Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Yes, I know "Start Build Day" is actually called Kickoff.

This is an idea that's been kicking around in my head for a while. I had intended to create a post during the "Eliminate Stop Build Day" discussions that had occurred recently, but never got around to making a post that said what I wanted to say in the way I wanted to say it. Inspired in part by this thread, I invite a full blown discussion of when the new game should be revealed and what teams should be allowed to do prior to the game reveal.


Much of the discussion revolving around the elimination of stop build day revolves around giving teams more access to their machines. Why is stop build day the only artificial date being examined? There's also an artificial start date. Should teams be allowed to use components they fabricated or designed prior to kickoff? Should the game be revealed earlier in the school year?

One of the parallels often drawn in other discussions were to the lack of Stop Build Day in FTC and VRC. However, these programs also have differing views of Kickoff (both from FRC and one another). Both programs have more than six weeks between game reveal and the initial qualifying events (and for some teams, massively more than that). Both programs have a much much larger window between game reveal and the conclusion of the competition season (in the case of VRC, the next game is revealed during the Championship event, meaning there's an active game 365 days of the year). Perhaps someone with a better nuts and bolts knowledge of these programs can offer perspectives on their rules allowing reuse of parts or designs.


So, is January the ideal time for kickoff? Can team experiences and/or performance be improved by adjusting the kickoff date? By relaxing the kickoff requirements?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Solely looking into the time period in which Kickoff is, no, January is not an ideal time for Start Build Day. However, eliminating start build day wouldn't be beneficial in my eyes, rather moving it later into the year (maybe March or April time period).

By January, many high school students are just getting back from Winter break and are just getting back into the flow of school. Because of this, the work load seems much greater than any other time throughout the year. This is because students got a taste of a break from school, meaning they need to get "re-calibrated" (I know, bad term for it) for school in general.

Having kickoff this same time, with the added stress of getting back into the flow of school, is kind of a detriment in my eyes.

Moving it to later in the year, I think students would be more into the flow of things and would enjoy it better rather than thinking of it as un-needed extra work.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Personally, I hate the fact that start build date is in January. Because of this, my team typically miss around a full week of build season due to snow and School cancellations. I really would like the idea of moving stop build day to December and having started earlier, probably in early October. This would make it easier for teams to have a robot built and bagged before break and then start competitions In either late January or early February.

Just an idea I had

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

It is an interesting idea Sean. I actually thought about it while involved in several of the long "eliminate stop build day" discussions. I have a couple of thoughts. My first is that in my experience January is actually generally a good time for the build season to start, as least if you are going to have any kind of limited time frame. I think that you would make a lot of parents really unhappy if build season were extended over the break. Not to mention the spouses and other family members of a lot of mentors. That would probably not be a consideration if there were something more like year round building.

I also think that January tends to be one of the lowest stress times of the year. Admittedly for some schools exams happen in the first or second week of January, so for them the stress level is high then drops way down. We used to be like this, and it usually was the case that the first week of build was exam week. But as soon as building really ramped up we were starting a new term and work loads were lower.

I think my first reaction is pretty much the same as my reaction to getting rid of stop build day. Our team would adapt and continue to compete. We would lose a lot of team members, and have a much smaller team, and not have as many mentors. We have lots of kids who run cross country, are in the band, run track, play lacrosse, do the spring musical, etc... Those kids give up their lives to robotics in the winter, but a lot of them would not give up everything else in order to just do robotics. We would lose some mentors (probably me included) to the increased time commitment. We actually do things pretty much year round, like most teams. But if we were building the competition robot year round it would mean a different kind of commitment. There would no doubt be some kids who would willingly do robotics practice every day. They would probably produce some really cool devices and robots. But this would be more/better stuff produced by fewer people. And frankly a lot of them the ones who least need the inspiration in order to pursue STEM careers.

I can also see some real positives for some teams. If you have a small team at a big school, you are more likely to have kids who are not as involved in other stuff. You can probably be a lot more relaxed about building the robot. Although I think that over time a "keeping up with the Joneses" effect would push teams into ever more work. Even so you would give teams some incentive to really push the envelope because the consequences of failure are much less harsh when you have more time to bounce back.

As with the discussion on getting rid of Stop Build Day, I still kind of think that most of the positives can be achieved by practice and aren't necessarily lost because you keep the limited season.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

At this point, I feel like FRC has settled into its current time frame. Any earlier and you run into winter break. Any later and you risk making venue scheduling even worse, as well as encroaching upon pre-existing offseason events, AP tests, etc.

I can't really say kickoff is "artificial" in the way Stop Build might be for some teams, especially since the rule right now is you can't use anything made/developed before kickoff unless it is publicly available. Mess with that rule too much, and I fear we will get the same complaints as we do with Stop Build, that high resource teams will be getting that much more time than other teams.

Additionally, one could argue that the reason FTC and VRC have such significantly longer seasons is because they are meant to be less intense than FRC. Part of the appeal of a "six week build", even considering the time available after Stop Build, is the idea of having such a limited amount of time for the challenges FRC offers.

As far as Kickoff goes, I don't see altering that as necessary. I feel like the culture of publicizing pre-kickoff resources, and how that can be expanded, would be much more useful to look at.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I think that it would be really difficult to secure competition venues in January or February. Most of these competitions take place in college or high school basketball venues. That are almost never going to unused for long enough to host FRC events.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I think kickoff is at a good time - I don't want it prior to the end of year holidays - that period is a guaranteed 1-2 weeks off school for students, and the week or two prior to that everyone is checked out (based on my experience growing up). And going before December... We're working with some big, dangerous tools building these robots, and it takes some time to get the rookies comfortable using them safely.

As for allowing materials constructed before build... I am seriously conflicted with that. On the one hand, many teams don't really meet before build, so they would gain nothing - and these are likely some of the teams that need the most help. The high resource teams could save some money doing this, but I don't think it would really change what they could field. Where this would have the biggest impact is the mid-tier teams- those that meet in the fall and/or summer, can build reasonably complex mechanisms, but don't have the organization to get something CAD'd and reproduced quickly during the season.

Personally, I would rather focus on changes that could raise the floor, rather than those that (i think) would raise the middle and leave the floor even worse off.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I'm pretty convinced you're trolling with this and I say that because you ask the following questions which are obviously slanted in one direction:

It's hardly the only date that's been talked about. Just the one that's mostly talked about on CD. I know I've had some conversations about start build day with people from FIRST (specifically one of the game designers) as well as with other mentors in the community, particularly those who mentor FLL and FTC teams internationally. The conclusion has always been it's harder to move the start time because of the number of levers and knobs that need to be adjusted to make it happen. Stop build on the other hand... that's not all that hard to get rid of... just remove the bags and ties.

Teams can already use components designed prior to kickoff and many of them do, not to mention code re-use. You know this... I know you know this, I've seen you comment in design threads.

Now, that being said, I'm totally down with ditching start build day or moving it earlier in the preceding year or moving the entire FRC season to be better suited to more schools, particularly European schools. There is a reason we don't see a lot of Euro FRC teams and it has to do with scheduling from the handful (admittedly a small number) of folks I've talked to about it.

I think this fits with the FRC goals of expanding access to more teams and all that jazz.

The one caveat is that the game needs to be "fully baked" before being released... or at least as fully baked as they are currently. FRC HQ would need to re-vamp their schedule to make that happen and that is no small feat. Yet again pointing to removing stop build day as the more easily removed artificial barrier.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

For sake of argument, let's assume the game is announced on the first Saturday after Labor Day, and competitions occurred the same weeks they currently do. In 2017, this would add 17 weeks to the current 6-1/2 (stop build) to 16 week (St. Louis CMP) schedule. At first blush, this nearly quadruples the time for low resource (but non-rookie) teams which really do stop on stop build day, and only doubles the time for the powerhouse teams. However, as the calendar bottleneck is relaxed, the limitations of dollars and build hours become more important. There are doubtless a few mid-high teams with plenty of mentors and dollars that would make great hay on this, but most low to mid resource teams would likely have enough difficulty with mentors or dollars or both, that it would be a very limited set of teams which could do much better than double their effort at fielding a competitive robot, and a significant number which could not increase that much.

Making essentially the whole scholastic year build+competition season would also make it much more difficult for teams to do as much community service/outreach and recruiting.

Edit: reading things posted since I started, let me say that yes, we have a number of robotics members who play fall sports who would no longer be able to be "full" members of the team. I should also note here that while I am usually not the only mentor at most of our events during the summer and early fall, I am the only one who is at most of our events during this period; many of our mentors disappear, and most greatly reduce their time involvement for six to eight or even nine months.

Bottom line: While I am uncertain as to whether getting rid of bag day will equalize things or increase disparity, I am rather inclined to believe that moving the start of season forward will increase the overall disparity between low and high resource teams.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

i think we should eliminate build season b/c its not about the robot just my opinion tho no flaming please be gp

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Yeah, if we didn't have robots then we could concentrate on all that outreach stuff! Payne4Pres!

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

As a Michigan mentor of FTC and FRC, this would be very rough. It is nice that up through FTC States (Super Regionals is a different matter), FTC and FRC do not overlap in Michigan, letting me separate the two build+competition seasons. If they overlapped, I probably couldn't do both.

Now one thing that strikes me about "things built before kickoff", is 3D printed parts. Many of them are small utility items where it seems a little silly to have to make new each year (unless there is a loophole in the rules I've neglected). Because they are a product that is as close to just a simple manifestation of a (for sake of argument) publicly available CAD file, should that count?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Let's look at this from an "overall" perspective. I'm going to assume that there are exactly three options for Kickoff (earlier, later, and status quo), and exactly two for Stop Build (6 weeks, or none AKA final event). I'm also going to make some assumptions about what the events do, because that's a piece of the puzzle. Minimum available build time is assumed at 6 weeks--no less.

So...
Kickoff later. All right, regardless of what Stop Build does, the events have to shift for this one. You get maybe one week before that shift happens, and one week does roughly nothing. If events shift, CMP hits AP testing. Well... Ouch. If we shift further, the events hit AP testing, which may be easier to work around (or not!), but CMP starts hitting the end of some school years. This would be great (you don't have to take off school to compete at CMP) except that a number of students won't be able to participate due to school requirements (varies by school, but there are schools with that sort of policy). Best bet: really nasty hurdles any way you look at it, so probably not going to happen.

Status quo... well, aren't we talking about changing that? I think we all know what happens here.

Kickoff earlier. This gets really interesting depending on the Stop Build policy and when the events schedule.

Option 1: Kickoff at CMP/early summer. This option, on a 6-week schedule, is ludicrous--unless you start having events in the fall. Gotta do a much later stop build, if at all. And then you get the "what about the offseasons" question, and the whole summer break... At the same time, I think I could see this one being plausible, if the events were moved up about 3 weeks. (To be noted: this option will give teams an incentive to stay together all year. Teams that do that tend to do pretty well compared to the "6-week" teams.)*

Option 2: Kickoff at the beginning of the school year/late summer. Plausible--but bear in mind that some teams are barely starting to re-gather. If a 6-week schedule is run, it'll basically be the returning vets doing everything and spring will become training time prior to the events. Most plausible scenario would be an October Kickoff for a 6-week; naturally if stop build was eliminated there'd be some fudge factor. Again, events would probably need some fudge factor but that can be dealt with.

Option 3: Kickoff in November/December. All I'll say on this one is that many teams will be shut down for weeks (under threat of permanent shutdown by parental protest to school administration), so 6-week schedule is toast. 8-10 weeks if there is a limit. Otherwise, much the same as before. I could see this one working out IFF the stop build went out by about 3 weeks (length of build), with no events until March, or there wasn't a stop-build.

Overall... given the scheduling issues for a later Kickoff, Kickoff would have to be earlier, which opens a pretty good can o' worms, either in storing the robots for long time periods or in allowing work over a major school break. Moving events earlier as well could help, but would cut down on the number of offseason events (cheaper than official, and great for training). I'd have to say that for now, keeping the status quo is actually the best option, pending further research and discussion.

*Option 1 actually lends itself to an alternative scenario, which could work with smaller robots but not at this scale: 3 competitions/year. New game announced at each Championship, or one random "old game", limited build, shorter competition season. At the FRC scale, that ain't happenin'.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Eric - I had thought about moving kickoff all the way up to Champs... But I don't like it for four reasons.

First, you have that impulse for graduating seniors to start the robot and then go to college and not see the project through all the way. I don't know about the rest of you, but having one of the people that knows whats going on disappear like that mid-project can be devastating, on both sides!

Second, you have the incoming rookies that have no time to get trained - which means their rookie year they get to basically watch a robot get built, then trained in during whatever gaps they can to be able to build the following year. Sure, you might say "well, they still get 3 years of building!"... but I know schools that run 10-12 already, where no one is on the team for more than 3 years, and schools that run a JV program using FTC or another program, again limiting how long people are on the FRC team.

Third, while teams do go year-round, the lower intensity of the summer/fall allows students to pursue other interests. As much as we all love FRC, it really is important to be a well-rounded individual and the off-season gives kids that opportunity. I can't even begin to count the number of students my team would lose if they had to pick between the team and soccer, softball, volleyball, cross country, swimming... even as it is, we lose some very promising students to winter sports (we had one freshman try the team out in the fall but ultimately not join due to conflicts with competitive skiing... and she already had a patent for a device she designed to help with arthritis, and that device was going through clinical trials, too!).

Fourth, it's not all about the robot. Many teams just don't have the numbers to be able to pursue outreach while building a robot - it's one or the other. The off-season provides a time for so much outreach to happen, I would hate to give that up.

Personally, I would rather push competition back to after AP tests than move kickoff forward. That gives you more time with the robot, and with a lot of competitions happening after school lets out you take kids out of class less. There is the problem with some schools limiting graduating senior involvement that would have to be addressed though... Is anyone on here at a school like that? I'd love to see us bring that to a school administration as a hypothetical to see how we could work around it best.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I think you have a lot of good points here, and I'm generally a fan of the January to May competition model we've been doing. But I think implicit in these points in particular is the assumption that an FRC build season spread out over a year would remain as busy, intense, and generally the same as one condensed into six weeks, and that just can't be true.

With incoming rookies, they actually do get time to get trained with a dramatically longer build season. Untrained rookies are pushed to the side during the real build season because of the pressures of the time crunch and the need to get it right the first time. Neither of these persist with a 9 month build season. It's okay to let rookies build something very slowly or to let rookies make mistakes, especially in the first several months of build. It would actually be much easier to incorporate training for many teams that don't do anything in the pre-season.

With regards to "can only do outreach or the robot, not both", I think that too is a function of the intensity and focus required by the six week build period. Teams put their outreach on hold because of the limited time and energy they have. All of their spare effort needs to go to getting the robot done and perfect. The removal of this time crunch would not prevent these teams from doing outreach and more slowly working on the robot at the same time. The same is true for the "frc kids have lives and want to do other stuff" argument - if kids are only available sometimes during those 9 months, they can still contribute when they can and back off when they have other stuff to do. The continuous commitment isn't as required and you don't have to shut out everyone involved in winter sports.

I'm not sold on the year round model like Vex does, for many reasons, but I see some of the benefits and how a lot of the drain and pressure of the FRC season is completely artificial.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

This is 100% not "trolling." While this thread was obviously meant as a parallel to Stop Build Day discussions, it is meant to be legitimately discussed. That's not to say I 100% support removing Kickoff, but I think discussing it is at least as worthwhile as discussions focused on removed Stop Build Day. More to the point, I hope that discussions regarding this topic can end up highlighting someone of the implicit assumptions being made in all of these discussions.

As for design re-use, it's allowed only for designs that have been released publically. Same as with robot code. Qualifying what counts as a design and the enforcement of using previous designs is entirely unenforceable. Highlighting that issue was partially aimed at showing that kickoff is already a bit of a soft start date, similar (but not to the same extent) to bag day being a soft stop.

However, there is currently a hard and fast rule regarding fabrication and construction prior to kickoff. In some cases, to the point of lunacy. If you follow the rules to the letter, you're not allowed to use a COTS component that you've previously assembled. You're technically not allowed to re-use the Talon SRs that you crimped connectors onto the year prior or a wheel you already riveted a tread to. Rules like that can cause budget teams to have to spend additional money on and devote resources to items like gearboxes, speed controllers, camera gimbles, wheels, etc.

How many high end teams do you see using a drivebase design that's not optimized to the game? I think it's obvious there's a contingent of teams that use kit drivetrains with little (or no) adjustments for the current challenge, and that many of those teams could benefit from having more time to build and test their chassis, drivetrain, and electronics without taking time away from their manipulator efforts.


This is one of the cruxes of the debate. Is the "high intensity" an integral portion of the FRC experience? Could removing the "high intensity" build allow for better integration of FRC into students and mentors lives? Could FRC be integrated right into school curriculum if it wasn't a 6-13 week sprint? Would removing the "high intensity" decrease the value to participants? How much more time has to be added to the build season to make it lower intensity? Is adjusting stop build day enough? Would it have to be a year round activity?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Wrong.

And with that, I'm out of this thread. I still think you're trolling with this. If you had wanted a reasoned discussion then why not frame it as "Is the FRC calendar optimized for FIRST's stated goals?" instead of "let's eliminate start build day".

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

A number of questions have been raised in my mind by the different perspectives shared in the thread.

I think that advancing Kick Off to mid or late September would better address the issues (at least as I inferred them from the survey) than would eliminating Stop Build Day.

While I am "retired" as a mentor, I can state that I would have embraced the change.

I agree that it would facilitate training and inspiration. I don't think that it would necessarily inhibit outreach. I don't think that it would raise the ceiling very much. I do think that it could raise the floor and be a positive impact on "mid-tier" teams.

I think that it would enable participation (and therefore, inspiration) of a broader base of students, assuming teams were willing to deal with variable participation rates due to other activities and interests.

It would be a very different model.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Folks,

Would anyone disagree with the broad statement that a dramatically longer build season is likely to increase FRC teams' appetite for cash (to use experimenting with and/or improving the robot(s) they build)?

I understand that rush-shipping costs might generally drop (so long as good ideas are scarce near the end of the new build period). However, I suspect that in a dramatically longer build season, that reduction would be more than offset by the extra parts an evolving robot would consume.

For that reason, I think a dramatically earlier start date would put cash-poor teams at a greater disadvantage than the current season does.

I am assuming that human nature will result in most teams using a dramatically longer build season to put more labor-hours and more design iterations into their robot.

If I'm right, the increased hunger for cash would be one "Con" to remember.

Blake

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I think the biggest thing we can do is better claify rule R13

Many people have missed the addition of D. which allows you to reuse all COTS electrical devices where you just modified the wires for use on the robot by adding connectors.

Also the interpretation of that rule varies from team to team. I have met several teams that think if you buy a 4'x8' sheet of Lexan during the 2015 season and cut a section out for use that year then you can not use any part of that sheet in 2016. This is an extreme strict constructionist view of that rule that I don't agree with but because of the limited explanation in the rules several teams view it that way.

Similarly if you are a strict constructionist on what it means to modify a COTS parts, things like adding lubricant to a gear or a small amount of normal wear would be considered modified and that part would be unable to be used on any future robot.

The above portion of the manual is very important and often overlooked by some teams. We have to be able to judge weather or not the modification to a COTS parts were made to "advance the part towards it's final form on the robot."

Clearing up these portions of the manual will help several teams who have been spending more money then they need to ensure they have pristine new parts and stock to use for each season.

More specifically to this subject, I think it could be useful to allow some previously constructed components to go on to future robots. However what we don't want to see is a team just reenter the same robot year after year and just change out a few mechanisms.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I am all in favor of allowing teams to use parts that were fabricated prior to kickoff.

In a world where you can buy so many FRC-specific COTS parts and assemblies, the current rule just discourages teams from developing their own stuff. For example, why build your own gearbox (that you designed/published during the off-season) when you can free up so much valuable build-season time by just buying one?

If we can buy a complete chassis or use the kit chassis, why can't we use one (or spare components from one) that we build for a previous game?

In most cases, I think that re-using assemblies from previous games is more of a hindrance than a benefit, but why not give us the option?

PS: I support ending bag day, but not moving up kickoff. That would put FRC into conflict with too many other things in my life, etc.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

So I'm on my 7th team in 13 years. I have a new job and I got my company to sponsor a team. We ended up working with a team that previously operated January-April only and now we are doing things differently.

So whats different. We have a team that previously operated from January to April, not much structure a lot of chaos, but they still got a robot built at a high level. We've been meeting as a full team every Tuesday and we have other student run meetings going on daily. Additionally we've grown from 20 students/2 teachers to 35 students/2 teachers/2 parents/7 mentors.

1) We are building a full blown off season robot now (that will be easy to use for demos/fundraising). Deadline for this to be completed is 11/30.

2) We are establishing a Booster Club/501(c)3 so we can fundraise money and grow parent involvement.

3) We are addressing the team's chronic issue of programming. They've struggled with it in the past and now we have a structured programming curriculum. Its not solved entirely, but expect us to be auto targeting come December.

It may seem trivial, but we are very much moving right now like it is build season. We are managing to difficult deadlines but everyone is onboard and making it happen. Expectations for the build season are raising, but we know we have a ton of work ahead of us to make it happen.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

If I have to spend an inkling of Christmas break (Thanksgiving->New Years) on robotics in order to remain competitive in FRC, I'm out. I do things with the team during that time, but it's more training, managing the non-profit, and team building than anything.

I'm also of the opinion that people who build things before they know what they're building for are fooling themselves if they believe they'll be competitive with teams who are able to build on a much shorter timeframe after knowing what to build. It's like saying "design a car in 1 year" vs "design a car that is THE BEST at fuel economy in 6 months".

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

As a long time VEX mentor let me chime in here some. The VEX season is 365 and 1/2 days long, since they announce the game 1/2 way through the VEX championship. Lots of teams are on the new game the next day, the VEX forum is on full blast for the rest of April and the first part of May.

Once summer hits in the US, not many teams are working on things. We have a VEX summer camp in July for a week to give teams a chance to look / touch the game elements.

Most US teams start up in mid September and really start building. First events start appearing in Nov / Dec, with a bulk of them in Jan / Feb. Last World Qualification event happens 5.5 weeks before Worlds to allow teams to make plans.

In other countries, like New Zealand, they build in their winter (June, July, August) and have their world qualification events done by the end of February. for what it's worth, NZ runs about 25 events in a season, and 100 teams go to their country championships. They put the "competition" in competition robotics. :)

My teams (12 of them now in Delaware) meet about 2 hours a week with a 4 hour Saturday session before the first event and again before states (it's like our Bag and Tag frenzy). So there less time involved per week, but there are more weeks. I estimate that the roboteers do about 80-100 hours of build and compete in 3 events. (As an FYI, I clock about ~700 hours in a year doing robotics, still far less than what Koko Ed does)

Because of the spread of events (first event late May, last event early March) there is a convergence of designs. Last game (tossing balls into a basket/net) converged on wheeled shooters and punchers. So you don't see the full diversity of design like you do for FRC.

Pros to the VEX
-- Longer build means some flexibility in the schedule, a long chunk of bad weather isn't a big deal.
-- I'm home for dinner at least 3 nights a week during the busy part (Jan-April)
-- Trips to Worlds come with 5 weeks of lead time
-- For teams that want to do the outreach, build season isn't crushing them.
-- We co-exist with sports since we span many sport seasons

Cons
-- There is always a robot thing going on
-- Convergent designs

Neither
-- There is always a last min frenzy to complete the robot :(

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

A "re-use" allowance would be a good addition that helps out mid and lower resource teams the most.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Great suggestion!
I'm also in the camp that if FRC Start Build Day moved up much earlier such as September/October as others may have suggested, this would be my last season in FIRST.
Some people have a life....one outside of FIRST.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

For the sake of inquiry, how many of those claiming they would quit FRC if Kickoff was moved up would quite FRC if Stop Bag Day is moved back? Is it purely the holiday concerns that drive your reasoning? Or is it general burnout? Do you feel FRC would be an equal time commitment as a September-April program as it is currently?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I think the difference is that build time would simply extend into competition season when most teams are still fairly active whereas moving kickoff back would extend the FRC season entirely. Something I could see happening way way into the future might be two separate FRC seasons but for now I also agree that extending the total time period of FRC is a bad move.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I wouldnt participate in a sept-april program primarily because that would mean all of the pre-planning would take place during the summer. My guess is that you would lose a lot of teachers who arent willing to do that.
While many such as ourselves come in during the summers to prepare many of the same things, we do it at our own relaxed pace vs. an intensified one.

Many schools do not start at the same time. There would be a huge disparity/advantage for some teams and not others. We started our school year the week after IRI. I know of many schools who dont start school until after Labor Day weekend.

The biggest hurdle would be student preparation. Do we really want to throw a kid into build season right when school starts, especially new students?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I'm not quite clear on what "eliminating" Kickoff entails, unless it is supposed to mean moving it earlier in the year.

I may very well be misunderstanding your point here, but isn't it that, in the current state of things, any team has the same opportunity to experiment with non-kitbot drive trains because they'd all have to start over after Kickoff?


Is it integral? I would say so. If we're going to dub FRC "the sport for the mind", I would hope there is a fair bit of intensity to it. While we do have to caution ourselves against burning out, I believe intensity is part of the challenge, and for some, part of the fun.


Additionally, there likely is a split between low tier teams who don't have enough time to build effective robots for which a longer season would help, and low tier teams who simply do not know how to build effective robots for which no amount of extra time will help them significantly improve.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I don't disagree that FRC's volunteers and semi-volunteers are affected strongly by FRC's annual rhythms, but an observation is that ...

If FRC wishes to continue to grow globally (along with trying to saturate North America), finding ways to continue to be attractive regardless of any given community's school calendar is only going to become more important.

As you point out, in just the USA, plenty of variation exists, such as instances of year-round public schools, or different Fall start dates.

And then when you think globally, the number of student calendars (and holidays, and testing schedules, and ...) really explodes.

You have the north/south hemisphere differences, and oh-so-many cultural differences.

My magic wand is broken, so I'm imagining that some current FRC schedule eggs are going to be broken when FRC makes their future omelets.

Blake

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Do you really anticipate that a Sept-April program would be the same intensity as our January-April program? What about a 365 day a year program? Can planning, preparation, and training of students still not happen in the same fall time period, even if there's a game announced? If anything, I'd echo some of the earlier posts hypothesizing it may actually be good for younger students to be able to get their hands dirty on a competition robot in a more relaxed pace. It's far less crippling if a new student makes a mistake and you have 4 months left to fix it rather than 4 weeks. It would also allow for more teams to get their fabrication and prototyping students up to speed while still having time to design a robot before they start cutting metal.

I think it's obvious that our current structure results in a very high demand, sometimes burnout inducing, pace for the 6 weeks of build season. For some teams, that can spill over into competition season. Adjusting stop build date opens the potential for that burnout to adjust up or down for many teams, but ultimately building a 120lb machine in either 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 10 weeks is still going to be a high stress, high intensity task. If we're serious about giving teams more access to their machines, but also don't want to burn people out, exploring the possibility of moving the start of the season to the left (either by adjusting kickoff date or relaxing "don't touch" requirements) may actually create the possibility of a season with less burnout. Removing bag day likely doesn't create a low stress pace by itself, but perhaps adding another 12 or 16 weeks on the front end might.

You do bring up some good points regarding teacher perspectives. We've seen similar splits among teachers regarding stop build day. Since you're also involved in VRC, how do you feel about the 365 day schedule of that competition and its interactions with your profession?

The "eliminating" verbage was designed to parallel the verbage being used in stop bag day discussions. Practically, we're discussing both the potential movement of the Kickoff date (up until perhaps the point a 365 day schedule, in which the next game is revealed at championship), as well as the relaxation and adjustment of the rules governing what can be done before kickoff.


As it stands currently, teams are not allowed to use components fabricated prior to kickoff. I'm suggested we consider relaxing those rules. In a situation where those rules were relaxed to the point teams could fabricate their kitbot chassis prior to kickoff, I think that would benefit low-to-mildly successful teams more than it would high performing teams. Top tier competitive teams would be unlikely to invest substantially in designing and fabricating a chassis (or other system) for a game they do not yet know, as they want an optimized solution for the challenge. Lower performing teams often already employ sub-optimal solutions, so effectively allowing them a head start would allow them to focus more on optimization and game piece manipulation after the game is revealed. I'm also sure that high performing teams would find ways the relaxed rules could help their design and fabrication process (such as moving menial fabrication jobs on items like wheels or gussets ahead of the game reveal).



Does the intensity have to come in the form of a 6 or 13 week sprint? Could it come in terms of final rushes up to competition dates or other deadlines? Could it come at competition itself?

I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, as it's definitely a valid one. Some people relish the burn of competition season. However, there are others that are kept away because of it, and I think it's worth examining if we're at the ideal point.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

It would be "interesting" to relax the pre-build rules.

As a refresher, the current rules are, in a nutshell:
Code, CAD, and other similar "soft" products have to either be publicly available or done post-Kickoff. "Hard" products for the robot, in general, can't be in final form, or significantly towards final form (frames, etc.), before Kickoff, with some exceptions for electronics with connectors attached and similar items. The enforcement is the captain and mentor signature on the inspection form with "We followed all the rules."

In shorter form, you can have all the planning done before Kickoff, if it's public, but you can't cut metal or use unmodified nonpublic code or CAD.


So let's do a thought exercise in what would happen if some tweaks were made. Just for kicks and giggles, we'll assume no official "start build" time is given, but that KIT robots, if used, ship in early December. We'll also assume that the Kickoff doesn't move (for this one--I think we can draw conclusions that are applicable to if it does).

Non-public software and CAD usage: Basically, removing the "make it public" restriction. Frankly... Bad idea. The current rule actually increases the quantity of available resources at the start of the season. Removing that rule will allow "proprietary" items to stay "proprietary". Now, some folks will disagree that that's a bad thing, it'll more closely reflect the real world. But I would posit that being able to learn from the work posted is going to be better for the students in the long run.

Pre-build "hard" products: I could easily see a LOT of teams going kitbot here--the chance to build that before Kickoff could be big. Actually, you can almost do that now... except that you'll need to disassemble it at least partway afterwards and rebuild it. Wait, you need to do that for sizing anyway, if I'm not mistaken.

Here's the biggest trap with allowing "hard" products to be pre-built, and I'm willing to bet that a few teams walk into it. With no game to design for, teams don't know if they'll be able to use preseason robot X without modification. It's a gamble.

I could see that being a bit of an equalizer.

Personally... I would take a middle route. COTS items may be assembled, and/or put together as a robot, prior to season, and used in that configuration or in any other configuration. (Kitbot, AM chassis, Versa-everything--you get the idea.) I would probably include a couple of "allowable modification" rules as well, related to length trimming and hole-drilling and similar items. All must be accounted for on the BOM if they're on the robot. Verification would be the BOM and possibly a photo from before Kickoff. CUSTOM items must be built after Kickoff (whenever that happens to be). "Soft" products need to be public before Kickoff (if there is one).

Thus, a team could play with drive system X in the preseason, and use the exact same physical drive in the season, if it was COTS, or if "non-allowable" modifications were made after Kickoff. But if it was customized before Kickoff, it would need to be built again or at the very least heavily modified (great chance for the team to make necessary modifications for the game, just a thought).

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Quick point of order: Are you allowed to machine custom parts before kickoff made from CAD drawings and prints that you have made COTS by widely publishing in public spaces? Is it COTS then? I've never done this just wondered about it.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I'm approaching the point where I may have to step away from FIRST just because of the other demands on my life. (I do a lot more than just robotics).

Personally, I would like to see a hard step in the other direction--keep kickoff, and keep stop build day, eliminate the withholding allowance and forbid the use of practice robots--but extend the build season by one, maybe two weeks.

If FRC starts to take up any more of the 600-700 hours I already spend on it every year, I'm going to have to step away.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Personally I believe that banning the use of practice robots is one of the most ludicrous idea's that I have ever heard proposed as a solution. I get that many teams don't have the resources to build one, and that it gives and "unfair" advantage to the teams that do. But the building and use of practice robots has done more for the develop of level of competition in FIRST than anything else. Second why should we punish the teams who take the time energy and effort to get more resources in order to develop a superior product. If you don't like it, then do something about it on your own team.

I'm in favor of leaving kickoff where it is. Students get a much needed break before the start of build season from school and bringing forward the date of kick off to somewhere in Nov/Dec will only extend the students stress from the end of the first semester, through build season, into the start of the second semester. However, I am in favor of allowing teams to use fabricated parts made before kick off because in reality they would have no idea what the game would be, or what the restrictions on size would need to be. The option would be to just make say a bunch of different launchers and arms and other manipulators and hope that one may work. Doing this comes with an inherent risk/reward that allowing teams to make would be interesting to see.

Where I see the use of fabricated parts being allowed to be used to greatest effect is in drive chassis. Many mid to mid-high teams develop and experiment with new chassis during the off season that they are contemplation using during the build season. Having the ability to use, say for example a custom designed swerve module that you made in house, custom built chassis pieces or even full chassis with electronics boards could be extremely useful as it creates a more realistic performance test bed for scaled prototypes. Allowing teams to further develop their concepts, thus making FIRST more competitive.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

You also "can't" ban practice robots, because what is a practice robot? I challenge anyone to write a rule that rigorously prevents the creation and use of practice robots, without either being so broad it bans all sorts of normal activities, or being so narrow that any number of legal exceptions to the rule exist.

In general, changes that make FRC teams perform worse aren't a good idea.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Some folks might be able to make a strong case for the idea that time spent building a practice bot could be better invested demystifying building fun LEGO/VEXIQ bots for new students who don't know how much fun STEM careers can be.

Other folks might make a strong case for the idea that having a practice bot helps teams improve their on-the-field win record, and helps teams put on demos, etc.; and that investing in both of those things will help them attract students who don't know how much fun STEM careers can be.

In either case FIRST hopes the teams invest their time and resources well; and are able to nudge their community cultures in a good direction.

Switching from practice bots back to build seasons ... As you and other posters rightly imply, adjusting the build season is a complex topic. Some folks' musings and suggestions strike other folks as ludicrous. One person's what-if suggestion is another person's troll.

Figuring out what changes, if any, would strengthen FIRST's ability to carry out its primary and related mission(s) is a tough, multi-dimensional nut to crack, especially in an online discussion thread.

Blake

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

This thread contains some opinions that I found useful when thinking about all sides of the ways-to-alter-build-season and motivations-to-do-it conversations. I suppose what is in it could be used to bolster arguments advanced by just about anyone who takes a stand on the subject(s). For me that speaks volumes about those conversations.

Maybe a good takeaway from that thread and from some of the posts in this thread is that out of the constellation of possible changes, any change should be made cautiously, after a full exploration of the entire problem space.

Managing Grades and Responsibilities While On A FIRST Team
PS: Jane Young started the thread back in May of 2007. As recently as Jan of 2016 someone found the topic pertinent enough to contribute to the thread.

Blake

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

There, invalidated the primary benefit of practice bots and all iteration of systems while still allowing functionally identical replacement of parts and minor geometric tweaks and still allowing at event changes.

For the record - I think this is a stupid idea.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Mechanical iteration and drive practice are still allowed, so I expect it would not stop anyone from building a practice robot. Even if they had to throw out and rewrite any code they worked on at home.

Keep going!

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

If I can rephrase the question:

Can you make something "COTS" just by publishing the design information about it?
No. COTS items are defined in the 2016 game manual as being standard parts that are available by sale (i.e. money must change hands) from VENDORS. There is a list of 5 qualification criteria for an entity to be considered a VENDOR. Just publishing the design information about something does not make it COTS.

Are FABRICATED ITEMS treated any differently w/r/t the schedule rules if they are functionally equivalent to COTS parts?
No.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

As far as I can tell, a literal reading of the 2016 rules does not permit COTS items (that are not electrical components) that were "created before Kickoff" from being used! The rule that creates the fabrication schedule restriction is R13:

I skimmed the rules a few times and actually cannot find the rule anywhere that permits COTS items created before Kickoff. That has to be a rule somewhere, right?

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

As others have mentioned whether or not pre-fabricated parts should be allowed, this would be a big positive step if this was allowed.
Why not? Its not like anyone knows the game yet.

I see no harm in pre-fabricating a drivetrain before build season, and then utilizing it if they choose so when the game is announced.
We are already allowing a 40lb allowance during competitions. If not then, how about 40lbs of pre-fab parts too? No difference here.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

If you read "created" in R13 as "fabricated" then COTS items are OK. Given that it's the first rule in the section entitled Fabrication Schedule, and the blue box clarifies that this rule refers to FABRICATED ITEMS. As other clear exceptions, you are also explicitly allowed to use KoP items and FIRST Choice items which were obviously manufactured before Kickoff. Maybe worth a Q&A in January, but not worth losing any sleep over before then.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

We build them, so it's not about the money.

The thing I don't like is the never-ending time drain that FIRST has become since the withholding allowance became reality. Unless the thing I need to "do about" "on my own team" is squeezing more time per year out of the spacetime continuum, your response is missing my point by a great deal.

Cheers.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I like this, it allows teams to invest more in internal fabrication, students have more time to learn to make parts and those parts could be used in season.

It also opens up opportunities for teams to help out other teams when their fab shop has a lighter load. Last year, we really only opened our shop to other teams with broaching hexs.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Oh, the the mechanical iteration is simple - Any parts not manufactured during BUILD SEASON or at THE EVENT are not allowed to be used.

The drive practice - not sure you can mandate that to teams.



And I also still think this is a terrible line of thought.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I with you on this.
One of the biggest deterrent to kids joining our program is time commitment. There is already a LOT of it.
This goes for mentors as well. With suggestions to increase build season time being discussed here, I'm not so sure I can find mentors that will decide they can continue if I ask even MORE time from them.

I guess its all relative. Its what we are used to and asking more time to commit to build will and can become the new norm.
Just not sure if I can personally.

I hope my 2nd grade daughter wants to do robotics i.e. vex iq in the next few years.:rolleyes:

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

And the enforcement would need to be photos/videos taken on Stop Build, available to inspectors. Whooo boy. That's going to be tough.

Oh, and the signatures.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

Welcome to The 2018 FIRST Robotics Competition: Bureaucracy Bash!

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I don't see how high school students are at any time unable to participate in robotics due to a high school workload.
I went to a relatively high ranked public school and I'll say that not once did I feel overwhelmed by the amount of work I was expected to do alongside robotics. I'm not a special case either, many of my friends felt the same. We all had ample time to participate in robotics, study, and play plenty of video games :yikes:

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

You didn't happen to have any school-related or school-organized activities other than robotics, did you? You know, like sports/band?

See, if you're only in robotics, you have that time. If not... you have multiple activities trying to take that time away. Something will eventually have to give--and it'll be either sleep, sanity, or schedule. And my money is that either all three give in that order, or that schedule gives first and saves the other two.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I can second this. I can't even begin to describe the struggle it is to keep kids involved in the fall when they're doing swimming, cross country, volleyball, or other activities, or how tough it is in the spring when they leave the team for softball, golf, or whatever else.

Some schools have 2000 students, and when you consider that many activities have limited space, that space goes towards the students who dedicate themselves to that activity. I can certainly understand how, in that situation, many of the students on a team wouldn't have any other activities to compete during the rest of the year.

But other schools are smaller. Much smaller. The one I work with is in the 300-400 range. At that size, just about every student is involved in multiple activities. Thinking back over the past few years, I can think of only one of our captain's that didn't also have another activity in the off-season (and in some cases, were captains for those activities as well). And these are some of the most dedicated students we've had.

The smaller the school, the more hats every student wears. I won't say it's a bad thing (exploring more activities is rather a good thing, I think)... but it does mean that you need to be careful about overlapping activities. Stretching FIRST across even more sports seasons would force some of these students to make a choice, which I don't think is something we really want to do.

Re: Eliminating "Start Build Day"
 

I started a vex team summer of 2015 and I actually really rather liked the year round schedule.

The main reason was that it didn't have too be year round. My students met once a week starting a month after school ended, and ending at our last event. It was refreshingly relaxing to just... teach robotics.

Many teams affiliated with schools however start with the school year, and that works for them too. The year round system lets you make your own build season tailored for your resources.

I still don't know if I would want such a thing for FRC though. One of the big draws for me as a student was the intensity of it. I enjoyed having my life revolve around it for a short period of time and then going back to other things. I'm sure there are others that prefer the opposite end of the spectrum.