Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Multiple event winners are what drive me and my friends to be better and achieve more. Its a little disappointing to still see so many folks complain about seats at the Championship still.

Also 359 wasn't on the list. They have also won RCA in 4 different states.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

And in Michigan any district after the second on doesn't count for any points.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

The way I see it is that most teams that win multi regionals are "professional" teams where the students never touch the robot during the build season. These teams I have a problem with. Also these teams have very deep pockets and can go anywhere to compete.

Just my opinion.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Kinda tired of this blanket response. It couldn't be that these teams work harder or have more dedication and actually earn those multiple wins.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

... You might want to put a little research into this topic and the teams that are "multiple event winners" before making claims like this.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, and maybe claims is the wrong word, but if you look up some of the discussions that have been already been had about this topic, of which there are many, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Stop by our pit area at Newton and talk to the students on our team. They may change your mind.

EDIT: Actually, for our team to be caught up in a sweeping generalization with the awesome teams listed in this thread is actually pretty cool. A highlight of the season in a strange sort of way...

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Be cautious when you say things like this. If teams ARE run that way, I don't know of any that have come out and said it. There are teams where mentors are more involved with the build than other teams; however, I don't KNOW of any teams that admit to being run that way. Even teams with the most minimal student interaction with the robot, to my knowledge, has students doing something or another.

Sweeping generalizations like that are dangerous and not conducive to the mission of FIRST. If those teams feel that the best way to Inspire and Recognize in Science and Technology, then so be it. On our team, the robot is probably between 50% and 80% student-built, with mentors that guide generally, but also do machining and building work alongside the students. We won two district competitions this year.

Winning as frequently as a lot of these teams is not about who builds the robot, it's about the resources the team has, be they student resources, mentor resources, sponsor donations, or facilities (which also falls in with sponsors). One must also recognize, though, that ANYONE can have a winning design, and even teams that are rumored to be what you call "professional" teams have off years.

I couldn't agree more. Perennial powerhouse teams like 67, 148, 217, 1114, 33, and 27 ALL adopt a very student-active build policy. Some teams, like 148 and 1114, just have the resources (ahem, IFI) to reduce the amount of fabrication done on-site. That doesn't mean that the students put any less effort or time into the design or assembly of the robot, just that all of their cuts are done right the first time ;) (I can't tell you how many times I have had to re-make a part because of a measurement or operations error that I made in my inexperience)

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

1114 --build process well-covered elsewhere on CD. It's not mentors-only.
2056 --1114-mentored, would they really go mentors-only?
111
148 --See the note on 1114, and JVN's blog.
195
233
254 -- They only look mentor-built.
303
525 --NOPE.
768
987 --NOPE.
1503 --Student built.
1676 --Don Rotolo and crew will happily show you what a student-built robot can do.
2471
2815 --Billfred'll be more than happy to tell you that you're wrong there.

33--Student built.
118
217--Copioli is getting tired of defending against this opinion, judging by some of the posts he's made on the issue. It's false there, too.
359--I don't think I've seen more than a few mentors in their pits. EVER.
1918
2137
2337--MENTORED students built that.
2415--they've posted as student-built, too.

If you want to call out a bunch of teams for being mentor-built, bring some evidence. As it is, the teams that I specifically made a note on have posted on CD that they are not mentor-built, or I've seen them in action, or the vein of their CD posts as a group indicates student building. Some of the others have a strong CD presence, but have not been as clear--I invite them to assist in pointing out their process.

Oh, and 330 won 2 events last year, and I'll tell you right now: Students had at least one hand apiece in that robot, from Kickoff to IRI.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

On a lighter note:

Looks like Newton and Galileo have the most multi-event winners.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Man, you must be one busy guy traveling across the country to visit all those different teams during build season!

I'm not even on one of these powerhouse teams and I'm really tired of these posts, I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be for those students that are on these teams to constantly be accused of being nothing more than decoration.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Don't get me wrong: all of the divisions will be very competitive...but, man...Galileo and Newton look REALLY tough. Expect serious fireworks in the finals on those two divisions during the eliminations. I could be wrong, but I think that those two divisions will see the most competitive eliminations matches of the four.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Very, very wrong. In terms of raw fabrication, this year had the most student involvement of any year in 2815's history. From the start of the kit frame assembly to putting on the racing tape at Peachtree*, our kids were leading the way.

Is our robot the definition of perfection? Not even close. The lion's share of those issues were solved by our kids working shoulder-to-shoulder with the mentors. It's through hard work, a lot of luck, and the tremendous assistance of 2415, 1771, 180, and 2363 that we were able to be in such esteemed company. (And don't get me started on the budget jab.)

But that said, I want to be on the level of sophistication of teams like 67 and 148. In the words of 16-time wrestling champion Ric Flair, to be the man, you've got to beat the man**. I don't want the man to be someone that shuns the gym and trainers out of some misguided idea of how things ought to be, I want the man to be working hard with the pros to up his game and sell out the Georgia Dome!

By working with professionals, we can spend more of our time testing and optimizing our designs and use less time figuring out how to re-drill a half-inch hole in our 1" box tubing arm tower that was done crookedly***. If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

[Citation Needed]

I've had the pleasure of visiting both 33 and 2337 during the build season this last year. 100% sure you are wrong on those counts. I also am pretty sure that the reason 33 has "deep pockets" is because they worked their stingers off to raise money.

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

I read this yesterday and had to wait till my thoughts cooled down to answer this.

My team is a team where everything we do during the build season AND competition is done by students and supervised by mentors. Our robot this year was designed by students and mentors in partnership.

Here's some food for thought. Not a single mentor maintained the robot at an event this year. Our pit was entirely student run.

We also don't have deep pockets, comparatively.

I think you need to do some research before you go making accusations like this.

-Nick

Re: Multiple Event Winners
 

Where do you think these pockets came from? How did they get their money?