Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Hey CD,

So whenever I meet up with a certain FIRSTer, he and I have numerous conversations about various aspects of FRC Teams. One of our more interesting conversations revolve around the topic of driver selection.

We have streamlined driver selections to two sections:

-Skill (This includes ability with the joysticks as well as mental ability)

-Reward (This is our blunt way of describing when teams give it to the most dedicated students/senior students/etc.)

Some argue that drivers should be picked solely on skill, while others think that there should be a reward aspect to driving.

One scenario that's been brought up is a hypothetical team who has two students who, from day one, know they want to be drivers. The students obtain small remote controlled vehicles with a drive-base similar to that of the teams and play a new game everyday with the vehicles. This is all they do at the meetings. This fine-tuns both their skills with the joysticks as well as their driving-mentality.

Should they get the drive team positions?

One can argue that they should as they are the most qualified based on their skill.

Another can argue that they should not, as they have not done the work to reap the 'benefits' of being on the drive team.

Opinions? Thoughts? (The hypothetical situation does not need to be referenced)

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I would prefer my driver to be knowledgeable about the game, strategy-minded, and coachable. An outstanding, if overlooked, quality of a great driver is the ability to do exactly as told, when told, without second-guessing. Robot driving is not the place for ego or bravado. The person can be the best driver in the world, but when the penalties add up due to lack of robot and game knowledge or communication skills, it's no good.
This scenario strongly suggests that the prospective drivers are headstrong and cocky, not what I'm looking for.

Edit: A key skill that drivers need is the ability to diagnose problems. If the drivers have little to no interaction with the design and construction of the actual robot and its subsystems, then when (not if) catastrophes occur, the driver cannot provide insightful, useful information.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Personally I think a combination of both skill and team dedication are required. So the most dedicated and skilled members should drive. My 2 cents.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Formula SAE runs into a lot of the same issues. It is my teams mentality that only involved members are going to be driving the car at competition. This is because they know the systems well, and they put in the bulk of the work (plus they will not abuse the car in our endurance event :P).

It is a competition between involved members, but I can't see FIRST getting the desired effect out of a dedicated robot driver who doesn't do anything else on the robot. It could happen, just don't think its likely.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I personally think its not so much how much skill a drivers has but can the driver develop skills. Our team is really dead set to try to do some form of a practice robot next year, even if its just 50 percent of the competition robot. We had hardly any practice time this year, even the most skillful drivers need practice time to get used to the robot.

With that train of thought, I am more inclined to pick a driver as a reward. A dedicated student will be willing take the extra time to practice, with a practice or past year's robot. Plus a dedicated student usually is well versed in the strategy and the construction of the robot (very helpful for pin pointing problems).

Other things I look for is ability to work well with others, follow instructions, handles criticism gracefully, is cool under pressure and competitive drive.

I tell my students, that being the driver is not glamorous. It a stressful job that requires a lot of extra hours. One can't casually want to be a driver, nor can one want it for the title. One has to put in the extra effort and show me that I can count on them to help the team no matter what (well within reason).

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I'll make a large post about this soon. I would just like to state that this is the same as any other competition. This is just a major question to contemplate.

Do the people down on the floor want to be there during finals knowing that they need to do an x amount of things to win or they will lose?

Yes dedication and skill do come down to driving, however, the people who want to be driving the most and make that shown should be handed the opportunity.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

What we usually do is have our drivers practice a lot, but also help in the following areas:

1. Drive Train/Attachment building - Depending on whether they control the drive or the attachments
2. Programming/Pseudo Coding for part they control
3. Strategy team - works with coach and mentors
4. RULE READING - Similar to strategy, our drivers must know the rules. All of them.
5. Extra things that vary year to year - Sometimes the endgame

This is just what we do, but it helps our drivers know what they're working with, and how it works.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Our drivers are chosen based on several criteria. They have to have put in the time duing the building, so that they are very knowlegable about the robot and the programming. This gives them the insight to be able to quickly troubleshoot problems. They have to demonstrate their knowledge of the rules by taking a test, which minimizes the number of penalties against us. They have to have good driving abilities, often from practicing with robots or from experience with remote control airplanes and ground vehicles. Finally, they have to be able to handle the stress of driving, which is extremely difficult if everything isn't going well.

I hate it when parents come up to me and complain that their kid should be driving...

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

There are dozens of factors that go into choosing drivers, I feel. To have the best drivers for your team, I think you have to carefully consider a lot.

First, the team member in question must be a dedicated member of the team. If the member in question has priorities other than FRC that trump competitions, they can't be given the driver's position, because if another obligation comes up, you may become sans-driver for a competition.

Second, ideally, I think, drivers should have a working knowledge of the robot, so that he/she may help to diagnose problems on the fly, as well as work with programmers, designers, and builders to create a robot that works seamlessly with the requirements of the game and the driver's preferences

Another important factor for driver selection is workability and chemistry. If your team uses two drivers for the robot, those two must be able to work well together. If they do not communicate well, you're looking at a disaster waiting to happen. Drivers also should be obedient yet intelligent. Drivers should be able to follow instructions without hesitation, but must also be aware enough to challenge an instruction when needed.

Obviously, with all of these things in mind, the driver must also have skill, or at least potential. If a driver is nervous and inconsistent behind the controls, he/she may not be a good fit. If he or she improves a bit then hits a plateau that doesn't quite take full advantage of the robot's capabilities, he/she may not be a good fit. The ideal driver can correct his/her little errors quickly and independently, is willing to listen to and carefully consider criticism, and can and will improve throughout the season.

So, I don't think that the situation can ever be quite as simple as the original post implies, but to answer the question: I think that dedicated students should be rewarded in some way, but, at the same time, if a student is not a good fit for the driver's position, then a different reward can probably be determined. The goal of competing on the field is, honestly, to win competitions. As such, a driver behind the controls should be a mean to that end, just not a position won as a prize.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I believe it should be based on skill, but there is no way a driver can have the skills required without helping build the robot.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

In theory the ideal driver doesn't even need a coach. They're so masterful that they have the strategy covered as well. Good luck finding or creating that driver.

I'm not sure if I was trying to pull that stunt when I was driving a robot, years ago. We had a combination of a first-year university student mentor as coach, and me as driver—and although we got along excellently, I'm really not sure how accurately I reacted to his coaching suggestions. (Then again, maybe he was so good at planting suggestions that he didn't need to explain anything. I really wasn't consciously paying attention to him...which is something I wouldn't advise under ordinary circumstances.) Most of the time it worked, but there were a couple of tactically-excellent, but strategically-unfortunate decisions that would have benefitted from a more refined coach-driver relationship (like pushing an opponent's robot 50 feet across the field, including up and over a big ramp, kicking and screaming...and getting pushed most of the way back when once our battery voltage dropped low enough to reboot the robot controller ::ouch::).

An interesting side effect of that particular robot was that the function operator (i.e. driver #2) had very little to do. From a controllability point of view, it probably would have been better just to give full control to one driver. But on the team at the time, being a driver was also a prestige position, and that fact (combined with some implementation details of the controls) made it impractical to design the interface around a single driver and leave the other driver with literally nothing to drive.

Desirable though it might be to share the prestige and responsibility among two people, I think a team needs to be ready to hand off complete robot control to a single person, so that there's one less brain in the loop trying to make the robot do stuff, and one more set of eyes watching the field and manipulating game pieces (when possible).

And if the drivers can't calculate strategy on the fly as well as a dedicated coach (and especially given the calibre of coaching available to some teams, the drivers very often can't), then the coach needs to be assertive enough to be noticed, competent enough to understand each game on the fly, and consistent enough to avoid ambiguity and communicate nuances seamlessly. Practice makes this work. (In my days as a student, we never had enough time to practice with a working robot.)

Similarly, making the coach a prestige position doesn't really work. I tried coaching once; I wasn't great at it. Firstly, I was coaching my brother as driver—so what were the odds he'd listen to me unquestioningly? Secondly, I'd been primarily involved with the technical development of the robot—so I was always on call to help fix robot issues. We didn't really have a dedicated strategy team at the time, so I didn't have the benefit of other peoples' research into what the opponents were doing, or even the background knowledge to choose what the strategy should have been for the next match.

The coach and the drivers need to be on top of the strategy from the start. That's what they'll be applying throughout the match, so it makes sense for them to dedicate their energies at events to that task alone. Don't let the pit crew drive. You need them to make sure the robot is functional at all times. Despite that rigid separation of roles, there needs to be some cross-training of skills. The pit crew needs to understand strategy to prioritize repairs—what can we do without next match? The drivers and coach need to understand robot operation at a technical level, so that they can perceive malfunctions, and don't try to make the robot do unrealistic things.

Rewarding excellence is important, and since your most skilled students probably deserve recognition for that attribute, you'd make them very happy by letting them take the prestigious role of driver. So in a roundabout way, driving can be a prestige position without harming performance. But that only works if the all-around skill is there—mastery of strategy by early in build season, mastery of driving toward the end of the build season, and competence in terms of understanding robot performance and failure modes.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

My methods:
http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/02/robot...selection.html

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Here's how I do it.

First I look for potential. Driving takes quick decision making and the ability to fluidly make decisions. Students who do best during "crunch time" robot repairs, stressful situations, and build arguments are favored for driving the robot. You don't want someone passive, but you want someone who can stay calm and filter out distractions.

On top of that, maturity is very helpful. We don't really have big maturity problems on the team, but mature and responsible drivers are a must. Students that really understand that the team is placing the robot literally in their hands.

Then I look at natural talent. This is much less of a big deal as it might seem, but since my team does not have as much drive time to really polish a driver, students who have experience driving things like RC cars, RC airplanes, Vex robots, etc. are favored initially.

At this point, it's determined by who puts more dedication into early drive practice. Day before Kickoff is the final selection.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

From what I've seen over the years being the Drive Team Lead for 2228 is that dedication to the team and involvement is a must, skill is third to and understanding of the rules and game strategy. Skill is relative in my mind and meaningless more than that, skill can be taught and skilled drivers are just those that are more experienced. Whether it be more experienced from previous games or just more experience with the current robot.

By giving a driver more time driving the robot is the best.....only way for a driver to really obtain skill. And on that note when you are having drivers practice it is not the best thing to do to, to just have them run drills. Especially when first getting acquainted with the robot. When first "introducing" driving to a new recruit what I would do is explain the controls and then have them go forward, back, turn left, turn right (taking only 30 seconds to do this) and then say "okay now just mess around with it for 5 minutes and then give me a call." Give drivers time to explore what can be done with the robot, not what we think it can do. Also on another not when you are having them go forward back etc. etc. make sure when they push the joystick forward is when the robot goes forward. When I was first on the drive team (as the turret operator on our 2009 robot) our driver spent 2 weeks driving the robot backwards and for some reason never spoke up about it, it is a simple fix and leads to needless confusion. Now once they've gotten acquainted with the robot, then start running different drills of what you want them to do. And as a drive coach you have one very important mission during competition and that is to not lose your voice. Barking commands at drivers like go forward...no wait back up....go for that ball........reverse roller...etc. etc. etc. is the worst possible way to have your team operate. Your drivers are smart and they can think for themselves, guide them through what you're doing and teach them judgement. This way you won't have to tell them what to do on the field. You can go into the game with a plan, they will carry out and adjust, then you can just look at the overall field and score as it advances and point out different things they might not have noticed. This is the approach I took with our drive team this year and it worked amazingly compared to the previous years barking, which was a horrific nerve racking experience I would never like to repeat. One last little thing I would like to add to how to train drivers (I know this isn't what you asked, but I'm reminiscing) is that you need to try and balance what people are there observing practice. This is because I find that the hardest thing about trying to implement this new judgement oriented approach to driving was that, when I stopped barking other people started. And this is natural because the team is trying to help. People will sit there and say don't open the claw.......lift the arm.....stop.....now forward.......good......open. and this is an impulse many people have when watching the robot, but it doesn't let the drivers use their own judgement. Plus it allows them to rely on outside eyes, people looking from angles not available to them when they're driving. So what I would suggest is to do a quick showcase of the robot doing non-sense, drive around, move actuators, etc. Then get everyone out and lock yourself in behind closed doors and shut blinds so that you can do the real practice and learning. Also this helps build up the drive team comradery, when you guys (or girls) are just there by yourselves working as a single unit.

Okay sorry about that, but back to your question, how to select drivers, what's important? A drivers dedication ensures they will be there when they're needed. Another thing is I want my drivers to have a knowledge of all aspects of the robot programming, electrical, and mechanical. So that when things go wrong on the field they can properly analyze, diagnose, and fix the situation. This year during one of our last matches the right drive chain snapped and just by looking at how we moved we were able to figure out what was wrong, explain it to our alliance, and specify we can not travel, but we can pivot, meaning that we could still possibly line up our minibot from our current location. Other things that are essential for a driver, co driver, human player, and for the coach (especially for the coach) is everyone of those people must have sat down and read all of the rules in the game section (minimum). Actually I would prefer they read every section beginning to end from the introduction of what FIRST is to the tournament section (or whatever the last section is) twice, taking time to reflect on what they have read and what situations they pertain to. If you get to competition and you don't know the rules........what are you doing there?

So to summarize:
-Skill = driving time with the robot (anyone can drive they just need time)
-Dedication is a must
-Insight and knowledge is what makes great drivers
-Know the robot, Love the robot, Be the robot (not a robot)
-Teach your drivers judgement
-Also something not yet noted make sure your drive team is a team, people need to get along and drivers are the ambassadors of the team, everyone sees them and they represent the team. Make sure you pick good people to do that

Hope that some of this helps and again I'm sorry for the rant in the middle, good luck, have fun!

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

The biggest thing that's overlooked when selecting your drivers, is that they will be representing your team at any given competition. Yes, Skill is very important. Yes, strategy is very important. Knowledge of the game, maturity, listening to your coach, etc. are all important, but you must remember that these kids are the ones that most everyone will see-- the ones that the judges will most likely see and/or talk to, the ones that the other teams will most likely associate with, etc.
If the kids that you select are fantastic drivers, know what to do, but have an awful attitude, and aren't graciously professional, the other teams will talk about them negatively. Popular to contrary belief, Robotics is not free from teenager actions such as Gossip and spreading negativity. Obviously, you want your team to be known as a nice team and a helpful team. Now, I'm most certainly NOT saying that drivers are the only influence on how "kind" and GP a team is--many factors determine that. But at a competition, they will stand out the most out of anyone.
In short, many factors, such as skill and knowledge of the game affect driver choice. But one of the most overlooked factors is how do these team members represent your team.
Hope this helps.
-duke

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

This is extremely important. The driver must know every aspect of the game inside and out. There are times when the coach might be micromanaging something else and in those instances the driver must know both what to do in terms of the game and whatever strategy the alliance has decided on beforehand.

Be careful about that, now. I can list off a few instances where my coach told me to do something that was against the rules, or I felt could have ended up in me breaking the rules or breaking our gripper or any number of other things. The driver absolutely cannot just be a dumb conduit for instructions from the coach, a simple joystick monkey. He has to be able to think and act for himself, both to act as a check on the coach and, as stated above, in case the coach is preoccupied for a moment.

I've told my coach before, it's like, I am miles away from needing a coach to play the game - me and my friend are more than good enough to find and pick up a tube, you don't need to tell us that. What I need are time updates and strategy updates. If something changes, then that is something I will probably not know on my own.

In my opinion, if the individual has no somewhat-detailed knowledge of the robot then they have no business being on drive team. You don't necessarily have to know exactly how it was built and how to re-build every piece of it, but you do have to know its limits and how to check and fix parts of it if necessary.

In my case, I helped program a lot of the robot, so if I didn't like how it was driving or if I felt it was turning too fast or something I would just go ahead and change the value that would give me what I wanted, as opposed to trying to explain what the problem was and having everyone involved scratch their head for ten minutes before it got fixed. Just little things like this are extremely important.

______________


As for rewards now, I absolutely hate the notion of giving it to Seniors just because they have "earned it." It's an absolutely ridiculous notion - drive team is all about skill and the ability to think quickly and under pressure, not whoever has been on the team the longest. The two drivers this year were myself (a junior) on the drivetrain and my friend (a sophomore) on the elevator/manipulator. This is better than just giving it to seniors (who it was very clear were far worse than my friend and I, even they admitted it) particularly because now I have an extra year of practice and my friend will have two by the time he is a senior.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

So, let's say next year you get a very dedicated freshman, there every day of the season, contributes to the best of his/her ability, knows the robot well, has lots of R/C experience and is clearly a very qualified driver. Are you willing to give that person a shot at driving?

It's easy to discount the seniority card when you don't have it, and very easy to use when you do. :cool:

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

For the next two years the drivers are me and another person, period. The reason is becasue we both work great together, we are EXCELENT drivers and are always the people working on the robot.

We know that we are good drivers because on practice day of Toronto we weren't there for half of the day becasue of a Ontario wide English test. Two other teamates drove the robot for 3 matches and put about 3 tubes on total. When we got there we played 3 matches and put up about 15-20 in all those matches, total.

When picking drivers make sure the two are people that know how the robot works and helped design it. make sure they work together alot and know how eachother think. also make sure they know ALL the rules and have good strategy!

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

20 tubes in 3 matches is 7 tubes a match. How could a simple driver change make a team go from one tube a match to 7?

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Sounds like your coach had no business being coach. Perhaps that's fodder for a new thread - Coach Selection: A Discussion? (I know there are countless threads about "what makes a good coach" and "Mentor vs. Student" but the strategies and methods used, for example, in 2004 don't apply these days).

Sounds like you described the Analyst position, not the Coach position. Two key roles of an effective and successful coach are to serve as communicator between you and your alliance partners, and as an extra set of eyes for the driver. Since the coach is able to move around quite a bit, he or she can find tubes you most likely can't see from your vantage point. He or she can see other robots at other parts of the field, determine their strategies, and give you proper instructions for navigating to the scoring pegs. Picking and placing tubes is a good skill, but it's less than half the real game when played at a high level.
The coach-driver communication and trust is critical; I've never experienced a successful FRC driver that is "miles away from needing a coach to play the game."

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

A few weekends ago at the IGVC tournament, changing drivers resulted in a change from 2 tubes a match (with a certain combination of driver+operator) to 6 tubes a match (with the same operator and a different driver, later in the day). That's only changing the driver - not even the operator. Both drivers had driven tank drives before, although one had never driven in competition and the other had driven in an off-season last year. Had the season drivers been there, they could have put up more (their max is currently 9 tubes + mini)

As long as the machine can perform the task, then the drivers make a significant difference in performance.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Very easy especially when they either haven't driven or have little practice with the machine.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Well, let me elaborate a bit more.

Essentially, I can play the game myself. Me and my arm guy, we don't need to be told "ok, drive to the tube, ok, now pick up the tube, ok, now turn around, ok, now drive straight." While some of you may not have that perception, my experience is that a lot of people on my team just assume that that is the role of the coach, and I try to stress that it is much different from that.

The key is that rather than micromanage our every action, the coach helps us refine our game, he helps us play the best possible game we can by adding in an extra set of eyes and ears and an extra brain to help make the best possible decisions. You can think of the sequences of events in a game as a series of decisions made by the drive team, and whether or not those decisions were good or bad will determine the outcome of a match (regardless of whether or not those decisions were made beforehand - bad strategies exist). The coach is there to help make the best possible decisions.

There was a time this year when our manipulator broke and my coach told us to try ferrying tubes to our alliance partners. Some time passes and there was just too much traffic for me to effectively push tubes, so I told him hey, this isn't working, let's try playing defense. And I'm really glad I did that because we pretty much shut down their offense.

And there are more times than I can count where I was going in to hang a tube on the second row in front of us when my coach told us that they needed that piece on the top row of the other rack - something that would be difficult for me to see myself, but it's what the coach is there for - not to relay instructions to a joystick monkey, but a critical piece of the puzzle that takes gameplay to the next level.

Put another way, good drivers can make the "best" decision more often than drivers that aren't as experienced or intelligent, but there are loads of times where they don't have the information to make that best possible decision, and that is where the coach comes in.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Not to be a nay-saying-nay-bob-of-negitivity, but the reason you're getting a negative reaction is because you're opening with cocky lines like this.

And one of the things that I believe is that a driver should not be that cocky. If literature has taught me anything, it's that hubris can take down anyone. And I believe that it applies to drivers. I understand that drivers should walk the fine line between "listening to" and "just knowing" what to do, but if a driver thinks they don't need a coach, I don't want them touching the controls. That attitude tells me that they can't work with others and they believe that their opinion is best. Yes, this also requires that a team has an optimal drive coach, but we're talking about an ideal world.

However, I do understand that you mean to say you don't need the mundane instructions "go straight, turn left, pick up tube". So you're point isn't just going over my head.

SIDE NOTE:
Those who say the best driver shouldn't need a coach, I disagree. In my mind, your three driving positions -sans human player- should focus thusly:
-Robot Base (or "Primary Driver") should only be aware of where the wheels are taking the robot. Their attention should only be on the components they control, and the immediate surroundings of said components.
- Manipulator (or "Auxillery" or "Secondary" Driver) should only be focusing on their manipulator in relation to the robot/game pieces etc at all times. They should only be aware of actions pertaining to what they control. The secondary and primary shouldn't be able to tell you much (if any) of the match outside of actions pertaining to their controllers.
- The Drive Coach should be aware of the entire match. They need to know everything else that is going on so that the Primary and Secondary can focus solely on the components they control. The drive coach shouldn't look at the robot; the drivers already have that covered.

All three should communicate what they know so that the others can adjust accordingly. The drive coach should be able to give a report on what happened in the match, the drivers should not.


This is me taking this personally: I'm sick of drivers telling me that they are THE BEST driver ever. Just because you are good now doesn't mean that you will be the driver for the next two years. Someone better can (and will) come along. When you assume you will be driver, you're killing morale and annoying your teammates. </end rant>



Driving is half-reward, have skill in my mind. Driving is also a "glamorous" job. I know there is a lot of pressure and work that goes into it: I was there once. But for some, driving is the be-all-end-all; it's the coolest thing you could do. I don't feel as though I need to argue that point. And because of that, I'd be hesitant to give it to a rookie.

As Dean always says "You get what you celebrate". I understand the kid put in the hours and was dedicated (thus celebrating hard work), but you're also telling your students that longevity isn't important. If all of the older kids aren't giving it the time, then give the kid the sticks... But if you have dedicated students who are older but with reasonably less skill, I would argue the veteran students should get it. They've invested a lot of their time into the program and team and should get some sort of reward for it (the satisfaction of a job well done doesn't always cut it).

But I get torn, because this is a competition, not just a show. And you want the best people out there. At the same time, we're dealing with people and we have to treat them like such.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Well said and I couldn't agree more!

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

To everyone who may feel in any way offended, I'm sorry in advance, but this is just my opinion. I hear a lot of people saying that the "more dedicated" student has priority before the "skilled" student. Well, what I don't understand is, If you have a dedicated student who works on the robot a lot through the season, and knows almost everything about the robot, and another student, who doesn't work as much on the robot, but has tons of practice driving and spends almost every meeting just driving the robot, then who should drive between the two of them? Now, some people will argue that the more dedicated student should drive, since he/she worked on the robot the most, but I think that the more skilled student should drive.

Why?

Because this student has more "dedication" to the position of driving the robot. The student who works on building the robot may know it like the back of their hand, but speaking from a driver's point of view, they know almost nothing when they get behind the controller.

It's like a game of football. As a coach, would you rather have the player who has been the quarterback before and is good at it be the quarterback, or the player who spent countless hours fixing footballs, washing the team's jerseys, and preparing the team for each match be the quarterback?

Personally, I'd choose the more skilled player.

We as FIRSTers work for 6 straight weeks to build an awesome robot. For the most part, everybody puts a lot of work into the robot, and most people want to drive. Sometimes you have 30 people on a team who want to drive. So, why only choose the most skilled?

I don't know about other teams, but this is a bit how my team works: Each and every person has a job. Each and every person should try their best at that job. We all have a common goal: For the team to win. (I know someone's going to respond and say that it's not about winning, but seriously, who doesn't try to win???) So, we all do our work in the best interest of the team. So when it comes to picking drivers, the most skilled drivers are going to win more than the unskilled drivers, so naturally it is in the team's best interest to choose the skilled drivers.

Again, I'm sorry if anybody disagrees, but this is just my opinion.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Personally, I like the way 461 selects drivers (at least for this year). The driver had to have been an active person during build season, had to pass a written test on the rules, and then there was a driver skill tryout. The highest combined score between the 3 got the position.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

1503 chooses it's drivers on lots of different criteria. In no particular order, we evaluate potential drivers on skill, commitment, mentality under stress, how well they work with other students. Generally, two students are chosen who are friends with each other, and work well together in the shop.

The actual selection process is kind of neat. First, candidates must email our head mentor during build season outlining why they want to be a driver. Then, that mentor interviews the students with several questions, much like a job interview. After that, all the mentors on the team converse and select drivers based off the information given in the interviews, and their general observations in the shop, etc.

I had the pleasure of working with a new operator this year, who proved himself during the fall VRC season up here in Canada. He's a phenomenal kid. We never really spoke during matches, unless it was about what we wanted for lunch or dinner later. We simply always knew what one another was going to do on the field. We were like this from day one of practice to our last match at Champs.

-Nick

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Andrew, I'm going to suggest the reason that dedication is taking precedence over skill for a lot of people. Actually, multiple reasons...

1) If all you're doing is driving the robot, sure, you'll be skilled at that. But now, picture this: It's match F2 at your event, and your robot suddenly has a major failure. You have no timeout, and the finals are tied 1-1. Your opponents also don't have a timeout. You used your backup card already. And you have someone on the drive team who has little to no idea how to fix the robot, because he spent all his time driving. (We're using worst-case scenario here: you have a limited number of people allowed during finals, and you can't make the pits in time. Venue-dependent, of course.) That's one set of hands that is, for all intents and purposes, useless in trying to get a fix done in time. Well, go-fers aren't useless, but they do need some speed.

What I'm trying to get at here is that if all you're doing is driving, you don't know where problems might be, which means that the pit crew has to find them. If you have some idea of where problems are (because you spent some time building and learned that, say, gearboxes that get out of alignment bind up), you're a lot more useful to the team. And that extra pair of hands fixing the robot just might make the difference between winning and losing match F3--and the event.

2) Driving skills can be learned (well, assuming that someone isn't taking all the stick time) by just about anybody. Some people just have a better knack at it, or need time to mature in that position. I could drive a robot. Would I be as good as some other members of my team? Nope. Could I get there, with time? Probably. With that same amount of time, could they improve? Sure.

3) This is purely hypothetical here, as is the next situation: Let's assume, for a moment, that you have a case where you really need the driver to do something else for 10 minutes. Maybe it's something that people don't really want to do, or maybe it isn't, but someone has to do it, and everyone else is busy (or trying to do it alone). Let's also say that it's important for some reason. If the driver can't leave practicing for 10 minutes, I'd be somewhat concerned about how much of a team player he is/was/will be when there are others out there. (How concerned depends on how much of a pattern I could see of that sort of thing.) See the finals repair above.

4) Second hypothetical--but this one has happened: The skilled driver is incapacitated. How is beyond where I want to go, but let's figure it's serious enough that he's out for significant time (day, 2 days, maybe even all competition). Now, tell me this: who drives? Right. Nobody--unless someone else dedicated steps up.

Personally, what I'd do with the skilled/not quite knowledgeable vs. knowledgeable/not quite skilled situation is: If you've got the skills, but aren't learning much about the robot (like, where the likely failure points are, or something similar), then you can train someone who is more dedicated to finding those areas that you don't have experience in how to drive. You can be a backup driver. But I personally would not want that skilled person as a driver in the finals. Not for lack of skill, but because I can't rely on him to be able to diagnose and fix stuff in a hurry. At the same time, the person he is training should be teaching him how the robot functions/works. Then, let the chips fall where they may, I don't have just one driver...

...I have 2 drivers with slightly different strengths (one stronger in driving, one stronger in diagnosis and repair), and can pick a primary and a backup based on other factors like maturity, class standing, who buys me more pizzas, and all that sort of thing. I can even put both of them on finals pit crew, allowing for emergency substitution if needed.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I know exactly what you mean, and I completely agree with it. My only point is that skill is more important than people are giving it credit for. People are ranking in 4th or 5th most important on their lists, and I just though skill was a bit more important than most people stated. Like I said in an earlier post, there are a lot more qualities in a good driver than just skill, such as knowing the robot and being a part of the building/construction process, but skill is also important. A famous saying in my team goes, "A good driver can make a bad robot succeed, and a bad driver can make a good robot fail". (Credit to Karthik from 1114 for the quote.) In conclusion, I don't mean at all that knowing the robot wasn't important (and I'm truly sorry if I made it sound that way), I just meant that skill is a little more important than some people may think.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I'm battling your quote with a JVN quote "You can train a monkey to drive a robot, but you can't train a monkey [to think]" (or something along those lines).

At which point I'll point out that as long as the kid shows potential to learn to drive (some kids just don't have that going for them), then they are just as eligible as the kid who can drive. And should be picked based on other criteria.

All of this is my opinion though, and I respect your opinion.


(On that note, I respect everyone's opinions and am glad that they are sharing them, even if I don't sound like it.)

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

My main response would be to look at what JVN posted. That is pretty close to what we do.

My second response would be that I look for the best combination of 4 people to be on the field. That may or may not be the best 4 individuals, but the best team of 4.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

The important thing to remember when using this logic is that the underlying assumption is that you have time to practice. If you have a practice robot or finish a week early, great. If you have no way to practice, then inherent skill does have to come into play somewhat.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Emphasis mine. I think this is where you stand to improve the most on your approach to a drive team. A coach shouldn't be an extra anything. If you have extras on a drive team, than you are simply not using your team to its fullest capability. I disagree with your approach to the coaching position, however everyone is entitled to do what works best for their team. I just encourage you to look around at what other successful teams do and how their drive teams work and re-evaluate your drive team strategy.

In a theoretical world where you have someone who solely concentrates on the robot, versus someone who solely concentrates on driving one, sure you go with the more practiced driver. The point I'm making is that scenario is not realistic for how my team (and many other teams) operate.

If someone wants to drive the robot in competition they are going to have to not only be skilled as a driver, but competent in many other areas of the team. They don't need to be lead designer, or the team captain, but they need to show some desire to work in other aspects of the team.

The way I view a spot on the drive team is as something that needs to be earned in more than one way. As I said you need to show enthusiasm for the team, the work you put into the team and the work your teammates put in. Show me that you not only are a skilled robot driver, but you're a skilled robot mechanic, skilled programmer, skilled team liaison or skilled team leader. Thats the kind of driver I want driving our team's robot.


Eric-
I think I agree with the point you are trying to make, I just disagree with how you are making it. Many of your scenarios you just proposed can be easily solved by the one statement you made towards the end of your post that I quoted above.

It may be personal preference, but I don't like trying to prove points with hypothetical scenarios. Playing the "what if" game is dangerous and often can be a tool used to rob a brainstorming session of merit, or keep good ideas from seeing the light of day.

Like I said above, I think I agree with your approach to driver selection. Meaning, I think you believe there should be some combination of driver that best suits a team not just a purely dedicated student vs. a purely talented student. I just dont think that the argument of who is best come match 3 of the finals at XX regional with a broken XX and no timeouts is how you should argue for one or the other.




As for 125, our approach is nothing extremely different than from what other teams have stated already. We do our best to ensure that every student who is interested has a fair shot at becoming a driver. However, actions always speak louder than words, so staying that extra hour one night, or helping out a new student on the team may go a lot further than some students think. Good mentors are constantly evaluating their students and their team to make sure everyone is becoming the best FIRST participant they can be.

-Brando

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Brandon, that's true. However!

If I have a student who knows nothing about how the robot functions, just that it functions, but can drive well, and a student that knows how the robot functions, but doesn't have any driving experience even in practice (the proposed situation), they aren't nearly as interchangeable as they would be if the driver one knows even diagnostic functioning (i.e., "Pit Crew! This is happening, and it feels like it's in this place) and the other student knows some driving and has a few minutes of practice.

Hence the reason for the scenarios: To point out a few places where it's not desirable to be too specialized, or to only have one person as driver. It's something not a lot of teams really think about. But I've been on a team where at least a couple of those has happened--driver incapacitated, finals fix--and it's good to keep a backup plan in the back of your mind for X scenario (fill in your own X).

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Just wanting to point this out as the discussion grows:
A member that knows the robot inside and out will already be a much better driver than he/she was before.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Just to reply to the original question, I think you need a reasonable amount of dedication to the team to drive. Our team has had kids at driver tryouts that don't know that our robot isn't really a tank. However, they'll drive like it is and can damage the machine.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I believe that in the quote, the "good driver" refers to a "practiced" driver, not one who is good from the start. It's pretty hard to find drivers who are good from the start. I understand your point of view.

BTW, Now I really want to see a monkey drive a robot!!!!

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

If you have to drive your robot carefully, it's not well designed.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I have seen their robots, they aren't poorly designed and I won't tolerate a student driving our robot recklessly into walls or goofing off.

The argument of putting the student who knows more about the system but is the worse driver in the driver position to me is a poor choice. I would rather educate my better drivers on ALL areas of the robot and put the knowledgeable student in the human player position as long as he does his job well there.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

Recklessness can destroy any robot, no matter how well it was put together. Give me the 2010 Breakaway Field (or another year with more than just towers on the field), the toughest robot from that year, and it's control board, and i could break the robot within a minute.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I don't mean that literally any action a driver can do should be unable to break the robot, though that's obviously ideal. But a robot isn't something that should require constant thought to its safety to drive.

It's funny that you mention Breakaway, because that seems like the best example. Barring deploying the hanger and intentionally tipping, how exactly could you break a good robot that year? If your robot could be damaged by anything other than an unusual circumstance like getting chain caught in your wheels, it simply was not robust.

Seriously, do you guys really tell drivers to "go easy on the robot"? That's just prolonging a failure that WILL happen.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I have to agree on this.

There's no such thing as a driver who is too aggressive, but there is such thing as a robot that's robustness isn't adequate to compete at a high level.

(There is a difference being aggressive and reckless; neither is bad, but recklessness can be bad if it's a result of having no control over the robot. This still shouldn't break a robot, but if the driver has no control they shouldn't be driving for a variety of other reasons).

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

The problem is there are usually reasons students are in the categories you listed. Usually its because the student who knows more about the system is more involved with the team/robot. I say usually, because based on my experience that is the case, this is obviously not universal. This is why I feel you need to have a fine balance of dedication, skill, knowledge etc. to be an effective driver.

-Brando

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

It seems to me like he is talking about driver tryouts it their shop, which is very different than driving on an actual field. I was probably one of the more aggressive drivers you'll see on the field, but i was always careful while driving in the shop. We once had a student crash the robot into a ladder, which then fell on top of the robot and did some minor damage to the electronics. This was also before the robot was completely finished, so yes, we did tell people to go easy.

Also, the quote in my signature was from my dad before our last match at atlanta in 2009, and then most matches during breakaway. Needless to say, he wasnt too concerned about me breaking it, especially after the volunteers in minnesota asked me to ease up a little bit because I kept breaking parts of the field

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

This reminds me of something that was told to me when I first learned how to drive a robot.

'A robot can always be fixed - but a match can never be replayed'.

Ever since then I've designed, built, driven and coached with that in mind.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

I see your point, and i agree you shouldnt go easy on the robot, but there were times where robots were hit, or were going too fast over the hump and flipped over. I'm definitely not saying you should be really cautious; im just saying that all of these robots could have catastrophic breakdowns.
But even a year like this, aggressiveness could be bad. Lets say you're farther away from a tube than the opponent, and you're both driving full speed. The only way you have a chance of getting that tube is by putting your arm to the ground way before you get there. Now theres a good chance you'll smack the arm/wrist, and high speed side loads can harm basically any arm/wrist/lift.
Thats not always the best way to look at it. In my example above, i'd rather decrease my chances of winning that match by a little bit as opposed to having to play defense or sit out 2-5 matches because your arm was smashed.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

If something on your machine can be broken during normal game play and it takes 2-5 matches to fix, then it's a design flaw - or at least that's how I see it.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

If a robot's hit and something broke, especially bumper to bumper contact, bad design.

If your robot can't go over the hump past a certain speed without flipping, design issues aside, you should probably have some kind of software limit rather than something as subjective as "don't go too fast man"

We designed for that exact situation, and it showed. Our robot's arm was snagged on another at Battlecry. They drove forward and yanked us around by our arm, with absolutely no damage. Obviously that's a worst case scenario, and arms should definitely NOT be used that way, but robust design should be something that is always emphasized.

You really need to be able to make nearly any repair in one match cycle.

Losing just one match can kill your chances at the Top 8. Do you really want your driver to wasting precious brain cells doubting himself and his robot? No, you have split second decisions to make, there's no time to think.

Re: Driver Selection: A Discussion
 

While i understand your points, this is a general discussion for driver choice. and in an ideal situation, the average robot WILL have design flaws that will make the driver need to be smarter about how he/she drives it.