out of FRC because I wouldn't have had some of those lessons learned already.

Two more FRC seasons later and by the end of high school I was like a different person. Being on an FRC team opens up the educational possibilities from a robotics program a ton. You could not ask for a better learning experience then working alongside professional engineers.

Now I know not every FRC team has the same resources, money, mentorship level, machine shop, etc. But overall while I think VEX helps you learn basic building skills, and really really reaaaaaally (cannot stress this enough) helps develop game analysis skills and learning how to strategically design, VEX cannot take you to that next level of learning.

It's like someone playing the Trumpet all through school in class all the time. Sure they will learn the basic skills and continue to improve, but if you want to move to that next level and learn the really detailed techniques and such, taking private lessons will take you there.

This post kind of got long, and maybe drifted a bit, but overall I suppose my point is that I don't believe anyone should (or does) not respect FTC (or VEX). I think it can make students much better and it can really help prepare them for learning at the next level, like a stepping stone.

Here's where I'll get blunt. Is FTC/VEX an inferior competition? Yes. It is. And I think we all know it is. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be having this conversation. It doesn't take a students educational experience as far. And if you want to talk about culture change, I've never seen someone look at an FTC/VEX robot, and audibly say wow unless it was expanding to be huge (*couch* *cough* Bowled Over *cough* *cough*). But when a random person or someone from a potential sponsor sees an FRC match in person, that makes them want to get involved. Just the way it is. Bigger is better for attracting people when it comes to competition robots driving around.

tl;dr

-Is FTC/VEX a fantastic tool that can help students learn and get engaged in STEM and prepare them for a career in some kind of engineering, etc.? Yes.

-Does FTC/VEX help better prepare students and set them up to succeed more in FRC? Yes.

-Can students learn as many skills in FTC/VEX as FRC? Depends on the resources of the FRC team, but in the high majority of cases: No.

-Is FTC/VEX an inferior competition to FRC? Yes.

-Is FTC/VEX more affordable/accessible/scale-able? Definitely


^^ That last point is what's important. The FRC teams out there who get a kitbot drive on the field with very little or nothing else on the robot perhaps should be competing in FTC/VEX because it would most likely fit their resource allotment better and would allow their students to learn more from the experience.

In addition to that, there are some FTC/VEX programs out there who have tens of thousands of dollars in their FTC/VEX programs, and at some point it could be smart to start an FRC team so that you can move kids through to FRC after a couple years of VEX to further expand their learning experience.

As a side note, I personally think that VEX is a better options for teams stretching resources as opposed to FTC. I also think it allows for more flexible design choices, but that's a separate discussion that could easily be argued either way.

Sorry for the long post, I'll go back to keeping my rants to myself. And of course, everything I wrote is my own personal opinion on the topic.

-Nick

Re: A Request
 

I like Nick's post. It's a nice summary of the differences.

I see the differences in this way:

FTC - focuses on an engineering solution working with a small team of individuals working with a limited budget.

FRC - a more expansive view that incorporates engineering with other socially-desirable activities including strategy development, teaming with other organizations and managing resources with a relatively large budget.

I'm not sure FIRST has entirely grasped the both implication and potential of the FRC program yet.

Re: A Request
 

Absolutely agreed with everything here.