Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

Time for another game of which would you rather have. This is the followup to my chairman's vs. championship. If anyone even likes these poles let me know and I'll do them on a regular basis.

Let's face it, some robots are built very well and don't win, others win but are not of the highest quality.

Would you rather have a robot that looks and runs very well but does not win, or a robot that looks awful and barely runs, but still wins?

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

A quality robot may be reliable, but if it can only do one thing well, and which may become useless after say 15 seconds (ie. have good auto mode, rugged, but cannot herd balls, decap or hang) But if it could do almost everything, hang pretty well, herd balls, decap and etc, which has been proven by this year's competition, the robot breaking every so often, like a snapped cable which could be fixed under 5 minutes, would be good. If it takes over 30 minutes, and you cannot use some other features without it, I'd rather choose the quality robot...

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

In my opinion it takes a certain amount of quality to have a winning robot. If your bot isnt reliable enough to compete in every match chances are you arent going to be ranked very high even if you win every match you participate in. I think that its hard to seperate the two, if you dont build a bot with enough quality to survive the competition then you wont win anyways.
-Aaron

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

In my time in FIRST, I've built both types of robots. While we've never had one that looks awful, per se, we have had some that were definitely just basic robots that could win. Our 2002 and 2003 robots were examples of that. Neither robot had much to it; just a two-speed drive base, and lead screw driven grabber arms (2002) or wings (2003). However, we made division finalist at Nats both times, because we had a simple robot, with good drivers and good strategy.

On the other hand, our 2001 and 2004 bots went the opposite direction. Both times, we tried to do something bigger and fancier: a big, complex arm in 2001, and swerve drive in 2004. While both robots were high-quality (after some work), they were too complex to be successful.

So, in my mind... I'd rather have a winning robot, no matter what it looks like or does. You have to have a good degree of quality, or it won't win anyways, but you don't need it to be fancy, either.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

This post applies to my Philosophy, KISS Keep It Simple

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

While i do think that it takes a certain amount of quality to have a winning robot, id much rather have a quality robot then winning robot.
With our 2003 robot, although we had the most sucess ever at nationals (being 5th seed in our division) w/ that robot..it broke just about every match, even if it was jus a minor break it still took time to fix. This is b/c it was a very complex robot, more complex then it had to be b/c we went for the "jack of all trades approach".
But w/ our 2002 and 2004 robots we had fairly simple robots that were effective and didnt break. But for various reasons (including allience partners) we didnt do as well as we would have hoped. But at least i can look at those bots and be able to say w/o a doubt they wont break. And kno that i helped build a robot that worked great, did what it was designed for, and did it well.

So although id love to win a regional or division at nats, id much rather have a quality robot. Especially since luck does have a part in winning a event.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I think that one most have a quality robot in order to do well at competition. Quality is what (partially) gives a robot and it's team a reputation. Students and mentors spend numerous man hours working and perfecting their robot to run reliably, and efficiently. I believe it is crucial to have a quality robot in order to win. Yes there is a level of driver skill and luck at competitions, but these factors have nothing to do with robot design.

For example, our team has created a simple yet effective robot. During Nationals while tugging the robot back to the pits, I exclaimed, "Robot coming through! Please move!" I overheard another student saying, "That is not a robot, that is a work of art!" Yes, our primary function for the robot is to hang, and we spent those six weeks making sure that this robot becomes one of the best hangers at competition.

I can go on, but I guess it is clear that I ultimately go with a quality robot. :D

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I always like to win. I enjoy seeing really cool features and mechanisms, but if it doesn't help us win, I don't really want it on a robot.

We have one guy on our team who just LOVES fancy robot mechanisms. All the time this guy says, "hey did you see team XXX with their cool YYY feature? We should've done something like that!" At which point I usually say, "Yes, that was really cool. Very good engineering. However, how would that help us win the game?" At this point the other guy usually says something like, "uhhhhh. Hmmmm. But it was so COOL!"

Fancy mechanisms are cool and all, but I always like to ask, "how does it help us win?" Engineering is about finding the best way to accomplish an objective. The objective of this engineering test is to win the game (at least that's how I see it).

EDIT:

Perhaps I misread the question so I'll answer it a different way. If you meant: Would you rather have a great robot, or a crappy one that rides the coat-tails of a great robot to win the event? I would have to answer that one differently. I would rather have a great robot.

The reason I first answered it the other way is because in the past I've seen some robots that were engineering marvels, but were strategy disasters. I thought, "that is really cool - completely useless for the game, but COOL!" Our team prides itself on coming up with robots that play the game strategically well every year. It may not be the fanciest, but it wins (this year was an exception, but the robot we came up with never made it to the field - we had to punt).

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I go with Quality. I do note that complexity does not equal quality. A simple robot built with quality is much better than a complex robot without quality. Can you have a complex robot with Quality? Yes but under our restrictions it becomes very much tougher to do.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I would go for a little of both. A winning robot is great, but if isn't of very good quality and isn't reliable, then teams won't want you for finals. Pretty robots aren't going to get you far either. You're not going to waltz right into the finals only because your robot is powdercoated. You have got to show what you can do. If you can do a lot of things well but die every other match, you're not going to last very long. However, if you have robot that does one or two things really well and has very little problems, you are going to make it pretty far, and if your robot looks good doing it, it is an added bonus :) . There are really two types of problems with robots - normal wear and tear and robots that do so much that they are too suceptible to damage. I have seen a few good looking robots where they have a lot of capabilities and can do a lot of great things by themselves but when you throw them on the field with some of the simpler robots, they just can't quite cut it and systems keep breaking all the time or have to remove subsystems because they are causing too many problems. This is where reliability and quality outweigh a robot that is built to do everything. Through my expirience in FIRST, a quality robot is a winning robot.
Eric

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

If you have a quality robot, then you might feel pride in your work, but if you lose, that won't feel nice, however, a winning robot makes you feel good, and since you need some quality to win, you will probably feel better having a winning robot.

too much thinking :p

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I would have a quality (re: relaible) than a robot that gets by on luck.
We do best when our robts are simple and relaible. Complexity means more things that can break.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

Why isn't there an option for "Both"? :rolleyes:

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I personally would go for quality. It may be god to just win for this competition, but if We're supposed to solve the problems of our world, will it really be that effective to build a device with just ebough to get by and complete whatever task, or one that really is reliable, works well, but may not be as top dog-like?

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

A project's success is gauged in terms of it's goals and design criteria. A robot isn't quality if it doesn't win, becuase it's (hopefully) been designed to win.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

what the Phront said.

quality is measured by how well a system performs its required functions

and BTW: REAL engineers dont care about appearances! [Ken dives under desk]

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

Well, appearance could be a factor in achieving a goal. Part of winning a FIRST competition is getting picked for an alliance, and a strikingly attractive robot is a means to that end.

I can't wait to post pictures of our 2006 robot... :D

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I relly don't care how the robot looks. All that matters is that it works well and does what it is supposed to. Now both things would be nice to have a winning and good looking robot.:)

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I don't like it when people would sacrifice the ability to win to get a little bit more quality.

Quality is good, because it tends to have a direct correlation with success, which is what is really desired (heh).

If I can have a quality robot that can be successful, then that's my cake! If I can only have one robot, then I'll take the successful one.

"Look, I have the most well-engineered robot in the world!" -- then the robot can't do a darn thing to be competitive, or win. I don't like that.

But to be complete:

"Look, I have the most successful robot this year!" -- then a sharp edge slices someone's finger off. I DON'T like that.

I guess I'm looking at both types of robots with all else being equal.

1. Make it functional.
2. Make it elegant.
3. Make it look good.

That's the order I usually use to guide my thinking. Clearly, there are times when the only thing that matters is looks, and other times when all that matters is quality, etc.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

When my team does our PEW analysis of our goals and designs, our top two criteria are Simplicity and Reliability.
We have had several robots that we tried to make complex 2003 we tried to build a complex stacker that could stack bins right-side up and upside down, but we never used them due to our drive barely working ( it either fell over or blew apart a transmission in almost every match). In 2004 we spent so much time on our Tri-Star drive train that all we had were pneumatic roller wings and ball poker and in the end we ripped out the Tri-Stars and put in 4 wheels which still didn't work that well.

In 2005 we decided to keep is simple not only with our devices but in our machining as well (Hacksaw & Drill) And as a result it worked in every match (with the exception of one match where we forgot to engage the arm)

So to sum it up I think having a quality (reliable) robot is better.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

if you look at the extreems then I think the answer becomes obvious

we only have 6 weeks. You have to design in as many functions, debug and test them, and give your drivers time with the actual robot to practice

any time you take out of that schedule to paint, polish, chrome plate or change the design to make it look pretty is time you have lost to the primary tasks.

I wanna be there when you tell the drivers they cant practice with the robot today, because its being painted! :ahh:

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

It is all about choosing one main strategy and doing it consistantly well, usually you get a good quality robot from that strategy. All other systems can be integrated to work well with this main strategy.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

You can swing by anytime tomorrow. I'll wait until you arrive to tell them. ;)

I'd like to think that a quality robot has a lot to do with it being succesful, so I didn't vote.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I agree. The past two years we have had a quality robot that was winning all sorts of awards. It’s all about your design and even your drivers, because lets face it, you can have the best robot around but with bad drivers it’s nothing more than metal. The only un-quality thing we did was last year we were running a motor just below stall (van door motor) and it got really hot after about 10 min and wouldn’t function. Good thing the matches were only 2.5 min long!

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I've experienced being on a team with a "winning" robot at the top level (Team 45 at the 1998 Championship) and the team with probably the highest quality robots in FIRST (Team 233). Winning the Championship is much more fun than just having the highest quality robot.

That said, the missing choice of "both" in the poll would be my pick. I hope to have the experience this year of winning the Championship with a very high quality robot. Of course, a lot of other teams will be trying very hard to prevent that from happening.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

Where is the choice for "neither one is important" while i like wearing winning meals as much as the next one and getting complete satisfaction from seeing a beautiful robot. The real payoff for me is the kids faces when they get that spark and realize that they can do something. Winning a regional is a great to substantiate that feeling but in my opinion even if you have the worst robot on the field you can still have a winning season. Some of my best years with team 73 were ones when we didn't ever make the eliminations and it was all about how much the kids learned and how much fun we had.



What good is winning if all the kids get out of it is a metal?
what good is quality if all the kids get is a pretty piece of metal?


but along with this thread. I would rather have a winning robot because i know that if the robot wins the kids did alot of good work.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I couldn't vote on this one. From my experience in FIRST, Quality drivers make a winning robot. You obviously need a robot that works well but it is the drivers who win competitions, not robots alone. I say this from personal experience.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

It takes a lot of things to win competitions and good drivers is one of them, along with strategy, a robot capable of playing the game well, and a robot of high enough "quality" to be reliable for the duration of the competition season. Then there is the element of luck which is a part of almost any type of competition.

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

"and the monkey throws the switch" -Major West (Lost in Space Movie) *

sorry, I could not resist that one :^)

dont rule out the importance that auton mode has gained in the last few years, and that a well engineered robot can be very easy to drive compaired to a poorly designed robot that lurches across the playfield like it has a mind of its own.

[ * in the movie the spacecraft was suppose to be fully automated, and West complained that his years of combat flight experience were being wasted on a ship that could be flown by a trained monkey ]

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

i would rather have a higher quality robot because it is a learning experience for us kids. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to win the championship but my personel opinion is that i want to learn as much as i can while i am here, i would rather have a good time than win a championship but if you were to ask me if i want that championship i will not hesitate to tell you yes i do so it all depends on the person. :) :rolleyes: ;)

Re: Winning Robot or Quality Robot?
 

I read the question as though a winning robot means that it doesn't need to really do anything particularly well, as long as it got the gold. With this in mind, the choice was simple.

Quality, hands down. A winning robot does not mean a good robot, and especially with this year's alliance selections, some lower-quality robots will end up in the winner's circle.

I see two scenarios:

In the first, you have the scrappy robot that got picked by the 1 and 2 seed alliance, and though you scored 5 points throughout eliminations your partners carried you through easily. This team's robot will be seen as the one that got a lucky break and snuck by on someone else's win. If this happened to my team and I overheard a comment such as this, I would be crushed.

The second scenario is the high-quality robot that happens to lose. Maybe an alliance partner broke, there was an unlucky call, or a driver did the wrong thing. As a quality robot you probably reached eliminations, and perhaps you were the captain of your alliance. Everyone sees you lose and thinks of you as a great robot that almost made it, and certainly a team to keep in mind for the future. People compliment you on your design and you see that although you didn't make it all the way, you had a killer robot. FIRST has always tried to teach us that winning is not the ultimate goal; what you take away from a competition should be more than just a trophy (even if you didn't get one!).

Of course a high-quality robot that rocks the competition would be great too, but, given the choices, I would not sacrifice quality for gold.