Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelBick
I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.
|
Actually it is a lot more work when you don't have the resources, materials or the dollars to purchase said resources. We have cannibalized last year's robot to build this year which is a good use of resources, but not enough for two bots. Fortunately we have a couple great sponsors that allows us to get parts we need to build a robot that does the tasks it needs to, but we try to budget so we have money to start next year, so there is not a lot of fluff to work with.
We are a second year team and I agree with others on here that some of these rules need to be looked at. I don't get having a $100,000 budget for a team. I don't care were you are from. How is that in the spirit of FIRST? In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations. If you get the big corporate sponsorship, then I guess more power to you, but I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.
I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot. That is were we see some really sophisticated robots that other teams will most likely never have a chance to build based on resources. Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.
Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot. We did what we were suppose to do. Get our kit of parts, put it together and build up from there. We used last years robot to learn programming, use it for presentations and driving practice until we had to start robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the spirit of FIRST I thought the rule was for you not to build components that would be used for build season. You can argue with me about the semantics in the rules, but I am sure in "the spirit of FIRST" that was the idea behind the rule. Not to have a jump start on the drive train or other pieces before build season.
What started out to be for kids to get interested in STEM is turning out to be almost commercialized in the fact as in life money becomes the deciding factor of who comes out on top unless you are picked to be on the winning alliance team. Life isn't fair and we have to deal with what we have to work with, but I also don't think FIRST is about helping promote that idea. If it is, maybe I don't understand why FIRST exists then.
I would like to see FIRST consider the following:
1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.
2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.
3) Look at starting an FRC Open class. Teams that want to go all out can. If you are not in open then you use a standard drive base and allowed to change gears. You could still run the same amount of matches and teams at a regional, just group them accordingly.
4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.
We are all coming off of a 6 week build and for some of us a challenging one due to weather issues, but speaking from a young team, I would say it is time for FIRST to evaluate some of these rules to allow new teams to feel encouraged they have a chance. There will always be those who find the loop holes and loose interpretations and go beyond them. After all that is why have them to begin with. In the end it comes down to the people involved. Like basketball, the ball is the same ball for every team, but it is the coaching and the players that make the difference. I would just like to see FIRST be more about having each team use close to the same ball and let the rest be decided for itself.