|
Multiple Regionals
Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.
Posted on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST Ok, before I start with any other this, I'd just like to say that there's only 17 days left until Nations! And I have to say, I'm looking forward to it! Ok, here I go. This is my first year, and this is the one problem that I've seen. Teams are allowed to goto as many regionals as they like. Not only is this unfair to the teams that can't go, but it also gives the teams that do go an extra advantage in these ways: 1. The drivers get more time with the robot. As I am a driver, it really pays off to get as much time with the robot as possible. 2. The team gets more time to refine the robot. They can test it, modify it, and then at the next regional they can test it again and modify it some more. This gives them an unfair advantage over teams that are unable to do this. 3. Not allowing teams to goto more then 1 regional will make the regionals smaller, giving us less crowded pits and more pratice rounds. It will also bring the qualifying points down. My example of this is the Great Lakes regional. In Chicago, an average qualifying point of 200 would get you pretty high, while at Great Lakes, you'd be lucky to get into the top 20 with that. Although it sounds as I'm whinning, I'm not. My team was planning on going to chicago, but unforscene circumstances did not allow us to go. I think that this change would be to the better, and it would also level the playing field alot. Dave Hurt |
DEJA VU 2
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/4/99 1:07 PM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: Dave, You should talk to Chris on your team. We had a huge discussion about this very topic a few weeks back. Read this message thread. I encourage you to add to the discussion if you think that you have some more to offer. Joe J. |
i know that
Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.
Posted on 4/4/99 3:53 PM MST In Reply to: DEJA VU 2 posted by Joe Johnson on 4/4/99 1:07 PM MST: Joe, I know that Chris posted a message a while ago, but after seeing the results from Great Lakes, it is very obvious that something needs to be done. Chris's post was put up before Great Lakes, and I wanted to show that what he was saying is in fact true by using Great Lakes as an example. But thanks for reminding me :) Dave : Dave, : You should talk to Chris on your team. We had a huge discussion about this very topic a few weeks back. : Read this message thread. : I encourage you to add to the discussion if you think that you have some more to offer. : Joe J. |
Re: my little analogy
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/5/99 8:01 AM MST In Reply to: DEJA VU 2 posted by Joe Johnson on 4/4/99 1:07 PM MST: I know I've created a big stir on this issue before, but I figured it's time to let everyone know where I'm coming from (I never really stated much background before). First, let me state that Dave was correct, we had planned to go to multiple regionals this year, but having switched schools we didn't know if we would be able to get the students out of school for that many days so we decided not to take a chance on losing our entry fees. We ended up only going to the Great Lakes regional. This may seem weird to a lot of people that someone from a team that would go to multiple regionals (and I voted to go to the extra regionals) is against it. It's not that weird. Like Joe said, we would like to win this thing as much as anyone, so we will try to do what it takes. However, that doesn't mean I don't feel for 'the little guy' or that I don't want any changes in the interest of equity. Most of my reasoning for this is based on past experiences with other competitions. This is where 'my little analogy' comes in. I would like to compare the FIRST *competition* (note I said competition, not ideals, etc.) to auto racing; specifically open wheeled racing (one of my favorite sports). In the early days of a famous open wheeled racing series, teams were allowed virtually unlimited testing and practice time. What everyone should realize is that this practice time is expensive. The team needs to pay for travel, lodging, renting the track, fuel, tires, damage to the car, etc. Many of the low budget teams couldn't afford to do more than a few practice / test sessions per year. The high budget teams could practice about every other week in the off season. What happened was obvious. The high budget teams with all the practice got the bugs worked out of their cars, the drivers got practice, and when the race came the low budget teams were no where near the high budget teams. This lack of parity among the teams had a lot of negative impacts on the series. First of all, the fans knew that only a handfull of teams had a real shot at the championship, so the series started to be viewed as not very competitive. Second, and more important, was the reaction of the teams. The sponsors of the teams demanded that the team be more competitive (to get more recognition for the sponsor), or the sponsorship money would be withdrawn. Noting that the budget required to become competitive was out of reach, some teams started to fold up and withdraw. Other teams voiced concern to the governing body before they dropped out. They stated that if the governing body didn't try to control spending in some way, they, along with other teams, would be forced to remove themselves from the series. In devising a solution, the series had to determine what leveled the playing field the most along with reducing spending the most. The solution was to place a cap on testing. Teams were only allowed a certain number of practice / test sessions per year. The big money teams were of course very upset because they lost a lot of their competitive advantage. The big money teams still have an advantage over the small teams in many areas like R & D, but the small teams are now much more competitive, and many that were going to drop out were able to stay. Their sponsors stayed around a few years not because they were immediately more competitive, but there was hope that the playing field was leveled that they would become competitive. This series is now regarded as one of the most competitive series in the world from top to bottom. Many people have speculated that this changed has saved a series that might have died otherwise. If all of the teams dropped out that threatened, they couldn't have survived, it was speculated. This is where I'm coming from. This is why I would like to see a cap on the regionals. I'm concerned for the future of FIRST. Granted, there are so many teams in FIRST that the demise of FIRST is unlikely. But the goal of FIRST is to reach as many people as possible and grow very fast to accomplish this. Has anyone noticed that FIRST's goal a few years ago of 1000 teams by the year 2000 is not even close to being reality? Has anyone noticed the teams that have dropped out? I was looking through a program from 1997 and about 25% of the teams in that program aren't around anymore. Doesn't that concern anyone else but me? Or is it that no one else has noticed this but me? Let's face it, FIRST isn't going to publish or brag about its drop out rate. The reason for these drop outs and this lack of large scale growth is that the competition is very cost prohibitive for a lot of sponsors. When you throw in the extra cost that it takes to compete for the championship, it REALLY becomes cost prohibitive. I agree that FIRST needs to have a good element of being first class and have a big show to grab people's attention, so a lot of the costs aren't going to come down. But I really believe that going to one regional is just as beneficial to the students as going to three. They've seen it once, done it once, no need to do it again. This is an area that I feel that FIRST can cap the costs so small money teams can become more competitive and share the limelight on occasion with the likes of Delphi, WildStang, etc. I feel that this is in the long term interests of FIRST. Does anyone not believe that controlling costs is in the interest of FIRST? If you believe this, I would like to know why. Also, if anyone believes that controlling costs is a good idea but still doesn't want to limit regionals, what are your suggestions for controlling the cost? As a quick side note (more background), I never really thought of limiting regionals until the nationals of last year. In our last qualifying match of the day we beat Chief Delphi (do you remember that, Joe?). When we were walking back to our pits, a crowd of about 50 people standing around the TV in the pits started cheering for us for the big upset. Someone then came up to me and said something like, 'Congratulations. That was a great win. It's really hard for us small guys to compete with these teams that go to all of the regionals. They need to do something about that. I'm glad you guys knocked 'em off.' That got me thinking. Before long, I began to agree that it was difficult for these teams to compete and maybe something should be done. Hence my first post on this subject. So I know I'm not alone. Afterall, it wasn't even my idea. Anyway, I hope a few more people understand where I'm coming from. I hope I never have to raise this issue again. : Dave, : You should talk to Chris on your team. We had a huge discussion about this very topic a few weeks back. : Read this message thread. : I encourage you to add to the discussion if you think that you have some more to offer. : Joe J. |
Re: my little analogy
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.
Posted on 4/5/99 8:54 AM MST In Reply to: Re: my little analogy posted by Chris on 4/5/99 8:01 AM MST: Chris, I believe I can speak from the perspective of those 'small money teams' you mentioned. My team has, in it's three year history, only gone to a regional once. The NASA Ames regional this year was a godsend. From that experience, I can finally see why people feel it to be so vital to attend these smaller competitions. We started out with practically just a pretty, 4 foot tall paperweight. By the time the regional was through, we had what the judges had tagged 'The Enforcer'. The Regional was extremely beneficial to my team. I look at these wealthy teams (delphi, wildstang, etc.) and I see a goal, not a threat. It gives us something to work towards, because one day, I want to be able to have a team that CAN go to multiple regionals like Delphi or Wildstang. It just takes some doing. For our team, we try to have our students learn not only about building robots, but about fundraising. We have countless presentations to local Silicon Valley businesses. And we never give in. No matter how much money we get, there's always more to use it on. Going to multiple regionals is simply another landmark, something to shoot for. And you know what? We may be small money now, but each year we do better. We build on what we had before. I think it's very possible that soon, the Gunn Robotics Team will be seen at Great Lakes. The day is coming... Anyway, my point is that the regionals are a very beneficial experience. You can just look at how much Delphi has improved through the regionals it's went to. And do you think they weren't learning while their robot was starting to perform as well as it was originally designed to? Of course they were. I wouldn't want to keep them from that. Just think of it as a goal. One last thing, if you're going to look at unfairness, look at the machine shops. There's only so much you can level out after the robots have been built. Think about WHILE they're being built. A school like mine who's machines have been called 'antique' by a NASA machinist have a decided disadvantage. If you're going to talk about unfair, talk about THAT. My point is basically this: it's a lost cause. FIRST has done the best job it can to make this a fair competition, but it's never going to be perfect. And if you DO decide to change something to make it closer to that ideal, it shouldn't be a change that cuts any learning off... Make sense? -Daniel |
Re: my little analogy
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/5/99 11:39 AM MST In Reply to: Re: my little analogy posted by Daniel on 4/5/99 8:54 AM MST: I know a lot of people that feel the way you do, that going to multiple regionals is something to shoot for. But that is what my analogy was about. In the racing series, holding virtually unlimited practice sessions was viewed as something to shoot for by all teams. What the analogy pointed out is that there will be many teams that will NEVER be able to go to multiple regionals (or do unlimited practice as in the analogy). These teams become less competitive every year. My fear is that these teams sponsors will become embarassed by their teams performance and will withdraw the sponsorship. As I stated, many teams have already dropped out. With the exception of Baxter and Lakeland, all of the dropouts that I noticed have been teams that weren't very competitive. I completely agree that regionals are beneficial. Therein lies my reasoning for capping it. If Delphi would have had their first regional at the Great Lakes, they would have stunk (sorry guys) like we stunk. Instead, they came in with a refined robot and kicked our butts. I would like to see all robots go in to the competition with the same six weeks of work, instead of six weeks plus three regionals worth of work. Delphi would have done all of their learning in Ypsi instead of Chicago. Their learning experience would not be diminished. Teams learn the most about their robot after the first competition they attend. After this, it's mostly small refinements and driving practice, which I don't believe anyone learns much from. Especially when you consider the cost, the amount of learning vs. the cost is really bad for any regional after the first (when I say learning I mean math and science learning. A team learns a lot about the competition with each regional, but this isn't the goal of FIRST). Fundraising isn't a good solution for a lot of teams. There are something like 40 teams in this area. There is only so much fundraising you can do with that many teams. You end up going to places and they say, 'we already gave to another team'. Currently there aren't many teams from small communities like where I grew up. Where I grew up a team couldn't fundraise anywhere near enough to support a team let alone multiple regionals. Part of the reason I'm interested in capping costs is so more small community teams can be started. I would like students at my former high school to have the opportunity of having a FIRST team. As always, it all comes down to money and being competitive. No matter what FIRST preaches, many sponsors do this competition for its advertising value (like in racing). The company gets PR from the local press, word of mouth, the school and school board, and within the other teams of the competition. If teams start doing poorly, many people think that reflects on the quality of engineers at that company. A company might get embarrassed and pull the funding because the advertising value isn't good. This is not the ideals of FIRST, but the reality. I know of certain teams that must perform above a certain level to retain funding from the company. Another thing to think about is that many companies can't justify supporting a FIRST team when they're laying off employees. If the cost of FIRST were less, a better argument could be made for keeping the team. As far as being a lost cause, I completely disagree. An uphill climb? Definitely. FIRST is not going to limit regionals on their own. They get $4000 per team at each regional plus merchandise sales (that's $240,000 plus sales at the Great Lakes Regional alone). It's in their best interest to have every team attend every regional if possible. FIRST has selfish interests (at this time) in having teams attend multiple regionals. How is it ever going to change? Enough people voicing their opinion about it. I know that a lot of people are adamantly against this right now (as there were in the racing series in my analogy). Teams want a competitive advantage, people like to travel, etc. But I'm sure a lot of people are for limiting regionals. I think since I've been flamed so hard for this opinion in the past, most people that share my view aren't stepping up. But that's okay, I'll continue to be the designated whipping post for this cause. As I said, this wasn't my idea, it took someone else to make me think of it. I just believe in it. : Chris, : I believe I can speak from the perspective of those 'small money teams' you mentioned. My team has, in it's three year history, only gone to a regional once. The NASA Ames regional this year was a godsend. From that experience, I can finally see why people feel it to be so vital to attend these smaller competitions. We started out with practically just a pretty, 4 foot tall paperweight. By the time the regional was through, we had what the judges had tagged 'The Enforcer'. The Regional was extremely beneficial to my team. I look at these wealthy teams (delphi, wildstang, etc.) and I see a goal, not a threat. It gives us something to work towards, because one day, I want to be able to have a team that CAN go to multiple regionals like Delphi or Wildstang. It just takes some doing. For our team, we try to have our students learn not only about building robots, but about fundraising. We have countless presentations to local Silicon Valley businesses. : And we never give in. No matter how much money we get, there's always more to use it on. Going to multiple regionals is simply another landmark, something to shoot for. And you know what? We may be small money now, but each year we do better. We build on what we had before. I think it's very possible that soon, the Gunn Robotics Team will be seen at Great Lakes. The day is coming... : Anyway, my point is that the regionals are a very beneficial experience. You can just look at how much Delphi has improved through the regionals it's went to. And do you think they weren't learning while their robot was starting to perform as well as it was originally designed to? Of course they were. I wouldn't want to keep them from that. Just think of it as a goal. : One last thing, if you're going to look at unfairness, look at the machine shops. There's only so much you can level out after the robots have been built. Think about WHILE they're being built. A school like mine who's machines have been called 'antique' by a NASA machinist have a decided disadvantage. If you're going to talk about unfair, talk about THAT. : My point is basically this: it's a lost cause. FIRST has done the best job it can to make this a fair competition, but it's never going to be perfect. And if you DO decide to change something to make it closer to that ideal, it shouldn't be a change that cuts any learning off... : Make sense? : : -Daniel |
Re: and about the machine shop...
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/5/99 5:56 PM MST In Reply to: Re: my little analogy posted by Chris on 4/5/99 11:39 AM MST: : : One last thing, if you're going to look at unfairness, look at the machine shops. There's only so much you can level out after the robots have been built. Think about WHILE they're being built. A school like mine who's machines have been called 'antique' by a NASA machinist have a decided disadvantage. If you're going to talk about unfair, talk about THAT. Two points: 1. This is a big part of why I would like to limit regionals. As I've stated the last time that this went around: I believe that the money spent on extra regionals would have more educational value spent on other things. In your case, instead of spending the money on another regional, spend it on machine equipment. I haven't checked the prices in a while, but I believe you should be able to buy a decent lathe and mill for what it costs to have a team travel to a regional (note that I said travel), which costs a team around $10,000 to $15,000 (including entry fee, transportation, and lodging). 2. Why don't you use NASA's shop? We use TRW's shop for about 50% of the machining. |
Re: and about the machine shop...
Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.
Posted on 4/5/99 7:21 PM MST In Reply to: Re: and about the machine shop... posted by Chris on 4/5/99 5:56 PM MST: Chris - not all teams have the space for equipment. we sure as heck don't where i'm at. We are short on classrooms, and it's only going to get worse as we add another class of students. you can use your money for whatever you see fit. but don't tell me what to do with my team. i think that multiple regionals are a wonderful thing to strive for. each one presents a new challenge, and another step in the total refining of the machine itself. here is a copy of something i posted on this discussion a while back. 'Alright. I'd like to post my $.02 here as well. I'm all for teams going to multiple regionals. Wouldn't you go to more than one if someone handed you about $60 000 for your robotics program? That's an awful lot of equipment to buy for those of you that said that's what you'd like to do with that money. Give it to another team - I wouldn't. Competitions (from what I hear, and if it's anything like ASCE concrete canoe competitions) are a blast, and a great learning experience. It's not like there is nothing to be gained from regionals. If this isn't about winning, then why are we all so worked up about other teams getting more practice and more of this and more of that. To me, going to multiple regionals is something to strive for and aim for. It's part of building a strong robotics program.' : : : One last thing, if you're going to look at unfairness, look at the machine shops. There's only so much you can level out after the robots have been built. Think about WHILE they're being built. A school like mine who's machines have been called 'antique' by a NASA machinist have a decided disadvantage. If you're going to talk about unfair, talk about THAT. : : Two points: : 1. This is a big part of why I would like to limit regionals. As I've stated the last time that this went around: I believe that the money spent on extra regionals would have more educational value spent on other things. In your case, instead of spending the money on another regional, spend it on machine equipment. I haven't checked the prices in a while, but I believe you should be able to buy a decent lathe and mill for what it costs to have a team travel to a regional (note that I said travel), which costs a team around $10,000 to $15,000 (including entry fee, transportation, and lodging). : 2. Why don't you use NASA's shop? We use TRW's shop for about 50% of the machining. |
Re: and about the machine shop...
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.
Posted on 4/6/99 12:21 AM MST In Reply to: Re: and about the machine shop... posted by Bethany Dunning on 4/5/99 7:21 PM MST: I'm going to have to agree with Bethany on this one. I just think we may be underestimating the utility of the second and third regional. Maybe we could hear from someone who's done it. Joe? I also wanted to say that Chris makes a good point. Almost enough to convince me. But I certainly see the position much clearer now. I think the harder it is to achieve, the more proud you'll be when you finally do. And lastly, about the machine shop, we use ours because it is convenient and although the machines are antique, they do work. Somewhat. I also believe that NASA does not allow students to use their machines. Our school has a policy. We build our own robot. All parts are machined by students except those that are obviously beyond the capability of our shop. This policy would not be plausible if we were to move to our sponsor's machine shop. -Daniel |
You go Dave!
Posted by Reuben Hintz, Student on team #53 from Eleanor Roosevelt HS.
Posted on 4/4/99 9:51 PM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: I've gotta go with Dave on this one, and not just because my team is as 'po'' (thar's 'poor' for the ebonics illiterate) as Kenny (:-)Cartman). One regional showing per team will really even things out. If you doubt the need for this, just take a look around at nationals. The teams with large amounts of resources are really starting to dominate. We need to do something guys, and I think Dave has a great idea. -Reuben Hintz |
Please Convince Me
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/5/99 6:36 PM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: I've been on my soapbox a lot about limiting regionals, and I've received a lot of responses disagreeing with me. I have still yet to see a response that made me change my mind. The crux of everyone's argument against me is that extra regionals have some sort of value. I've stated many times that I believe one regional is important as it allows a team to debug the robot and prepare for Nationals. Everyone learns from this experience. I've also stated that I think there is very little 'real' value in attending more than one regional, since teams already had their learning experience at their first regional. What I want is someone to try and convince me why there is extra value in additional regionals. When I mean extra value, I mean extra value in the spirit, ideals, and mission of FIRST. In other words, a competitive advantage or a free trip is not a real added value. I would like someone to convince me that extra regionals have value in technical education. Not only that, but convince me that the EXTRA regional's educational value is worth the money that it costs to send the team to the regional. All arguments should have some sort of proof. If anyone can convince me that the added value of EXTRA regionals is worth the money that the teams spend (in educational value), I will then convert to supporting unlimited regionals. After all, the goal of FIRST is inspire people that education is good. However, if you don't convince me, I will do my best to poke holes in your argument. My main goal is to make the playing field as level as possible, but not at the expense of education. However, I still am not convinced that extra regionals are that educational. They may have some educational value, but I think the money could be better spent. That is why you must convice me not only that it is educational, but worth the money. So, any takers? As I said, please convince me. |
Some reasons to go to more than one regional
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/5/99 8:28 PM MST In Reply to: Please Convince Me posted by Chris on 4/5/99 6:36 PM MST: Okay, I think that this is going to be a case where reasonable people can disagree, but here goes... Reason 1 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: FIRST considers 2 events their 'break even' point for supporting a team. I know that this will be hard for teams to understand (especially because much of the kit it donated material), but it takes a lot of bucks to support a single FIRST team. Eric, Lori, Vince, Brian, etc. they all have to be paid. Games have to be developed. Controllers have to be designed & debugged. Etc. If you go to less than that (i.e. one regional or the nbationals only) then FIRST reckons that it looses money on their $4K fee. This is offset by teams that go to more than one regional. Reason 2 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: I think that the overall competition level is raised by good teams being seen at more than one regional. In addition to the teams getting better, all teams will get better by seeing more of the 'well financed' teams. I know that I was in awe the first time I saw the Sanders/Nashua team and the PSNH/Manchester team (Blue Lightening) at that first regional I attended. For me, it was unfair how good these teams were and, dang it, I was going to be that good next year! I hope the Wildstang, HOT, The Bomb Squad, Chief Delphi, Team Hammond and other multi regional teams inspire the same kind of competitive juices in other teams. Reason 3 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: There is a ton of work done on these robots, using them more is a better use of the equipment. I think that it is in the long-term interest of FIRST to develop into a season of events rather than one or two events. As it stands, teams generally go to 2 events after 1000's of hours and dollars spent making the robot. Like it or not, the entire season is judged by the results of a very few minutes of running. Yes, I know that we are all winners, yada yada yada. But... the fact remains that our school district supporters and our sponsor supporters ask us, 'What place did you finish?' This is the dilemna we have. We talk about winning on many levels, but the main yardstick used by the folks who sign the checks is the place we finish in few matches held over two weekends (with robots that we have had almost no practice with). Contrast this with the various sports teams that are supported by the school district. Believe me, the true costs of supporting a varsity football team bury the cost of our little robot competition (you guys from Texas are free to support me on this one ;-). Other sports have many chances to have a winning season. I think that this is what FIRST should strive for. Multiple regionals are in some ways a substitute for the lack of a true FIRST season (Mr. B., if you use this as yet another chance to pitch your, 'keep the game the same' argument, I will scream ;-). Reason 4 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: The I stands for INSPIRATION -- the T does not stand for teaching. If teaching happens, great. But this whole FIRST thing is about inspiration. That is the sole reason I am in it. The teaching element of going to more than one regional is not relevant. This is about inspiration. I do believe that the 'bigness' of the events and going to more events plays a significant role in the Inspiration Dept. Our team travels. That is a big draw in the our particular school. FIRST is impacting our entire community because there are kids who are interested just because they think getting on our FIRST team is a free ticket to a lot of cool places (by the way, our students quickly learn that they would be better off working for MCD's flipping burgers if all they wanted was an easy way to get to WDW, but that is a message for another day...) Our relatively small team of 32 students is impacting an entire high school because a lot of folks in our school are asking themselves, 'What do I have to do to get on that cool FIRST team?' FIRST is about cultural change. Really. Multiple regionals help us in that effort. Well... I am going to leave it at that for now. Replies are encouraged... Joe J. |
Re: Some reasons to go to more than one regional
Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.
Posted on 4/6/99 6:49 AM MST In Reply to: Some reasons to go to more than one regional posted by Joe Johnson on 4/5/99 8:28 PM MST: : : We faced a serious financial crisis this past year. We really stopped and asked 'Is this worth it'. We have developed a very strong program with the local school and didn't want that to stop. I started to research other similar robotics competitions ( and there are alot of other choices if you look). In the end we decided to stay with FIRST because of exactly what Joe said. It's about Inspiration! We have a series of 'Engineering classes that we teach to the student team members, but even the course material is designed to show what an Engineer can do rather than to teach how to do it. I admit that the travel is a draw but once we our hands on the students we have a chance to inspire them. After the fact, I think most students will not remember WDW as the best part of FIRST. FIRST is very expensive and everyone should be concerned about it, however the 'bigness' of the events is what really has a profound effect on the students. Each event that we attend increases that impact. As far as regionals are concerned, we didn't have the money to send the team to three competitions this year. The team voted to send a small group of 'essential' folks to the Florida regional and go to the Great Lakes regional as a team. This was a good way to save money and yet support the new regional and give us a chance to see the machine in competition. (We made no changes or even major repairs after either regional this year) I realize I rambled a bit, but I see both sides to the expense issue and both sides of the multiple regional issue. I feel that FIRST is what it is and we can either play or not. Greg |
Re: Some reasons to go to more than one regional
Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.
Posted on 4/6/99 10:24 AM MST In Reply to: Some reasons to go to more than one regional posted by Joe Johnson on 4/5/99 8:28 PM MST: Okay, this is my views on most of those topics: Reason 1: If FIRST limited the number of teams going to the regionals, they wouldn't have to spend a fortune on some hugh place, because there would be less teams at each regional, thus saving them money. Not only would it be cheaper to get a smaller place, but you wouldn't have to hire as many concession workers, for example, or even yet, let the teams work the concession stands, and let the team get 10% of the profit or something like that. It would be a good way to get teams more money, and FIRST wouldn't have to hire concession workers. Reason 2: I know that seeing good teams inspires, but it also discourages many people. I know that after hearing that we had to play with or against Wildstang at Great lakes, my first thought was that I hope we get stuck with them, because I didn't want to face getting creamed by a really good team. Also, after seeing some of the finals, I was not only amazed by some of the robots, I knew that my team will have to pull of a miracle (and that's in the plans right now) to do good in Florida. Reason 3: I'm not trying to sound mean here, but what about the other teams that cannot goto multiple regionals? They come home, and they can only tell their sponsers that they didn't do good. Just to clarify things, I'm not saying that it's guaranted that a team will do bad in it's first regional, but I'm sure there are more teams that do bad then do good. As Chris put it in his analogy, 'The sponsors of the teams demanded that the team be more competitive (to get more recognition for the sponsor), or the sponsorship money would be withdrawn. Noting that the budget required to become competitive was out of reach, some teams started to fold up and withdraw. Other teams voiced concern to the governing body before they dropped out. They stated that if the governing body didn't try to control spending in some way, they, along with other teams, would be forced to remove themselves from the series.' * Taken from Re: my little analogy - Chris - 4/5/99 8:01 AM MST Dave |
Re: Some reasons to go to more than one regional
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/6/99 11:26 AM MST In Reply to: Some reasons to go to more than one regional posted by Joe Johnson on 4/5/99 8:28 PM MST: Thank you for the great response Joe. I do believe reasonable people can disagree. However, I promised some hole poking, so here's my attempt: Reason #1. I can't argue much against number one. That was a good one. Is that a big enough reason to convince me. No. FIRST should get more sponsors, although that's easier said than done. However, Dave's idea in the post below makes some sense. Reason #2. Everyone gets to see these well funded teams at nationals. They don't need to see them at the regionals. Teams make notes of who performed well at the regionals and make it a point to see them in action in Florida. Reason #3. A season of events would be great if the costs were controlled. Here in the Detroit area it would be great since we have around 40 teams and no one would have to travel. I would be all for that. In the second part, you completely agreed with something I said earlier. The people writing the checks want to see a good result or the checks will stop being written. The 'less fortunate teams' (PC term) in the long run will do poorly and all of their sponsors will stop writing the checks. In the end you may up with only GM, Delphi, Chrysler, Motorola, and a few others left. Shouldn't we do something to keep everyone competitive? Granted, someone is going to finish last every year, but funding is hardly ever pulled due to one bad year. It's a trend of bad performances that is noticed. If the field is not level, the less funded teams will be on the bad end of the trend and will get their funding taken away. Reason #4. The travel does draw the students. But isn't one regional and a trip to Disney enough travel to draw students? It was for our students. It's also hard for a team to feel inspired when the cards are stacked against them. Some people start to feel discouraged. Sure, your team may feel more inspired, but at whose expense? Many teams feel that they are shooting for 'best of second class'. I've had this discussion with teams in the past (no, I didn't bring it up). Why should these teams have to feel second class? The fact is, many teams, because of funding, accept that they will never be able to compete with the likes of the GM teams and the Delphi teams. That's a sad statement. I'm not willing to accept that. That's why I'm so vocal. -Chris : Okay, I think that this is going to be a case where reasonable people can disagree, but here goes... : : Reason 1 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: : FIRST considers 2 events their 'break even' point for supporting a team. I know that this will be hard for teams to understand (especially because much of the kit it donated material), but it takes a lot of bucks to support a single FIRST team. Eric, Lori, Vince, Brian, etc. they all have to be paid. Games have to be developed. Controllers have to be designed & debugged. Etc. : If you go to less than that (i.e. one regional or the nbationals only) then FIRST reckons that it looses money on their $4K fee. This is offset by teams that go to more than one regional. : : Reason 2 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: : I think that the overall competition level is raised by good teams being seen at more than one regional. : In addition to the teams getting better, all teams will get better by seeing more of the 'well financed' teams. : I know that I was in awe the first time I saw the Sanders/Nashua team and the PSNH/Manchester team (Blue Lightening) at that first regional I attended. For me, it was unfair how good these teams were and, dang it, I was going to be that good next year! : I hope the Wildstang, HOT, The Bomb Squad, Chief Delphi, Team Hammond and other multi regional teams inspire the same kind of competitive juices in other teams. : : Reason 3 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: : There is a ton of work done on these robots, using them more is a better use of the equipment. I think that it is in the long-term interest of FIRST to develop into a season of events rather than one or two events. : As it stands, teams generally go to 2 events after 1000's of hours and dollars spent making the robot. Like it or not, the entire season is judged by the results of a very few minutes of running. Yes, I know that we are all winners, yada yada yada. But... the fact remains that our school district supporters and our sponsor supporters ask us, 'What place did you finish?' This is the dilemna we have. We talk about winning on many levels, but the main yardstick used by the folks who sign the checks is the place we finish in few matches held over two weekends (with robots that we have had almost no practice with). : Contrast this with the various sports teams that are supported by the school district. Believe me, the true costs of supporting a varsity football team bury the cost of our little robot competition (you guys from Texas are free to support me on this one ;-). Other sports have many chances to have a winning season. I think that this is what FIRST should strive for. Multiple regionals are in some ways a substitute for the lack of a true FIRST season (Mr. B., if you use this as yet another chance to pitch your, 'keep the game the same' argument, I will scream ;-). : : Reason 4 for allowing teams to go to more than one regional: : The I stands for INSPIRATION -- the T does not stand for teaching. : If teaching happens, great. But this whole FIRST thing is about inspiration. That is the sole reason I am in it. : The teaching element of going to more than one regional is not relevant. : This is about inspiration. : I do believe that the 'bigness' of the events and going to more events plays a significant role in the Inspiration Dept. : Our team travels. That is a big draw in the our particular school. FIRST is impacting our entire community because there are kids who are interested just because they think getting on our FIRST team is a free ticket to a lot of cool places (by the way, our students quickly learn that they would be better off working for MCD's flipping burgers if all they wanted was an easy way to get to WDW, but that is a message for another day...) : Our relatively small team of 32 students is impacting an entire high school because a lot of folks in our school are asking themselves, 'What do I have to do to get on that cool FIRST team?' : FIRST is about cultural change. Really. Multiple regionals help us in that effort. : Well... : : I am going to leave it at that for now. : Replies are encouraged... : Joe J. |
I don't agree
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/6/99 7:10 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Some reasons to go to more than one regional posted by Chris on 4/6/99 11:26 AM MST: Chris- I really hope its not the case that 'big-time' teams will scare away other teams. I always thought it was the other way around - that 'big time' teams will help to grow new teams. If teams make a big splash in their communities, more people get excited about what FIRST is all about, and more teams get going. I think by having a good showing at regionals or nationals, there is a bigger chance that more students (especially those NOT on the teams) will be inspired to explore their interests in things technical. I can think of many teams that got started or helped because of the efforts of 'big time' teams. How did your team initially hear about FIRST? As to teams being discouraged by a high level of competition, I don't buy it. It doesn't stop too many lousy high school basketball teams from trying every year. In my opinion, thats because its not about 'winning.' Its about 'trying to win' and 'preparing yourself for success.' That in itself is why people will want to compete. Heck, you have Dave working on a miracle - that doesn't sound to me like someone who is going to be discouraged by good competition. When I look up at the great FIRST teams its not all heavily funded monsters that I see (its some relative of a creature called Beattyjuice if you want to know the truth :)). I think the success of teams on the playing field has more to do with the PEOPLE and IDEAS than it does with the sponsors' wallets. I think you are placing too much emphasis on the effect of company size on team success. I agree that multiple regionals is an advantage, and that its funding that enables teams to go to multiple regionals. I wouldn't be opposed to a one regional rule. But I don't think its in the interest of FIRST until we have a thousand or so more teams. At the rate we are going, half of them will be in Michigan! :)) just joshin you other states If you want to read some of Dean Kamen's comments on this subject, I suggest you check out the link below to our website. Its a long article, but I think he drives home some points about why it is important to have 'big-time' sponsorship. |
holes in hole poking
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/6/99 7:18 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Some reasons to go to more than one regional posted by Chris on 4/6/99 11:26 AM MST: . . . : Reason #2. Everyone gets to see these well funded teams at nationals. They don't need to see them at the regionals. Teams make notes of who performed well at the regionals and make it a point to see them in action in Florida. *** Not everyone goes to Nationals. . . . : Reason #3. A season of events would be great if the costs were controlled. Here in the Detroit area it would be great since we have around 40 teams and no one would have to travel. I would be all for that. *** I have been involved in serious conversations with serious folks who think that it is not out or the question that Detroit could have its own regional next year. I have also heard that Grand Rapids may have another regional next year. Now your talking SEASON! Between Ypsi, Detroit, Western Michigan and Chicago, you could have a serious season of events within a 4-5 hour drive of Detroit. Let me at 'em :-) . . . : In the second part, you completely agreed with something I said earlier. The people writing the checks want to see a good result or the checks will stop being written. The 'less fortunate teams' (PC term) in the long run will do poorly and all of their sponsors will stop writing the checks. In the end you may up with only GM, Delphi, Chrysler, Motorola, and a few others left. Shouldn't we do something to keep everyone competitive? Granted, someone is going to finish last every year, but funding is hardly ever pulled due to one bad year. It's a trend of bad performances that is noticed. If the field is not level, the less funded teams will be on the bad end of the trend and will get their funding taken away. *** Beatty Hammond! What more can I say? They have a 60 person tool and die shop and a community with a heart of gold. They beat up the big three year after year. Are you telling me that there is no such great engineers at TRW to compete with the likes of Beatty the Elder and Beatty the Younger? You know that there are. FIND THEM! . . . : It's also hard for a team to feel inspired when the cards are stacked against them. Some people start to feel discouraged. Sure, your team may feel more inspired, but at whose expense? *** There are teams that do very well with little funding. Harrison RIT were national champs in our first year. They bragged that they spent a TOTAL of $19K on their entire FIRST effort -- including travel! Next year, Beatty won. The next year Delphi won, but a not super funded Naval Undersea Warfare Center finished second. If you will allow me a personal digression: At one point, I was considering moving on from Delphi. Before I would leave though, I was polling my brother, sisters, and misc. relatives to see if between us, we could come up with enough dough to fund a Team Johnson. You can bet that I would not have just tossed up my hands and just said, 'We can never compete with the Delphi's & GM's!' I was planning on kicking my former team's behinds ;-) And believe me, my family couldn't come up with a 10th of the budget a typical Delphi team has. Would I have done multiple regionals? Yes, even if we had to stay at the KOA! My point is that I reject the idea that money is the only or even the major limit to competitive teams. Joe J. |
Re: holes in holes in holes (wow, I believe that's some sort of multidimensional thing)
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/7/99 6:50 AM MST In Reply to: holes in hole poking posted by Joe Johnson on 4/6/99 7:18 PM MST: : . : . : . : : Reason #2. Everyone gets to see these well funded teams at nationals. They don't need to see them at the regionals. Teams make notes of who performed well at the regionals and make it a point to see them in action in Florida. : *** : Not everyone goes to Nationals. ******** I really feel for these teams, but that is another argument all together, maybe for another day. This one drains me enough as it is. I can only fight battles one at a time, in steps. However, there are usually enough good teams at each regional for the lesser teams to see. Even if there weren't great teams to see at a regional, I would rather let the lesser teams battle it out so that they can feel like kings for while instead of feeling totally defeated by a great team. Let them have their day in the sun. : . : . : . : : Reason #3. A season of events would be great if the costs were controlled. Here in the Detroit area it would be great since we have around 40 teams and no one would have to travel. I would be all for that. : *** : I have been involved in serious conversations with serious folks who think that it is not out or the question that Detroit could have its own regional next year. I have also heard that Grand Rapids may have another regional next year. Now your talking SEASON! Between Ypsi, Detroit, Western Michigan and Chicago, you could have a serious season of events within a 4-5 hour drive of Detroit. Let me at 'em :-) *********** As I said before, I'm all for this because travel is next to zero. But it is still a problem if we have all of this competition experience and the teams out west only have one regional near by. : . : . : . : : In the second part, you completely agreed with something I said earlier. The people writing the checks want to see a good result or the checks will stop being written. The 'less fortunate teams' (PC term) in the long run will do poorly and all of their sponsors will stop writing the checks. In the end you may up with only GM, Delphi, Chrysler, Motorola, and a few others left. Shouldn't we do something to keep everyone competitive? Granted, someone is going to finish last every year, but funding is hardly ever pulled due to one bad year. It's a trend of bad performances that is noticed. If the field is not level, the less funded teams will be on the bad end of the trend and will get their funding taken away. : *** : Beatty Hammond! What more can I say? They have a 60 person tool and die shop and a community with a heart of gold. They beat up the big three year after year. Are you telling me that there is no such great engineers at TRW to compete with the likes of Beatty the Elder and Beatty the Younger? You know that there are. FIND THEM! ********** You can find an exception to every rule. Beatty is just that, the exception. Once again, let's talk trends, not single instances. As far as finding engineers where I work, let's say the engineers are good here, but the climate isn't. I'll leave it at that. In fact, I've been wanting to discuss this with you to get some ideas. I'll try to track you down in Florida (you have decided to go, right?) : . : . : . : : It's also hard for a team to feel inspired when the cards are stacked against them. Some people start to feel discouraged. Sure, your team may feel more inspired, but at whose expense? : *** : There are teams that do very well with little funding. Harrison RIT were national champs in our first year. They bragged that they spent a TOTAL of $19K on their entire FIRST effort -- including travel! Next year, Beatty won. The next year Delphi won, but a not super funded Naval Undersea Warfare Center finished second. ********* Recall that your first year there was only one regional, so your argument fails here. In fact, I think your example proves MY point. My whole point is that small funded teams CAN win if we all had the same competition experience, as was the case in 1996. In that year teams were forced to be limited to one regional because that's all there was. I want to return to those days where a small funded team can win it all. In 1997, Beatty won. I already stated that I believe Beatty is an exception, but even so, in 1997 there were only a few teams going to multiple regionals; the multi-regional effect was limited and it was nothing like last year and this year. Besides, they were in the finals with your team, one of the only teams that I knew of that went to multiple regionals that year. Beatty also went to more than one regional this year. As for NUWC, they did great, but all I have to say is 'Villanova in the NCAA about 10 years ago' or 'Gonzaga this year'. Tournament brackets can and do have upsets in which big underdogs can make it through (no disrespect for NUWC intended). Once again, the key is trends. : If you will allow me a personal digression: At one point, I was considering moving on from Delphi. Before I would leave though, I was polling my brother, sisters, and misc. relatives to see if between us, we could come up with enough dough to fund a Team Johnson. You can bet that I would not have just tossed up my hands and just said, 'We can never compete with the Delphi's & GM's!' I was planning on kicking my former team's behinds ;-) And believe me, my family couldn't come up with a 10th of the budget a typical Delphi team has. Would I have done multiple regionals? Yes, even if we had to stay at the KOA! My point is that I reject the idea that money is the only or even the major limit to competitive teams. ******* I've said it before, if I was running the team, we would be going to multiple regionals as well. That doesn't mean I wouldn't still lobby for a rule to against this practice. I'm competitive and I want to look out for my own team first. (BTW, have fun staying at a KOA in the Midwest in March :).) I never said money is the only limiting factor. I just said that it IS a factor and it is just the easiest to control. In every major form of competition that I know of where money can have an influence, rules have been put in place to lessen its influence. Examples: CART: limited practice and technology limitations IRL: ditto, plus many other measures like mutual practice sessions (ring a bell, Joe? I tried getting this to fly this year.) NASCAR: ditto Formula One: Technology limitations (more recent consession to less funded teams) NFL: Salary Cap NBA: Salary Cap NCAA: Scholarship limits, practice limits, and not paying the athletes Major League Baseball: Luxury Tax Note that MLB and the NHL desired a salary cap but the players union defeted it in their most recent strikes. Now, all of those organizations that I listed have a vast number of years more experience running a competition than FIRST. Considering that what I listed is basically ALL major team competitions where money can influence the outcome, and ALL of them have rule in place to limit this influence, I have to believe that this is a correct practice. It's hard to argue with these governing bodies, especially when they all agree on this. By the way, has anyone not noticed I'm a sports nut? Speaking of sports, there was an argument in a post below about crappy high school basketball teams. Remember that high school basketball is broken into a class system for the same reasons that I'm arguing here (at least in Michigan). A tiny class D school would find it very difficult to compete against a class A school. (Yeah, I've seen Hoosiers, but I'm talking about trends again, not single instances). Of course, there is still a wide range in the level of competitiveness within each class, but there is a general feeling of a level playing field. There wasn't a feeling of a level playing field before the class system. As long as no feeling of a level playing field exists, people on the short end of the stick get discouraged. If people feel the playing field is level, they can lose and not feel short changed. On a lighter note: I try to inject some humor into things when I write on occasion (to lighten the mood). I've had people write back at times arguing against a statement that I intended to be humorous. My friends tell me that I have a good sense of humor (I hope they're not lying), so it leads me to believe that we're just all too serious. It also leads me to believe that I ought to stop doing this because it's causing me headaches (that's in the figurative sense :)). But anyway, I'll stop my humor if everyone promises to lighten up a little and stop being so serious all the time (that includes me). |
Re: Our team revealed
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/7/99 12:49 PM MST In Reply to: holes in hole poking posted by Joe Johnson on 4/6/99 7:18 PM MST: :Are you telling me that there is no such great engineers at TRW to compete with the likes of Beatty the Elder and Beatty the Younger? You know that there are. FIND THEM! Of course I had to respond to this one in a little more detail, so here I go... I honestly think we have a very good team this year. We may not have showed it a Great Lakes, just like you didn't show it at Chicago. We had a lot of functionality on our robot that just wasn't working correctly there that we couldn't get going in the time allotted. But let me warn everyone that everything appeared to be working correctly before shipping to nationals! I actually went back and looked at the film to see what our scores might have been had we been working properly. What I mean is, we tried to do something and weren't successful because we weren't working properly. Had our robot succeeded when we made these attempts, we would have averaged 441.3 QP per match, good enough for 7th place (better than Beatty, in fact). I know, 'if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts', blah blah blah and all that crap, and this is just pure speculation, but be warned: we're fully functional now. |
Re: Our team revealed
Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.
Posted on 4/7/99 4:33 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Our team revealed posted by Chris on 4/7/99 12:49 PM MST: Ok, only 2 weeks until Florida! And I just have to say, despite who-ever went to multiple regionals, things are going to be WAY different in Florida. I know that this despute has been going on for some time now, and I have to say that what are we all doing this for? I know I'm in it to have fun, and what's the fun in concentrating SOOO hard on making your robot better so you can go and creame the pants of someone else? I think alot of people have lost what this competition is for, and that's to have fun while learning. I know that killing other teams in the competition is a really nice thing to do, and I'd love to be able to do it, but I'm accepting my team's robot for what it is, despite how good or bad we do in Florida, and I plan on just going and having a blast in Florida! From the looks at most of these posts, most of the people are out there to murder and kill. This is my 2 cents worth on the subject. Dave Hurt, Driver of Team 308, The Monster : :Are you telling me that there is no such great engineers at TRW to compete with the likes of Beatty the Elder and Beatty the Younger? You know that there are. FIND THEM! : Of course I had to respond to this one in a little more detail, so here I go... : I honestly think we have a very good team this year. We may not have showed it a Great Lakes, just like you didn't show it at Chicago. We had a lot of functionality on our robot that just wasn't working correctly there that we couldn't get going in the time allotted. But let me warn everyone that everything appeared to be working correctly before shipping to nationals! : I actually went back and looked at the film to see what our scores might have been had we been working properly. What I mean is, we tried to do something and weren't successful because we weren't working properly. Had our robot succeeded when we made these attempts, we would have averaged 441.3 QP per match, good enough for 7th place (better than Beatty, in fact). : I know, 'if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts', blah blah blah and all that crap, and this is just pure speculation, but be warned: we're fully functional now. |
subtly is not easy in e-space
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/7/99 6:31 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Our team revealed posted by Dave on 4/7/99 4:33 PM MST: Let me being by saying that while I love to compete and I certainly play this FIRST game with the intent of trying to win, I do not enjoy killing or even embarassing other teams. If I have given that impression, I am sorry. I really want all teams to do well. To me, this whole thread has been a very interesting (and not particularly harshly worded) discussion of deeply felt views. I admit that I don't completely understand folks who have expressed the opinion that such frank discussions are an indication that we all can't get along. Far from it, I think everyone will be able to get along BETTER because we have had a relatively open and frank discussion rather than secret tongue clicking and finger wagging among various factions in and around the pits. Perhaps it is more difficult to convey subtle shades of opinion on a wwwboard than I realized. So... Is it time to shut up already? Your votes are welcome (though I make no promise to abide by majority rule ;-) Joe J. |
just to clarify things
Posted by Dave, Student on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW.
Posted on 4/7/99 9:38 PM MST In Reply to: subtly is not easy in e-space posted by Joe Johnson on 4/7/99 6:31 PM MST: I'm sorry if things were interperted wrong, but I didn't mean to say that the messages on this board tell that we can't get along. I have to agree with you on the fact that having boards like this help us. If you ever have questions about anything, because I know sometimes I can be hard to follow, feel free to e-mail me at bighurt@ameritech.net One other thing... I don't know who mentioned it, I think it was Chris, who said something about it coming down just to the big 3 and other big teams. I'm sorry for not remembering the guys name, but some philosper guy once said that the little people will eventually rise to the top. Even though the big 3 and those other big teams have a hugh advantage now, just wait a couple years. After, for an example I'm using the TRW group that my team is partnered with (an automotive electronics group), figures out all the tricks of building the robot from doing it a couple of years, they'll have a hugh advantage over the all the mechinacal companys, because things can always be changed and improved with the electronics to make the robot better, while the building designs are limited on what they can do. 13 Days till Florida... Dave Hurt, Team 308 : Let me being by saying that while I love to compete and I certainly play this FIRST game with the intent of trying to win, I do not enjoy killing or even embarassing other teams. : If I have given that impression, I am sorry. I really want all teams to do well. : To me, this whole thread has been a very interesting (and not particularly harshly worded) discussion of deeply felt views. : I admit that I don't completely understand folks who have expressed the opinion that such frank discussions are an indication that we all can't get along. Far from it, I think everyone will be able to get along BETTER because we have had a relatively open and frank discussion rather than secret tongue clicking and finger wagging among various factions in and around the pits. : Perhaps it is more difficult to convey subtle shades of opinion on a wwwboard than I realized. : So... : Is it time to shut up already? : Your votes are welcome (though I make no promise to abide by majority rule ;-) : Joe J. |
I DISAGREE (just kidding - I knew that would grab attentions)
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/8/99 7:02 AM MST In Reply to: subtly is not easy in e-space posted by Joe Johnson on 4/7/99 6:31 PM MST: That was an excellently written post, Joe. I couldn't agree more. I think you are very correct in stating that subtle shades of opinion are not easily conveyed on a wwwboard. I think it lies in the fact that communication is 2/3 sender and 1/3 receiver (or thereabouts). When you put it in writing, the receiver plays an even bigger role. It's much easier to convey shades when the receiver hears your inflection and sees your body language. Without this, any preconceived notions the receiver may have easily influence the tone they think it's written in. You can begin to convey shades of meaning in writing when you have a book to fill, but I hope no posts here become that long (although some of mine have approached it - and I still didn't get the meaning across :)). Anyway, of course it's not time to shut up. Unless you mean this particular issue of this thread, then perhaps. You never answered my question: are you going to Florida, or what? The people want to know. : Let me being by saying that while I love to compete and I certainly play this FIRST game with the intent of trying to win, I do not enjoy killing or even embarassing other teams. : If I have given that impression, I am sorry. I really want all teams to do well. : To me, this whole thread has been a very interesting (and not particularly harshly worded) discussion of deeply felt views. : I admit that I don't completely understand folks who have expressed the opinion that such frank discussions are an indication that we all can't get along. Far from it, I think everyone will be able to get along BETTER because we have had a relatively open and frank discussion rather than secret tongue clicking and finger wagging among various factions in and around the pits. : Perhaps it is more difficult to convey subtle shades of opinion on a wwwboard than I realized. : So... : Is it time to shut up already? : Your votes are welcome (though I make no promise to abide by majority rule ;-) : Joe J. |
Subtly misspelling subtlety
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/8/99 6:10 PM MST In Reply to: I DISAGREE (just kidding - I knew that would grab attentions) posted by Chris on 4/8/99 7:02 AM MST: I knew that something did not look right in my subject line, but I could not place my finger on before I hit 'Submit' (even with that 'proofread' box defaulting to checked ;-) On my way to work, it came to me. Subtlety vs. Subtly. I suppose I should get a star for remembering that there is a 'b' in the blasted word :-) Ah well, at least I tried. As to whether or not I am going to Florida, follow the link below. Joe J. |
Re: Please Convince Me
Posted by Tom Vanderslice, Student on team #275, ORHS/AST/Hitachi, from Academy of Science and Technology and Hitachi.
Posted on 4/5/99 8:57 PM MST In Reply to: Please Convince Me posted by Chris on 4/5/99 6:36 PM MST: Before I start I'll say I walk the fence on the multiple regionals thing. But I will say this, you seem to agree that multiple regionals is a competitive advantage... : In other words, a competitive advantage or a free trip is not a real added value. Now the fact of the matter is that this is a competition. Yes, it is great that FIRST is a good learning experience and you get a technical education and support the 'spirit, ideals, and mission of FIRST.' But it still comes down to the fact that this is a competition. And in a competition you have people who win and people who lose, that's the way it goes, and unfortunantely very few teams can win, and everyone accepts that by entering the competition. Everyone who enters FIRST and shows up with a robot is a 'winner' they have accomplished something they can be proud of, but in the end it must come down to one team (well 3 teams, 1 alliance) winning, and everyone else losing. The teams that lose can still be very proud of their accomplishments, but the teams that win have something extra to be proud of, and in the end everyone's happier if they win. Now, I'm not saying the technical education and other things are less important in the 'grand scheme of things' than the competitive advantage, in fact, they are probably more important, but in the end a competitive advantage is a serious advantage. My 2 cents, Tom |
Re: Multiple Regionals
Posted by Vinny Buchemi, Student on team #386, The Cats, from Lyman Hall and CYTEK.
Posted on 4/6/99 11:30 AM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: Dave, I couldn't agree more. I have always believed that multiple regionals yeilds an unfare advantage. I hope this rule changes. |
A Simple Proposal
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/7/99 9:46 PM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: The teams who are able to go to multiple Regionals seem to feel they benefit from it in many ways and defend the practise. Not too hard to understand. The posts arguing to limit participation in Regionals seem to come from teams who are unable, for one reason or another, to attend more than one. The flavor of the latter posts seems to be that this is an unfair situation, tilted playing field, etc. Again, not too hard to understand that perspective. So I'll offer a simple proposal that speaks to this situation and perhaps offers many other benefits relative to FIRST's goals: LET ALL TEAMS KEEP THEIR ROBOTS AND WORK ON THEM THROUGHOUT THE SEASON. This speaks to the very real advantages gained in practise, shakedown, hours on the bot, etc by the 'lucky' teams. I disagree with Chris' analogy here about the expense of open wheel race car practise/testing. All we need is a flat patch of carpet, some electricity, and a roof. And lots of pizza. I think my proposal would do a great deal to give the 'less lucky' teams the same advantages of time with the bot and to level the field. A few other points: 1) This would drastically raise the level of competition as the season marched toward the Nationals. I predict many fewer broken 'bots and no shows. The stay-at-homes would have plenty of opportunity to see the tricks of the 'lucky' (and good!) teams at the early Regionals and develop strategies - and even new mechanisms - to better compete when their day comes. 2) This would give the students the chance to see, and hopefully be inspired by, engineering in the DEVELOPMENT phase of a project. Maybe all you other teams have figured out how to complete (?) the development of your machines in the six weeks. We sure haven't. And I'm awfully glad every time I fly or drive that the engineers who developed those machines had enough time to do a reasonable job. 3) This would give all teams more opportunity to use their bot in fundraising and outreach activities. We are a small team that relys on collective support from a very large number of small companies in a lightly populated area. Nothing works like motivated students showing off and talking about their bot to raise bucks. But, here we sit for 2 months with our bot in a box somewhere! 4) NO competitive athletic team operates this way. Analogous rules would crush sports. No practise or training between games? Come on! How is FIRST supposed to rise to the same level of support, respect, and enthusiasm as sports in our high schools? I could list several more reasons why I think this is a good idea, but at this point I'd like to stop and see what contrary thoughts it stimulates. Dodd |
Re: A Simple Proposal
Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.
Posted on 4/7/99 10:21 PM MST In Reply to: A Simple Proposal posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/7/99 9:46 PM MST: Sounds like a great idea, Dodd. - Jerry : The teams who are able to go to multiple Regionals seem to feel they benefit from it in many ways and defend the practise. Not too hard to understand. The posts arguing to limit participation in Regionals seem to come from teams who are unable, for one reason or another, to attend more than one. The flavor of the latter posts seems to be that this is an unfair situation, tilted playing field, etc. Again, not too hard to understand that perspective. So I'll offer a simple proposal that speaks to this situation and perhaps offers many other benefits relative to FIRST's goals: : LET ALL TEAMS KEEP THEIR ROBOTS AND WORK ON THEM THROUGHOUT THE SEASON. : This speaks to the very real advantages gained in practise, shakedown, hours on the bot, etc by the 'lucky' teams. I disagree with Chris' analogy here about the expense of open wheel race car practise/testing. All we need is a flat patch of carpet, some electricity, and a roof. And lots of pizza. I think my proposal would do a great deal to give the 'less lucky' teams the same advantages of time with the bot and to level the field. A few other points: : 1) This would drastically raise the level of competition as the season marched toward the Nationals. I predict many fewer broken 'bots and no shows. The stay-at-homes would have plenty of opportunity to see the tricks of the 'lucky' (and good!) teams at the early Regionals and develop strategies - and even new mechanisms - to better compete when their day comes. : 2) This would give the students the chance to see, and hopefully be inspired by, engineering in the DEVELOPMENT phase of a project. Maybe all you other teams have figured out how to complete (?) the development of your machines in the six weeks. We sure haven't. And I'm awfully glad every time I fly or drive that the engineers who developed those machines had enough time to do a reasonable job. : 3) This would give all teams more opportunity to use their bot in fundraising and outreach activities. We are a small team that relys on collective support from a very large number of small companies in a lightly populated area. Nothing works like motivated students showing off and talking about their bot to raise bucks. But, here we sit for 2 months with our bot in a box somewhere! : 4) NO competitive athletic team operates this way. Analogous rules would crush sports. No practise or training between games? Come on! How is FIRST supposed to rise to the same level of support, respect, and enthusiasm as sports in our high schools? : I could list several more reasons why I think this is a good idea, but at this point I'd like to stop and see what contrary thoughts it stimulates. : Dodd |
6 week fig leaf
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/8/99 4:06 AM MST In Reply to: Re: A Simple Proposal posted by Jerry Eckert on 4/7/99 10:21 PM MST: Dodd, I am with you on keeping the robots. I think that one thing that this would do is make the competition to build a robot become a 3 month effort not a 6 week affair. You and I know that this is not just a 6 week program, but we often use the 6 week figure as a fig leaf for unsuspecting newcomers and wary execs ;-) What are we going to do when you can essentially build a new robot between the last regional and the nationals? Thoughts? Joe J. |
Extended Sleep Deprivation
Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.
Posted on 4/8/99 6:00 AM MST In Reply to: 6 week fig leaf posted by Joe Johnson on 4/8/99 4:06 AM MST: I have mixed feelings about this. It would certainly improve the competitiveness of many robots. You can argue that we wouldn't have to put in so many all-nighters if we had more time. Or, you can argue that we may just expand the work to fill the time. The powerhouse teams will get even more time to become even better. The temptation to spend more time and money to make a killer robot will be there. I kind of like the 6 week blitz followed by some extended recovery time. This is especially important with my family life. I like having some time now to go watch my son play baseball or to take my wife out to dinner, etc. Many of us feel pressure from our spouses because we already spend too much time on this. I'm sure each team has members who are on the verge of quiting because this takes up too much of their spare time. However, you can argue that each team can choose to spend the amount of time they want. I just don't have a good feeling about this. Raul |
Crashing and Burning... I agree!
Posted by Michael Betts, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.
Posted on 4/8/99 10:53 AM MST In Reply to: Extended Sleep Deprivation posted by Raul on 4/8/99 6:00 AM MST: Raul's point is very well taken. The amount of work WILL expand to fill all available time! I once had a company CEO who's favorite saying was that 'Engineers, left to their own devices, will never bring a product to market.' FIRST asked me (approx 3 years ago) about lengthening the design phase. My reply was 'God NO!' (please excuse the blasphemy). If you give a team 6 weeks, they will have a working machine in 5-1/2. If you give them 12, it will take 11-1/2! While the situation I just described is a little different than Dodd's proposal, the premise is the same. If we had our robot right now, I know we'd still be working on it. I do not think I could possibly stand a longer season. I still have not done my taxes.... |
I agree also
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/8/99 3:34 PM MST In Reply to: Crashing and Burning... I agree! posted by Michael Betts on 4/8/99 10:53 AM MST: I agree that the work will just expand. I would not be in favor of this. Ken |
Excuse Me, Mr. Adam, But Your Fig is Showing
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST In Reply to: 6 week fig leaf posted by Joe Johnson on 4/8/99 4:06 AM MST: Raul, I'm with you on everything you say, BUT the devil in the mirror is the one we all have to wrestle with in all these questions of balance. Six weeks strains the limits of the possible, given the sophistication of many of these incredible robots we're trying to make. There is no question of balance - everything else in our lives takes a back seat. And that brings me to fig leaves. The six week build period of FIRST really stresses the relationship of the engineers/coaches with our employers. Maybe the 'big sponsor' companies can and do openly assign a team of engineers to the project for six weeks during work hours (I doubt this is true, but we little teams often grumble about rumors of it), but most of us have to just fit it in somehow. And the somehow is that our work suffers, our clients suffer, and our employers suffer. We may bargain, explicitly or otherwise, that 'it's only for six weeks,' but Joe is dead on that this is a fantasy, and it's a hard one to maintain. I suspect there are a number of us who feel like we're really pushing our companies' ability to look the other way when we do this for a second or third year, or more. This is not good for the future of FIRST, it's not good for our companies, and it's not good for us. Frankly, I think the six week pressure cooker is a carryover from the structure of Woody's design classes, and it doesn't serve a constructive purpose in the FIRST context. Yes, college students need no sleep, run full tilt on carbohydrate junk, have no relationships or other responsibilities, and need to learn that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger (and smarter). Been there, done that, and I'd like to see from FIRST a little more professional respect for the value of our time and our contribution to achieving FIRST's goals. Going at 200% for six weeks and then sitting on our hands for four weeks, rousing for a weekend Regional, then again sitting for five weeks, to go to the Nationals is an arbitrary jerk around. This is the stuff of burnout. My hat is off, and off again, to Dean and Woody for making FIRST go, but it requires the sustained help of the current thousand or so engineer/coaches to make it grow. I feel strongly that this six week business is an area that definitely needs reconsideration for the future interests of FIRST. Guess I better go take a cold shower, while our bot sits in the box in Orlando and I have all this time on my hands. Dodd |
The Devil in my mirror...
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/8/99 6:23 PM MST In Reply to: Excuse Me, Mr. Adam, But Your Fig is Showing posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST: Dodd, You hit the nail on the head with that 'devil in the mirror' reference. I know that it is only our own mania that causes this to be such a rough process. If we were only in it to make a machine that could play the game, we'd all be able to get some sleep, but the fact is, we are not. I tell our students (and I really believe) that we should do our best to play to win. From that believe flows the imbalance during the X weeks we do this FIRST thing. I really don't know what we can do about it. While part of me agrees that 6 weeks is too short and having no robot for months at a time stinks, I will tell you that more time will not really address the problem. I am as hooked as Raul O. and Mike B. I am afraid that more time will only bring more imbalance. Here's to looking in the mirror... Joe J. |
Ambition must be cut into bite-size pieces
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.
Posted on 4/8/99 8:46 PM MST In Reply to: Excuse Me, Mr. Adam, But Your Fig is Showing posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST: Dodd, I think FIRST has a very calculated formula for this. 6 weeks is a great way to teach us students the value of simplicity. Simplicity is elegance. I have always stressed to my team members the importance of the KISS principle. When we were reviewing possible robot designs, I sat at a table with 4 other students and watched my friends come up in little groups to show us the foam core mockups they had been working on. I remember looking at a few GREAT designs that we could never have finished in time. I recently heard a team member saying 'I'm glad we listened to the comittee, we could have NEVER finished my design'. People only learn this AFTER experiencing the pressure, and it's a wonderful thing to learn. We were essentially forced to keep it simple. I like that. =============== Here's why: (1) A simple robot forces you to make the best use of your environment (i.e. ally, human players) (2) A simple robot allows you to have parts which students can actually manufacture without using some fancy-shmancy shop (3) A simple robot gives you a chance to finish in time to practice, while working at a student pace (I'm sure you experienced engineers could whip out a monster in 6 weeks, but we like to have the students doing the designing, manufacturing, assembly, etc.) (4) A simple robot gives less potential for breakage (considering there's less to break) (5) A simple robot can win the simplicity award...I wonder why they've got one of those =) =============== I could go on all day. Basically, I'm trying to say that perhaps your solution to finishing on time is to simplify, not to extend. I think that's exactly why FIRST hasn't extended it. I'm just afraid that the more time you give, the more complex the robots will become; and soon, nobody will be ready for regionals, 'cuz they'll be busy building Frankenstein. Besides, don't you like to brag to your friends about building a robot in 'only 6 weeks!'? Just my thoughts on the matter... -Daniel Lehrbaum GRT #192 Student Co-Captain |
Re: A Simple Proposal
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/8/99 10:20 AM MST In Reply to: A Simple Proposal posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/7/99 9:46 PM MST: Great idea. I really like it. :I disagree with Chris' analogy here about the expense of open wheel race car practise/testing. All we need is a flat patch of carpet, some electricity, and a roof. And lots of pizza. Just for clarification purposes: Sorry, I may have not made this clear. In the analogy, the practice/testing sessions were analogous to regionals. The teams had to pay to use the track (like our entry fee), travel to the track (like our travel), and make repairs(like our repairs). This all came to a substantial cost (like our regionals). What you mentioned here was not what I intended. What you mentioned is analogous in racing to working at the home garage, which is not limited since it has no real extra cost. But anyway, great idea. |
Leaping to Conclusions
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/8/99 11:41 AM MST In Reply to: Re: A Simple Proposal posted by Chris on 4/8/99 10:20 AM MST: Chris, Sorry to misinterpret your analogy. Under my proposal, the 'lucky' teams still have the advantage of trial by fire in multiple Regionals, but the 'less lucky' teams at least have the benefit of more systematically improving their machines and technique under working conditions less frantic than in the competition pits. It seems to me at least like a reasonable tradeoff in addressing the inequities of the present system. |
Re: Your idea is great.
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/8/99 2:44 PM MST In Reply to: Leaping to Conclusions posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 11:41 AM MST: I love your proposal and I think it's a great compromise. I'll use my big mouth to help lobby FIRST if you need support. Chris : Chris, : Sorry to misinterpret your analogy. Under my proposal, the 'lucky' teams still have the advantage of trial by fire in multiple Regionals, but the 'less lucky' teams at least have the benefit of more systematically improving their machines and technique under working conditions less frantic than in the competition pits. It seems to me at least like a reasonable tradeoff in addressing the inequities of the present system. |
watch out....
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Your idea is great. posted by Chris on 4/8/99 2:44 PM MST: I think you are underestimating the power of a competitive free market. If there are 'lucky' teams out there right now giving 100% for 6 weeks compared to 'less lucky' teams giving 80-90% for six weeks, do you think the 'lucky' ones are going to scale back from 100% during the extra time alotted by your proposal? Someone advocating this proposal suggested that there would be time to work in a 'less frantic' atmosphere. Its my opinion that the 'lucky' teams work at a frantic pace nearly all the time. Ken (I know this doesn't address multiple regionals. But I think effort and ideas are bigger determinants of success than multi regionals.) (I'll probably regret being this blunt - I hope you accept my apology if you think this is too blunt.) |
Go Ken... ...but consider this.
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/8/99 7:01 PM MST In Reply to: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST: Ken, I agree with you. Ideas do matter. They matter alot. The ideas or design of robots matters a great deal. But I will also grant that practice matters a great deal as well. I tell our team over and over again every year that ANY robot delivered at (Shipping Time - 7 days) will beat ANY robot delivered at (Shipping Time - 7 minutes). I think that there is little disagreement about the following: 1) It is not possible to be competitive without a robot that is well designed and built. 2) It is not possible to be competitive without drivers who have had time to drive the robot. 3) It is easier to be competitive with opportunities for continuous improvement. Multiple Regionals do nothing to address the first point but can make a huge difference on the last two. The various shades of opinion on this really boil down to each person evaluation of each of these three points and how 'fair' they find the balance that FIRST currently strikes. Before I sign off, I want to restate that while I think our discussion here is very valuable, I think that there is one more point that most of us can agree upon and that I hope everyone will keep in mind as they type their messages: Reasonable people are going to disagree. Joe J. |
Re: watch out....
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST In Reply to: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST: Ken, Blunt is fine. Let's return to the subject of this thread, the sense of some teams with limited resources that the ability of better endowed teams to attend multiple Regionals is inequitable. In my posts, I have used 'lucky' as a euphemism for well financed and 'less lucky' for not so, equating that roughly with the ability to attend multiple regionals or not. From what I've seen and been part of, ALL the teams give 200% for six weeks, well financed or not. The simple fact is that well backed and supported teams have the OPTION of competing and then spending Saturday PM thru Tuesday 5PM (I think) with their bot virtually every week throughout the season, ie: 6 days out of seven. In theory, and those people would be absolute mad-ones, and I admire all those who approach this limit. Team 47 comes to mind. The teams without the money don't have this option, period, end of story. Now you may assume I'm addressing competitive advantage, the liklihood of taking home the gold from the Nationals, numero uno, blah, blah. While there's an undeniable competitive advantage to the teams who CAN spend more time with their machines, that's not my personal motivation. I'm in the fraction trying to push the creative envelope, please the crowd, knock some socks off, show our kids about swinging for the fence, purely for the beans of it. Seems like we aimed a bit too far out this year and ran short of time to make it all work. So I wasn't looking to have Dean and Woodie save us from ourselves at week six. I was snorkel deep in the most satisfying/maddening/challenging part of the year when somebody said 'put it in the box - it's 4:45.' Those of us who need Dean and Woodie to turn us off to have a rest have my sympathy. Those of us who don't, also have my sympathy, because we've had our creative outlet snatched away unnecessarily and arbitrarily. I say arbitrarily - I haven't heard any reason for the six weeks other than saving people who can't pace themselves, the devil in the mirror. Is it necessary to impose this solution on others? Addressing your post directly, I don't understand the competitive free market reference. I don't expect well funded teams or anybody else to scale back their effort during the additional time I propose - each team could do what they choose with it. Those who are well funded and like frantic work in the pits are fine by me, and they have a wonderful opportunity for memorable and inspiring experiences. If you believe that better development work is more likely to occur for your team in the FIRST pits than in a less frantic atmosphere, we differ in our approaches. I don't think we differ on effort and ideas being bigger determinants of success than multi regionals, but we might define 'success' in somewhat different terms. With the time we'll have after the Nationals, we can make the effort required to successfully implement our central technology idea for this year in time for the Rumble, and succeed by doing what we don't expect any other team to do in this year's Nationals. If some other team beats us to it, they're a better team than we are this year. My proposal is not intended to provide advantage to some teams at the expense of others, nor to help them somehow 'catch up.' It takes nothing away from anyone and requires no one to change their behavior. It gives the gift of time - which better funded teams advantageously enjoy now - to all teams. I have no idea whether or how this might effect any outcomes, but I think it could vastly change the process and the FIRST experience in positive ways for the teams who have less to work with. |
Re: watch out....
Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJē, from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.
Posted on 4/8/99 9:44 PM MST In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST: Ken, you had a long post, and i'm not going to copy it here. I just want to reiterate somehting that I said before, but now i have more facts. In 1997, at the end of the New Jersey regional, we were giving the option of going to Flordia. (we didn't have approval till then). We had two weeks, and we fundrasied over 10,000 dollars, booked a flight for over 80 students (our traveling team that year), and got hotel reservations at disney. I do want to say we would never have gotten hotel reseverations or flights down (and back) if it wasn't for the work of one secretary at Johnson and Johnson. I guess the point i'm trying to make is, money isn't really as a limiting factor as alot of people are making out to be. Yes, I realize that 80 very driven students is a force to be reckoned with, fundraising or cheering wise. (You guys must be beginning to go deaf from us at New Jersey.) I also realize that some teams are in area's where it's just not possible to raise that much money. But it can be done. Mike The picture included is our 1997 team picture, from NJ. |
Re: watch out....
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/8/99 11:56 PM MST In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST: Dodd, Sorry for jumping off topic a bit. Thanks for redirecting me... I agree that its an advantage for some teams to go to more regionals than others. As I said a few days ago in another post, I'd go along with a one regional rule if we had, say, 1000 teams competing around the country. Until then, I think we can use all the teams we can get to have as high a profile as possible so we can make this thing grow (I see that as the key measure of our success in FIRST). But, bottom line, multi-regionals is an advantage. You relate the number of regionals a team attends exclusively to funding. I agree, but I think there's another factor: how you allocate your money. Our team goes to 2 regionals, the ones we can drive to in ~1/2 day, Chicago and Ypsi, because they are the most cost-effective to attend. I know only the rustbelt and northeast teams get this 'advantage.' Additionally, we have 'only' 20 students on our team, while many teams have double that. I think that number is okay (some disagree btw), because everyone gets an important, critical job that way, and its more of an honor to be selected for the team. But another reason is that it is cheaper. These things help enable our team to go to two regionals and still do the PR projects that we want to do. I think Greg Mills from Baxter said something similar in a recent post - they sent a skeleton crew to one event to save money. My 'practical' defense of six weeks: It doesn't upset my/your life for too long. If the time were made longer, it would be harder on everyone who puts their heart/mind/energy into FIRST. Because we would just do it for a few more weeks. My 'philosophical' defense of six weeks: If the students see that, as a team, we can do an 'impossible' job in an 'impossibly' short time, they will be more inspired. Inspired about engineering and about teamwork. Newcomers to FIRST are amazed that we can do this. I think we should keep amazing them! :)) The competitive free market reference: What I mean is that the 'big time' programs, because they want to remain competitive, will likely increase their lead over the 'not so big time' programs, because they will apply whatever 'advantages' they have (money, people, facilities, ideas, pick your favorites) over a longer period of time. So the 'gift' will end up being a curse IMO. In defense of 'trying to win': In my opinion, it is okay, in fact its right, to try to win. By win, I mean 1st place gold medal all the chips lets go see slick willie. Please note I say *try* to win, with the emphasis on try. If you believe you can win, you will prepare yourself to win. And if you prepare yourself to win, YOU HAVE WON. Regardless of what place your robot gets, since ***sarcasm on*** everyone knows thats a crapshoot! ***sarcasm off***. My sincere thanks to Jeff Burch for the sarcasm alert, and my sincere admiration for Dr. Stuart Walker for writing about the try to win philosophy. I like your 'knock their socks off' approach. I'm not sure it represents a balanced model for the typical engineering product development process where you have to meet requirements on time, but I still like it. I'm going to check our photos of your robot and see if I can figure out what you are up to! :)) Thanks for putting up with my posts. See ya in Florida. I'll be flying down on our team helicopter. :)) Ken |
Sigh
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/9/99 8:58 AM MST In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 11:56 PM MST: Thanks to Ken and Daniel ('Ambition...', further down this thread) both for thoughtful and persuasive posts in support of the six week schedule. I will even cop to heaving my own sigh of relief when we ship the bot and then can rest a bit. But before I drag my soapbox off to another street corner and try to rattle cages there, I'd like to comment on related points from the two posts, product development discipline and KISS. We're all fortunate to work in a profession with niches from R&D through product development to manufacturing and construction, with lots of other areas in between and no heirarchy implied or intended. I work in R&D, so I'm a sucker for gizmos that open new horizons on what we can do with our little metal monsters. We were all set this year to clone last year's chassis/drive/control system - which worked well and was reasonably simple - until we opened the boxes at kickoff and saw those yaw rate 'gyros.' A whole new vista of navigation, mobility, and control opened up, and our grasp on reality went right out the window. Sigh. Well, we're halfway there. We've got the mechanicals in place and working, now to pound down the RF noise and calm down the feedback loops. We'd very much like the opportunity to work on this (in our 'less frantic' rural shop) while others who are able duke it out at multi regionals and carry out their product development in the pits and post mortem periods. Not hearing a mass uprising in support of giving FIRST a license to another six weeks of our souls, we'll follow plan B - the long term R&D cycle. We'll work it over the summer, try it out in local Invitationals, and incorporate what works into next year's bot. I sure hope we don't have to fly, swim, or play a wall game next year. See you in Orlando. We'll be the ones trudging down the Appalachian Trail when your team chopper passes overhead. Say, how many can you carry in that thing? Dodd |
Re: Yet another compromise
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/9/99 9:51 AM MST In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST: I brought this one up a long time ago but didn't get much reaction on it, so try this one on for size: Instead of giving us all another six weeks, we could do this (a little more complicated on FIRST's part): 1. After the registration deadline, determine which team is going to the most regionals. 2. Multiply the number of regionals the team in part 1 is going to by 3 days. 3. Allow every team to have the extra number of days calculated in part 2. 4. For each regional a team goes to, subtract 3 days off of your allotted 'extra time'. The advantages with this system: 1. Teams that can afford to go to multiple regionals still get to go and have their fun, show off their robot to the lesser teams, get their practice, and everything else that goes with going to multiple regionals as pointed out by Joe and everyone else. 2. Teams that can't afford the extra regionals get the equivalent time to improve their robot or practice had they been to the extra regionals. (Key selling point: Everyone gets the same amount of time, or thereabouts.) 3. This fits within the current rule structure. Currently there is a rule that says if you aren't going to a regional you get an extra two or three days (I can't remember which). The current flaw in this rule is that it is antiquated. This rule was written when there was only one regional. I just think it needs to be updated with the changes that I suggested, and then everyone should be happy (er). Disadvantages: 1. Keeping track of what each team is allowed to do. If this system is too complicated, one simplification is to change part 1 as follows: 1. Multiply 3 days by the number of weeks in which there is at least one regional being held. What does everyone think of these changes? |
Re: Yet another compromise
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/9/99 12:31 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Yet another compromise posted by Chris on 4/9/99 9:51 AM MST: : What does everyone think of these changes? This speaks directly to the time advantage of the teams attending multi regionals. I had forgotten about the compensatory time in the present rules for teams attending only the Nationals. I like your suggestion. Maybe if the other teams were required to play 100 dB music, sleep on the floor, run their machines into the wall every hour, and subsist on pizza during the comp time it would be fair for all. Dodd |
Implementation Suggestion
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Yet another compromise posted by Chris on 4/9/99 9:51 AM MST: Try this, for all of us who have a hard time wrapping up the build phase and reclaiming our lives without the shipping deadline: We all ship as under the current rules, and we're down until our first Regional (or till the National, for those teams doing only the one). We play our Regional(s). Each team, after its LAST Regional, then has comp time with their robot as per Chris' formula (if they wish), and then ships to Orlando at the end of their comp time. This is dead level even for ALL teams on time for machine development/practise/etc. But it ALSO puts the same onus on all teams to put a ready-to-run bot in the box on the same date. Pretty embarrassing (and expensive) to show up at your first Regional not ready to rock (at least by Friday). It seems to me like this speaks both to equity and to human (engineer, anyway) nature. The teams who DO play many Regionals get the definite advantage of competition in developing their machine and their play. Those who don't get to spend time with their machine that the playing teams don't by virtue of being on the road and having fixed pit hours. It also gives time to rebuild serious smashups from a first and only Regional before the Nat'ls. What do you think? |
I'd go for that
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/9/99 4:18 PM MST In Reply to: Implementation Suggestion posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST: I could go for that. There might have to be some tweaking of the formula one way or the other, but it sounds like a plan that could be made to work. As to the logistics of different ship dates, I propose we take a page out of the IRS Playbook. FIRST should put out a form and an instruction book and then put the burden of proof back on the teams. I guess that FIRST would have to have clearly defined penalties for failure to file and late payment etc. but I think FIRST could work that out ;-) Bottom line: Sounds like the beginnings of a plan everyone can live with. Joe J. |
good idea
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/10/99 5:27 AM MST In Reply to: Implementation Suggestion posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST: I like it - it seems like a fair solution to the problem. It would be more of a logistical problem for FIRST, but it might help them in one area, by spreading out all the faxes they get on ship date! I'm for it. Ken btw, we got the rich corinthian leather seats plus wet bar option for the helicopter, so it only seats 4 - we'll probably have to get a fleet of them.... :)) |
good idea
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 4/10/99 5:45 AM MST In Reply to: Implementation Suggestion posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST: I like it - it seems like a fair solution to the problem. It would be more of a logistical problem for FIRST, but it might help them in one area, by spreading out all the faxes they get on ship date! I'm for it. Ken btw, we got the rich corinthian leather seats plus wet bar option for the helicopter, so it only seats 4 - we'll probably have to get a fleet of them.... :)) |
Re: Implementation Suggestion
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/10/99 7:32 AM MST In Reply to: Implementation Suggestion posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST: GREAT suggestion, Dodd. This sounds almost perfect. I think the overall solution may need a little tweaking in the formula, but who knows. I think this is something that FIRST would buy. What do you think is the best way for us to go about suggesting this to FIRST in a manner that will be most likely for them to accept it? Also, HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE thanks to the Delphi team and this site. Without it (or an equivalent forum), nothing would have happened. Thanks to this forum, a compromise was reached using ideas from quite a few people that should make almost everyone happy. : Try this, for all of us who have a hard time wrapping up the build phase and reclaiming our lives without the shipping deadline: We all ship as under the current rules, and we're down until our first Regional (or till the National, for those teams doing only the one). We play our Regional(s). Each team, after its LAST Regional, then has comp time with their robot as per Chris' formula (if they wish), and then ships to Orlando at the end of their comp time. This is dead level even for ALL teams on time for machine development/practise/etc. But it ALSO puts the same onus on all teams to put a ready-to-run bot in the box on the same date. Pretty embarrassing (and expensive) to show up at your first Regional not ready to rock (at least by Friday). It seems to me like this speaks both to equity and to human (engineer, anyway) nature. The teams who DO play many Regionals get the definite advantage of competition in developing their machine and their play. Those who don't get to spend time with their machine that the playing teams don't by virtue of being on the road and having fixed pit hours. It also gives time to rebuild serious smashups from a first and only Regional before the Nat'ls. : What do you think? |
Take a poll, FIRST is watching...
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.
Posted on 4/10/99 10:47 AM MST In Reply to: Re: Implementation Suggestion posted by Chris on 4/10/99 7:32 AM MST: Don't jump to conclusions. Although it's a great idea, we've hardly had anyone agree yet; just a handful of people. I suggest reposting this proposal at the top of the forum for those who are too lazy to scroll down. And as to proposing this idea to FIRST, chances are you already have. FIRST, as Vince said, monitors these pages very closely. If we can show that many people agree with this suggestion, they may choose to implement it. Let's take a poll at the top of the page... I'll be waiting for your post. -Daniel |
Re: Implementation Suggestion
Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.
Posted on 4/11/99 9:44 PM MST In Reply to: Implementation Suggestion posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/9/99 12:54 PM MST: Evening out the field by providing more time to those that do not go to multiple regionals is a good idea. But, as long as we are going to completely change the rules, how about this (I think Joe J suggested this a long time ago): Many sports have class divisions based on some criteria. For example high school and college sports are broken up by school size. Baseball has A, AA, AAA and the Majors. Maybe we can use this analogy. What if we had divisions such as A, AA, etc.? The rookie or novice teams that do not have much funding could compete in these classes. Those that have plenty of experience and funding can go to the top class. A rookie team could choose to join a higher class with the understanding that they would be competing against the best. Regionals could cover some or all the classes. The nationals could occur at different dates or times for each class thereby allowing more teams to compete. We could have classes for 'totally student built' or 'shoestring budget' or whatever. The 'major leagues' or 'heavyweight class' is what all teams would strive for but they could compete and get experience in the lower classes until they are ready for the big leagues. What do you think of this? Raul |
And an Extreme League of their own...
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/12/99 7:51 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Implementation Suggestion posted by Raul on 4/11/99 9:44 PM MST: The idea of multiple FIRST catagories is really going to get some folks all riled up. So, I am going to steer clear of that hornet's nest just now, BUT... The idea of various competition levels brings up my absolute FAVORITE idea, which is a FIRST Extreme League. We're talking a Pro League with teams of full time engineers, high salaries, spills, chills and thrills. This is the kind of thing that would spin off personalities that really would get on Oprah, Letterman and Leno. As to drivers, I propose that only Ph.D's with a P.E. license be allowed to drive the robots. Sound reasonable to me ;-) By the way, a competitive cycling team trying to win the Tour de France spends over $1M every year. I think a NASCAR team or a CART team spends closer to $5M. If we can make the competition easy enough to understand and exciting enough to watch, I think that Cheerios & Dominos as well as Delphi & Visteon might consider funnelling some of their advertisement dollars toward the FIRST Extreme League. Hey... It could happen. Joe J. |
Can I be on your team? (EOM)
Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.
Posted on 4/13/99 7:25 AM MST In Reply to: And an Extreme League of their own... posted by Joe Johnson on 4/12/99 7:51 PM MST: : The idea of multiple FIRST catagories is really going to get some folks all riled up. So, I am going to steer clear of that hornet's nest just now, : BUT... : The idea of various competition levels brings up my absolute FAVORITE idea, which is a FIRST Extreme League. : We're talking a Pro League with teams of full time engineers, high salaries, spills, chills and thrills. |
I remember that post...
Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.
Posted on 4/9/99 11:58 PM MST In Reply to: Re: Yet another compromise posted by Chris on 4/9/99 9:51 AM MST: Chris, Not only do I remember that post, I also remember liking it! The only negative for that (that I can see) is the major headache it would cause FIRST. I'm not sure if it's possible on their end, they're busy enough as it is... But don't get me wrong. If they're willing, I'm all for it! -Daniel |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi