Who Builds your Bot?
 

ok so i have started the where do you build your bot thread, i am now starting the 2nd part to that thread, who builds your bot? Is it the students, the mentors, mixed, or do you send it out to be built?

~Mike

Ill start this one off also, our team members, the students do about 90% of the work, with the mentors doing some of the more advanced work that has the students helping with that also or watching on to learn.

~Mike

who builds your bot?
 

Our team is mixed, with students doing most of the work. The students design the about 90% of the robot as well as built the machine. The students also do all of the pit work. For those teams that were at UCF we were the team that was always in the pit fixing the transmission.

The design is 95% student done. We come up with the concepts and do the inventor drawings and the calculations. The students even look up parts to be ordered. The work is 98% student done. And when I say work I mean cutting, drilling, machining, assembling, maintainance, you name it. The only parts on our robot that were not student done were the 8 welds and 2 CNC parts.

Our bot is enirely student-built. And i mean every single aspect was done by students, we actually had no engineers.

In the past it was all the students. (When we won Nationals) But this year we had mostly freshman so only about five members were experienced so the mentors were basically teaching this year.

Our bot is mostly student built as well. The design is our own and so is the construction for the most part, although we had our welding done elsewhere. The girls who come down to the basement shop pretty much everyday until 6 (like me) take on projects of their own often times working with different bot components, and our mentors offer guidance with our projects and introduce us to the advanced work. Two of our mentors our engineers, two others are parents (although their kids arent on the team any more), and the third is a teacher.

build robots? who, where, when?

We are almost completely student built. We have adults that keep us doing things right, but arent as hands on. We do have one engineer who do get his hands in the mess tho.

Here is some more reading for you.

And to answer the question, ours is a mix. It completely depends on how much each student wants to build. I'd say maybe 2 or 3 "die hard" students did most of the work, while most others kinda sat around and talked and laughed and watched.

Stephen

Miss Daisy, 100% Student Built
 

Team 341 (Miss Daisy) was 100% student designed, built, and programmed. (Autonomous Gyro Program)

We have about 12 students on our construction/pit crew and 5 teachers with technical backgrounds.

The teachers provide advice and machine training, then we get the heck out of the way!!!


Best of luck to everyone in the off-season!

Yeah. This year, there's been a _lot_ of engineer 'input' on the robot. :( Some of our engineers have been involved in FIRST for 7 years...they know what is going on too well. We also have a lack of motivation in the students it seems...but that may very well be because there's not a whole lot for the kids to do. I'd really like to see some major changes in our team, but I don't want to upset our engineers to the point that they leave.

Personally, I could point out 2 pieces I built on our robot. That's it for this year. :/

Our robot was, is, and always will be 100% student built. This includes design, construction, and programming. Engineers/mentors are there to make sure we don't hurt ourselves and to answer any questions we may have. They do not impose themselves or their ideas upon us. What makes them great is that they realize that this is the students' robot.

My team is sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Platteville and since the shop is at the university, the college students help out with a good portion of the robot, but the the ideas are usually from the high schoolers and college students.

Design done 100% by students + 2 parents.
Built done 100% by students + 2 parents.
Driven 100% by a freshman.

No Bull.

We do it the way it was supposed to be.

hm.
 

Back in my day, our robot was somewhere at 40/60 built favoring the teacher. Maybe 30/70 design. I don't see how a robot can be built entirely by students though. Well, if it was just a drive and a program maybe, but a full multifunction robot, in my opinion, has to have some engineering input. I've seen some stuff now in college that I can relate to the robots from high school that wasn't near my level of understanding in high school, but maybe stuff that in depth isn't really a necessity in FIRST. Are 90% student built robots any good?

we built the entire bot ourselves, and when the parents tried to help, we got all protective and they never even got close ;)

Re: hm.
 

1089 not only had a good robot, it was amazing. I was there off and on during the first few weeks of build season. They managed to have a 90/10 student built robot, favoring the students. The 10 was an incredibly helpful and supportive parent who owned the bikeshop they worked in.

Of course I am biased towards their robot, so I'll let the fact that they were the ONLY rookies in the JNJ regional semi-finals stick out for it.

Do not underestimate the power of a dedicated student.

This was our fourth year as a team, and when we started, no one really knew what was going, since our first meeting was just after the kickoff. Sooo, a lot of the work was done by the high school seniors while the college advisors did what they could to help. We have gotten to the point where the college students prompt ideas but only help when we are completely stumped, which is rare. OUr hich school students know how to do soo much-- from CNCing parts to programming and other important tasks. Our team isunique in that we don't have any professional engineers. The students do an amazing amount of work to make us successful.

I think that almost every team has to have some mentor involvement. With our team I would have to say that the students have the biggest input. The students have to have the ideas and they need to make them a reality. I think that FIRST is preparing us for the rest of our lives. Like many people in the first organization have said, "Many Engineering Based Jobs Go Uu-filled Every Year". With the menors help, we are on the front of technology. Most if not all of the members from our team go on to college, and many earn first year salaries just shy of 100k. Without the mentors I believe that none of this would be possible. I think that it is good for the students to run the show, but it helps when you have professionals teaching you how to do it correctly. The mentors often help the rookies the most, and usually by the time that they are on the 2nd or 3rd year of the program then they no longer need much help from the mentors. They open the door for us, we are the one that has to walk through it.

Good Luck to everyone at the invatationals this year. See you guys at IRI

470's Policy is: If a student can do it, they do it. If a student can't do it, train them. If they can't be trained, work with them.

I would say 90%+ of all aspects of the team were student governed, designed, machined, and built. Mentors helped only with small factions of the robot itself, mostly just because the people with expertise in the area had their time enveloped in something else. There is no part on 470's bot that was "Mentor Built" everything was "Student Built" or "Student Built, Mentor Assisted"

Re: hm.
 

Our 100% student-built machine won the Galileo Division, won a regional Leadership in Control Award, and just yesterday won the PARCVI.

Not sure why this thread is started before, during and after each and every season in FIRST. If your team built the robot with students, Great. If it was entirely by engineers and the students worked with them and learned, Great. If it was a mix, Great.

The teams that boast of no mentor involvement or engineer involvement IMHO are completely missing the point of FIRST. The way I see it, FIRST is where we are all there to work together and learn. As I say every year, if you are so super excited about running milling machines, lathes, and welders, realize that maybe you are interested in a skilled trade and not engineering or science.

If I would have had an opportunity even close to this in high school way back in the early '90's (Getting old) I would have jumped on it just to be able to work with more experienced people who might know a better way to do things and find out if that was where my future lies. Every single person here both students and engineers has something left to learn. It seems many of you don't know how lucky you are to have the 'privileges' that you do in FIRST, I never had them.

I don't think we're missing the point at all.

We, the students, built a machine with our own hands and watched it win. It would not have been the same experience with a engineer-built robot, or even with an even mix. Last year's season wasn't nearly as exciting with a primarilly engineer-built design.

When our team (and most teams) boast of 100% student-built designs, we're not saying that we didn't have mentors. We aren't saying that we, and our mentors, didn't spend countless hours learning new things. We are just saying that when the time came, the final bot was built by the students.

Nor is this to say that all we did was run mills and lathes. Sure, that's what some of the students did, and wanted to do, but we also designed the entire robot from the ground up. We were even able to win a technical award at the Philly regional. Mechanical, electrical, software - all of it was student-done.

We did have mentors present during nearly all of the build season, but they mentored. They did not do the work for us. They answered our questions, showed us how to do things, and this worked spectacularly for all students involved. I think the reason that people point this out is that so many teams go the complete other way, letting adults build practically the whole robot for them. That is missing the point of FIRST.

Either way, if you had fun and learned new things, you are doing it right. And we did it right this year.

I think that you understand the aspect of FIRST perfectly. I can guarantee you that every rookie has needed help with something. The point of FIRST is to have involvement from the mentors and the students. Everyone of us were rookies at one time. I personally do the programming for my team. I am the only one on our team, thats a big responsibility especially in this game. After weeks of practice with engineers, I can just sit down and write code, as if it were a second language. I rarely need the help of the mentors any more, and that is what first is about. It is about training the future of tomorrow. What I always say, I would rather learn then win. The place doesn't matter, what matters is the knowledge learned and the fun you have while doing it.

Good Luck to everyone this year at the invitationals.

designed completely by the students
built completely by the students (welded by a freshmen)
coded entirely by students (crazy russian programer)

NO ENGIENERS to speak of this year and we won GM design award at new york regional. last time we won that was three years ago WITH engineers.

Our bot can pull a COROLA (note. no driver) and it held off two bots during a match in which we won with 193 regular points and over 200 qps.

I'd say that's what you can do with no engineers.

Hmmm, another individual who misses the point of FIRST, maybe BBIQ is the tournament you wish to compete in, entirely student built and designed.....

As for pulling a corolla, ours pulls pretty much anything on flat smooth surface, it pulls semi trucks down hills and even accelerates. Fending off robots, which ones? I doubt you could fend off Wildstang & Nachi, or Technocats & Chief Delphi to name a few...

But are they missing the point, or just seeing a different approach to the competition? For five years, we built all our robots out of the school auto shop with just a teacher to guide us. I think the students learned more that way than we would have if we were less involved in the process. However, given our added assistance from GM this year, I can say I've seen it both ways. The learning happens in different ways, but the experience is just as valuable whether you have engineers or not.

I think that arguing to the point of hurt feelings is what has really missed the point of FIRST. There will always be different approaches to performing tasks, whether it is building a robot or anything else in life. I support debates, etc. but I strongly disagree with the agressive and somewhat mean posts that have been showing up on this thread and feel that arguments amongst teams is most definitely not the point of FIRST.

I am not posting in this thread to hurt anyones feelings, quite the opposite.

No one in FIRST should be cheering or bragging that they went through the year without any engineering or technical support. They should be just the opposite, somewhat upset that they haven't fully experienced what FIRST is all about, that is to work hand in hand (Students & Mentors) with experienced people in industry. Which is exactly why I say what I do about BBIQ, if building a robot is all that concerns you, FIRST isn't the right event for that. Building a robot, machining, welding, they are all just small parts to the FIRST experience as a whole.

Why are "no engineer" teams so overly proud of this? Having no engineers does not make your team better.

Yes, you learn a lot, and do a lot on your own. But... there is only so much you can learn on your own, before someone has to TEACH you.

This is just another reincarnation of the age old "Student Built vs. Engineer Built" debate. There is NO RIGHT ANSWER. Every team does things differently. On 229, I wouldn't do things the same way Chief Delphi (47) does it, and I wouldn't do things the same way Big Red (19) does it.

One thing you should consider John:
You obviously learned a lot from this year, but did you ever think of the lessons you didn't learn because of your lack of engineers?

Something else to consider:
An amazing "engineer" bot you might recognize.


John

as I pmed to to the previous user, I am saying this to all the people that think that you don't understand FIRST as well if you don't have engineers. This is just my opinion. I feel that teams that build their own bots later down the line will have a greater appreciation for technology and want to get involved because they have built their bot completely on their own, and have a greater understanding of the technology than if they had enginneers help.

With that I bid you all a loud HOY YO! (if you were at UTC you would understand)

isn't that what FIRST is supposed to be about? FIRST stands for

For
Inspiration
in
Science
and
Technology

the way I interpret that is to get kids to want to get involved in the future.

Students design and build it, the engineers/mentors are there to guide us when we stray off the path. A great way to learn, a great way to mentor, a great way to- grow.

I think that's really the goal of FIRST, or it should be. The students should be able to design and build stuff. It's their program. The engineers should be there to teach and inspire the students.

100% student designed and built. :cool:

So when one of y'all chops your arm/finger/whatever off because you didnt have someone there teaching you how to do stuff right, will you be so proud of that? (yeah, it probably wont happen, but this is a parallel line of reasoning to the "Making mistakes on my own will be good for me in the long run" thought)

Cory

Can we get over this argument? 100% student built doesn't mean that noone else was there to help. It just means the students do the actual work. We do a fall competition called OCCRA, where the robots have to be 100% student built, but that doesn't mean everything's a disaster waiting to happen. Students can learn how to do something, then do it themselves. In my mind, that's the best way. They learn from the teachers/engineers, but they still get the personal, firsthand experience that is absolutely priceless.

I really do think we need to get over this argument. The last 10 posts or so have been "We don't have any engineers and we're better than you" followed by "Well, you're doing it all wrong then." There will always be differences in every team's methods. Let's not criticize people and tell them they're either missing the point, or what have you, just because they do something differently than you do.

I'm interested in learning how many "100% Student Design and Built" teams began the process with any sort of master plan.

That is, I'd like to see complete drawings done for their robot, the calculations necessary to prove that a design will work, and the quality of the finished product.

I don't doubt that a group of like-minded high school students could easily hack their way through a season and produce a robot that functions; maybe even well.

I am far more interested in the process they use to get there than I am in the finished product. The how is often more important than the what, and, honestly, I don't believe that many (if any) "100% student" teams have fully experienced the entire process. I doubt that they can, really.

Engineering isn't sitting in the shop at 3 am, recutting a piece of aluminum for the fourth time; all while trying to justify it with a mantra of "student built." Engineering is planning ahead and making sure that piece need only be made once.

Qualified or unqualified, trained or untrained, experienced or unexperienced, making a part again and again due to lack of sufficient planning, calculation or knowledge makes the entire process more dangerous.

I am part of a 100% student team and i feal that students are quite underestimated. I would have no problem with mentors or engineers as long as they HELP and not take over. They should be there for guidance, not to design the thing and then say "go build this". They should be there to help us with the calculations etc not to do them for us. Everyone go flame me now.

M, while I wouldn't say my team is "100% Student Designed and Built," we're pretty darn close. To say that students can't do a proper design and build process is an affront to our efforts. We spent just as much time designing, planning, cadding, and prototyping our designs as anybody. I should know; I did most of it. Yes, we had some trial-and-error. But that's what we like to call "prototyping." We make drawings on the blackboard, then do a CAD or Inventor model of how we think it should go, then make a mock-up out of something easy for us to work with. If it doesn't work, we fix it so it does, then make a new one based on our final prototype. We've found over time that sometimes, that model you drew up in CAD just doesn't quite work the same way in the "real world."

So, I ask you, what's so terribly, horribly wrong with making a part over and over again, if you're making refinements and making it work better each time? It's how the real engineering world works. Do you think GM, or Ford, or Chrysler, or anyone designs an entire car on paper, then immediately puts it into production? No, they have prototypes and concepts of all sorts. You can't expect to have a perfect finished product just based on your drawings. There is real value in real-world testing, and that's what we attempt to do every year.

Don't go knocking student-lead teams just because you think we don't get it. That's what our engineers and teachers have taught us. How to do it the right way, on our own.

Allow me to work backwards.

Bingo.

That's precisely the point. You had the help and guidance of more experienced individuals that, in time, were able to give your students more responsibility. While your engineers and teachers may not be involved in each aspect of your robot's construction, or any aspect of it, for that matter, they were there in the important stages to ensure that your processes and behavior are reflective of a safe, intelligent, thoughtful team. You're not a group of kids meddling in a basement, but a team that's earned the knowledge it needs to function self-sufficiently.

Teams without such support don't ever have the benefit of being shown "the right way." Without that benefit, they're often long in finding a method of design and production that is safe, efficient, and demonstrative of their potential, should they find such a methodology at all.

The point, to me, anyhow, is that many of the teams who're so proud of their "100% Student Designed and Built" status aren't even aware of the parts of the process they're missing. That GM and Ford don't go from design to production is exactly what teams in this situation don't often understand, as they're not being exposed to the many steps of the design process.

This often results in a shoe-horn-it philosophy that ends up being something more akin to what MacGyver might do than an engineer at GM. It means that the detailed planning necessary to build a reliable, safe, attractive functioning robot doesn't take place.

Every time someone makes a part for these robots, it's a risk, and anytime an injury might occur, it's truly a shame. If that injury could've been prevented because of better planning, better design strategy, and better methods, there's really no excuse for it to happen. "100%" teams with no engineering support are more at risk for that type of accident, and that's not something to be proud of.

Much better, M :D I was a little concerned by your previous statements, but your last post seems to fit more what I was thinking. Sorry for the misunderstanding, there.

Wait a second that is not really a problem as long as the teams are not using big dangerous tools. How baddly can you hurt yourself using a hacksaw?? The worst injury in our robotics club was did not happen during the building process. It happened as someone was testing our robot. Then again it rather was quite asinine from what I have been told.

That's the sort of attitude that leads to accidents ;)

I once put a small wood chisel through my thumb. It's not a big, giant power tool. It hurt, and it was avoidable, as I hadn't yet been instructed in the proper use of the tool.

Pretty badly... refer to my hacksaw injury in this previous thread.


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7059#post37059

Yeah but you really cannot do anything about. It happens sometimes. The only thing you can do is wear your googles, be alert, and do not fool around.

this year i was holding a peice of metal when someone was using a hacksaw and the blade broke and in to a few peices that did fly off and hit me and another person, so yes something wiht lots of sharp teath can be dangerous.

I agree

We have one engineer. The students did all the work this year the only reason the adults ever showed up was to watch us and make sure we didn't cut each other up into small little pieces when using the machining equipment. I like it this way and it was kinda funny but, we taught our engineer more then he tought us. Seeing as he was an programing engineer that updated all the software in the new f/a-22, he did not have much knowledge in any mechanical fields. We didn't have any knowledge in mechanical fields either so we learned alot of new things together. This year was probably the best experience I have ever had in my life, and it was all thanks to FIRST!

The robot was programmed by me. When I had a question about syntax, I would ask a parent who know PBasic.
The robot was designed by the team members - ideas were first drawn on paper/dry erase board, then voted on by the team, then drawn up in AutoDesk, and if necessary transferred over to FeatureCAM - for the CNC.
The robot was machined by 1 student, our team captain. He was in the shop 3 hours during school every day, and after school, he was there until 9 pm, every night.
The robot was constructed by students, 3-4 die hards - including myself. Every last screw was put in by a student.

The shop teacher was there to show us how to use the CNC. A prime example of how our robot was designed by students is when we had 1 student working on the sprocket for our tracks. He worked every day after school for a week, with the mentor by his side. But, the mentor did not tell him what to do, even though he had the answer. The student would finish a drawing, and the mentor would either nod his head in approval/disapproval.

I can safely say that our robot is 100% student blood, sweat, and tears.

Scott

Re: Who Builds your Bot?
 

thats an interesting question. I only assume most teams like ours work completely together with their mentors and students. I think most of the building is done by all of us. The mentors teach and help and supervise and we each have our indevidual assignments obviously,but i think it is and should be a complete team effort!