Re: If you could change one rule
 

I'd say the rule about actually touching the loading zone triangle was pointless. It made so many nice robots look very cheap with zip ties and junk hanging off the front. If a robot is clearly over it, then it would be touching it if something was hanging down, regardless of that something existing or not. Plus, what is easier for a referee to look at? A whole frame rail or bumper of a robot being over it? Or the tip of a minuscule thread or zip tie touching it?

And also I would never design a game where a single penalty due to an action committed by one robot can easily change the outcome of what would have been a very strong win for the alliance.

EDIT:

Hrrm, this post shouldn't have been included in the split from that other thread. It belongs there.

EDIT2: A better thread title would be "Should teams push themselves to make higher quality robots?"

Re: If you could change one rule
 

No Dave, see without threaded fasteners you'd have to allow tape again :ahh:

Anyway, I think a rule that somehow stepped up quality in robots would be a nice thing (the no tape rule is a great start). I am aware that not every team has a 4 axis CNC mill (or any mill) or a Miller TIG welder (or any welder) or a whole tool chest full of nothing but the finest, however I've seen a lot of robots that are just kind of "barely hanging on" in the way of quality. I know almost every team is proud of their robot no matter what it looks like and they have every right to be. But I think outsiders tend to be more impressed with the CNCed, TIGed, water jetted, anodized, and powder coated machines that have been fully designed in CAD first. I'm not saying every robot should be as elaborate as that, but I think some sort of motivation needs to be given to teams to step into the world of professional grade quality fabrication.

Re: If you could change one rule
 

There is a slight problem with some how making a rule to make it manditory for the robots to look nice. This is because there are alot of team who can't get the funding they need. I remember last year my team spent 200 man hours looking for sponsors, and 400 man hours doing fund raisers and geting $2500 canadian, and no were to build the robot, we eventualy decided to bring it into someone's basment and build it with hand tools and a drill press. Believe me if I had the time to worry about making it look CnC quality I would have, but when your only saw is a hack saw and your only drill is a $20 special, making a competitive robot that looks pretty is kind of hard. For a rule like you are sugesting fesible FIRST would have to provide fabrication equipment to teams without it. Which would be nice, I could go for a CnC mill in my basement.

Re: If you could change one rule
 

Everytime you bring up this topic, I don't see where you're heading.

The point of FIRST is not to create pretty robots. It's to teach kids about science, technology, and engineering.

In the sequence of events leading up to a FIRST competition, whether or not I was able to anodize or powdercoat my robot is entirely irrelevant to me. Making the robot look nice and professional does absolutely nothing towards inspiring kids and teaching them about the aforementioned topics.

You're focusing entirely on the robot. The robot is a means to an end. That end is not to make the most killer robot ever, or to make it look like it just came off the Ferarri showroom's floor.

FIRST doesn't exist for the benefit of outsiders who happen to attend competitions. These are machines being created by high school kids in six weeks. I wouldn't expect them to look professional.

If you're one of the teams that has time to make your bot look all spiffy, great, more power to you, but it should most definitely not be a priority when there's hundreds of teams that struggle just to field a reasonably competitive robot.

I'd much rather see an incentive to make people take the path less traveled, in order to create more inspiration.

Re: If you could change one rule
 

Where I was going with that is that I feel that some teams are satisfied with what they have when I know they can strive for more. I know there are teams that try their absolute hardest to get sponsors and they don't and try their absolute hardest to build a functioning robot and can't and try their absolute hardest to win and come in last place. That is perfectly okay. But I also know some teams that don't care worth a darn if their robot even gets finished much less what it looks like and I think they are cheating themselves. If you could use a milling machine instead of a cordless drill would you? If you could write a program to make the robot easier to drive rather than having the driver struggle with the joysticks would you? If you could measure with calipers instead of a tape measure would you? If you could have custom aluminum wheels instead of the same ones that come in every kit would you? If you could have engineers help you would you let them? If you could go to two regionals instead of one would you? Sadly (imho) many teams answer "no" to some or several of the above questions. And it is not a matter of being able to do it; it is a matter of wanting to do it. I think too many teams say "eh, one regional is okay" or "eh, the cordless drill works fine" instead of saying "we CAN fundraise to go to two regionals" and "we CAN find a sponsor with a milling machine" etc etc.

Plain and simple, I think some teams don't try hard enough.

Basically, I guess I just have a "good enough isn't" philosophy and I believe too many teams are too content with their situations and not striving for more as they should be.

Sorry for the detour, now back to the thread...

Re: If you could change one rule
 

I hate to go offtopic, but if you are telling me that it's a "fact," I beg to differ. There is no way in heck teams don't try hard enough. I am good friends with almost every single team in Florida as well as some teams in different states. Do you know how many times I get messages asking me, "What can I do to keep the team going?" You simply don't say that a team doesn't try hard enough. There are many students on the team. I can understand if you tell me that every single student don't try hard enough. But there are atleast 10 who dies for the team. They try their best. I don't think any team in FIRST will say, "No, we don't want a mill, we can just use a cordless drill." There are teams out there who are in need of money, they are trying their best out there.

Let me give you a good example which you will see happening this coming season. Two teams that I know and work closely with has about 500 bucks on their account. 6,000 bucks is due on December 9th. Watch them raise the money and go out there to compete.

Now back to the topic. I am personally happy with the rules. No matter what, you are going to be unhappy about certain things and think what if it was the other way. That's life. Keep in mind, FIRST works their butt off to come up with every single rule and tries to satisfy all teams.

Re: If you could change one rule
 

Then you should approach the teams and let them know on a personal basis, giving them suggestions to help them achieve what you believe they are capable of.

Really? Could you elaborate on which teams actually think this, and also give some reasons why they do that? I'd like to ask them myself to see what they have to say on it.

Yes to all of those, though many teams don't have the resources that you seem to think they do.

Many? I've never come across a single team in my time in FIRST that has ever declined things like that. Also, shouldn't the team's answers be based upon their factual statements, not your "honest" opinion?

And this is their choice. It is not our position to judge others and what they believe to be best for their own team. You can not make a blanket statement that teams don't try hard enough without having a grasp on the situation of over 1,000 teams.

Again, this is THEIR CHOICE. You can't force them to go out every week and search for sponsors. You can't force them to fundraise more. People from some teams that I've talked to can't fundraise directly because of school rules, while others don't have the resources in their towns to fundraise. What do you think should happen to these teams if they don't "try hard enough" by your standards? Do you believe that they should be removed from the program, just because they aren't supporting an elitist, best-of-the-best attitude that you believe FIRST should have?

Re: If you could change one rule
 

Who are you to define whether a team is "trying hard enough" (which btw, is perhaps the most subjective thing ever)?

If it doesn't bother the other team, then why does it bother you?

I suggest you spend less time worrying about how other people run their teams, and instead improve your own to the best of your abilities

Re: If you could change one rule
 

And who are you to advise how I spend my time? Gotcha!, lol

Anywhoo, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have mine, you have yours, and our differences are what keeps this world spinning. :)

Now, I urge everyone to address the topic "If you could change one rule"

EDIT: nevermind the above line, the discussion has been split. Carry on if you wish...

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Sanddrag - If you're saying Cory doesn't have the right to "advise you how to spend your time," then you don't have the right to advise others. Since you obviously didn't appreciate him giving you suggestions, what makes you think anyone else wants to hear yours? Isn't that a bit hypocritical of you? Why is Cory offering you a suggestion any different than you offering some to anyone else? You apparently felt it was appropriate to do so, so what makes it any different when Cory does it? Only difference that I can see is that Cory's got a year of experience on you, which argues more for him than you.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

OK now that were done banging on Sanddrag and while yes I don't exactly agree lets consider some aspects that were fair. I think one problem (ill speak for my team to be fair but Ive heard the same complaint from others) is that a bunch of FIRSTers don't care. I don't think its necessarily on the team as a whole level but from our team (and again I speak of mine only) I know that a majority of students tend to slack and you end up with a few students who shoulder allot of the work. This tends to decrees our robots professionalism level by a couple notches. I know our team plans on asking slackers to leave but I wonder if this deprives them of the chance to mend their ways and learn. Ideas, comments, personal experiences anyone?

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

If they don't care, they either a) shouldn't be in the program, or b) mentors should go to further lengths to try and show them the light. B. should be your focus much more than making a pretty robot should be.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I suppose not. I only offer my opinions. Take them however you please. I am not a licensed practitioner. Did I ever say anyone else wanted to hear (read) my ideas? I don't post because people want me to, I post because I want to. And maybe once in a blue moon someone will like to catch a ride on my one man caravan.
See above.umm, nothing? no difference. did I say there was one? suggestions flying all around. Some liked, some diskliked, some useless, some on the contrary, some in accordance. Did I miss something?Experience? So by your logic my four years of experience would invalidate anything a 2006 rookie has to say, right?

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Wow.. congratulations dude.. you know how to use the quote feature..

ANYWHO...

I think "teams should be pushed to make higher quality robots" in the name of safety, not in the name of vanity.

Deburr all metal parts, sand all wood parts, properly shield all moving parts from hands, watch the pinch points, use safe wiring methods.

I think that would in turn kick it up on the quality factor when making a robot, and also make the robot safer.

I think that is more important than "making a robot look pretty so some outsider can say.. ooooh.. perdy".

Who cares about them in those terms? Sure if ya build a pretty robot and you are at a competition you may catch the eye of a news crew and find some fame on the news, but that's not why we are inolved in this program are we?

I think a lifetime of learning properly and then teaching others and inspiring the youth is more important to myself at least than being on the news for a couple seconds during a voice over*...



*Don't ask.. bad experience. lol

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Maybe the title of this should be
"should we push CD users to make higher quality posts....."


(from a guy with a LOT of experience)

WC :cool:

(PS- every team makes the best robot they can based on their abilities. It doesn't really matter about the robot. It is the team that they build that is the important accompliishment....)

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I used to approach robot building with the "just cut it here" or "drill it oversize so it'll fit right" attitude but no more.

I have been enlightened by the teams who create these professional grade masterpieces and now I'm on a quest to do the same, and hopefully have a few others join me.

I don't look down upon the "popular" teams with all their fancy anodizing and whatnot. Heck no. I look up to them and think "hey, that can be MY robot. I CAN DO THIS!" All it takes is a little determination. :)

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I hope all further comments are on topic. There's at least one conversation in here that DEFINITELY should be in PM, not here.

>>There's been a couple posts between the last one I read and me writing this...>>

Anyway - I think every team should strive to better themselves every year, regardless how big or small those steps are. You can't change them, nor can you assume what they do or don't care about, but you can help them if they accept it. Inspiration comes in many forms (this debate has been done before), that's something I'm sure about.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Sanddrag -

If you feel it's your prerogative to offer advice to others, then I'd love to hear your explanation on why you also feel justified in telling Cory he does not have the right to do the same. We are all equal, are we not?

If you think people aren't going to want to hear or read your ideas, wouldn't you refrain from posting them out of respect for others? I mean, this is man of the best-of-the-best theory here.. so why post something that isn't the 'best'? And of course, it must not be, if you feel others wouldn't be interested in its content.

Apparently, you missed the fact that you criticized someone for doing the exact thing that you had just done. Most people consider hypocrisy an undesirable trait.

I never said anything about experience meaning anything, in this situation or another. I merely stated that that was the only difference I saw - meaning your justification for criticizing him could not have been that you have far more experience or anything of the sort. If I felt that one year of experience was that big of a deal, I would not consider myself worthy of stating my opinions in this thread, as I'm still a highschool student in my third year with a lot to learn.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

plz someone move this to moderated discussion b4 it spirals outta control....

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

It's not going 'out of control.' No worries. People have made polite suggestions to me about using GP and such, and I've taken into consideration that I did not express my points very diplomatically, though I still believe them valid. I have no intention of turning this into a flame war. There has been no offense taken by me and hopefully none by anyone else despite my rather aggressive previous posts. I apologize if there has been.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I'm going to say that I partially agree with Sanddrag on this whole thing. By that, I mean that I think it would be a good thing, but I don't think that it can be implemented/enforced.

I would love to see more professional looking robots. I would especially like to see it on my own team. 1351 has been trying to take measures to outlaw "ghetto fab" (that's what everyone calls it, but I don't remember what our official documents call it). We've had problems with people just trying to cobble things together with a near complete disregard for quality. When people look at the robot in this condition, it makes the team look bad.

As I said, my team has been trying to make rules to improve quality. One of the proposed rules was to force everything to be CADed. Another (thus far, unwritten rule) is to make sure that nobody uses tools if they have not been properly trained to do so. Aside from safety, it also ensures that they are using the tools properly to do high quality work.

While these specific rules probably couldn't be instated FIRST-wide, I don't think it would be a good idea to create many quality control rules. Many such rules would depend on a team's resources. Have you ever tried to make a straight, clean cut with a hack saw? It's pretty hard. It's not practical for my team to have everything done at the machine shop. We make drawings and send them out. For a 6 week build period, this process has a relatively long turn around time. If parts come back and need to be modified, it's not practical to send out the new design. It's also a waste of time to send out for small brackets that can be cut with a saw or a dremel. These parts obviously won't look as nice.

There is also an issue of skill level. We are a student-run team. Mentors are only supposed to step in when asked to help or to avoid serious problems (bodily harm, damage to equipment, decisions that will lead to total failure...). When unsolicited, small suggestions or hints are alright, however. "Do you really need that collar?" is alright, but "Maybe you should use this bushing here and move the collar there, then add a spacer here" is pushing it. There are some students that don't seem to like help. They get a little perturbed when suggestions are given to them. Sometimes, they'll ignore the information even though they know it'll help them. They tend to get the job done, but it's usually not as good as it could have been.

Then, there's also people that just don't learn. I'm sure you know kids that will keep taking the candy no matter how many times you smack them. I've lost count of the number of times that things have been or were going to be damaged because people don't use limit switches. I'm starting to get tired of correcting them all the time, but not doing so is expensive (in more ways than one). Granted, most of them are newbies, but they usually have veterans working with them that should know better. Some seem to have taken the "measure once, cut twice" philosophy. However, this usually becomes measure once, cut twice, measure again, then cut a few more times. I've seen the same types of problems come up over and over again, but people just don't seem to learn from them.

Our workmanship seems to have a trend. As time approaches the end of the deadline, quality approaches zero. It's not that people aren't trying, it's just that quality has to be sacrificed to work faster. When 10 people are trying to get on the robot at once, you have to get in and out as fast as possible. Having a shoddy robot that might be cleaned up later is better than having a nice looking robot that's still being worked on in the field before your 4th match. Yes, the poor quality makes us look bad, but unless it's a MOPE (Monstrosity Of Poor Engineering), we shouldn't sacrifice all prior work on the project because of the last few days.

To sum all this up, I agree that professional quality work would be great. However, it might not be practical for everyone. There can't be a FIRST-wide quality standard. Possibly guidelines, but not much more than that. I feel, however, that each individual team should set their own quality standards. These standards, of course, will vary from team to team. If you're working with a $5 cordless drill, a hack saw, and someone's foot for a vice, you obviously won't have the same standards as the team with the in-house CNC, water jet, and welders. If you're the team with the $5 drill, it's measure twice, cut once; not the other way around. If you've got a CNC, you probably don't want people trying to eyeball things then making a cut with a hack saw. As long as you're doing the best with what you have, you're doing just fine.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I agree with sanddrag.


We did not know that we would have and issue until our first competition in New Hampshire when we started getting penalties that our base prevented the refs from seeing that our robot was touching the triangles, I mean we were over top of the things and our omni wheels were on the corners of the triangles, the zip ties were just a quick fix to prevent penalties to a decent robot. I mean in six weeks not all teams can find solutions to every single rule or even consider what the refs will call on the feild. But ever since the fix with the zip ties our team hasn't gotten a penalty, so our quick fix worked, now if we would have known that would have been an issue we would have done something about it while building the robot.

I don't know maybe my team isn't to the level yet in nit picking and completly finding every single rule that in competition will affect our robot based on ref calls. In the build season we didn't think that our robot would have the any penalty issues, but I guess we were wrong.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

What an interesting and timely subject.

Team 237 hosted a rookie team (1784 Litchfield HS) at last nights meeting. They are a startup with very limited exposure to this wonderful process called FIRST. They joined based on somebody taking their ears off about FRC and attending UTC last year. Their mentors are all new to this process. They are worried about being able to pull this off.

We had a wide-ranging conversation about how to build, what tools you really need, how to fund raise, what comes in the KOP and what their expectations should be for their rookie year. It was a great conversation. You can learn a lot by talking to rookies.

What do we all expect to get out of this? It's about the process. It's about compressing life into 6 weeks. It's about doing. It's about learning to fail. It's about gracious professionalism. It's about releasing the limitations that we all put on ourselves. It's about thinking outside of the box. It's about growing.

Perhaps we all need to talk to rookies, they are the ones that see this for what it's about.


Also For those that did not read all of Waynes post this is what you missed

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Although I agree that robot's should look professional, I would like to point out that there are teams out there without the means to make a more professional robot. Who's to blame? Perhaps "we don't try hard enough" but I feel that something like this cannot be said without viewing what any particular team goes through.

It is true, as someone brought up previously, that there are students on teams that do not "care." Sometimes, I get frustrated at my own team because I get the impression that the effort is evanescent. But when I look at each individual student, I realize that it's not always their fault. It's no "one" person's fault. Building a team is hard work. It's harder than doing a fundraising activity, it's harder than building a robot, it's harder than finding the time and money to sustain the team. Building a team calls for effort from everyone's side and leadership from a dedicated few as well. I think building a "real" team is more important than striving for a higher quality robot.
In fact, if a "real" team is formed, slowly, the rest of the problems will be solved (of course the teams will still struggle).

This, of course, is my opinion. I had no intention of insulting anyone else's opinion stated here.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

As a member of a team which had serious cash flow problems,

We have had any number of robots which looked a lot like overgrown erector sets, and we had one robot which looked (and functioned) like a real robot. Did we spend more on it? Only a little. Our actual real costs of materials were about $1200 for the robot chasis, which I contend that any team should be able to afford. The way we made it functionally excellent was by spending time, time and more time. How much? Well 3-4 of use lived at our machine shop for 3.5 weeks. We also made it excellent by refusing the "good enough" mentality. Any piece which earned the appelation "good enough" was immediatly thrown away. Our robot was neither anodized nor powder coated, but it ran perfectly. Through two complete regionals and all of the elimination matches (through the finals at 2 regionals) we never had a single mechanical problem* because we put time and thought into our design.

The other thing I see is teams getting into ruts. A decent basic design comes along and then everyone copies it. We (and the other really good robots) threw a lot of the "established design" out of the window for the really good designs. Some of you may recall heated discussion here a little less than a year ago debating that our robot would never even move. But we actually tried something, as opposed to just going with what other people do.

* I should note that our treads wore out, but they were planned as replacable, limited use parts

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I hear this argument all the time from many of the 'extreme-FIRSTers'
I don't believe sandrag means they don't care at all, they just don't have the same passion many do that spend alot of time on this forum. I believe everyone in the program has some excitement for it, whether it be large or small. And even if there excitment is little, I believe this to be no reason to say they SHOULDN'T be in the program. Many aren't in the program for the pursuit/interest in science/engineering but to be with friends and like minded company - I think some of us forget this often. FIRST is fun, even if you don't like robots.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I would like to see teams be pushed to make a more quality FIRST program (more school involvement, community involvement, help to strengthen the local and national FIRST scene and such) then I would "just building a quality robot". FIRST can only become stronger when teams strive to lift up the program and not just build the robot and leave it at that.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

My experience -- all 7 years of it, if you can imagine -- has been that teams that produce robots that have a high polish in design, fabrication and function have a better understanding of process than do teams that haphazardly and aimlessly assemble a robot. Both deserve to be proud of their efforts and, undoubtedly, both have learned something new that they did not know yesterday, last season, or last year -- but they're proud of different accomplishments. In other words, some teams are proud of pulling through at the eleventh hour, and others are proud for not having to stay awake for three or four days in order to meet their goal. Ultimately, there is no absolute arbiter to determine which accomplishment is better than another.

Where I'm concerned, process trumps ingenuity. A successful process that can provide a solution that is reliable, safe, cost-effective and on-time is far superior to a solution that prioritizes unorthodoxy and originality -- especially at the particular expense of reliability and safety. Students with a better understanding of process will be better equipped to handling projects of increased scale. Burning the candle at both ends to finish a project may be possible when you're surrounded by 30 students in a classroom, but it becomes less feasible when you're working beside 500 professionals at a company, each of whom have families and homes they must attend to.

Is process inspirational? Well, no. It's boring, actually. Process is built around meetings and approvals and budgeting and performance-review. It slows things down because it requires that we first explain and justify our intended course of action to others. Whether the others understand that action is almost inconsequential, as much of the value comes from simply slowing down and reexamining the decisions we make and their impact. I work fast alone; I work better in a group. Working with a group and explaining to them everything I do forces me to be more thoughtful and honest about my ideas. This benefits everyone and, where FIRST is concerned, usually results in robots that work. Is there anyone here who believes that fielding a robot that functions as designed and reliably so is not inspirational? It's certainly more enjoyable than spending six weeks on an ingenious gizmo that, come competition, doesn't work as advertised -- no matter how clever it looked on paper.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

It is not always possible for teams to create a robot that is "visually pleasing", but isn't that really apart of the challenge? It is difficult enough to finish the robot on time and some teams (including my own) have made adjustments that make the robots less professional looking. You know what though, I am glad we made those changes because it allowed for us to get a great robot functioning and competing despite its less lack of beauty. FIRST, however, does recognize a team's ability to make the robot neat, organized and more "professional" by awarding the Motorola Quality Award.


As for teams not working hard enough, I graciously disagree with that. Especially now, when companies are not able to contribute as much as they use to, it is unfair to point fingers and claim that due to lack of funding or resources a team has not been working hard enough. The challenge was not meant to be easy, if it was meant to be easy it wouldn't be much fun.

I really don't like seeing fights on CD, so lets please lets not continue this.
In Sanddrag's defense, I don't think he meant anything disrespectful by his opinion nor do I believe that he wanted to start a fight. It is glorious year 9 for me in FIRST and I admit that I still have a lot to learn about myself, my team and GP. I <3 FIRST!

GO FIRST!!!

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I'm not talking about people who aren't hardcore FIRSTers.

Im talking about the people who show up only to eat your food and screw around (yeah, you all know what I'm talking about. Every team has this happen :))

If they add absolutely nothing of value to the team, they should be asked to leave, or to start reforming their ways.

Maybe mechanicalbrain was referring to the type of people you were talking about though, and I misunderstood him.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Ultimately its your own experience which pushes you as a person, not neccessarily as a team, to build a better robot. What makes a robot look pretty is time and precision. Quality also gets improved through these virtues. When a person, not a team, gets fed up with cruddy parts, they spend a little more time on things. Trust me, in crude situations, I have seen a $20 drill do work that rivals a mill. Now, the neat little "306" machined into everything is a little harder.... :D So it really does come down to inspiration- in this case the inspiration to do better work! Functionality rarely has anything to do with aesthetics.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

For the saftey aspect everything you have mentioned (except for shielding moving parts) I've seen an inspector turn down a robot for not having done. It is in fact a rule that there are no sharp corners on your robots. With the case of the moving parts isn't a real concern because normaly common sence tells you when your testing the robot to stand back, well away from the entire robot.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Absolutely.

While I understand that "pretty" is not always possible I do believe ths in good design form and function are intrinsically related, and that sloppy welds, and useless pieces cannot add to the robot. On the otherhand, pieces which look like what they do (at some level) tend to function better and work longer with fewer problems.

As far as "process" goes, it is nice to have meetings, the officious people get to talk a lot, and people get to hear the sound of their own voices, however, we have tried (not always successfully) to keep meetings to the bare minimum. The question is, do you trust the people working on a particular part enough to let them follow the common plans and not breathe down their necks? As someone "in charge" of certain project aspects, I can personally attest to how hard it is not to micromanage. Furthermore, process creates totally functionaless people, people whose only purpose is to facilitate the "process," and who use up resources while creating nothing of value.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

One of the defining characteristics of engineering is that: Real engineers don't care about appearance!

Esp when you are designing what is clearly a prototype (one of a kind, tweak and improve as you go along) machine, like a FIRST robot, the only things that matter are form, fit and function.

Any time you spend making your robot pretty is wasted resources, because with the short 6 week design cycle you could ALWAYS put those resources to better use, making your robot function better, giving your drivers practice time, tweaking the SW in your control routines.

Real engineering is not about buffing and polishing metal and paint, its about finding the best solution to a real-world problem.

In the realm of a FIRST competition, a higher quality robot is the one that performs on the playfield and wins.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Then I guess whoever was responsible for making the Segway an absolute masterpiece of art isn't a "real" engineer. They were only pretending then right?

Would you pay 5 grand for a segway if it looked like this? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...le&picid=11889

I think not.

However much some may want to deny it, I think a notable portion of engineering (and the FIRST competition) is being able to sell yourself.

The idea I'm trying to present is that teams need not "waste" the resources they have but just find new resources. Make more time, get more help, strive for more, push for quality.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

If you read the book Code Name Ginger, it was revealed that marketing, and Dean himself played a role in the look of the finished product, not the engineers. They were too busy actually making sure it worked.

Once that was done, it was redesigned many times by the engineers to specifications from higher up to make it marketable.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Having a quality robot is a good thing, right? OK, then, should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots? No. They should push themselves. If the level of competition is high enough, teams who want to win will push themselves.

The best quality robot, IMO, will be the one that has an adequate or top-notch design for the purpose and is built with the best that the team can throw at it. For one team, that is CNCs, mills, etc. For another, hand drill and hacksaw. The team with hand drill and hacksaw might not be able to produce a better robot, but they should not be discouraged. They should be supported by the rest of us to learn from what they did so that they can go beyond where they did the year before and further push themselves in the future.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Yes, to the outsiders, it is important to be watching pretty robots move around the field.

But you have to look at the people involved in building the robots and the goal of FIRST. What is more inspirational to the students? Having a gorgeous robot who just sits on the field and might be able to get you points at the end of the match if the other two robots make it back in time because she doesnt move. Or having a robot that isn't so visually pleasing, but she works and she does what she was intended to do? Which one of those two robots is going to make the students want to return? The one that looks good in pictures, or the one that looks good in vidoes?

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

My point is not that you must sacrifice one to get the other. My point is that you CAN have time, money, and resources for both if you are determined to make it happen. Believe it or not, it is possible to build a robot that both looks good and performs well.

Also, I think if you read between the lines, several of the posts in this thread actually go to support my point that a lot of teams don't care and don't strive for more because they don't think it's necessary, they don't want to spend the time, or then don't think they can. I have no jurisdiction over how any team chooses to spend their time or whatever, but what I'm saying is don't sell yourselves short. You are capable of more than you know. Don't fall into that "we have no big sponsors and are lucky if our hack saw blade is sharp" mentality. Instead, do something about it. With a little effort and determination, you can suprise yourself with what you're able to pull off.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

SOME teams have the money, time, and resources. Others don't. And that is always going to happen. Teams all have their own set of behind the curtain problems that they have to deal with., whether its money problems, resource problems, management problems, or even just social problems within the team. And all teams have to work together to overcome these problems.

I agree that a great looking robot is nice, and I should have stated that earlier. But, it is not necessary, and it should not be a requirement. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to some pretty is a robot that can function smoothly, but to others it may be something completely different.

You say with a little effort as if there are a lot of teams who aren't putting in a lot of effort already. Being in FIRST is not an easy task. And many times, teams are hanging on by a thread. That's the reason a lot of teams don't have the time, etc. to beautify their already working robots.

In engineering, the visual aspect of a product is just as important as the functionality of said product, and I will agree with that. But, FIRST is meant to mimick the engineering world, not copy it exactly. If it were to do that, I would be expecting a cheque in the mail tomorrow.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

You guys are getting too hung up on visual meaning "nicely painted" as opposed to "not canned together." One of our favorite sayiongs is "you can't just put a bearing in and ship it." The point, "git er done" but do it right.

More importantly, aluminum polish is surprisingly cheap (a couple of dollars for a whole tube) and it gives the freshman something to do.

There is no reason why so many robots need to look like overgrown erector sets, especially from teams with 3 digit numbers.

Furthermore, as I have stated earlier, a good design is one where the function dictates a form that is clean by itslef and that does not need to be covered.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

it should not be a requirement that the robots look pretty and neat. There should however be a clear understanding and following of the safety issues that could arrise with a robot. It should be able to complete its task and do it in a safe manner. In my eyes that robot can beat and CNCed or TIGed robot anyday that can't even do the task for the game. While it being visually appealing is nice it is still not a must and probably will never be. We are given an objective and a task. If a robot that has tape hanging off it can do do the task then how are you to say it is less than any other robot.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Well, anything is possible. If we wanted to, it'd be possible to set up a colony on the moon. The problem is that some teams aren't as well off as others. Nigeria would have to work a lot harder to get their moon colony going than the US would. For some teams, the amount of energy needed to get on par with some of FIRST's more prestigious teams might not be worth it. I'm not saying that they have an excuse to show up with a taped together cardboard robot, but it might not be pratical for them to have their robot CNCed. If they spent all their time looking for resources, they wouldn't have time to build the robot and just have fun.

We make our freshman file recently cut things (many times, they were the ones that were forced to cut it). It's become a right of passage in the mechanical groups. Well, either that or a "I had to do it, so you have to do it too" kind of thing...

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

You cannot push quality any more than you can push a team or any team member to do anything they’re not inclined to do. Quality has nothing to do with desire – you can’t wish quality. Quality has nothing to do with time, or money, or the other guy’s attitude.

Quality has everything to do with craftsmanship. The problem, if you want to call it that, is that craftsmanship is not something like facial hair that you wake up one morning to find that you have. Could it be that the teams you admire are the ones with people who have learned the tricks of the trade, and others who are willing and able to learn them as well? Isn’t that why FIRST came to be?

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I don't think the freshmen comment was a very nice thing to say. At least on our team the freshmen are some of the greatest members. One was an operator and one was a driver. One did machining, one did wiring. Don't be so quick to talk them down.

I do agree with your statement about the erector sets though. That is exactly my point. Well, there might reasons but those reasons should be overcome with more effort and determination.

And yes, CNC, TIG, and anodizing and whatnot doesn't instantly equal quality. But I think that something that appears to be "slapped together" instantly represents lack of quality.

Why do teams spend a little extra money, time, and effort in making their robots look nice? Because they can. And what too many teams don't realize is that they can too! Don't underestimate yourselves; that's all I'm saying.

With that, I look forward to a year filled with well functioning, high quality, and aesthetically pleasing robots!

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

How soon you forget. 2004 One-Day Bot
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=27919
IMHO this was the "Best" bot of 2004.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

After reading this whole thread twice I have decided to put 2cents in.

Pretty robots, who cares? Quality robots are another matter.

I believe that some that have posted do not really understand all that goes on with different FIRST teams. There are a lot of teams that ship their robots not even built. With the restrictions that they have placed on them there is a real pressure to finish. There are teams that work out of basements and garages. There are teams with full shops, engineers, craftsmen, professionals at their disposal. We MUST NOT look down on others and expect them all to have the same amount of resources, dedication and time as we do.

The team that I joined met a t a mentors house and we worked in the garage and basement. They were able to find someone with a mill to do some of our work. Everything else was done in the garage. As the team gained experience the robot gained quality. We still don't have the prettiest robot around but we do take pride in our quality.

That said their are teams that just don't know how to do something properly. I was at an event 2 years ago and was doing some inspecting. One team just didn't have their pneumatics up to snuff. If you looked at it, it was like a rats nest. I stopped my inspecting and went back to that team. We spent a few hours going over everything so that they could pass inspect. I was also able to give pointers on "Good Housekeeping" on the robot. Gave reasons on why we should have neat wiring and pneumatics. The next year this team had really improved with the wiring and layout.

Sometimes we have to put ourselves into the other teams scenario. When I talked to the mentors of the above team I found out why. The team was designed as a student team. There were mostly new students. Mentors were new or not knowledgeable on some of the robot. There were financial issues. BUT the team did show, worked hard on their robot and made it to the elim rounds. They were happy, inspired and improved when they left. The next year I saw them with another team showing them the lessons that they were taught.

FIRST is a learning, growing and inspiring organization. We can never dictate pretty. We can however encourage and teach quality.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Of course we push teams to make better quality robots. That's why there are inspections. That's why we answer questions for whoever visits our pits. It is why we proudly post pictures of assemblies and robots. But more importantly, a quality robot in my mind, is one who accomplishes the tasks and keeps working match after match. It is a robot that is efficient in design, elegant in it's use of the parts provided, and just plain cool to see. To paraphase a famous judge, Quality is not something I can really define, but I know it when I see it.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Maybe FRIST could start a award that highlights the creativity and design of a robot. Of cores you want functionality out of your robot. How about creating something that appeals to the eye and shows of the creativity of your team. Maybe making fancy robots will help bring more spectators to the competitions most people are afraid of gears,chains and sprockets. Its not difficult to polish up the chassis and smooth out the rough edges. :rolleyes: Teams should not be pushed but encouraged!

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

Xerox Creativity Award.

Motorola Quality Award

GM Industrial Design Award.

Re: Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?
 

I dont want you to feel like Im picking on you, but there is a distinction to be made here.

There are people assigned the task of making products look nice, cool, pretty... whatever the marketing people tell them it has to look like to increase sales. They are called industrial designer or graphical designers. I do not mean to belittle the work they do. It is important, and I personally do appreciate a product that looks like someone put some thought into its appearence and the human-factors aspects.

But that takes time and money and resources - and you almost never see industrial designers involved in the engineering design cycle during the initial prototype phase of a new product.

Like I said before, FIRST robots are protoypes, one of a kind.

When I got my BSEE degree there were no courses that had anything to do with product appearance, polishing metal, applying paint, hooking up wires so they look nice. Im not aware of any of the other engineering disciplines offering any appearence-related courses. There are human interface courses, how to design a system so it is easy, safe and simple to use - but they are dealing with form, fit and function, not appearance.

I admit I am being a little snobby with my 'real engineers' comment. Engineers solve problems. We make systems that fullfill a need. When we get done making it functional we hand the system off to someone else to make it look pretty - but that someone else is not an electrical, mechanical, SW, chemical, industrial, or nuclear engineer.

The other thing you need to grasp is that for EVERY engineering project you always have limited funds, people, time and resources. No company is ever going to ask you to design a system, and tell you "go ahead and take as long as you need, spend as much as you want, hire as many engineers as you like, build new facilities, buy whatever equipment you like...."

FIRST does an excellent job of reflecting this: limited time, money, resources, materials that can be used... Teams are forced to make tradeoff decisions: what gives us the most return for the investment? Adding new features or functions to the robot, or taking the frame apart to polish it?

Engineering project management is one of the most important aspects of engineering. You have to know what resources you have at your disposal, and how to make the most of what you have.

Personally when I see a FIRST team that has gone way over the top, that has spent a fortune on their robot, and has 30 engineers at their disposal, and tons of money, my first thought is "Gee, couldnt you guys split up and start six more teams, with the same resources you are spending on one?" (but thats just me).