paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Thread created automatically to discuss a document in CD-Media.

Stop the Stop Build by Jim Zondag

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Teams, In response to the Stop Build survey circulated yesterday, I finished this paper I was already working on. In this paper I share some analytics on the realities of the Stop Build process and my opinions on possible future changes.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

#Zondag4President

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I really hope you linked this at the end of your survey. If someone from FIRST reads through this we may actually have a chance in getting rid of this.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Jim, your 8 hours of unbag every week for every team would be the perfect first step. Thank you for your well thought out analysis.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

It would indeed. I do feel like the hassle of dealing with bag forms and zip ties is going to cause enough chaos that it won't be long before the bag goes pop though.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

This is basically the ultimate paper regarding anything bag day.

Frank, we know you're there.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Awesome paper, and love how many points of interest you touched based on with reasonable data points and comparisons. This could be a really good paper to share with many teams that believe that their season is only "6 weeks long"

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

A fantastic compromise. I am glad to see a take on this from one of the greatest FRC statisticians out there.

I have been very supportive of the retention of bag day for the reasons listed at the end of the paper. It is difficult with no data to support them, but they are very present and if they occur to the levels feared by some, though unlikely, would be detrimental to FRC.

After all things considered I cannot see any reason not to fully support this 8 hour per week period. It is about equal to one Thursday of work at an event, which is most of the time many teams are able to spend really WORKING on their robot.

Until there is a larger cultural shift in the community towards FRC as a sport it will be difficult to eliminate bag day, but adding hours to unbagging per year might be a good way to ease into that mindset, and help us bring the playing field up, and outsiders in.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Fantastic write up/proposal Jim.

Lots of people, my self included, have touted this type of info with out having the data and charts behind us to really show the truth for several years now. Hopefully this is something that Frank and the others at HQ see soon and implement for this coming year.

It isn't anything that they would have to change on their end can just be an added rule to the rule book.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Jim,
Really amazing work. Thanks.

I love that you specifically called out that "6 weeks is a myth." It has been a myth for 2 decades.

I also love the data showing that basically a lot of teams are going to suck the first week they compete, whether that's Week 1 or Week 5, they are going to have a bad weekend. And the longer they wait to complete, the badder that weekend is going to get because the rest of the field is making progress (by going to competitions).

The time has come. Let's rip off the band-aide. End Stop Build Day. Let teams keep their robots for the full FIRST Season.

Will some teams build a completely new robot after Week 1? Sure maybe. But really, who cares? A lot of those teams will just put themselves into a deeper hole trying to copy Poofs or Symbotics or Robotnauts or whomever. They won't discover the problems that are not obvious until it's too late. And even if they are successful at knocking off one or two features from another team, I'd rather live in that world than the current world where so many teams bring less than functional robots to their first competition.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Awesome work. Thanks for putting this together!

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

My my attitudes have changed...

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...5&postcount=34

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Excellent report. Thanks for putting forward such a strong argument Jim. Hopefully it helps sway FIRST's decision.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The compromise solution presented here is brilliant, and is something that could be implemented immediately without any logistical changes on FIRST's end. 8 hours of unbag time a week for all teams would be a huge improvement over the current system, and I suspect it would eliminate the need for practice robots for many mid tier teams. Upper level teams may still choose to build one, but the advantage gained over everyone else would be reduced.

Unbag time in your own shop is one of the biggest reasons District teams improve so rapidly and play at such a higher level. Give this advantage to everyone, every week, and everyone is satisfied. The people who want to rest, can rest, with just one or two meetings a week they can work on the robot tops. The people who want to work can carefully budget their time and use their competition robot extensively during the period after Stop Build.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

If you are thinking Joe's attitude has changed... I don't know. I am not Joe. :]

I think the general idea of building a support robot for one of the elite teams. (Or having the elite team provide you a support bot to take to an event) is problematic. Not having a bag day will still make it problematic only more so.

No disrespect intended for 900 or the others involved in the topic of Joe's post.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I suppose that's the issue I'm getting at. Removing stop build in fact opens up new possibilities for teams to collaborate both at an event and prior to an event starting. Just a thought. ;)

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Under current rules, District teams are suppose to respect the withholding allowance during the unbag time. Admittedly the only thing that keeps teams from unlimited spare parts is respect for the rules.

One advantage of district unbag is you are in your shop. You are allowed to fabricate unlimited amount of parts during the unbag window.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The withholding allowance rules also apply during unbag windows. You cannot introduce more than 30 pounds of non-COTS parts machined outside of the window, during the unbag window. You also get just one withholdling allowance for both the unbag window and the district event the same week as the window (District unbag times are tied to competing at events) - so it's not like you can put 30 pounds on at the shop and 30 pounds more at the event.

You can introduce as many parts as you want that were machined during the unbag window, into the bag.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having time to work out of the bag. But, I think that numbers wise, there are a lot of teams that like the idea that the commitment expected of students is well defined and time limited. Doing away with the bag entirely would present a lot of headaches for teams with students that are attracted to many other activities. I think Jim's compromise is a great one, but I also suspect it is not something we will see implemented.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

This is my main argument for just ripping the band-aide off rather than going with the 8 hour per week window: The rules around withholding are already a hot mess, I can see how this 8 hour per week rule could make this situation worse.

If the only way I can get rid of the stop build rule is to make this half step happen for a few years, then I'll take it and be happy but I would much rather just make a clean break. Kill the bags, kill the tags, kill the entire withholding rules...

Dr. Joe J.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

While definitely a sound interpretation of the 2016 withholding rules, that sounds awful to try to keep track of in the context of a weekly unbag period... Uh, how many pounds did we add on last week? Was that part made inside or outside of the window? What's the total weight of parts we made outside of the window between last event and our next one?

Would a withholding even be necessary with a weekly unbag period? I suppose that might hurt teams that use withholding to keep their control system out so that they can use it on a practice/twin or test bed without having to buy duplicates of all the (rather costly for some teams) components. Would also get messy with regards to sending out parts to a sponsor... since it couldn't be withholding and would be impractical to try to have the machining done during the same window of the time the team is meeting (and even if it was practical, that's an awkward interpretation of unbag time).

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I am not seeing the disconnect that others see. I believe that I can be FOR removing the stop build rules and still be AGAINST having the top teams cheesecake the soul out of a lower tier team.

I have a yardstick. It has inspiration tick marks along its length. I take the controversial position that it is more inspirational to have a team compete with a working robot of their own creation that can accomplish a game objective they set out to achieve.

I don't like excessive cheesecaking because I believe it has bad long term effects on inspiration. I don't like stop build rules because they significantly disadvantage teams with low resources and while wasting resources of high resource teams, both of which adversely affect the inspirational impact of FIRST.

You can disagree with my views but I don't understand how they are incompatible views to have.

What am I missing?

Dr. Joe J.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

While I agree districts are the future of FRC and their benefits are a great motivator, I don't think FIRST should artificially hold regional teams back for the sole reason of trying to force them into districts. The teams in the regional model shouldn't be punished for the lack of action of the administration of the region or even just landscape(Southwest is very spread out). In addition, if a region won't see much real benefit transitioning to districts, maybe it shouldn't become a district in the first place. That being said, I think there are enough real benefits in the district model that it will eventually make its way to every region.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I think it comes down to a very fundamental difference. You see it as a top tier team taking advantage of a lower tier team. I don't. I see it as two teams collaborating on a set of goals and a common design.

One of the reasons being given, even by myself, is that ending stop build will allow top tier teams to better assist lower tier teams prior to events. What's to stop them from collaborating on alliance strategies or a better design? How is that different than doing it at an event? What if you bring your robot into our shop and we machine parts for you? What if we come up with a plan that is practically unbeatable and have a plan to transform one of our two robots for eliminations?

To me, these ideas are very much related. But hey, as a wise man once said, you don't have to take my word for it.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Given the plethora of other benefits to districts, this mentality, while probably true, is sad. Holding team's potential hostage like that isn't fair to said teams who are stuck in the middle of the debate. If one can improve, improve.

Most of the benefits of districts require districts to execute. This example isn't one of them. Other than the cost of extra bag ties, there isn't any additional cost to FIRST, so fiscally it's a wash. If they have legitimate reasons to not expand unbag time to everybody, fine, but withholding it purely to steer areas to districts isn't right IMHO.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

To me the idea of helping another team is completely okay. Help away. But suppose that Team A helped Team B before an upcoming competition but Team B could only use the improvements IF they were on alliances that included Team A. Doesn't seem right. Also, before a competition, Team B seems to be in the driver's seat. They can accept the changes or not. It is up to them. But once an alliance is formed, Team B is under much more pressure to accept the cheesecake proposals of their alliance captain whether they like them or not.

I know, I know, Zebracorns feel that they were not taken advantage of. I hear you. And I don't care. Well that is too strong of a statement. I care, in fact, I am happy for Team 900. It was a good experience for you. But I STILL think that such excessive cheesecaking was bad for the sport. The typical team in the future will not have a great experience having their hard work (for 6 weeks ;-) being pushed to the side so that a top team can cheesecake the snot out of them.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I agree. One of the strongest motivational factors that sustains a team (IMO) is the sense of ownership the students have in their machine. Win or lose, being able to watch your robot on the field and knowing that part of it exists due to your hard work and effort is a powerful thing.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Random thought on cheesecaking.

Would teams cheesecake less if they were allowed to enter multiple robots for less-than-ridiculous costs? We would probably enter 3-4 robots if it didn't cost an arm and a leg. The amount of time we could commit to cheesecaking would definitely taper off at that point.

I think a lot of FRC's issues boil down to program cost actually. Hmmm...

-Mike

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

So prior to an alliance being formed, it's acceptable to you to offer to help make a team as competitive as possible but once the alliance is formed it isn't? :confused:

Tell you what, forget I brought it up. I'm good without the public display of mental gymnastics that is someone coming to terms with their own cognitive dissonance.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Ding ding ding.

Edit: Makig clear what I was highlighting.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

It is a question of degree. Picking a team and making them a ramp anchor and telling not to move isn't inspiring. At least not to me. Admittedly that is an extreme. The Zebracorn collaboration of 2015 is the other extreme. (For those coming late to the party read this thread) Rules generally do a bad job of corner cases. Does that help with your confusion? :]

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I don't see the need for half-measures here. Don't give everyone an unbagging time slot, just get rid of the bag entirely. The current policy is regressive and unfair, and lessened version of it is still going to be regressive and unfair, only somewhat less-so.

This might just be me, but I can't envision this doing anything but further exacerbating the gap between high- and low-resource teams and breeding a lot of ill-will. For instance, I don't think many people would take kindly to seeing an elims bracket at district championships consisting of multiple robots from only a handful of "elite" teams. That might be a more accurate reflection of the distribution of resources in FRC (both monetary and human), but I doubt it's what's best for the program.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Completely agreed. And it is interesting to bring up cheesecake in the context of the bag discussion, because of a hypothetical scenario that has been bothering me for a while.

Most years, "cheesecaking" consists of relatively minor, relatively low tech additions dreamed up on the spot, in a collaborative effort between teams. Alliances are largely selected on the base competency of the robot a team showed up at the event with, and cheesecake provides minor enhancements. In 2015, we had a game uniquely suited to cheesecaking, largely because of just how completely the vital canburgling task could be completed via a self-contained, sub 30 pound mechanism, developed and brought in entirely by another team, and how few less than elite teams put any effort whatsoever into this task, or developed systems with a prayer of being competitive at it. As a result, we started to see some teams picked more on their willingness to abandon elements of the robot they brought in. And at the end of the season, cheesecake and its possibilities being in people's minds lead to us seeing a new robot built from the ground up at an event, based largely on design work done by another team prior to the event.

The debates over whether or not this was a positive thing have been beaten to death. But one indisputible fact about the experience remains: the harpoon build was a monumentally difficult feat for all teams involved. It required an unprecedented level of coordination, pre-planning, and engineering skill. We've only seen it once, and I don't know that we'll ever see anything quite like it again. If we do, it'll be hard not to be in awe of the teams that pull it off, and the amazing accomplishment will once again overshadow any sourness about the ethics of attempting it. One can say similar things about teams that manage to pull off mid-season full-bot rebuilds under the bag system, and arguments about design convergence.

However, the difficulty of this feat was almost 100% artificially generated, through the bag rules and withholding rules. Getting rid of bag and tag would presumably also erase poundage limits on fabricated items that a team can bring to competition with them.

Which brings up the logical questions: What stops teams, many of whom are already building multiple robots, from bringing in pre-built "Cake-bots," ready to roll as-is with different team numbers slapped on (or Cake-tops that can bolt on top of a kitbot, if FIRST adopts VRC-style definition of a robot)? Would the hypothetical gains in performance of the average team be enough to erase an elite team's motivation to do this? Would the sense of collaboration and involvement by all teams so often quoted regarding past extreme cheesecake endeavours always be maintained? Would we want to stop this at all, or would it be a positive thing to a degree?

EDIT: To be clear, I don't anticipate this ever becoming a widespread thing, nor do I mean to suggest that certain teams are ready and waiting to do this, only held back by the current ruleset. But the door does open up if we aren't careful.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall...

I have obviously offended you (and all of Team 900?). That wasn't my intent. Sorry for that.

AND... I have a views on how the world should work. I do my best to come up with a consistent set of values which you graciously call mental gymnastics and talk of cognitive dissonance.

From my point of view, our differences boil down to this: regarding excessive cheesecaking, I come down against it while you come down on the other side.

Can we disagree without insulting each other? Maybe?


Dr. Joe J.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I wouldn't want to compete in FRC if teams were allowed to enter multiple robots. That would be the very arms race that everyone wants to avoid. Poor teams would have no chance. Competition would be far more boring, strife between students on a given team would probably increase, as well as interaction between other teams becoming more cutthroat. Guaranteed teams would sandbag to try and get all of their robots on the same alliance. To keep up with the Joneses elite teams will be forced to dump more money and time into building more robots, training more drivers, and going to more events.

I know this has basically been done with 494 and 70, but that is a sort of unique situation that had a large opportunity cost.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Hopefully, ethical sense on the part of both hypothetical teams?

I don't see this as ever becoming widespread as I don't think there are that many teams who would ever consider this as an acceptable way to participate in FRC, especially on the part of the receiving team. Then again, I'm not from an ultra-competitive district, so perhaps the mentality really is that different there. I know our students would be pretty offended if someone suggested that we do that.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

From my own competition experience:

• In 2014 your alliance would be seriously improved if your third pick robot could be fitted with a trampoline for quick inbound bounce passes.
• In 2015 it would help to add a ramp or canburgler
• In 2016 (and 2013) a flip out defensive wall could make a huge difference.

Each of these examples were used in competition with great success (I could link to some, but given the "ethical" controversy surrounding cheesecake I won't). When the withholding allowance is removed, I can't see why more teams won't do the same.

That said, cheesecake limits are a separate issue from Bag/Witholding, and should be addressed with separate rules. The GDC tried to put in some rules last year, but they probably went too far. I think it's possible to strike the right balance with something like a separate weight limit, but that's a different conversation.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Great read, thanks for posting!

Minor stats comment: Fig (5) is a little concerning because each curve represents a different population of teams, so it isn't a very clear way to show the trend of increasing performance as teams have attended more and more events. It is unclear to what degree teams from the left-hand side are moving rightwards as they attend more events or if most of those teams simply aren't included in the next curve. While it can be surmised by looking at the right-hand bounds of the distributions there are some performance increases, the graph would more directly support your point if a single population of teams (perhaps the 304 that competed at 4 events or the 765 that competed at 3) were tracked across their multiple events instead.

Edit: Please disregard the second part, I had misinterpreted the next figure :)

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

That was fantastic. The paper did an excellent job of pointing out the flaws with the current system and proposing new changes to rectify some of those. I think many teams would benefit from a weekly 8 hours of unbag time and I would love to see FIRST make this change. Thanks for writing this, Jim!

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Isn't this what is shown in the following Fig 6?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Jim,
It is really neat to see these thoughts put into a cohesive piece. I know you have been working on and off on this for at least since 2010 talking about ideas and discussing possible formats.

I am a big advocate of the "transition" method. One piece missing from Jim's paper is the propensity of procrastination from some teams. If you have a stop build day, it sets a deadline and the procrastinators will miss that. If you get rid of stop build, the procrastinators will just procrastinate until the event, which can be incredibly detrimental to the week of their first competition.
The "transition" model of a stop build, but weekly test/train/tune/repair sessions give teams some development experience without completing loosing a lot of the intended meaning from the stop build.

As long as there is a stop build day and some limit to access, teams with the drive and resources will continue to build a second robot. Even with no more bag day, many of the highest performers will still build two robots so that one can be used for programming team, and one for training/testing.

My only ask out of this would be that every team get that every week. Please do not give 6 hours for competition unbag week vs. 8 hours for "other" weeks as that would get very confusing.

8 hours each week will be very beneficial though will be a bit of B&T nightmare. If FRC keeps the 2 hour blocks, that would be 4 sessions per week by 6 regional weeks or an additional 24 potential sessions not including displays. We may want to re-think the tag portion of the B&T.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

To answer: Fig(5) is this graph:

Each population of teams is a subset of the previous group.
3114 teams played this year, they all played at least one event (Blue)
Of these teams, 1928 teams played at least 2 events (Red)
Of these teams, 765 teams played at least 3 events (Green)
Of these teams, 304 teams played at least 4 events (Orange)
Of these teams, 58 teams played 5 or more events (Black)
The chart shows the progression of skill improvement by the population with each consecutive event played.

This trend is basically the same every year, regardless of the game, the only change is the magnitude of the vertical axis, which is a function of the annual game design and how many points are available to be scored.

To see the trend more clearly, the dotted black line in Fig (6) shows how the averages of each of these group subsets increases through the season.


So, in a nutshell, if you choose to play late, odds are there are more experienced teams in the house who have progressed in skill while you have been waiting.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

It's interesting to see the 4 event teams every so slightly above the 5 event teams in events 1-3. Does this hold for prior years? Would you think it is a function of event spacing (4 event team plays weeks 2, 4 and 6 and champ while 5 event team plays weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and champs) while the game is learned, or teams in districts more likely to be a 4 event team?

I like your suggestion for unbag time for each week, I hope it gets implemented for next season.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

#Zondag4President

I really like the points people are making about withholding rules and B & T with the 8 hr time limit. Seems like Dr. Joe might have a point about just ripping the band aid off quickly and doing away with all of it. :rolleyes:

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The teams that are playing 4 and five event are likely influenced by being mostly district teams progressing to worlds or well funded regional teams. In either case likely high performing teams. It seems that would skew the graphs.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Jim,
Thanks for the analysis and interim proposal. I submitted the following comment in the survey since it seemed to lean toward an all-or-nothing approach.

You left out the option of out-of-bag time between competitions. At a minimum, we need time to practice and do some maintenance. Modifications and upgrades could still be done at competitions.

My hope was to lessen tendencies for teams to join the arms race by not eliminating regional withholding rules. Stop-build-day or something like it is still a good schedule milestone. Extra time and the hard stop of competition day will not make people better time managers.

In my opinion, teams will see most performance gains through practice and small improvements. Performing well with your existing robot will hopefully help with team retention.

Now we need a decent place for teams to practice…

David

P.S. Just to be clear to the other readers, I voted for no bagging requirements. It may simply be too large of a culture shock for FIRST. However, the teams need some type of relief. What other “sport” does not allow practice between events? "Sport for the Mind?"

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

+1

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The Average Joes built a practice robot this year, because we knew (from our last two years) that the way to be competitive* is to practice. More access to our competition robot would have been a better solution.

IMHO, the issues of robot access and cheesecake can be separated. The motivation to offer or accept cheesecake is more dependent on game design.

I'm with Jim, Andy and Dr. Joe on robot access. How will we get there? I like Jim's proposal as a first step.

-------
*Like the way to Carnegie Hall, or the Olympics, or MIT.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

So I am curious. If you had no bag and tag would you still build a practice bot?

Actually for the entire CD would you still build a practice bot if there was no bag and tag? I just am curious in which way the community is leaning (especially from some of the powerhouse teams)

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

We'd likely make one practice bot instead of two.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Yes. For the following reasons:

1. The practice robot usually often serves as a "beta edition" of the competition robot. Developing one helps you catch issues that can be entirely circumvented in a clean manner on the competition robot.
2. There's only room for so many hands on a robot at one time. Having a practice robot allows for software and mechanical development to happen in parallel. Even with a true 16 week build season, there would still be time crunches where having to development platforms would be an asset.
3. Wear and tear. Our competition robot is usually at the end of its life span by the end of Championship. Our practice robot always in much worse shape than the competition robot. I can't imagine putting that many hours of drive time into one robot.

This probably doesn't apply for most teams. But for a team who has the resources to comfortably complete two robots, it's easy for me to see why they would continue to do so, even with the potential abandonment of the bag.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

orrrrrrrrrr get rid of 120lb weight limit so parts can be designed for infinite fatigue life and still be viable? :P

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Thanks Karthik,

You nailed exactly the reasons I stated in the survey on why we build a practice bot. We are very lucky that we have the resources to support building two robots. I know we have at least broached the thought about building three but we cannot justify this even though our programmers would love it.

As for us, we would most definitely continue building practice bots. I know that for us to maximize student involvement is to build two robots, many of our students are brought up to speed on building the practice bot. As a second reason, like industry (at least aerospace) we usually deliver an Engineering model that provides the same functionality to wring out the bugs through qualification testing. We do try to keep the students learning the engineering process typically with design reviews etc. (we are trying to teach something too!)

With the removal of bag day, I can see it being a very difficult decision for teams that are on the edge of capability on whether or not to build a practice bot. As cited above just having one adds dramatic value and in my opinion adds significantly to the overall competitiveness of the team.

I see removing bag day dramatically helping teams that have low resources upgrade their single bot, yet I still see an even tougher decision for those teams that are on the cusp. Basically in the end I still think a practice bot will be required at the upper echelons of play.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Great working gathering and presenting this data. It was really an eye opening read in many ways.

However, I am given pause by some of the leaps taken when discussing the presented statistics in this paper. As engineers, I think we've all heard the oft repeated phrase "Correlation does not equal causation." There are some pretty dramatic leaps taken in the analysis of points 3 and 5 that ignore a host of other factors.

On point 3, to me Fig(2) isn't as clear as the proceeding paragraph claims it to be. The highest portions of the lost teams curve correspond with the high portions of the 2015 teams OPR distribution. That is to say, the most teams are lost from the OPR brackets that have the most teams total. That is obviously to be expected. Admittedly the skew shifts between the two plots, but I would like to see the actual loss ratios for each bucket rather than just raw totals.

Further still, while it's obvious from the tails of the plots that extremely poor performers are more likely to fail than extremely strong performers, there are a plethora of factors that could potentially explain that, rather than the teams failing because of their poor performance. Are these poor performing teams particularly inexperienced, underfunded, under resourced, or under mentored? FiM clearly has some degree of feedback on this, but the dynamic and culture of FiM varies greatly when compared to the rest of FRC given the levels of state sponsorship and funding. If FIRST HQ has similar surveying of teams lost to attrition, I would be very eager to see it. Given the other potential stressor on team retention among these extremely poor performers, I would be very cautious about making any leaps that a stronger on-field performance would result in them surviving to future seasons.

On point 5, I would like to echo the previous concern voiced by Greg Woelki. Each population in point 5 is a subset of the previous, but not a uniform sampling of the previous population. By removing 1-event teams from the 2nd even population, you're narrowing the sample to the teams that had the resources to compete twice and introducing a selection bias. There are even stronger selection biases with multiple event teams once you start factoring in teams that attended their district championships and/or FRC championship.

This selection bias is demonstrated in fig(6). Teams playing 1 event have a lower OPR at their first event than teams playing 2 events. That suggests that teams capable of competing multiple times are already at a higher level than those without the resources to compete multiple times. The upwards trends of all five groupings does mitigates the concerns of the selection bias to an extent, as it shows repeated plays do in fact help teams improve their performance, but the raw totals of the average OPRs mirror much of what is argued in point 6 (the better performing teams are already better and remain better). The average of the "Teams Playing 2" sample fails to reach the "Teams Playing 3" sample's beginning of season OPR, even after their 2nd event.

Most of all, both figures in point 3 are arguing that teams with more plays improve as the season progresses. There is a distinct difference between more plays (competition matches) and purely more robot access. While more competitions does mean more access, it also means a plethora of other factors, namely driver experience and competition field access. It's hard to say if more robot access alone would achieve the same levels of positive trends (or even if the gaps that already exist in point 6 could potentially be increased further). I'd be willing to wager that access to competition fields is a huge resource and a giant factor in the improved performance of teams that get repeat plays. I'd also argue that fig(6) even suggests this, as the steepest positive slopes in all four repeated play samples is between event 1 and event 2 (as teams get to test their robot on a real field for the first time).

Do not take this post to be a criticism of the concepts proposed in this paper or the elimination of bag day. Neither of those issues I have formed a strong opinion on to this point, as I see very valid arguments on both sides. Also do not take this as a criticism of Jim Zondag or the paper as a whole. I love the effort and dedicated to the program Jim has and the passion put into writing such a paper with the goal of moving FRC in a direction Jim feels is best for the program.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Jim,
Thanks for all the great data analysis, tied together with great commentary! I have been a bit on the #keepthebag side, mostly from a "devil you know" philosophy. After a first quick read, I'm now squarely #onthefence, moving towards #banthebag.

Sean,
Thanks for pointing out all of the weak points I'd noticed as I read, and a couple more. Even given those, there can be no reasonable doubt that more time with hands on the robot and more drive practice (not necessarily in that order) means increased ability for a team to perform game functions and be competitive.

All,
Since reading about the poll this morning, I've been pondering the question of whether we'd still do a second robot if there is no bag, or (later), 8 hours of access per week.

As background info: we're competing in the regional model, and this part of the country is still several years away from the team density to support districts. For the foreseeable future, we're looking at district registration and full team travel and hotel costs for a second event. We managed to binge-fund a trip to CMP in 2015, and drew in a few more sponsors, but unless we get a mentor or student with a better talent (or at least drive) to draw funding, we'll probably be able to afford a second regional about the same time we transition to districts.

At 8 hours per week, we would probably expand our Saturday build (currently six hours) to eight or nine, and do a single unbagging each week where we did fabrication, drive practice, pit crew practice, and robot upgrades in a rush, and used our much shorter weekday evening schedules for planning, CADding, and working with a practice robot that we would definitely still build.
At 20-168 hours of unbag per week, the question becomes a bit murkier, but I still think we would do two robots. Two robots are already part of our pre-bag processes (swapping robots off between project groups, including chassis, manipulators, programming, and drive team), so unless we lose a significant amount of resources (which could be money, facilities, mentors, or students), we would probably tweak the second robot processes, but not cancel them.
The thing that excites me about a protracted unbagging each week is the possibility of a scrimmage. Currently, teams who do not build a second robot cannot even think about competing at a scrimmage, so there is no point in doing it in our area; I believe we are one of a very few. With an 8-hour unbagging window each week, I could definitely see enough teams to support a 3-6 hour scrimmage every week or two between "initial bag" and Bayou Regional, if we can identify a facility and carpet large enough to host the event.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Agreed. I'd like to suggest a new multi-panel figure that shows the event-over-event OPR distribution separately for each population segment. So FigNa would be the 1st and 2nd event curves for 2-event teams, Nb is 3 curves for 3-event teams, etc. It may also help to normalize the y-axis by percentage of given population, and I'm sure there are ways to improve this suggestion with better cross-comparison. Still, it seems like we're making a big leap that we have (well, Jim has) the data to fill.

I'll also echo the desire for loss ratios by OPR bucket for Figure 2. The probably has a lot of noise, though, and if it's possible the case would likely be stronger by normalizing the OPRs and aggregating multiple years. I don't know what your database looks like though, so this might be a pain.

I think there's also a way to address the questions that arise with Figure 6, but I'm not sure what it is yet. There should be a way to directly handle the relative difference in OPR between the populations versus the changes in each over time (demonstrating the salience of each factor). Similar to what Sean mentioned, for 2- versus 3-event teams, the fact that you are a 3-event team appears to be almost as useful if not more so than actually playing your third event--I would guess largely because you're a team that's going to qualify for DCMP based on your prior performance (or CMP). This is not to dismiss the paper's Point 5 that the figure is supporting, but the data is interesting.

Overall, I think this case could benefit from talking more about the dataset. In OPR progression, how many DCMP and CMP performances are in Figure 5's green 3rd event line versus just being a 3rd "normal" (district or regional) event? Is there enough data from "normal" 3rd events to look at this directly, or do we have another proxy adjustment available? Dropping teams that didn't qualify for DCMP is certainly going to shift the OPR distribution regardless of play number.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

All,

I may have missed this point in the great number of thoughtful responses: If the B&T is modified, what impacts/advantages can be realized for the competition season schedule?

Just Wonderin'

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Not to get too off topic but interesting point

How do you plan to carry the robot to the field?

Source

FIRST already pushes this limit since we are usually lifting from the ground and load capacity is generally reduced to about 80-90% during a two person lift since the weight isn't exactly split by 50% at all times.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

First off, Jim thank you for putting this together, it's an excellent read.

The middle ground proposal is a very good step in the right direction. The only thing it doesn't easily allow for is teams to hold scrimmages on weekends when they aren't competing. In this proposal it is still advantageous to compete more often during the season. This becomes less of a problem once all areas are in districts as competing additional times is less expensive and you are already competing more often. For teams that are not in a district system I could see how having more than 8 hours of ROBOT ACCESS time would be needed to get the full benefits of what a practice bot currently allows.

At that point we are just changing a single variable, I do strongly agree with the plan in general.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

This is actually where my confusion came in as to how this would interact with the current District Access Period, because the point of districts getting extra time is to offset the additional day regionals get.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Perhaps with this proposal Regional Events could start their matches after lunch on Thursday, allowing more time for more matches.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Someone just made that suggestion in the other thread. We can do that, provided that we get a district schedule as far as load-in/inspection. That is, we start load-in/inspection at 5 PM Wednesday, practice Thursday morning, and pray that enough refs make it by noon to start.

Sound reasonable?

Now do that with a 40-team regional. You're only adding another half-day of matches, so that regional now gets about 16 matches/team, more than any district, before elims. What was that about district events giving more plays than a regional? (Or else you add massive downtime/slow cycles.) Oh, you don't like that part of it. So you're going to have two regional schedules, one for large and one for small. How confusing will that be?


Remember, Thursday from noon to 6 is practice matches at regionals. And some teams can't even make their last scheduled match (or the filler line) and have to come to the field later to connect robot to field. In order to speed that up to be from 9 to noon or so, the regionals are going to need extra inspection time on Wednesday evening, particularly large early-season regionals.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Yes, because regions are already doing that right now.

16 matches for $5000 still comes out behind districts offering up 24 at the same price. Regionals follow the same schedule template handed down to them from Manchester, but without any cap to a regional outside of physical space in the venue, very few regionals are exactly alike.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I also want to add that while I do not speak for Collin, I believe he is a former FRC Team Advocate at FIRST HQ and the current president of IndianaFIRST. I imagine he would like whatever we can try out to improve the team experience.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

In 2016, around 64% of Regional teams only attended one event. 16 Qual Matches at a Regional where around 2/3 of the teams there will only compete on that weekend sounds pretty great!

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Your Wednesday "inspection" at a regional is "Here's the green tag saying you can open the bag tomorrow morning, be safe setting up your pit". (Or you get the dreaded "red tag": See the LRI to clear the lockup form, withholding, or other "oops".) Same as the Thursday "early load".

Districts are doing inspection on load-in night. Champs is doing inspection at uncrate. Regionals? Sign form, check withholding and bag integrity, and make sure that no work is done on the robot.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I occasionally use the word "region" to describe an area in district events. Regionals are independent of a region.

Let me amend: events in FIRST at a size equivalent to a regional already do what you have described.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

And no (actual) regionals do that. I'm sure the teams could adjust (well... MOST of the teams, I can think of a few that are probably not going to catch the change easily), and the volunteers can probably adjust. Assuming that FIRST decided to make such a change.


BTW, just as a thought: If the context is going to make it confusing to use "region", such as above, it may be worth it to use a different term, as "region" can make some people think you're misspelling "regional". Just for the sake of clear communications. I often use "district area" to describe an area that runs district events, myself.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

-snip-

I mistook that "Page 2 of 5" for "Page 5 of 5." Please disregard.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I oppose the elimination of Stop Build Day for two reasons:

1) One of the many benefits of FRC that I have touted is that kids are given a nearly impossible deadline of six weeks in which a robot must be envisioned, prototyped, built, tested and made ready for competition. "Nearly impossible" is the deadline that most often exists in real life. It's good practice.

2) From the perspective of a small, underfunded rural school team, eliminating the Stop Build Day would be one more way of favoring the larger, better funded urban teams:

2a) Our team has only a handful of mentors, and all are actively employed. Some have to take vacation time in order to attend after-school work sessions or to participate in weekday events. Further, when the competition season finally ends, we have to spend the next several months catching up with our personal and professional lives. Extending the build season would make it nearly impossible for us to ever catch up. We would lose mentors.

Similarly, students at our school are more often than not involved in multiple sports, drama, Business Professionals of America (BPA) and other activities - because there isn't enough kids to go around. They too do not need more time commitment.

2b) The larger, urban teams, with ready access to large corporate sponsorship already have an advantage by virtue of funding and resources. We drool at many of the machines we see, all CAD-designed and with parts cut by sponsors' waterjets. Larger teams can accomplish more in a day than can small teams - even without the funding & technology gaps.

Yet, smaller teams can still compete today - despite the "head start" the larger teams have - because their advantage is held to a specific period of time. If the amount of build days is extended any more, FRC might as well plan on an "elite" team-only competition - the gap between elites and the rest of the field would become so wide that smaller teams would have little hope of successfully competing.

__________________

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I understand a lot of the points you have here and empathize with the struggles your team has from this position. But I just wanted to chime in at this part. It isn't true.

Your suggestion is that, on each given day, a "have not" team accomplishes X units of work while a "have" team accomplishes Y, where Y is greater than X (let's say, 2X). To you, the short build season means that you'll have 45*X hours, and they'll have 45*2X hours, and that the relative difference gets greater the longer the build season goes. But this isn't what's happening

In fact, right now, teams can get as much development time as they want, not just the six week build season. The catch is, they need to build a copy of their $3500 robot, and sink in roughly double the build time in the season, in order to do it. The time and financial luxury needed to do this is something that is certainly out of reach for a lot of the "have-nots" of FRC (at least, not without lots of hard work and dedicated, experienced leaders). Only a subset of FRC has this additional time available to them. Not all of them choose to use it, but many do.

So what's actually happening is, the have not teams have 45 days to work, and the have teams have over 100 days to work. This is a huge disparity, and right now, the have not teams have to work extremely hard to bring themselves up to a financial and time commitment level to get those extra days. All ending Stop Build Day would do, is to open this extended work window to every team. The powerhouse teams have to put in less work to get their 100 days, that's true - but the teams that couldn't do it at all suddenly have that option, and it results in a great improvement in quality and competitiveness if teams choose to use it.

Now, if no matter what, your team just can't build for more than 45 days a year, that's fine. Just don't build after some day. Teams across all the different levels of funding and competitiveness take varying amounts of time on and off depending on their needs. But should we stop the teams that want to continue working, but are stuck behind the $3500 wall between them and a practice robot?

If I could wave a magic wand and make it so that robots were built for 45 days, without any decrease in quality, and everyone got to take a break afterward, that would be really appealing. But we need to understand, that's not what's happening now, and we kind of have a worst of all worlds situation here.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I have in fact. I have taken over ten years to consider my own perspective on the inevitable death of stop build day. I think Jim's paper does a great job of explaining all of the ways the system is currently broken and the compromised solution he lays out is more than acceptable to me. Your response did not lay out a structured argument to refute his claims but yet runs contrary to them, which is why I asked the question that I did. It wasn't meant as an insult though I see now how it could have been misconstrued as one.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The reality is this: Teams who have the means to do so will work up until the last minute possible every time. These teams will likely be more competitive than those who stop working before the competition. That is a fact of life.

All eliminating stop build does is provide teams who didn't previously have the means to keep working up until the last minute possible the means to do so. This will not require anyone work more than they want to, but instead gives them the *choice* to do so, a choice many would not have otherwise. The top teams are still going to be the top teams. It may move some lower end teams up, but at the end of the day a non-top team isn't going to fare any worse on their own than they would have with stop build. This does not make it worse for teams who don't want to work more, it only opens up the opportunity to do so to teams who didn't have that opportunity before.

And before someone says "if we don't work more we'll get left behind while everyone else gets better", congrats, that's part of life. This is a competition. If you don't care about being competitive, great. Good for you. You don't need to work any longer than you'd like to. If your argument is that you won't have the means to work longer, but you still wanna be competitive, join FTC. Or VEX. Or any other competition. FRC isn't the end-all be-all best robotics program for everyone, but it is a program with a lot of potential for those who are willing and able to put in the work. The program shouldn't be limited just because of a few who would benefit more by being in another program.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I beg to disagree.
*FRC* is a competition.
*FIRST* includes a competition (FRC).


There may be methods to pursue the FIRST mission that do not include a competition.
However, the method FRC chose does include a competition.
It's in the name.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Another point of view would be that a discussion that doesn't include the competition's place in the bigger picture, is a discussion likely to include mistakes.

The post I replied to appeared to tell someone introducing a bit of the bigger picture, that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

I think we can be confident FIRST HQ has an eye on the bigger picture that includes FIRST's primary mission, *and* on the health of the important competition that supports that primary mission.

Why not ensure both are emphasized in this conversation? I'm guessing that FIRST HQ and CD will find the result more persuasive than they would otherwise.

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Wouldn't extending build season to include several more weekends be to your benefit? I won't pretend to know how your team operates, but I can tell you about our experience last season. Virtually all of our mentors work in the Silicon Valley tech industry, have to commute to the school for robotics, and a growing number of us are starting families - we know all about the time commitments that mentors face.

After years of 7 day weeks and long nights, 254 finally switched to a time-boxed* evening and weekend schedule last season, and as far as I'm concerned there's no turning back. It gives students time to do homework, mentors days off to work and be with family, and everyone the precious sleep they need. When we made this switch, we realized how ~40% of the time we were spending at build while exhausted and frustrated was wasted, and that a more spread-out schedule allows everyone to catch their breath, parts to arrive, and work sessions to be more focused.

Things were a lot better this season, but there's still room for improvement.

* the final week before competition is always an exception...

I've participated in FRC for more than half my life on a couple of teams, as a student and as a mentor. The years where I was most disciplined about how much time I spent through the season were the most rewarding for me, for the students, and were reflected in the on- and off-field successes of the team. I know it's easy to get pot committed and suddenly end up in your build space every afternoon, but you gotta stay disciplined. It's a lot more sustainable to not fall behind than it is to have to play catch up. Many of the restrictions of stop-build day make this harder than it needs to be.

Since you've pretty well established that you are near the "5" end of the survey spectrum, I was wondering: What do you think of the proposal that all teams receive a limited (~4-6 hour) unbagging window during each week of the competition season?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The argument that every team should be like 254 is weak...
Hubris is blinding.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The conscious decision to restrict your own build schedule and to practice discipline with meeting times is advice that works for all levels of teams. 2791 started doing this in 2013, just as they became a consistently competitive team, and it has been a huge benefit for the team and all of its members.

I agree with your point in general, that often teams don't have a good picture of other team's situations when giving advice, but I genuinely think reducing meeting times and being strategic about it is actually in the long term a competitive advantage and a great piece of advice for all levels. Team member burnout is a constraint and resource to manage, just like any other.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

The hubris is making the assumption that other teams haven't already thought of and dealt with this. Every team has already decided how they are going to schedule their meeting times.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I have to disagree that every team has dealt with this. We've been doing yearly FRC workshops in NC for a while now. One of the perennial topics among mentors is always build season schedules. There are a lot of teams that want to optimize what they are doing in this area and it is a continuing area of interest. I'm not going to say what Jared has laid out above for 254 is the perfect example or that it works for everyone but the topic is relevant for a large number of teams and it seems like there are a lot that haven't figured it out yet based on the discussions that I've heard yearly now for the past 5 or 6 years.

Somewhat related, we're cutting back our hours this year as well due to burnout and exhaustion. It's not a huge cut but it will give the students and mentors some of their weekend hours back.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I think the point over mentor burnout is a big point that Jim's paper kind of ignored but semi-addressed with the 8 hour open bag time per week; which is something I think I'd support.

The one thing I was unclear on is what is the purpose behind FIRST considering this? Is it because the stop build is almost artificial anyway because of how many teams have a second robot and/or use a ton of time with the weight withholding? If that's the driving force behind it then I think Jim's solution is pretty solid.

I feel like if it's to increase competitiveness of the events then it's probably not the right solution. I think the solution needs to be two-fold. First, somehow as a community we need to find a solution to improve competitiveness of the lower to mid-tier teams that struggle (maybe a strong eMentoring program or something). Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams). But, I don't see the point penalizing the historically successful teams without doing something to improve the struggling teams; because that'll just lower the overall quality of the events.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

I would assume most people who want to keep the bag beleve the latter is more stressful?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

This is an interesting observation. All I know is that 9 women can have a baby in a month. ;)

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

We are inspired to do this after conversations with you guys and 1678. We were so burnt out by week 4. We started making a lot of mistakes in the final 2 weeks that really hurt our season. We made a prototype drivetrain in 2 days early in season but after getting burnt out it took us over 5 days to finish the competition drivetrain. Getting feedback from you guys during the season was really helpful to for us to see our schedule was not the best for our students. some students had a tough time keeping up with school.

After doing this for the past 4 years, Code Orange has done the "7 days a week." We are moving to 4 days a week too. We think this will help our students have more time to stay focused on school and keep the meetings more fun.

I noticed a lot of top teams are making this switch.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

There's a couple of disagreements, I think.
--More often over shorter time, or less often over longer time? (Assumes the same number of meetings, or very close.)
--More meetings over more time, or same meetings over same time? (Assumes that teams maintain current schedule and simply move crunch time later.)

I would suspect that the disconnect is this: Teams that want to keep the bag are likely to assume that the SECOND part is the key. Teams that want to ditch the bag are likely to assume the FIRST part is the key. Basically, number of meetings vs time available to have 'em.


Having two different classifications for teams is pretty much an automatic nonstarter. Bring the floor up, not the ceiling down. If you are going to have two different classifications, have completely separate competitions.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I've seen a lot more concerns around the following points.
- More time available will drive more time to meet increasing total commitment.
- Open build allows all teams to continue iterating. You will need to do the same to remain competitive.
- Open build will provide more opportunities for design convergence.

Either way you look at it, FRC is a huge time commitment. Change is never easy. Fear of the unknown is common.

I've reflected on this debate and how it would impact me. Commitment to this program is a personal decision. In my case, it would probably drive some extra meeting time to iterate. But oddly, I believe it would reduce my stress. I'd rather spend my time improving, repairing, and practicing with one robot than trying to maintain two.

David

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Where did I make this argument? I do not think this, and did not say this.

Of course every team has a schedule, and has presumably put considerable thought into it...thought that all assumes a six-week open-access build season because that is the system we currently have. Changing this underlying assumption permits some (not all) teams to find new solutions and make new trade offs between what they put into and get out of the program.

I expected neither "Have-you-tried-not-making-mentors-burn-out" nor "I-find-it's-preferable-not-to-burn-out-if-you-can-help-it" to be particularly novel ideas that this team had never thought of. Rather, I had hoped to foster a reply to understand why these might not be on the table, even with an extended build season. I want to better understand differing viewpoints on this and (in particular) what attitudes would be towards some sort of middle ground.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

And that's about what I was thinking but I tend to consider the above three to be non-issues in the grand scheme of things.

Edit: And good point at the end. I wonder how many more people in a similar situation would be saved the stress.

1 - More time available will drive more time to meet increasing total commitment.

This can be solved by simply committing to a set amount of involvement before the season and sticking to it, which a lot of us do already. It's a problem created or subverted by personal choice and that won't change without the bag.

2 - Open build allows all teams to continue iterating. You will need to do the same to remain competitive.

Great! More time for learning with the robot.

And if you don't want that...

You could decide that whatever level you can obtain by meeting on a bag&tag like schedule is good enough for you. I know that doesn't sound great but people often debate the overall importance of on field performance, and any given team can decide that for themselves. You can also back load your build meetings to see what is working and what isn't before you start finalizing things.

3- Open build will provide more opportunities for design convergence.

I don't see a major problem with this in the first place even if it turned out to be common, and it wouldn't be common. There are few teams that can competently pull off major copies of robots. They would need to be very well organized and disciplined to basically start their whole process in week 5 or later just to build a verbatim copy of another robot. They would probably end up with just as good a robot if they came up with their own ideas.

The other scenario that a team would pull a complete remake ignores the fact that a team capable of such a feat would probably not need to copy anyone.

Any more minor design convergence seems either unimportant and virtually unavoidable anyway. There are only so many effective ways to accomplish a given task in FRC with the current hardware constraints. Most teams are going to be more concerned with doing what they are most comfortable with rather than attempting to copy someone.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Actually, this finally went to FIRST official and around the world. They have the survey online now, discussing the pros and cons of Stop Build Day. I honestly don't think that they will get rid of it, nor do I think that they should, but they might be extending it another week or two, which could be a hail mary for a lot of teams.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Did FIRST say they are considering this specifically?

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

I expect you are talking about the survey which had the results posted in this blog. The blog states there will be no changes for 2017.

Re: paper: Stop the Stop Build
 

Are you speculating or did you hear that info somewhere? There's no chance they are considering extending it a week or two. Would require starting build before New Year's (not happening) or extending champs into AP testing (not happening).