Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Al, that is not like you. Is something else bothering you? :D

The harm is that veteran & wealthy teams gain a HUGE advantage over less experienced and poorer teams. First, the negative of letting you look and touch parts.

• As you pointed out as an underlying key to your success, you use old robots to train drivers, test mechanisms & concepts, determine how to play the game, and test autonomy. All with some other team's robot, not your 2005 team but some team that built it for you. Granted, you may have been part of that team. As for the definition of a 2005 team, I believe that it is the students and mentors that come together on or after January 8th to build a robot to compete in a first competition; not the group that has built robots during the fall and build one for the 2005 competition. It's subtle but important.

• You can use an old part from another robot or off-season work to get your 2005 robot running while you leisurely build the duplicate part just in time to replace it for the competition.

• You get to duplicate a previous teams' mechanisms by duplicating parts that are in your hand. This is significantly easier than the team that has to do it from scratch or from drawings.

Second, the positive of not letting teams look and touch old parts.

• THE PLAYING FIELD HAS BEEN LEVELED SIGNIFICANTLY

• Any mechanisms that a team might use from old robots or off-season work in the upcoming season must be documented (drawings, words, in memory, etc.). Since you can't take drawings with you onto the "island", you must post them to the web (a rule would state all written materials intended for use by a team would need to be accessible by other teams). The result of this would be teams would well document old robots and provide them to the FIRST family. This is the concept that is exciting! Now, old robots would be everyone's robot instead of just the robot of the team that inherited it. This fits in perfectly with Dean's idea of when two people exchange their ideas; they leave with twice as much as they came with.

Jaine, your sarcasm throughout is appreciated BUT since all of the first rules are based on honor, simply putting old stuff in the corner and draping a sheet over it would be sufficient.

While broaching the subject of not touching FIRST-friendly vendor parts before a certain date after kickoff, we must do something about teams using the playing pieces from the remote kickoffs immediately after the kickoff is over. It gives the teams that are the recipients of the remote kickoff field pieces another huge advantage. Since we gain this advantage and we must earn a spot at the championships this year, if it is not addressed by FIRST, we are going to implement a self-imposed hands-off period for the game pieces of approximately 3 days.

Thanks for making me like this "island rule" even more. In the spirit of full disclosure, please let me assure you that I'm not fighting this battle because 118 would benefit competitively; I am fighting this battle because leveling the playing field is the right thing to do. And I have heard the argument that trying to level the playing field will not allow the robots to advance as rapidly. My response to that is that we are here to inspire & educate America's future engineers and to make sure that our program does not significantly detract from the students' other activities. Not to build an advanced robot. As we level the playing field, you'll stop hearing administrators say, "How are we going to compete with THEM?" In a nutshell, by not leveling the playing field, we are discouraging weaker and newer teams to even participate in FIRST.

Have a nice evening,
Lucien

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Lucien,
That is an interesting idea, though I think we should take it at least one step further. I mean, in the interest of leveling the playingfield:

JVN's Rule:
RULE 041209-C - Any participant of the FIRST robotics competition who participated in the 2004 season, or in any of the previous 12 seasons may NOT participate on ANY team in the FRC 2005 season. They may not interact with members of any team in any way.

I mean, this is the obvious next step. How can we level the playingfield without taking those "wealthy", "veteran" teams, just loaded with valuable mentors who have gone through FIRST before down a notch. Frankly, I can't imagine how a rookie mentor can compete with an Andy Baker, or a Raul Olivera, or a Bill Beatty. It's just not fair. In order to give them a chance we need to just eliminate all veterans all together.


OR...

We can realize that (as Dean himself has said) FIRST ISN'T fair, and it doesn't NEED to be fair.

Then maybe, we can all just have some fun building robots in 2005.

John

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

John, I appreciate your use of the excessive to make your point and flippant attempt to cease a discussion with which you do not agree. I'm sorry that I am not willing to lower myself to your level but I will try to answer your concern.

I am not suggesting that the playing field will ever be totally level and I am certainly not suggesting that we should throw the baby (great mentors) out with the bath water. I simply contend that teams should not be able to practice the new game with old robots. The great mentors will be able to take their 2005 team and make them superior without having a base running around on January 8th.

As an analogy to football, some teams in FIRST have 6 weeks (or more if they have a practice 'bot) to practice for their only football game versus some teams that talk about practicing for 5 weeks and only have a few days to practice for that same game. I believe that an average coach whose players practiced for about 6 weeks would routinely win over the great coach whose players only practiced for a couple of days. My proposal only shortens the 6 weeks. Competition wise, I guess by my definition, we will never know if we have any great coaches among us (I know we have great mentors) until they have similar conditions as their competition and their teams routinely perform at a higher level.

As a result of your excessive example, I will alter my proposal to note that teams can not use old robots throughout the entire season thereby not being able to turn an old robot into a practice robot after ship date. In other words, if a team builds two robots during the season, then they can have a practice 'bot but they can not convert an old robot into a practice 'bot.

I'll keep trying ... I'm sure someone will agree with me ... someday ... maybe not,
Lucien

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

C'mon, John, you have to be more creative than that.

Billfred's Rule:
Rule XYZPD-Q - Any recipient of a Regional Woodie Flowers Award must submit to FIRST a DNA sample to facilitate cloning in order to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of mentor talent across all teams.

:)

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Even though this thread is degrading somewhat I will respond. As stated by Dean and the one and only JVN, nothings fair. That being said, I don't believe that any 1st year team expects to be as good as the "powerhouses". The great thing about FIRST is that people try. It is a growing experience. Yes even for us older, notice I did not say more mature, mentors. With the wealth of knowledge that is floating around in FIRST, teams will grow quickly. BUT there is no substitute for experience. We all hopefully learn from our mistakes. To say that we can't use our past to improve out future is silly. Second year teams are not rookies so why would you want to take away a large portion of their learning curve. Also remember that every 4 years every team is new except for the mentors and sometimes even then.

Back to the thread question. I find it interesting that 18 % of the teams that responded say that it is OK to cheat. That is why we need these rules. There are probably many more out there saying or doing what is definitely against the rules. Yes to be the best we must push the limits but to deliberately break the rules is another issue. I know that as you step into a grey area things are no longer black and white but just different shades of grey. That is what we all must be very careful of.

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Ok Lucien,
I have had a night to think it over and I have a response, toned down though it is...
Rather than pinpoint each item I would like to disuade your fears in what seems to be your underlying concern. Team #111 believes fully in the FIRST Rules and we follow them as best we can, ALWAYS. We teach this to our students, parents and as mentors we remind each other of the rules, goals and ideals of the FIRST program. (We carry rules books throughout the season, both printed and electronic) We do not use parts from previous year's robots on our competition robots, ever. As a matter of fact, I think that if you examine our robots you will find that although similar, each year's parts are a distinct improvement over the previous design. (Thanks' to Raul and his team) Furthermore, those teams that I consider close friends (and after ten years that is a considerable number) would never think of doing something that violates the rules. Frequently we communicate with each other and FIRST to insure the correct interpretation. Should you look into the past, you would find that winning teams are extreme in their interpretation and implementation of the rules. If we are such a model for other teams we need to be honest and fair. Finally, it is our experience which we share with other teams at every event we attend. It is not only Wildstang but any team will lend assistance when asked or not. This program is to insure that all students are exposed to the fundamentals not just the teams you consider special. If you ask for my help, I am bound to assist, if you ask for my strategy I am bound to answer, if you ask for my designs I will gladly show you and provide drawings if they exist. If during build season, you have a problem, I am bound to do whatever I can to help. My teammates and I (and I consider all FIRST teams to be my team) take these ideals seriously. When you ask for an opinion you will get my answer tendered with my experience and those of the people I respect and work with.

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Remember kids, whenever you see a post like this just ask yourself -- WWABD? (What would Andy Baker Do?) It was that question which caused me to delete every response up to this point.
(Let's try one more time...)

I guess at this time, my only question is this:
How come whenever there is a discussion about "leveling the playingfield" it involves tying the someone's hands behind their back?

The solution is not to decrease the level of veteran play -- This doesn't seem like what FIRST is about. I believe the solution is to INCREASE the level of rookie play. If the gap between veterans and rookies seems too large, perhaps we need to "raise the rookies". Instead of asking ourselves how to limit the veterans -- ask yourself "How can we help the rookies kick butt...?"

Lucien,
You seem to believe that robot practice during the 6-weeks is somehow the magical factor needing adjustment. So, ask yourself how we can give rookie teams more practice (for the big game).

Why can't rookie teams take the drivebase included in the KOP and practice with that? We (229) haven't used it in the past, but I know many teams have used it to great effect. Isn't it supposed to be up and running in a few hours? (I'm almost positive I saw some video of Blair in 2003 and Vince in 2004 building one in an hour...) What is stopping rookies from practicing with that?

If this drivebase is inadequate (is it?), maybe FIRST should consider a newer, more competitive version. Certainly this seems like a better solution than rules which disallow veterans from using their resources.

Hopefully I will be able to someday rise to Lucien's "higher level" -- Until Then,
JVN

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Exactly, eventually limiting the veterans will limit the rookie teams. Rookie teams are supposed to learn from the veterans, and if we cannot improve our practices by learning from past years we cannot help the rookies learn. Every year teams post white papers, mentor teams, assist at competitions and do other things to help the rookies. This NEEDS to increase year after year. Veterans need to mentor more teams, rookies need to seek help from as many veterans as needed. Sure taking away abilites from the veterans and making everyone start over year after year may level the playing field a bit but it also takes away from what FIRST is about. Inspiration, learning, team work and so much more.


Just because veterans have old robots to practice on doesn't mean it can help them that much. Drive systems can change dramatically year after year, and even if they dont you can't truly simulate a real competition. Drivers truly learn whats expected of them in practice rounds and during the competiton. This can also be resolved with veterans letting rookie teams in their area borrow old robots if they wish. The drive base from FIRST could also help a bit.

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Interesting collection of opinion and some compelling (if not always accurate) arguments. In my simple-minded view, the spirit of the "no building or fabrication before kick-off" rule is simply that; no building or fabrication before kick-off! This is true regardless of how the rule is worded. The intent is clear.

Our team has actively been designing test bed robot platforms, modifying last year's robot and prototyping since mid-summer. Are we breaking the rules? No. We are learning about design principles, building teamwork and enhancing our abilities. Everything we have learned will be applied to this year's robot but nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that we have build, cut, fabricated or bolted together will be used on this year's robot.

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

I would like to suggest everyone do what Al did, take some time to think stuff over before posting any responds.

Lucien, I suggest you create a new thread regarding your purposal of a new rule. This thread was created for a single purpose: Can teams start cutting metal before kickoff? I believe it will be healthier if we stick to that topic, and create a new thread so we can focus our attentions in the new discussion: a suggestion to level the playing field. If you need any assistance moving some post to the new thread the moderators will gladly do so.

Also, this discussion is starting to get personal, and by that I mean it is shifting from debates in front of the public to debates with each other. Although there is nothing horribly wrong with that latter, i feel it is much more benefitial to debate in front of the public addressing points and arguments instead of addressing tones and attitude. If we keep to the merit of the discussion it will be much more constructive.

Ok, back to the topic.

Pre-fab is still fab.
 

I think this will give a BIGGER advantage to the wealthy teams. Those that now build two robots will continue to do so. This will drop the level of the competition down because the lower funded veteran teams (of which there are many) will not be able to use a previous years robot as a practice driving platform, autonomous testbed, or anything else.

Yes being a rookie is hard, but should we make it harder for struggling veteran teams to compete? I think we should work to help rookies compete at a higher level then lowering the level that the majority of teams compete at.


Wetzel

Re: Pre-fab is still fab.
 

It is an unfortunate fact that the wealthier teams will almost always have an advantage but what our team is doing does not require much money. If I totaled it up, since mid-summer we have maybe spent $100.00, and about $75 of that was for the pizza we ordered for lunch.

Since we are a veteran team, we have several old robots and cases of spare parts from previous years that we disassemble, reassemble and modify for the purpose of testing and trying out new ideas. Any veteran team could do what we are doing without spending a dime. We work in one team member's garage with whatever tools his dad has on hand. We don't weld anything and any metal we cut, we use a sabre saw or hack-saw. When we need to connect two pieces of metal, we drill holes and bolt them together.

It doesn't take money, just desire.

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

I have to agree with John on this one. I was with team 1114 Simbotics last season. We are a very well funded team with a strong mentor base. This season we decided to start up two more teams in the area with the help of our sponsor (GM). We call ourselves NIAGARAFirst.org and have a website by the same name.

We have spent a lot of time this year doing prototyping for the 2005 season. We have involved all the schools as best we could in this project and will give them all the designs and resources they need to re-create it in 2005 rules permitting (we will post a white paper once we know they work and can find some free time). We may even split up some of the building between schools.

We will likely build a practice robot again this year. But it will be available to all the teams in our area for practicing. If all goes well, Newman Brother, a local construction company will build us another playing field this year which will be shared by all three teams.

The expected results:
A strong veteran team
Two strong rookie teams that should kick butt....maybe even 1114's butt
A money savings by sharing transportation and resources
More teams with only a few more mentors
3 times as many kids inspired
More buzz in our area over the FIRST experience...which will hopefully lead to more teams!!

I understand that this isn't possible everywhere but I do think raising the rookies is the better way to go.

That being said...rules are rules. We are very careful not to use and prototype parts on our competition robot and no parts built outside the 6 week period should be used.

This is my opinion...

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

I apologize to everyone, because this is going to be one long post. I will try to bold the main points.

Natchez,

You are right that a win-win situation needs to exist. The philosophy of FIRST has provided for this already. Everyone gives to the FIRST community, and the community gives back... all for the purpose of leveling the playing field' and helping those who are less fortunate. Often, my team is on the giving end of this kind of gracious professionalism. However, we are also often on the receiving end when we find ourselves in need. This is the nature of FIRST.

There are a number of white papers posted here on chief delphi to help newer/rookie/even veteran teams to duplicate already existing mechanisms. This helps to 'level the playing field', in your words, significantly. In my view, many people are already sharing their knowledge to those who are less experienced. In fact, sharing of knowledge is one of the most significant aspects of FIRST. I have never, ever, encountered someone within FIRST who has been unwilling to help. To me, this seems unecessary because teams are already doing this; if a rookie team needs help, there will never be a shortage of veteran teams who are willing to give help.

When my team registered our rookie year, we started 2 weeks late, and didn't even have a start on the robot. We searched for teams who were willing to help us, and we were rewarded. Team 237 and 157 decided to mentor us. We actually visited 157's shop, and they gave us much valuable advice on how to get started. They shared their experiences with us and gave us advice about design. In a sense, they were sharing their "inheritance", as you called it, by helping us find our way. Surely, the mentorship of these teams was one of our saving graces that year.

When we were struggling to establish ourselves, I don't think our objective was to 'beat the other teams'. I don't think we were asking ourselves "How are we going to compete with them?" either. I think the main question that we were asking ourselves was this: "How do we have a sucessful first year?"

In our minds, success was not going to be measured in awards or high rankings. Sucess was going to be measured by our ability to meet the six week deadline, have a simple robot that could reliably run every match, and gain experience for future years to come.

Greatness, in terms of the competition, is something that rookie teams are NOT going to achieve thier very first year. They will gradually work their way up to that level as they progress throughout the years. Do you think that today's 'greats', such as 45, 47, 71, and 111 (although there are many more) were perfectly organized, built unbeatable robots, and had perfected designs to work off of in their first year? Of course not.

When each team starts off their rookie year, remember that the 'great' teams of today had the same humble beginnings. It is a matter of persistence, hard work, dedication, and passion over the years that will raise the rookies to the same level of competition as the veterans who came before. Just as a seedling can not grow into a tree in one day, rookies will have to pass through the stages of 'rookiedom' to grow and build on past successes, before they can walk with giants.

I disagree. Reread the above few paragraphs that I wrote, and try to tell me that it was 'some other team'...not my team, that built those robots.

Although the founding members of our team have gone, they have left us with a foundation of past success and experience from which we grow and subsist. Therefore, they are still very much a part of our team, in fact they are a part of our lifeblood...just as much as current, and future, members of my team are. If it weren't for those founding members, we would have nothing to start from every year. More than having built our robots, they have established our existence, they have found support for us, and they have made us a part of our community. They are my team, even if they are no longer with us... they are the foundation upon which we stand.

If we were to lock away everything from the past that might help us, such as robots, parts, and knowledge, does that also mean that we should also throw out our pre-2005 fund raising ideas, our pre 2005 sponsors, our pre 2005 mentors and coaches, our pre 2005 students, and our pre 2005 parent volunteers? After all, according to your argument, anything acquired before 2005 must be hidden out of sight and not touched so that we don't have an advantage over rookie or newer teams. Rookie teams don't have experienced mentors and coaches, previous year's sponsors, or experienced students... so why should veteran teams have that either?

If that argument were to actually be implemented, what do you think would happen? I think that if previous knowledge, experience, and resources were to be made taboo after 2005, then FIRST as a whole would be in serious jeopardy. Many teams would die out. I don't think my team could continue without the use of knowledge from previous years. The playing field would be leveled, thats for sure, but that level would be extinction. Innovation throughout the ages has taken ideas from the past, has improved them, and has made great change possible.

For example: what if, as a math student, you were expected to teach yourself, without help or prompting, what it meant to count, how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, what fractions are, what squaring and exponents are, realize on your own that you can solve a problem using the letter x, find the Pythagorean theorem on your own, find all of the trigonometric functions on your own, find the area of geometric shapes on your own...etc?

Without help, I don't think that you would get very far. It took humans thousands and thousands of years to find and understand all of that stuff! Without help from the past, how can a math student ever expect to learn all of that on his/her own? Luckily, because lessons of the past have been embraced and built upon, I now have the ability to learn what took people thousands of years to discover...before I even reach adulthood! I have not been ashamed to take knowledge that was acquired before my lifetime and use it to improve my own.

To sum it all up, the concept of 'giving and getting' is alive and well within FIRST. Everyone pitches in to the benefit of the whole. Sharing of knowledge has been what many, many teams have been built upon, including my own. Making a rule requiring everyone to publish their old designs would be redundant, because there are hundreds and hundreds of teams, mentors, and students who are willing to share their expertise with those who have none. It is what makes this competition unique, beautiful even; how many Red Sox fans out there are willing to help the Yankees have a better season...and vice versa? (I'm guessing not too many...)

It is important for us to be able to use the experiences and accomplishments of those before us to our benefit. There is a parable that tells a story of a house that was built upon a rock, and a house that was built upon sand. When a storm came, the house that was built upon sand was washed away. But the house that had a rock for it's foundation was able to weather the storm. We as FIRSTers need to build our houses upon stone; for a rookie team, that means persistence and hard work over the years, as well as getting mentorship and advice from others. For a veteran team, it means never forgetting the lessons that have been learned in the past, and using them for the FIRST community's benefit.

I apologize to everyone, because I think that this is far beyond a "readable" post. But I felt that I needed to adequately convey the meaning of this message.

-- Jaine

Re: YMTC: Can teams start cutting metal for 2005?
 

Wow - FIRST season must be starting soon! Looks like the emotion and commotion have arrived just in time. As Kenny posted earlier, some of the posts in this thread are getting pretty heated - not mentioning any names, but as a friendly reminder - please take a moment and think about what and how you are posting. We (Chiefdelphi) encourage open and civil discussion, everyone has a right to an opinion, just stay within the boundaries of common courtesy when expressing yourselves.
My vote was no, but I assumed you meant cutting metal to produce a finished part. Raw stock purchased and then cut to stack or rack easier is not a finished part. The reason for cutting it was to handle and store it - not to make it to a finished part size. This is entirely different in that the rationale for cutting it wasn't to give me an advantage in building the robot.
Sometimes certain raw material purchases are less expensive in larger sizes, there is no competitive advantage in cutting it to smaller pieces.
What disturbs me most about this is that there seems to be a dark undertone (just short of accusations) about some posts. Does gracious professionalism exist anymore, or has mistrust and animosity displaced it as normal behavior? Perhaps that is for another thread.