I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

OK, here is an interesting rule change. Changing this rule would give us these positives:

• save over $1 million in team costs
• eliminate the need to build "practice" robots
• eliminate countless spare parts
• increase the level of play in FIRST
• allow software and autonomous development to flourish
• eliminate the need for crates (for 90% of teams)
• give teams more time to work on the robot

However, this rule change would also result in these negative aspects:

• enable teams to create "copycat" designs of winning robots
• provide another disadvantage to teams who live far from regionals
• eliminate the "back to normal" time after the ship date
• give teams more time to work on the robot (yes, it is a negative too)
• robot loading on Thursday morning would need to be coordinated differently

Eliminate the ship date. That would be one HUGE rule change.

Over the years, I have wavered on this issue. However, I strongly feel that the positives outweigh the negatives now. With the added importance of software development and the increase of teams who build a second robot every year, we might as well just keep the robots with us to the events.

Andy B.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

I think it would further unbalance things. Some teams have more resources than others, this will never change. The more time teams have for "build period" the more prominantly the gap will show. If I had a year to build something with a full machine shop, I could run circles around the guy with hand tools. If both of us only had one day, however, we'd be closer together. Think of a race. There's no way I could run a 4 minute mile, and would have absolutely no chance of beating someone in a mile race if they could make that time. However, if the race was only 10 feet, I could probably hold my ground against someone who could.

Secondly, it would eliminate my favorite part of build period: the lack of sleep. For six weeks, I eat, breath, and sleep robots. If I had more time, it wouldn't be as hecktic. I would also miss that 2am scramble before it has to be shipped in 15 hours.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

Originally, my thoughts were that I liked this idea. I figured that since the well to do teams already are ahead, giving them extra time is probably giving them a relatively small increased advantage, whereas giving struggling teams more time would probably make them much more competitive.

After further thought, however, I think I was wrong originally. Right now, it's the great teams that are using their time wisely. This is why they do so well. Many of the teams who don't do so well are probably not using their time as efficiently as possible. By giving them more time, I don't think this changes at all. It would just let the elite teams develop more of a gap between the lower teams.

I likened this to a post I made before where I opined that no matter what the FIRST defined weight limit for the robot is, be it 100 lbs, 120 lbs, 130 lbs, 200 lbs, many teams are still going to find ways to not make it inside that weight without drilling/cutting up their bots.

No matter how much time teams are given to complete their robots, teams are still going to show up behind the game. I also think this would put a large strain on teams who barely have the membership and mentor support to put together a robot as is. To ask them to spend 25-50% more time on the robot would be quite a task.

Karthik also brought up a good point during a discussion on the matter--mentor burnout. We all know that mentors are putting in tons of hours to help, on top of having day jobs (or class, in the case of the college mentors). I think giving extra time would just be more time that these people continue to go all out. It's how we are in FIRST. Nobody is going to slow their pace and take it easy since there's an extra 3-4 weeks.

If there was no ship, FIRST becomes a committment that spans over a quarter of class, and nearly a whole semester, counting competition. I think teachers and schools already think that six weeks is enough. a full quarter and a half of unabated robot activity would be unacceptable in many of their eyes.

I think creating something in six weeks is much more impressive, and much more challenging. FIRST teams have come up with some truly magnificent designs in a very short timespan. Given more time, more creative designs would probably appear. I think it's much more impressive and inspiring to view masterpieces that are perfectly suited to play a given game in six weeks, than to see the same robots that have been tweaked a bit more, but took 2.5 months to create. Having these top few to look up to makes everyone want to aspire to greater heights. Seeing a whole horde of them due to having extra time wouldn't impress me nearly as much.

I think there are some clear positives involved. Even though I see the gap widening between the "haves" and "have-nots", overally level of competition would probably go up. Whether or not it would increase enough to make the extra time worth it is debatable. Overall, I'm not entirely sold on some of the major issues as seen above.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

I have always voiced concerns about the "no ship" idea, mainly for the reasons already mentioned: 1)the rich will get richer by making better use of the added time, so the less fortunate teams will not be happy; and 2)the burnout factor will be significantly worse because the intense part of the season just got extended. I still feel that way, and I might regret supporting the "no ship" approach here....but what the heck, here is my attempt to brainstorm on Andy's suggestion by making a few modifications. I'm
brainstorming here - please don't think I am convinced this is a good idea :).

The basic assumption is, in order to save money, allow teams to bring their robot to their regional competition(s), allow them to take it home after the competition(s), and allow them to bring it to the Championship. Allow them to work on it any time after kickoff and before the Championship finals. FWOF. Fifteen Weeks Of Fun. Fifteen WithOut Family. FIRST Will Overwhelm Fanatics. Finally We Organize FIRST.

We have some problems to overcome, so we need some solutions:

Problem 1: Don't let the rich get richer. If we give the fortunate teams more time, they will widen the gap to the less fortunate teams.
Solution 1: Peer-pressure historically experienced teams to compete at earlier regionals (make it a badge of GP-honor to be a week1 competitor, and try to reserve week5 for rookies and 2nd year teams). Maybe have a quantitative rating system. Also Solution 2 helps.

Problem 2. Prevent burnout.
Solution 2: Shorten the time between Kickoff and week1 regionals. Have regionals start the Thursday of week6. No rest after build season.

Problem 3: Allowing teams to work continuously on their bot will result in copying of the "winning" ideas and lack of creativity. (This already occurs now, btw)
Solution 3: Right before the start of regionals, require teams to issue a capability statement indicating what their robot is capable of or will be capable of. Not strategies, but functions. Essentially define the hardware they plan to run. Submit pictures. In the following weeks, disallow any big hardware (not strategy or tactics) changes that the team apparently copied from watching regionals. Allow any changes that didn't require big hardware modifications. The problem is how to efficiently enforce such a judgement-intensive mess.

Problem 4: Late regionals will be in more demand because it will allow teams more time. Late registerers will cry "I got robbed of time" because the late spots will fill up.
Solution 4: See Solution 1. Old teams help the new teams by giving them the late season slots. Might need to tweak the regional schedule to balance the geographic regions. Life will still be not fair. Some will take advantage.

Keep in mind that this so-called "no ship" approach doesn't eliminate shipping - we still need to get our bots to the show. But as Andy indicated, it would reduce the costs. No more expensive MCS bills (love this!). Plus, there would not be a need for a 2nd bot for practice/autonomous - this would be a time/money/fairness benefit.

The above was only brainstorming.....

Ken

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

I know our team isn't the only one who saw the "back to normal" time vanish before our eyes when autonomous mode was first announced. At least for software-oriented people anyway. Even though I really enjoyed it the first year or two, I'd be pretty excited if they just eliminated it this year. ;) Our software team was working at least 20 hours a week (and usually a lot more) from kickoff all the way through the Championship. And after all that we still couldn't cap that darn center goal (grrrrrr).

What if kickoff was shifted such that the time from kickoff to the first set of regionals was about the same as the current build period? Then we could pick up many of the advantages Andy listed without making the first quarter of the year completely unbearable for everyone...

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

Hmm...I think I'll take robot-drying lessons from dlavery. :D :D

Seriously, transporting the robot without the crate is difficult at best. I mean, you need at least an SUV, if not a full-size van. Plus you need the tools. Now, you put them all in a crate and they are protected. Remove that requirement, and suddenly your shipping costs are reduced, but you need someone with a large vehicle to take robot and tools, then the people that vehicle can hold are shifted to others...not to mention that fact that if you use an open trailer, the weather may get to it (not that heat could not affect the robot in a van or anything), and then you may need a bailer for the robot. So now teams need lots of spare parts, and their costs go up due to making them. Plus extra transportation. You get the picture.

Also, wasn't this rule used way back in the day? If so, why did FIRST change it (if you know)?

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

I'm with Ken on this one. I'm not a big fan of this idea either. Cory did a really good job encapsulating the "Con" side of the argument. But, I'm going to follow Ken's lead and try add to Andy's idea.

Many of the rules that we have in FIRST are only enforced by an honour code. The 25 lbs. of spare parts, and the restrictions imposed during the fix it windows are good example. Was there anyone making sure that all new code was retyped at the competition venues? Obviously not. We left it up to the teams to honour this rule. What am I getting at? We could impose some restrictions on teams via the honour code, that would make the "No Ship" rule a lot more palatable.

Rule 1: Tools down day occurs on the Wednesday before the 1st weekend of regionals. This means, no more physical additions or changes to your robot past this date. Software development, fabrication of spares, repairs and practice are still allowed.

Rule 2: After each regional you compete at you get three days to repair your robot.

Rule 3: This one is similar to Ken's idea, where a team would declare certain functionalities, to prevent "copycat" robots.

These restrictions would help prevent the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" from growing too much. The tools down rule would definitely lessen the burnout factor, and prevent the build season from running for 3.5 months.

The big question is, would teams adhere to this type of an honour code? Would teams be able to stare at their incomplete robot and not work on it? At every competition, would people be looking at the dominant robots and wonder "Did they really put their tools down?" How much do we all really trust each other. I'm not too sure this is the best idea, but maybe it could work. I'd like to think that I have a good amount of faith in the participants of this program.

Again, I'm just bouncing ideas around, I'm more than fine with keeping things as they are right now.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

That would only work if international teams all had their local regional. Not only we get our kits late (a week, usually), we need at least three weeks to get our robot to the US.
FIRST isn't fair and we all know it, I just think a rule like that would make things too unfair.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

To me, it would ruin the whole experience by eliminating the ship date.

Part of the challenge is getting the robot completed on time and getting it to the right weight. I also believe that it becomes less fun that way because instead of those late night'ers in robotics, you'll be going to sleep at a reasonable time due to the increase in build time. Also, the whole "rushed engineering" process starts declining.You will begin to see less participation in the pits due to the fact that robots will be designed better and their won't be much to do on the robot for some teams. Finally, you will see less team enthusiasm and team work because a lot of bonding goes on during those "late night'ers" and by eliminating them, students won't be as emotionally involved leading to FRC events that just won't be the same ever again.

GO 1403!!!

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Adding 1 to the con list:

A lot of teams would have a heck of a time getting their robot to the competition. I mean, it's not like you can tie a 130 lb robot to the luggage rack of a minivan or something. Transporting a robot like that would require some sort of a trailer, and a lot of teams probably don't have those, I know we don't. The purchase would be exceptionally expensive.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Baker, you certainly are a trouble maker. :) Great thread here.

My 2 cents:
1. I LOVE eliminating the cost and some of the stress.
2. I like encouraging week 1, 2 for vets and have later weeks for rookies, BUT geography drives many of these decisions, not time. Rookies are likely to go to the close regional because travel is the other big expensive bear in FIRST.
3. I too would be a little wary of widening the gap.

So if I had to vote, I'd vote to keep ship date, unless someone comes up with creative solutions to these other issues.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

A box on wheel with amazing drivers will always beat an overly complex and hard to control robot with inexperienced drivers.

Therefore, I think eliminating the ship date would be benneficial. It would turn the build into a more casual time period, cutting out about 2-3 weeks worth of stress. I also like playing by the honor code, with something to the extent of a "tools down day" This would require the teams to have the same build deadline, as well as give many teams who fill the entire 6 weeks with building some time to program and practice.

Can you say working autonmous modes?!

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Usually Andy has great ideas. Unfortunately he must have a short memory. He must have forgotten what it was like at ship time and how his wife was looking forward to him coming home. I know!!!! He is trying to find another way to keep from those house chores.

I will go on record as saying KEEP the ship date. I really don't see teams gaining that much by extending. The reason is that those that can, do and those that don't, won't. Yes I believe that the gap will widen. I also know that I as a mentor will have serious burnout and home problems if ship is extended. I also believe that ship is what makes this program so world like. Meet the deadline or you lose out. All teams are on an equal foot. Do what you will with your time but it still ships on time.

I also see a problem with the idea of "historically experienced teams" playing early. Who are they and what if there are no early comps nearby? I also believe that teams will send out more scouts and make changes to their robot after seeing others. This happens now and they can only build them at comps.

Enough of my negative (or positive, depending on your view) thoughts. Why not set up a poll just for numbers?

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I think it's wishful thinking to assume that teams would relax. I think this might happen with the teams I mentioned earlier that don't manage time well, but all the well off teams are going to keep at it with the same intensity that they would during a six week build.

I like the idea of having a tools down date, but I doubt that teams will follow it out of the goodness of their hearts. Plenty of teams would keep working.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

“…It’s like life. You never have enough information. You never have enough time. The kit of materials is what you have in the warehouse. There are always competing things and you must have a strategy. We’ve created a microcosm of the real engineering experience.”

Woodie Flowers, MIT Professor &
FIRST National Advisor

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I think FIRST will find other ways to boost software development before they let you keep it until the regional.

For me, I could do a six week build two or three times per year but I don't think I could do much more than six weeks in one "sitting."

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Why not use both systems. Keep the FedX for teams like our friends in Brazil, or out in the boonies, or without access to an SUV. They could benefit even more by having their bot shipped to a second event from the savings gained by others opting to BYO.

We in the Oakland County, Michigan area have two regionals that are less than one hour away, and four more within a six hours or less. We could save the rest of the country those extra shipping costs by not waisting resources by shipping ours across the street.

As for giving the well to do teams an additional advantage - I just can't buy that. Not when I keep reading here that 'it's not about the robot' & 'it's not about the competition' - so why do the arguments always boil down to leveling the playing field? - as if we could. We have a 50,000 sq. ft. machine shop with three water cutters, eight CNC, 200 ProE seats, etcetera., and etcetera. They could cut the build time in half and we'd make the show. More time means nothing to us. But cash money sure does.

As to the fear of copycats: IMO, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Not only that, it's one heck of a good way to even things out. A good idea is a good idea - and it's often the case that the copy-cat improves on it. What could be wrong with that?

Recent and current events have led me to believe that we cut costs, or else .:( . ! So, with respect to the parent thread, it's not just one line item we need to examine, but any and all that waste resources.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I think you're missing the issue.

If they have to ship the robot three weeks in advance, they get 3 less weeks to work on the robot than everyone else. It would have to be out of their hands 3 weeks before week 1 of regionals. That's as early as ship currently is. If they chose to go to two regionals, or regionals and nats, the robot would be in transit, or the US from the end of feb. through the end of april.

That's a huge competitive disadvantage.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

And I think you are missing my point, which is that it's not about a competitive advantage, it's about whether there's a competition.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

In real-world engineering many projects have drop dead dates: trade shows where new systems will be introduced, military contracts with fixed delivery dates, other system designers who need your piece of the project by a certain date or they end up sitting on their hands until you deliver....

No matter how you slice it, we will end up with a drop-dead ship date. Whether its 6 weeks or 10 weeks, and the bot goes in a crate or a rented U-haul trailer, a deadline is a deadline.

And no matter how much time you allow, some people will always say "if I only had two more weeks....."

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Implying that a team should be grateful just to be competing just doesn't cut it when they know they're getting half as much time to make their robot as everyone else.

Completely shafting the what, 20-30 non canadian foreign teams for the benefit of the rest of the teams is not something FIRST should even entertain doing.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

When I first read this idea, I thought that it was one of the dumbest ideas I'd heard of. After thinking about it, I'm still skeptical, but it doesn't sound quite as bad. As many have said, the major disadvantage is burnout. I think that coupled with that it would be more difficult to recruit mentors for such a long commitment period.

There's a statement made that this will be helping the "rich" at the expense of the "poor." Contrarily, in my opinion, the opposite will happen. This will provide the "poorer" teams with less resources the ability to better compete. Why? Will a team do better because they went from having a good robot with a small amount of practice to a good robot with a large amount of practice or because they went from a barely functional robot to a good robot? I'm betting that going from barely function to good will help teams more. And which teams are most likely to be in the second category? I'd say the "poorer" teams are.

Matt

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Everyone who says this really needs to enlighten me a little bit, because I can't possibly see how eliminating the ship date is going to widen the gap. I can see many instances of narrowing the gap, such as:

Right now you have a lot of the "have" teams already working 15 week schedules building 2nd robots and using them for driving practice, autonomous testing, etc. The "have not" team cannot do this. By eliminating the ship date, now the "have not" teams are on even footing with the "have" teams since now the "have not" teams would have a robot for driver practice, autonomous testing, etc. This would significantly narrow the gap.

"Have not" teams can see how the good teams do it in week 1 and 2 regionals and gain a little design inspiration in time for their regionals or even in time for the championship. Once again, the gap is narrowed.

"Have not" teams could only afford to go to one regional before being trounced at nationlas while the "have" teams go to two or three regionals. Extra regionals mean the "have" teams get to work the bugs out of the robot, gain valuable driving time and match experience, and improve robot function and strategy. Allowing all teams to keep the robots would mean the "have not" teams could work bugs out of the robots, organize scrimmages with teams within reasonable driving distances, and gain valuable driving time and experience with the robot. Once again, the gap is narrowed.

I could list many more reasons how the gap is narrowed, but this post is already long enough.


As far as robot transportation goes, anyone can go to an Enterprise rent-a-car and rent a 15-person van for about $50 per day. Put the robot in the back and you still have room for 8 people. Robot shipping and transportation all in one - and cheaper than shipping a 300 lb crate.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Just as a thought regarding the extra time thing for some--suppose build season was staggered.

For example, 1293 goes to Palmetto. We'd receive our kit about seven weeks or so before the event, build, and load up the truck and drive it there.

Now say, for example, that 330 wants to come to Palmetto (and for these purposes, only Palmetto), and will have to ship the robot. They would receive their kit three weeks earlier than 1293 does, and be required to ship it out three weeks before the event.

I'm not sure how multiple events would work--one part of me says that teams that can afford multiple regionals can usually afford shipping from event to event, but I know that might not always be the case. Thoughts?

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

One last word - then I'll say no more about it...

I'm not talking about shafting anybody. I'm talking about the 200 to 300 teams that appear to have gone missing this year, and the ones who have registered, but have no idea what will happen come 9 - December. The ultimate competitive disadvantage is not being able to afford to compete in the first place.

It's been stated here that we can trust GP to keep it fair by putting down the tools on ship day, and promising to not make major overhauls in between competitions. I think that would work. On the other hand, it is my opinion that if we don't cut the cost, then the ones who are lucky enough to find and keep major sponsors will soon find it more and more lonely at the top.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Yeah, I'm not big on the elimination of the ship date myself. Veteran teams can already plow their way through the rookies if they wanted to. Giving them another few weeks would only widen the gap, like everyone said.
However, I'm also not big on paying the cost of shipping 120 pounds of robot and 80 pounds of tools to competition.
My idea is that teams can utilize whatever method they want. If you want to ship the robot by way of UPS, you say so on the registration. If you want to rent a Uhaul truck and move the robot yourself, that can work, too. The only requirement is that the robot has to be at the competition site within, say, 24 hours of the ship date. You'd also have to drop the robot off in its crate and everything, so that it's no different from robots dropped off by UPS (or whatever shipping company you picked).
I think that would eliminate the heavy costs of shipping and the risk of your robot getting damaged along the way by careless people, but keep teams on even ground, since the ship date is virtually the same for every team.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I have to ask about this 'heavy cost of shipping'.

Isnt Fedex offering free shipping to the 1st event this year?

If Fedex is still providing free shipping, I dont think they are going to offer teams $600 in cash instead, if you choose to strap your bot to the roof of someones Geo instead.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

In terms of the cost, FIRST used to be more flexible on the shipping issue, at least with a single regional. In past years (as late as 2003 or 2004), the method getting it to the dryage was up to the teams. For local events, our team used the school pickup truck to drive the crate over (yeah you still needed a crate). Depending on distance (the farthest we drove was Baltimore which is about 2 hours for Annapolis dryage), it was not real expensive. Basically lunch and tolls. Now I beleive you have to have a truck with a 48" bed. I forget the exact height, but basically a semi or commercial van that can reach a loading dock.

As for the extra time. I'm mixed. Personally. I take a long weekend immediately after the ship date. I don't want it to continue for an extra few weeks. My team doesn't have the resources (money or mentor-wise) to build a practice robot. So some extra time probably would help.

At the same time I work in an industry where billion dollar contracts can be lost because of missing a deadline. I worked on a large team doing proposal for the government that was due by 5pm on a certain date. At 5:01 our whole year long effort would not even have been accepted. The company actually had the proposal printed twice, sent in two separate trucks an hours or two apart to make sure that if the first truck ran into an issue we'd make the deadline. So yeah, deadlines can be important.

Finally, I've worked with enough engineers to know that they will tweak, and tweak, and tweak a design until you take the item physically out of thier hands. And often those tweaks end up hurting the overall design. Time is not always your friend.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I don't know what my opinion really is on this, but a few thoughts:

I think there needs to be an across the board "tools down" date. Whether that remains an actual ship date, or becomes honor code, I don't know.

Regardless if FedEx pays for the first regional shipment, many many teams (majority?) go to a second regional (some a third). The argument could be "they don't have to", which is true, but I would want to compete as much as possible for all the hard work put in. Then there's the shipping to Championships. I am not sure we can rely on FedEx to give free shipping forever, so perhaps at some point the cost will increase due to this.

I also disagree that the gap would be widened. I just don't think it would benefit the "have's" as much as it would the "have-not's". I do not want to see the build season go on too long (for burn-out, time committment reasons), but if there's an honor code "tools down" it should be respected and followed. This isn't a place for cheaters, but I suppose there will always be some. (I don't know any, but just assuming realistically)

It's a lot about cost. Let's say there's a regional 40miles away from me. I have to ship my robot to some place that is 200mi away from me, just so that it can be shipped back close to home. Seems silly doesn't it. Seems like a waste of money. It happens. Our robot has been able to fit an SUV the last few years. Teams without a trailer or SUV, I am not sure what the solution is, but you could spend a couple grand on a trailer that can be used for the next 20yrs, or you could pay $600 twice a year for the next 20yrs. I don't know exact numbers, but it's all relative.

If we can eliminate the need for most crates and shipping, it could reduce the cost and time for unloading and reloading at the event (for teams and FIRST).

As far as having software and autonomous flourish by having more time with it, I'd like to see these systems reused for a couple years so we could master it. Or, provide more information about these systems earlier than kick-off so that teams can try it out. We wouldn't know the game, but we could know "this camera has to find the color green" and there could be some development time in the Fall.

On the note of having veteran teams compete in earlier regionals and rookies in later.... It wouldn't much matter if there's a honor code in place. But, I am not a fan of this idea. Personally I like to compete against a diverse group of teams. I want the competition to be strong, but there are a lot of strong, innovative rookies out there too. I don't want to see all vets vs vets in the first weeks and all rookies vs rookies in later weeks. Some might like that, some might not. Now, this is no mandatory rule, and there would be conflicts of when teams can compete, but in general, if this were to happen, I wouldn't be a fan.

So, like I said, I'm not sure what my opinion is. There will always be pros and cons no matter what we do. There will always be those with and without. What is more beneficial in the long run? I don't think we can just open it up and say "eliminate the ship date and work as long as you like", but some will say "you can't rely on an honor code". I say, why not? In this type of organization, where GP is the key, why would there be people that want to break the honor system? (kinda retorical question but perfectly legit)

I would essentially like to see the time restrictions (for many reasons stated in this thread) stay somewhat in place, but find a way to eliminate "unnecessary" costs. There will be teams that have those costs no matter what, but unfortunately we will never make everyone happy. But, even if time restrictions were opened up a little, perhaps instead of assuming the veteran teams will continue to dominate the rookies, maybe it will give the vets more time to HELP the rookies.

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

Interesting discussion.

One of the aspects of the FIRST program that I appreciate and enthusiastically talk about when promoting the program is the fact that the robot must be designed, built, tested and shipped in just six weeks. My feeling is that we would be losing an important part of what FIRST is about by eliminating the ship date. Here are some other reasons:
1) In the real world, there are deadlines that cannot be moved. In my biz, the green flag is going to fly whether you are ready or not. We are doing what we can to help the students prepare for the world after school and this world revolves around immovable deadlines.
2) Many projects take up all available time given to them without an increase in the efficiency or efficacy of the end product. Extending the time will not magically increase the quality of the robots.
3) The most valuable commodity that any of us has, and it is all the same everywhere, is time. It is the only way to allow some teams to compete with others. The have and have not discussion usually revolves around money, or that which money can buy. If the time is increased, the disparity in financial status between teams will be much more pronounced since the potential leveling influence of the firm, universal deadline will be removed.
4) Burnout! Without a doubt, if the deadline were removed, this would become a larger factor. Right now, it is far easier to recruit mentors and get the blessings of parents since the major time commitment is limited.

Bill Woolley
Team 1079

PS: Be sure to get the November issue of SERVO magazine.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

sorry for having little faith in humanity, but an honor code is really unreliable. Some teams may follow it if their robot is done, but most teams will continue work if there's something they think they can improve. It would be fantastic if everyone just played nice and worked with what they have after 6 weeks, but honestly, it only takes one cheating team to mess up an entire regional. While 39 teams are playing on even grounds, one has an unfair (but not illegal) advantage, and that hurts everybody.
If you're going to loosen up shipping rules, you really have to put other limits in to keep cheating from happening.

As for the free shipping: if it happens, then great! If you want to attend a second regional, though, it'd be cheaper for you to drive the bot around yourself. Nationals, though, are a whole different story. I doubt someone will spend 4 days driving a truck from California to Atlanta and back. If FedEx offers free shipping anywhere, it really ought to be to Nationals.

Most people build their robot close to a regional competition. Our regional is literally 20 minutes by car away from our school. If it comes down to paying FedEx $600 or renting a truck for $80, I'd pick the truck. Rural areas are different, though, where you might have to drive 3-5 hours to a regional. Economically speaking, it's still much cheaper to rent a truck, but it's really up to the individual team weather or not driving for a day is worth $400.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

something else that no one has mentioned yet:

one of the goals of FIRST is to have a team at every HS in the country. The only way this would be possible is with local area regionals. "local" teams can always deliver the bot to the local regional with little expense (keeping the present 'ship date' the way it is)

so getting rid of the ship-date requirement puts us in a situation that most likely will revert back when FIRST grows larger.

One other thing, there is a real feeling of accomplishment and completion when you put the bolts in the crate and the forklift driver hauls it to the loading dock. Maybe im being sentimental, but you are not going to get that same milestone by saying "ok, its 5PM, everyone put your tools down".

Many teams have people staying up 24 hours, 48 or even 72 hours straight to get the bot ready to ship - and the weird thing is, we LOVE it!

Shipping is a milestone, its a goal, its an event - its a huge part of the FIRST experience.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

As I've read this thread, it seems that FIRST is a robot building competition. I thought that FIRST had different goals. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Goal One. Inspire pre-college students to pursue careers in science and engineering.
Goal Two. (a subsidiary to goal one). Make FIRST competitions more spectator friendly, so that folks who are not currently participating in FIRST get fired up and want to become part of FIRST.


The Ship Date obviously does not contribute to either of these goals. If you could spread the build phase further, most people would have the time, physical, and emotional resources to provide better mentoring to the pre-college students on the team.

If you reduce the wasted costs, you allow teams to spend those resources in a manner which may more effectively allow them to achieve their real goals. You also allow FIRST to reduce its costs. Those wasted costs include:
1. shipping - Mostly FedEx (could they put this money to more effective use?)
2. drayage - Mostly FIRST (could they put this money to more effective use?)
3. crate, time to build crate
4. tracking crate, getting it redirected to the proper site when it goes astray.
5. spare robot
6. emergency shipping of purchased parts when you realize you need a Potrzebie TOMORROW!!!
7. cost of scrap parts because you did not have enough time to prototype or think through all aspects of the design.

What happens to most teams when they hit the ship date? They down tools and go back to their lives. You may not see any of your pre-college students (as a mentor) or mentors (as a pre-college student), until you get on the van/plane/hotel for the first competition. If you extend the fabrication date, you will have more calendar time to mentor. This may not work for every team but it would certainly work for ours.

So, Goal One would be directly impacted in a positive fashion by removing the ship date.

Even if you lay down your tools on the ship date and attend the first week regional, Goal Two will be improved, simply because teams will learn the "features" of their design by having their drive team drive it for a week. This will allow teams a better opportunity to know exactly what tweaks to make in the pits. Better tweaks, more drive practice = more spectator friendly competition. Hence, more people are likely to get fired up about participating in FIRST.

Jack Jones made a very good point, which seems to be misunderstood or disregarded. Waste, as directly measured in dollars, will result in a marginal, unnecessary decrease in resource available to teams. Which will result in a marginal decrease in teams.

On a final note: Fairness. Who cares? We ALL benefit when someone who has a good idea has enough time to execute that idea. If teams then copy this idea or emulate this strategy, then better, more spectator friendly matches occur later in the season.

The Technokats had a great "big ball" manipulator in 2004. Baxter had a neat cork-screw tetra pickup in 2005. Those ideas are now in MY tool-bag, for future application in other arenas of life. I am richer for those teams having spent resources to bring those ideas to fruition.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

keep in mind, no where in the rules does it presently state engineers are only allowed to mentor students during a six week period.

Mentors can work with students all year if they have the time and resources. During the fall you can build base-model practice bots from the left over parts from last years kits, do experiments with the edu bot, learn to use machine tools, cad programming, C programming, learn about the engineering design cycle, data-driven analysis to analyse the game and your bots performance, learn about PID control loops, Power, energy, force - how physics applies to robotics...

then at the kickoff meeting you hit the pavement running

there have been so many excellent FIRST robots over the last 14 years, how can anyone say that 6 weeks is not enough time?

one could easily point at any aspect of FIRST and say "this is a waste of time, money and resources" - travelling expenses, hotel rooms, uniforms, the animation, building the crate or a practice playfield.... from one persons point of view other things are not important, but they might be a very important part of FIRST to someone else.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Andrew, you also missed one of the really big points of the six week build cycle. Out in the real world we face deadlines every day. Good engineering isn't always building and testing to the "Nth" degree. More times than not, it's getting the job done in adverse, some might say hostile, conditions. :ahh: It means keeping a cool head and coming up with the best solution that can be accomplished within the time and resources that the situation allows. The engineers of Mission Control didn't get extra time to save the lives of the Apollo 13 crew. You work with what you're dealt. :cool:

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

After reading through this post I understand everyone’s arguments. The thing I find most surprising is everyone is saying that at the end of the six week period everyone returns back to their normal lives. In every year that I have done FIRST I can't ever remember a year that life went back to normal once we shipped the robot. In all four years that I was involved in FIRST we built a practice robot. The thing with a practice robot is, you want it done before your first competition so your programmers can program your autonomous modes, and your drivers can get some practice in before you get to the competition. This means that you have about a week to build/finish an identical robot to the one you just shipped away in the crate. That means there are a lot more long hours put in after the ship date. The solution to this problem, eliminate the ship date, so the need for a practice robot would also be eliminated. I can say that in my 4 years of FIRST and 2 years with the Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association (OCCRA), the system that OCCRA uses is a lot better than the system FIRST uses. OCCRA uses a system where your first competition is your build deadline. You show up that day with your completed robot and compete. Once done competing you take you robot back home and you can continue to work on it/improve it up until the final competition of the year. I understand I'm kind of comparing apples to oranges here, but if FIRST could eliminate the ship date and say show up Thursday at your first competition with a robot that is ready to compete, I feel it would be better. Then when you’re done competing, you could take your robot back home to fix it and make whatever modifications your team sees fit to be more competitive. I feel this is a lot better than shipping your beat up robot off to the next competition and showing up with spare parts and zip ties to fix your robot. This would mean that come the championship event robots would be at the peak of their game which would make for a lot better and more exciting competition.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

skimoose,
Most of what I posted is true if you do away with the ship date but down tools at the end of six weeks (i.e. have a Completion Date deadline).

However, FIRST has increased the scope of work since the original inception of the ship date, without providing a new deadline. In the "real world" this means that teams have to allocate more resources within the six weeks to accomplish the same goal. These resources have to come from somewhere. This usually means increases in costs and decreases in "non-essentials."

I also have to respectfully disagree with your " best solution that can be accomplished within the time and resources that the situation allows" since FIRST has stated again and again that they want to see more spectator friendly competitions. Which means robots that are more tweaked out.

KenWittlief,
I didn't say the rules forbade us from mentoring outside the six weeks. I said that most of our students, especially the ones who are "on the edge" (which is the prime pool that we want to reach) vanish outside the six week build phase. If we can extend the "reach time" through regionals and nationals by having a focus point (continued build OR practicing with the robot), we will probably increase the number of students who might come to the extra activities that you have described.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Andrew,

I agree FIRST wants more tricked out robots (don't we all), that's why programs shouldn't hybernate after, or before, the six week build. This forum shows people actively designing, if not building, new drive train components off season. That's what should be going on with sensors and autonomous, too. We can never master everything during the build season, it's just not feasable unless you're a team with more engineers than students. We are not one of those teams. We have been trying to work on robot designs off season. If we can become more proficient during the off season, we can more easily complete our tasks during the build season.

We're also one of those teams that regularly lose build days to snow. We'd love to find a way to reverse that problem, but we live with it. As far as shipping costs, yes that should definitely be addressed. Perhaps someone should design a standard shipping crate which is light weight, can be easily dismantled for storage, which is completely reusable and modular. I think the over-weight drayage charges are a bit steep, too. Our crate's volume to weight ratio isn't nearly as heavy as most shipped materials. We try to use the same crate each year, but it does take build time to get it out of long term storage, reassemble it, and build new tie downs for the new robot. That's time that would be better spent building the bot.

There are certainly many rules that can be tweeked, but overall the system isn't that bad. If anything it's fair, or unfair, to almost everyone.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

it would be a bit hard for the internationals.... for example i don't think they allow a 60kg or whatever it is robot in hand luggage and its a bit big to fit in the hold limits....
but i can see the advantages too...

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Ya know....
If we eliminated the ship date, moved the kickoff back a few weeks and provided a random drawing to insure that the early regionals were well attended by rookies and veterans, then teams might be able to attend more regionals. Since there is an abundance of post season events, it is obvious you all want to continue to play throughout the year. By spacing out the regionals attended a team will have less impact on the academics of it's students missing school for regionals all in one semester, etc. Rookies would have a much better first year experience if they were able to work on the robot after seeing other designs. I am not saying I agree with Andy yet, just mulling over the possibilities.
There still is nothing like seeing the robot finally in the box and the last screws going in while it is dragged to the loading dock.

ed. If we were to spread out the regionals, there would be less expense on the playing field shipping since there would be less needed and there would be less of a burnout factor on the FIRST and IFI staffs if they didn't need to be on the road constantly.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

There would be more costs for shipping the fields if they went to more events. There would also be more events for staff to attend. There is also the issue with volunteers. Some events have great difficulty in providing volunteers as it is. Key positions would also prove harder to fill with more events.

I still feel that the "real world" feel to FIRST is what makes it so special. Everyone have the same challenge and the same time frame to complete. For those that don't like it, well, think of schools that have exams and you can write them whenever you want. You can watch others write theirs and see what their answers are before you write your exam. Lets have a race. you go first and I will go when I want and use what ever mode I wish. We will see who wins.

Right now everyone works to the same deadline with basically the same resources. Some have more money and some have less. Some have professional engineers and some have none. Teams are still competing and some have better robots than others. I will say though that some of those with less money and/or less engineers learn more than some those that have everything given to them. We have a great program with built in limitations. If some teams want to spend more time with a second robot then let them. I have a better idea, ban second (or practice) robots. That could save a lot of money that could be used to help other teams.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

The crates get shipped to drayage. They get stuck in a warehouse during the time between ship and your competition. Very few, if any, of the venues have the space to store 50 crates for weeks.


I've mostly seen the biggest hardest challenge of FIRST as being one of time management. I have some thoughts on how time management is equally available to most teams, rich and poor -cash, shop capability, engineers available. Unfortunately, I'm still a little blitzed by my child psych and nutrition tests so you will have to think it through like I did.

Removing the ship date removes that.

Wetzel

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

In regard to ship date, the biggest difference between the "haves" and "have-nots" is the second robot. Those with the resources to have a clone get a definite advantage in the post-ship/pre-tourney timeframe.

Shipping costs vs. bring-with-you costs probably have minimal difference overall. (YMMV based on your distance from and how many Regionals you attend.)

I enjoy the OCCRA season where you essentially use the earlier competitions as a trial, then bring your robot home again to tweak (or completely rebuild, in some cases). But that is not how FIRST Regionals are organized. Each Regional stands alone in terms of competition.

Sure, our team (and many others) could benefit having between-Regional rebuild periods. I'm not sure I want to make the trade for a longer build season, though - essentially Jan through April, 15 or 16 weeks!

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Andy, Thank you for finally starting a legitamate discussion on this topic. I have been bringing this up for 10 years.
Personally I am and have always been fundamentally agains shipping.
I have yet to see another example of a rule like this in another machine sport. No other league I have ever seenever takes you machine away from you. The true costs of doing this far exceed Andy's conservative numbers.
I am the exact opposite of Dave Lavery. If it were up to me we would deregulate everything except a very few key items:
size, weight, battery, air pressure, control system.
Infinite choices yield infinte possiblities.
If you look back in time, with each step FIRST has taken to deregulate the robots have gotten better. All you old timers, get out you 1996 robot and compare it to you 2005 robot....which would you rather watch on TV.
Anything FIRST does to allow us to create better, faster,taller, stronger robots is in the best interest of all of us. Please give us the time and the resources to build creations which will make the public stand in awe and want to be like us.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Nobody's stopping you from taking as long as you want to make an awesome and inspiring creation -- just don't compete in a FRC match with it. :)

Seriously, to the extent that FIRST is about competing with robots, I think having a firm deadline for creating a robot does promote a more balanced competition.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I'd be curious to know what the contracted rate is with MCS for the included drayage? I'm guessing it comes to about $100-$200 on average for each team. Thus that savings seems hardly worth it. Fed Ex donates shipping for most teams doing just one competition like rookies so there goes that arguement. I guess I'm not sure the ship requirement will reduce the costs for the newer, cash strapped teams. I'd still like to know what can be done to bring down the cost of this registration to below $5000. And you know what I'm getting burned out from? "Will we raise the $$ in time?", "fundraising activities", etc..

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I agree with Andy's idea but think there needs to be an addendum. I think the ship date should be moved to the weekend after the final regional. Only teams attending nationals would need to ship their robot. This solution fixes the same problems Andy Baker suggested and more:

A.) Most teams would benefit from the reduced shipment rate for sending the robot across country.

B.) The national competition still retains the feeling of "the olden days." Where you had to pack up your robot by a certain time and ship it. Then rush into the venue and unpack it. I think it will be quite nostalgic after the regional competition.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Some racing series (for example NASCAR) limit the amount of practice testing. Some sports (some high school sports for example) don't allow organized practice during the summer. These have an effect that is very similar to taking the machine away.

Ken

Re: I rule change - no shipping the robot
 

They'res one Key issue with shipping the robot yourself and not going through Fed Ex

1) Is anyone that dedicated to drive cross country to play a second regional or even nationals or forget all that the main regional - we all love FIRST in many more ways then the normal person can imagine but are we willing to make that drive when FIRST has a shipping company that takes all that stress away.

2) Gas is not cheap so this goes hand in hand with no.1

I'm not stating this to knock down our support and dedication to FIRST but one thing we need to realize is that FIRST is making it so much easier asnd cheaper by having things set the way they are. Yes theres alot of pros and cons to this but when it comes to shipping your own bot all b/c it eliminates registration fees and gives the teams more time to work on the robot I say stick with the current system why b/c it works.

1) First is the cost of the Van or small truck to ship stuff to and from the events

2) gas and basic maintenance

3) insurance

4) vehicle registration

this is just to purchase the vehicle in question to accomodate safe and delicate handling of the robot then you need drivers and not just one a few to help unload the stuff. It's just mind boggling to just think of what you need to take care of the job yourself

Just leave the shipping date there - it creates more suspense more excitement and its the incentive that helps the teams get the job done when you can actually say shes gone after 6 long hard weeks of coutless hrs of staying awake and hitting the programmer for not getting it right the first time =)

****Edit****
OR
When Signing up for registration they're should be 2 options
1) I will Ship the Robot and its tools or Accessories Myself
2) I will Ship the Robot and its tools or Accessories via FED EX

If option 1 is chosen if gives the teams some lee way to build their robot but they are expected to make the right legal jugdement calls while during the build period if the team is noted as having a robot unfit for the competition option 2 gets automatically selected and must stick with the team until the team either seizes from operation or the rules change. basically they're should be no reason why your robot failes to perform during practice and game play if you were given the extra time at your own request to make sure all the weeds have been picked from a finely grown lawn. Also you must sign a waiver that states FED EX is not responsible for any damages done to your robot. But remember this You shipped your robot to the competition you are NOT allowed to all of a sudden change your mind and ship your robot through FED EX to its next regional national or school - you got it their at your own free will and you will need to move it at your own free will.

If option 2 is chosen then fed - ex takes care of everything

or alternative option 1 allow the teams to transport their robots themselves at there own free will only if the competition is local to them and it can't be a certain determined distance radious of where the school is at. and once again the rest of option 1 applies the team needs to get it in and out of its destination on there own free will. they may not decide to have fed ex do the transporting. the only difference to this option is that it is an open option to those who are building the robot is local to the venue so that not as much travel time is required and for those who are at a greater distance from their school to the venue must select option 2 yes things change as far as venue determination, teams will be given one week before their 1 st selected regional takes place to change their mind and how they want to ship their robot.

C:\Mikespointlessrant\END RANT.DOC - last altered 10/27/05 @ 1947hrs

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I understand what you are stating, but in every one of my years of FIRST we have had people on the team drive to a regional or to nationals. Sometimes it was because they were carrying things that the team needed and other times it was just to support the team. We are not saying that teams should go out and buy a box truck to haul everything around or go out and spend thousands on a trailer. I’m sure that if your team leader asked the members of the team if a parent drives a minivan or truck and would be willing to drive to a competition at the team’s expense, I would be willing to bet that someone on your team would volunteer. I say this only because when ever Mrs. Hughes (Team 27 team leader) asked the parents on our team if someone would be willing to drive to competitions we got outstanding support from our parents. A simple pickup truck or a minivan is perfect for shipping a robot. Robot’s in FIRST are not that big and not that heavy that we need to pay Fed Ex to ship them, when we can do it ourselves cheaper. I can speak from experience, robots fit very well inside a minivan. After transporting our practice robot around all season, you can fit a robot, all of your tools, all of your parts boxes, all of your batteries and chargers, you extension cords, and controls inside of a minivan and still be able to seat 4 people all inside a 2005 Dodge minivan. Either it’s great packing on our part; great Engineering on Daimler Chryslers part or it’s not very difficult to do. We did it every other day last season. I'm pretty sure that if most teams were given the opportunity to have two or three weeks longer to work on the robot as well as have the robot in between competitions, they would be more than willing to drive to competitions. Teams make it work in off season competitions, why wouldn't they be able to make it work during the season?

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

To go through this one item at a time:
First off, 330 already takes all the stuff except the robot and some other stuff that stays in the crate in a van. Howver, the Championship is just too far for us to do that. That's when we pack everything in the crate. This appies for our home regional and our other regional.
Second, driving at team expense--you have to pay for gas, which I'm sure some teams can afford these days, but taking the robot clear to Atlanta for nationals is getting beyond us, and then you have getting a couple weeks off school to drive there and back, it's not worth it. Arizona, Sacramento, and SVR are pushing it already if we were to do them at team expense. And, of course, you need to coordinate driver schedules.
Third: A pickup truck is not the best because you need to secure the bot. Plus you have the weather problem. A minivan can hold a robot and all its competition parts and tools, yes, but at least for us, that involves loss of seating for all except the driver and one other person. A fullsize, you could have four or five people and all the tools and the robot and the cart, but how many of us have those that don't need to take siblings along or something like that? Oh, and then there are the signs, giveaways, etc. to deal with. And how many of us build a practice bot and use it to practice packing with?
Fourth: Team do it in the offseason just fine, yes. Would they be able to make it work in the regular season? Probably. The difference is that in the offseason, the competitions are more spread out. You might have one in June and not have another till October. You can take it easy. In the regular season, everything is compressed. You have schoolwork to make up, sleep to catch up on, and then you need to tweak the robot. You are in for STUDENT burnout.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that some teams ship their robots anyway if they are going to, say, IRI.

Woule eliminating ship date be good or bad? That comes down to what is best for your team. But if someone has a long way to go to an event, the teams that are in the same city have a huge advantage. If FIRST wants a level playing field, they will need to keep the ship date.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

I will admit I'm speaking from my personal FIRST experiences. I agree with you that it all depends on your team’s location. For your team it makes sense to ship the robot to nationals, but for a team like ours it doesn't. It's a 14 hour drive From Clarkston, MI to Atlanta Georgia. Our parents this year made it in two days, but we as a team rode a bus last year non stop. We could have thrown the robot in the bottom of the bus to get it there, and it wouldn't have cost us anything extra. Your viewing it as the entire team is traveling in one vehicle. Send the robot and the rest of the team can get to the location how you normally would. It just makes no sense to me to pay hundreds of dollars to ship the robot 50 miles away for a competition. Plus it just sits in a warehouse for weeks between competitions. That is all time that teams could be making improvements to the robot and making FIRST as a whole more competitive. I don’t understand student burnout. During FIRST season I work from the day the season kicks off to the day we celebrate at nationals. I manage school, homework, FIRST and still manage to get sleep and happen to eat 3 meals a day if you can believe that. Even during competition season, we still practiced 3 or 4 times a week, and still met as a team. There's always work to be done through out the entire season, so student burnout would be no different for me if we didn’t have a ship date then the way it is right now. I also wouldn't say we built a practice robot just so that we can practice how to pack a car. We couldn't have the real robot so we had to build a practice robot to give our new drivers experience and our programmer’s time to program. In no way was it just to practice how to load a car, It was the single most important thing that contributed to our overall success on the field. I understand your concerns and agree with you that location plays a huge role in where you stand on this issue. I'm looking at it from the money stand point and from the stand point of Team 27's location. With the economy the way it is many teams can't afford to even go to nationals or compete in FIRST because it is so expensive. Team 27 lost its sponsor 2 years ago and still hasn't found a single replacement sponsor and who knows if they will. Going to the close regionals in Michigan is key to us competing. The days of us going to 3 regionals and nationals are very hard to imagine. So if we could eliminate the costs of shipping that would be a great savings.

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

You're right, if the entire team is traveling in one vehicle. However, trying to get all the BeachBots in one family-owned vehicle is impossible. Renting a tourbus is also quite difficult. Now, we typically take about four or five vehicles to our "away" competion. That's for about 20-30 people, plus luggage, plus robot equipment. Oh, and we don't necessarily travel as one huge goup. Some people come in later or earlier depending on their schedule.

You are also right about it making no sense to pay a lot just to ship the robot 50 miles and have it sit around for weeks. However, there are teams that have no competition in their state, and FIRST teams may not have enough money to pay the expenses. Under the current system, Fedex provides free shipping to one event. How many teams that barely suvive now could pay the shipping rates without them? And for some teams, there is no way to drive the robot to a competition. So there may be ways to improve that part, but they escape me.

Yes, eliminating the cost of shipping would be a great savings. But when you consider that the shipping as is is already close to free (and enforces the build period), then you remove that, and substitute gas costs, do you really save?

We could debate this forever, but if teams are responsible to get their own robot to competitions, I think that there will be a lot fewer teams in FIRST. How does that further the purpose of FIRST?

Re: If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 

Your're exactly right, we could debate this forever. The real issue here is not really cost, it's the extra time to work on the robot and the ability to make changes in between competitons as well as having the most balenced, fair playing field as possible. For a team like Team 27, shipping the robot makes no sense because there are 3 regionals with in 250 miles of where we build our robot. I guess for other teams, traveling and shipping tools is a huge issue and for them shipping there stuff makes a lot of sense. The system works great in OCCRA because all of the teams are in a very small area and it would be pointless to ship the robots to a competiton 25 miles away. Speaking from my expierences, if FIRST could find a way to input a sytem where we could work on the competition robot from day 1 to the end of the season and eliminate the ship while still creating a level playing field, FIRST as a whole would be a lot better.