Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

So this has come up in several topics as of late. So I'd like to post a poll for it and see what kind of response we get. Do you think you need to build a practice robot. These are used: after the bag day when you normally would loose access to your robot and before your first competition appearance.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

One reason we build more that one robot is because we have so many students and building more lets you engage the students more during build. With the big influx of members this year we have decided to build three robots. At the end of it our students will have more hands on experience and a higher level of involvement.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

5. We're tired of building robots by the middle of February

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We started building practice robots for the 2014 season, and I can say that it helps a lot. Especially this year. Every day we would have our driver practice stacking, and it's one of the reasons we made the improvement that we did from week 1 to week 3. Only modification we made to the robot was a cardboard box with a slanted top for a ramp, but the practice bot helped a lot with driver practice. It was actually so dead from all the usage that at off season events it couldn't make stacks of more than 2 or 3 totes without the lift trolley coming off the guides :P.

I don't necessarily think it is necessary to compete, but it would be necessary to be really competitive.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

6. We have the resources and the drive, so we build it. We're always working to improve.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Of course you don't need one to compete. There are Regional Winners, Einstein teams, and (in many seasons) even World Champions that don't build them.

What a practice bot buys you is (a) extra practice time for your drivers and programmers, (b) the ability to test out and develop improved versions of mechanisms to swap onto your comp bot, and (c) some measure of insurance on your season if after 6 weeks the robot isn't done due to unanticipated design issues, weather, sponsor delays, work travel, etc.

If you design the right robot for the game and for your team's abilities, are able to finish it on time to practice and tune it, and don't encounter any performance issues that you can't fix at an event, you might not need a second robot.

But most (I'd argue all) teams are not good/lucky enough to ensure that all of that happens season after season. For this reason, building a practice robot is one of the first pieces of advice I give to a team that is looking to increase the effectiveness of their robot. It can rescue your season from early mistakes, and even if you nailed it on initial design, your drivers will only get better.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

7: It depends on the team's geography.

I don't think they're necessary at all to be competitive at Minnesota events, but I'm pretty sure there are regions where that might not be the case.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

If you have the money, then go for it, but honestly I think the money and materials could be much better spent. We never use practice bots and we fare fine with out them.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Practice robots? What's that? :rolleyes:

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Nothing more than a (single) toaster on wheels (or whatever a kitbot-plus-nothing-else is called in your neck of the woods) is needed to "compete".

In this thread and the parallel one, folks keep talking past each other by using different definitions of "compete" and of "competitive".

Using the word "competitive" when you mean "performs well", "performs very well", or "good chance of winning a banner"; is a mistake because the people you are trying to communicate with are unlikely to define that word the same way you do.

The term "compete", and its cousin, "competitive", are far too imprecise in discussions like this one. They are words that looks good on a PowerPoint slide, but that don't help you much when you try to get down to brass tacks.

Blake
[EDIT]To be more precise, any (immobile) lump the inspectors will let you put on the field for a match "will enable you to participate in an FRC competition". In other words, "will enable you to compete".[/EDIT]

At a lower ny event you could probably win with an Ri3d build. In fact I believe in all of lower ny (around 100 teams) only one team builds a practice robot.

Now if your talking winning svr, or dallas, or waterloo then yes to win you pretty much need a practice robot. Less with dallas because of the time but you get the point.

This year we are making a prototype bot so we will have something to drive around after bag day but, Idk if I would call it a practice bot. If however we have a simple robot we might change stuff up and have a full fledged practice robot. The biggest obstacle is money especially since we will have to buy another kop drive train (missed the opt out period).

Overall no at most events.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

You don't need it. But if you can afford it than it will only help you improve.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

For all possible definitions of "compete" and "competitive", a practice bot is not a strict requirement.

For all possible definitions of "compete" and "competitive", a practice bot is likely to have a high ROI.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Just beware that the Investment might be a big step up from not having a practice bot. Not so much in money, but in time, and mostly in management. Having two robots that are different can be a detriment....it seems to take some teams a few seasons to really be able to take advantage of a practice bot.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Our practice robot is a key part of our prototyping process. It allows us to test our designs before building the final product. Over the years we have worked to make the practice robot as similar to the competition robot as possible with varying success. Building a practice robot is as much of an exercise in engineering as it is a competitive advantage for our team.

Since building a practice robot for the first time in 2013 we have become a decent team.

**Written based on experience on 1318**

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Sure. It is more work, and many aspects of team management are impacted by building a second bot. The Investment part of the ROI might start out being pretty large for the first year or two. But the Return part can likewise be enormous.

If only there was a way to get the same Return without the Investment of building a second robot...

:D

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

I agree on this part of management. FRC 4607 started to build a practice bot two years ago, but many of the reasons that we continue with it is because we have a large team - 51 students last year and 68 as of right now (including our HS FTC team).

We have found that the price is really not much more because we initially used the pre2015 components and used it to test and prove/improve our manipulators. We typically competed in a week 5 or 6 event so to keep our fab kids interested and motivated, it was a great tool.

We are by no means a big budget team - and this year may be a bit of a struggle because we have seemed to have lost one of our big sponsors (fingers crossed that we can get them back into the fold). But the second bot is a great way to keep the younger kids engaged in the development process throughout the season. Many of our experienced kids mentor the young'uns after bag and tag and show them the ropes.

Again, the biggest component to all of this is managing the build and the team. Without an ample supply of students and mentors, this effort would not be worth it.

My two cents!

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

There is definitely more than 1 team that builds a practice robot for NYC/LI. More like a handful do, and while I agree that you don't need one to win either regional, it says something about the program when even at such low scoring events such as those, there are teams that still build practice robots. *shrug*

Some people like it, I personally think it creates an uneven playing field.

Really?

To my knowledge 694 doesn't build one and neither does 2601 arguably the 2 of the highest funded; best teams in nyc. On li I'm pretty sure only 329 builds one which makes sense since they have an 80% practice field.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

558, starting in 2014, builds at a minimum a second chassis. Given the withholding allowance this allows us the ability to iterate our superstructures while not breaking our bank. As a smaller team with limited resources and funding we are working to expand our abilities but living within our current limits.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

The poll answers aren't all inclusive.
As others have mentioned, you don't "need" a practice robot to compete, but I feel it helps if you can pull it off.

We have had practice robots in the past few years that aren't as complete as the competition one, for drive practice and working out programming etc.

There should be a category:
"We build one if we have the time and resources to be better prepared for competition"

We are going to try to build (2) robots this year as complete as possible for better practice and fixing problems as the season progresses.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We have never built a practice bot.
I like the idea of having separate hardware for the programmers to work on.
What kind of schedule do you follow?

Is the competitive bot finished before the practice bot is started or
do you build a practice bot first to try out the base and some critical design elements and then build the competition bot?

Dave

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Pretty clearly we should add some options to this poll I slammed together.
I don't see a way to change this on this forum. Is there a way?

I was more curious to see if there was a significant majority leaning towards wanting or needing a practice bot and so far there is good reason to look into this further.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Here's a question. Suppose the 6 see build system is eliminated and replaced with no bag and tag, would the top teams still build a practice bot?

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Yes. Some top teams build 3 robots.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

I can't speak for other teams, and our team is still new at this.
But for us, we start building a prototype "base" as soon as we know what type of drive train and base configuration it will be. This is basically for driving around and putting mock items on to check if things are going to fit or work. And for programming.

And then once we know what we're building for real, we start to build the real one.

For us this year, I suspect we will take the prototype further so there will be (2) robots that function the same way with all stuff on it, one for practice, one for competition.

That's my gut feeling anyway, I'm not 100% involved in those decisions.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

While this is true, I'm not sure much thought should be given to a very very small minority of teams. (If we would consider the situations of a handful of teams, I think we should be considering those who are struggling opposed to already successful teams).

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

I bet you'd have more teams stop building 2 bots than would continue.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We have never built one but we don't rule it out.

The withholding allowance, bag-n-tag, and the district tournament schedule ("out of bag" time) allow a lot of access to the robot and provide much of the benefit that comes from full-time access to a less-than-perfect-fidelity practice bot (which is what most practice bots really are). Going to a 3rd district event (not always possible) also provides a good return on the investment in "practice".

The early results of this survey demonstrate the gap between the "Chief Delphi" crowd and everybody else. What percentage of total teams build a practice bot? Its nowhere close to 80%.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

In non district areas we don't get the benefits of the out of bag time before district events. Having access to our full shop full of tools to fix issues would be much better then on day 1 of regional while there are practice matches going on and all you have is 1-2 carts worth of tools.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

The only way we can insure valid metric is with FIRST doing it.

I used to go around as CSA and, in addition to my duties, ask about which programming language and speed controls (also CAN or PWM) teams use. In that capacity I could get real data on what people are really doing and, as the CSA, I could see what's working and not working. This also made it possible to be ahead of an issue - if everyone with a particular part is seeing a problem I know where to go immediately if it becomes apparent.

So this is, at best, a barometer of the sentiment of the people who bother to contribute and should not be used in place of a proper study. However the fact it's not all inclusive doesn't remove the fact that there is a clear majority from those that do contribute at this time.

Also at this time only 8.63% see no value in a practice bot at all.
So 91.37% can find a good reason to do it or would consider it if they had the resources.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

It'd be nice to redo this poll w/ noting who is in districts and who isn't.

A lot of mid to top level CA teams build a somewhat decent practice bot, and I think they'd stop doing so under bag and tag.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We aren't in the district model and built a practice robot for the first time last year. We didn't manage our time as well as we should have and ran into rushing to complete the competition bot near the end of the 6 weeks. We also had quirks pop up on the competition robot that we didn't have on the practice bot.

The biggest thing it gave us was more drive team practice and the ability to iterate between events. Without it we wouldn't have been able to add can grabbers or practice with our ramp, both which were added mid-season.

We have already decided we will be building 2 again this year. Once we go to the district model we may not because of the un-bag windows.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Since we have been building practice bots for the past 4? Years, our results are much improved. Since we have used swerve since I and my sons joined 1640, using the practice bot has greatly improved our drivers ability to do the things necessary for each game. It also allows us to make any adjustments needed on doue ( the practice bot ) and install them on prime ( our competition bot ) during the season.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

For those that don't build a practice bot, do you have other "experiment bots" that you can use as a drive platform for testing mechanisms, drive trains, autonomous modes?

My team hopes to build a practice bot if for nothing else than to have something for the programming and controls teams to have something to experiment with in parallel with other stuff being developed. And then for next year to have something driveable during the pre-season.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Let's be careful to separate speculation from fact, here. I don't know if it is close to 80%, but I doubt anyone does at this juncture. I was surprised by Collin's post - even though IRI has many upper-tier teams, it is not solely comprised of them. I would imagine that if FIRST expected to take any further action on this "extend the build season" proposal that they would ask the teams directly for their fact-gathering instead of relying solely on CD information. If FIRST did take that route, the results could vary as follows:

- regionally, in areas where there are fewer events vs. a greater number of competitive opportunities
- by team age, showing a greater number of rookies or 2nd year teams not (/not yet?) utilizing this strategy
- by enforced competition model, district areas vs. open competition areas
- by declared team sponsorship level/yearly budget amount

...and potentially by other socioeconomic or program-specific factors I'm not considering. We're also being pretty broad at what a "second robot" constitutes. Are we talking about teams that knowingly mill or punch a second or third set of pieces during the build season and assemble within the current 6 week window? Are we counting those who use scrap wood in the shop, but only after the robot has been bagged? What if the second robot doesn't have electronics, but they've mocked up a new arm on an immobile frame? Or what if the team continues building new appendages without a base?

My point is, we've got enough potential variables here and zero data aside from CD's poll as far as "second robots" are concerned, and even that has many different definitions. I've got a gut feel and an opinion myself, but I am sure everyone else does, too. I think the real question for FIRST is: how many teams put down the tools completely until their event? I'm not talking just CAD, I mean teams that have any physical work going on whatsoever.

If that number proves to be the overwhelming majority, what is lost by giving them the opportunity (but again, NOT the obligation) to continue building until their first competition and on throughout the FIRST season?

And with that question, we've once again returned to this thread.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

The real answer is simple. Drive time makes you more competitive. Practice robots are one method.

Improving your design and fixing problems make you more competitive. Practice robots are one method.

There are several threads swirling around this same issue and the polls do not reflect simple available options. I feel a six week build plus an out of bag system for regionals would be the best fix for now. I would probably drop the practice bot and make incremental improvements during those windows.

Of course, I would not need a practice bot if the 6 week build limitation was gone. Our last regional is week 2. Assuming that we qualify for championship, I would take those practice robot resources and build a new machine.** Is that what we want as a community?

Personally I'm a fan of incremental improvement.

David

Disclaimer... this is my opinion and does not reflect my team's views.

** I understand trying to copy components of another design is not simple, nor will it automatically be successful.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

On 461, the past few years we have built a majority of a full practice bot but after this year with districts we will likely be building just one bot and spend more time on iterating and testing sooner. The unbag windows were so large and the time between events was so short that we hardly used the practice bot since we could just unbag the main bot and practice/improve.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Not necessarily. First of all, let us recognize that even if FIRST compiled these metrics, they would have to be collected based on what teams say about themselves. So, all we need to do is come up with a way to ask every competing team the same set of questions. If we came up with a standardized set of questions, and sent someone "pit scouting" each event, we could compile a valid data set. I'm fairly confident that there are no regionals, and few district events which are not represented by someone on CD who could either do this pit scouting, or recruit someone to do so.

I've created this thread to try to generate such a canvas/questionnaire.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

My favorite reason to build a practice bot is because we get to hang out with our friends on other teams more. During the competition season I normally attend three-four regionals (2 competing with 3847 and 1-2 as a volunteer). The other 3-5 weeks we are regularly practicing with our friends in Houston. Often it's at 118's facility but last year we went to 624's home base and 5414's shop on different weekends. We have also been up to visit Texas Torque as well and practice with them. Those days are honestly some of my favorite days of the entire year. 2-6 teams just driving around having fun and working to improve during the season. You can't have that experience with out a practice bot (or at least most teams don't).

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Allen, that sounds like a great reason to build a practice bot.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We build a practice bot, but we also find lots of value in building an "experiment bot" out of an old chassis. For example....

(There was also a 2015 version of Skystalker, but it was far less comical to watch).

If you are lucky/guess right/use a similar chassis and drivetrain every year, there is nothing to prevent you from having a rolling base ready to go at kickoff. This (along with the ability to have design, fabrication, and driving experience carry over from season to season) is a huge reason why many successful teams do not tend to deviate a lot in drivetrain design from year to year. A "free" facsimile on day one!

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

One of my favorite practice bot anecdotes was in 2014, a week or so before World Championships. A bunch of California teams brought their practice bots to our field to practice. We invited some other great California teams (who unfortunately had not qualified for the Championship) to bring their now-retired robots to help fill out the field. Our drive teams all scrimmaged together for hours. They went over every possible scenario, practiced beating defense, inbounding, perfecting positioning - you name it. (It must have paid off, since there wound up being 3 Einstein teams and one Division Finalist in the building that afternoon).

But even disregarding the future on-field success, I thought it was really cool. It was a unique bonding experience for the teams in the region. Hopefully we will do the same thing in 2016 (2015's game didn't have quite the same dynamic, so most teams could practice alone).

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Yep, great point. it might the best thing about practice bots with a good game. If we really like the game, why not play it more? Hopefully a few more teams in our area will join us this year.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Besides practice and development with the practice bot, we use the practice bot as a source of spare parts. It's stripped and then put back together for each competition.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

+1

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Sign us up!

We had a great time practicing that day.

Despite being spread out, CA's network of teams is one of our biggest inspirations/resources/motivations.

-Mike

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

I answered #1 because it's closest to our reasoning, if not entirely accurate.

Our sponsorship resources have been generally rising year-over-year, despite a number of big "hits". On several occasions, our coaches, mentors, and boosters have explicitly considered "what do we add" nearly as seriously as we would address "what do we cut" if finding were to decrease. Each time, we have applied resources to both outreach and competitive capacity. On the competitive side, we did a "prototype" robot with a wooden frame in 2014, and in 2015, we did "twin" robots. Each of these gave us more driver practice than ever before, and better use of the withholding allowance to implement improvements worked out after stop build. While the second robot isn't strictly necessary to be competitive, we've found it to be a highly useful and cost-effective tool to help get there.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

+1

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

#1

The last week of build season, we decided to go ahead and build one this year for the first time. A materials sponsor came through for us by doubling their donation, so we could make it happen. We built an exact duplicate, minus outer coverings and a roboRIO (they shared to save money) in two days. It made a huge difference in our competitiveness, and we were much more successful than in previous years. It wasn't the only factor, more like one of three or four changes we made, but enough that we will definitely continue.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We brought our practice 'bot to both Bayou and CMP last year in the trailer, to have an on-site source of spare parts. As it turned out, we did not need them, though we did loan a couple of dura-omnis, bearings, and shafts off of it to another team at Bayou.

That is definitely illegal.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

We started an excellent thread about it in 2014. Read it if you like internet arguments. ;)

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

He listed COTS items.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Not if you only pull COTS parts from it.

Edit: Ninja'd. Twice.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Teamwork?

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

The intention was illegal. Shafts if cut are not COTS. If the DuraOmni has been assembled with a sprocket or a hub it is no longer COTS.

Deleted because the post seemed too rude.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

FYI the rule that makes this illegal does talk specifically about fabricated parts.

However as an inspector I much prefer if teams don't bring their practice robot anywhere near the venue. Even if you are just getting COTS parts it looks very suspicious when you are dissembling a robot in the parking lot. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I'd rather not deal with that. I love practice robots but please do everyone a favor and leave them at home.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

In 2014 it was made clear that bringing a practice robot to your event is was not legal. I'm sure GeeTwo did not intend to break the rules but teams reading his post and his own team should be informed that bringing a practice bot to an event is not legal. While unlikely a team could be penalized for breaking this rule.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

To the event? Or into the event?

If you're going to make warnings, make them specific ;)

It's legal at all times to walk into an event with a purely cots item, where I got that 5 mins prior is irrelevant.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

GeeTwo, you seem like a solid guy who wants to do right by your team and by FRC. I'm adding my voice to the chorus: please, please don't ever do that again. It is definitely not okay.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

He did not say any of that. Your jumping to conclusions. all the things he has listed can be perfectly legal COTS items. you can speculate, but please don't doubt until you know the whole story.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

No, none of the parts was machined, or otherwise modified from the COTS state. For the record, the "shaft" was actually a COTS bolt and nut. As a matter of fact, KoP COTS part, as it was from our KoP chassis. After popping out the bearings and taking the belt sprocket off, this was a pile of COTS parts. It took less time to put them back together than it took to get them off of the practice robot. We never intended (nor did) to use the practice robot for fabricated parts, but as a ready store of exactly the same COTS parts as we had on the competition robot. The handful of fabricated parts from the practice robot that we intended to use on the competition robot (mostly the pickup rake) were removed the night before competition and brought as part of the withholding allowance.

Appended: I had not read the 2014 Q&As, and was unfamiliar with the ruling referenced above; I was going purely by the 2015 rules and the Q&As which I saw for 2015. While I did not look at every Q&A as it happened, I recall going through the whole list of Q&As a few days before Bayou to make sure I hadn't missed something. I have again reviewed the 2015 rules, and still cannot find anything we did here which violated those rules. Here are some interesting and/or applicable quotes from the 2015 rules. The bolding (other than on the terms being defined) is my emphasis.

Therefore, items which are altered, built, etc., etc which will not be used on the ROBOT which will compete in RECYCLE RUSH do not count as FABRICATED ITEMS. Obvious examples include:

• Tools, including laptop computers used for programming, which have been built/altered/painted/loaded with WPIlib and Eclipse/whatever
• Custom toolboxes, banners, and pit displays
• Our team's trailer (even though it was a special order item, and clearly not COTS)
• The truck that pulled the trailer (even though it had non-stock wheels, a tow ball, and a license plate, among other customizations)
• Team uniforms and mascot costumes

Please note that without the prepositional phrase in which it will be used on the ROBOT, each of these items would have been a FABRICATED ITEM.

Not that it really advances the case much, but it is interesting to note that the "practice 'bot" is arguably not a "ROBOT" or even a "FABRICATED ITEM" by the above definition if it is not going to be used to compete in the current game.

And, here are a couple of "blue box" items of interest:

This actually hints by negation that teams may store COTS items outside the pits to be brought to the event at a later time. I could find nothing that contradicted this idea.

And this one hints by negation that COTS items on ROBOTS entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2015 robots. Again, I could find no contradiction.

I fully FULLY agree that if the purpose of keeping the practice robot nearby were to harvest it for FABRICATED ITEMS, or if we had done so, it would have been against both the letter and the spirit of the rules. This was so far from my mind that it did not occur to me that it had to be explicitly stated in my earlier post.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Ive never read every rule of a rule book so that's why I'm asking this. Why is it not okay for him to do that? Is there a rule about it and if so, can you quote the rule? Is it not ok to have pre made parts as backups? What's the difference between a pre cut part on your practice robot and a pre cut part in your tool box? Like if a part on my robot is a small metal plate that has 5 holes in it, is it ok to have a spare part with all 5 cuts in my tool box? If that's ok, why can't I take the same metal piece off of my practice bot? It would be essentially the same thing as taking it out of your toolbox. Or is is because it's not in your pit and you took it from your trailer to the pit? Thanks. I'm curious since I don't know this rule all that well.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

The difference with taking pre-made parts off of the practice bot in the parking lot and out of your pit is the fact that you have to be selective of the weight of the parts in the pit. With the practice bot in the parking lot you can bring them in as you need them. This would give you a much wider selection and seems to break the intent of the withholding allowance rules.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

There is a rule sort of. It's a combination of rules really:

And that's not all for R17, there are actually more bits to it but those are the relevant sections: http://archive.usfirst.org/sites/def...al20150407.pdf

EDIT: And you bet your butt that Team 900 knows this rule and has read it over a few times. The first step in pushing boundaries is knowing where those boundaries are.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

[quote=marshall;1507367

EDIT: And you bet your butt that Team 900 knows this rule and has read it over a few times. The first step in pushing boundaries is knowing where those boundaries are.[/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity, what happened to team 900? Also, thanks for the information. I remember seeing that rule. Just forgot about it since all I focus on is scouting. That is definately an issue then.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Cheesecake happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uyr-WSKnbQ

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

It's interesting that with nearly 300 polled members still 90%+ of the teams have some interest in building practice robots. I would have thought with time such a large margin would erode. Guess it's either the composition of ChiefDelphi's active members or just not enough interest.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

It's CD.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Even with an extended build season we would build multiple robots. The practice bot gets way more run time than the competition robot and is falling apart by championship.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Sounds like we should have a competition just for the practice robots ;)

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

Or, just maybe, a practice robot is actually a key part of becoming a highly competitive team?

There are exceptions to the rule (610 and 359 come to mind) but it seems pretty clear - the return on investment on a practice robot, given enough time and resources to use it, is a tremendous advantage.

The number of people who aren't on CD, are on highly competitive teams, and don't build a practice robot, that number is really small. Maybe 10%?

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

I feel like the reason teams are successful without practice bots is because they come out in week 1 with a really really good bot or they really use Thursdays well in the pits. In districts, having a practice bot is very valuable since you can perfect mechanisms on your practice bot and make duplicates for your competition bot. Since you can unbag your bot for 6 hours in the week before a competition, having the practice bot to test new mechanisms takes less time of bag time to add new mechanisms.

Re: Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?
 

That is a very good statement.

Makes a lot of sense, if you can build and test items on an identical robot and like how it works, you can then make duplicate item(s), un-bag and install it, quickly test it and bag 'er up!

Love it!