View Single Post
  #62   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 19-04-2009, 22:09
David Brinza's Avatar
David Brinza David Brinza is offline
Lead Mentor, Lead Robot Inspector
FRC #0980 (ThunderBots)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 1,378
David Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond reputeDavid Brinza has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Lessons Learned - The Negative

Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
Well, being a rookie team, it was our first year in Atlanta.
Congratulations! Being a "Rookie All-star" or rookie regional winner is truly special. Experiencing Championship is so intense and can almost be overwhelming, even for veteran teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
But once again I will bring up the topic of a rookie team...
I'm not familiar with the details of the composition of Team 2753, but as others have pointed out, FIRST has specific definitions of what constitutes a rookie team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
Wiring colors? I'll be honest, I had no idea because I didn't have the time to sit down and read a rule book, and other students assigned the task did not complete it. But with that aside, why does it matter what color a wire is? Gauge is of course understandable, but the color? I've been working with electrical 'stuff's for years. IMO, it's a rule that is not necessary. Rules are normally for controlling the robot entries from having extra advantages (Size, Weight). But wire color? Come on. Don't pull the safety card on this either. Knowing a wire is ground or hot shouldn't decide how you work with it. You treat every wire like it's hot, just like you always treat a gun like it's loaded. On top of that, our wire coding was not correct at the LA Regional either, but none of the inspectors noticed. It would definitely help if we knew about it then, rather than at the Championships.
As a robot inspector, I look for consistency of colors for the power distribution wires. Most teams use red for +12V and black for return. I'll ask the students if this color convention is used throughout the robot, then I look at the power distribution board and Victors/Jaguars just to make sure no colors are crossed. It's OK to use white (or brown) for +12V and blue for ground in the robot, as long as it is consistent within the robot. Hooking up certain electrical components with the polarity reversed can be an expensive, even unsafe practice, so adopting a wire coler convention is a smart thing to do. At regionals, some inspectors may give a rookie team some leeway with the requirements, especially if a minor deviation is not giving the team an unfair advantage. The standards are higher at Championship and what passed at a regional may not cut it in Atlanta.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
Third. Mentor involvement. Some of the teams I see have robots that you just KNOW that high school students didn't build, because when you go to the pits, you see a mentor fixing it, not a student. If your students are not capable of building a high caliber robot, then don't. Build a kitbot. They'll get more experience out of building that than some other complex robot. When awards were given out at the individual divisions, I saw several teams with parents/mentors getting handed the awards, with the students following behind them.
I spoke very briefly about this with one of your teachers (Gary) Saturday afternoon. It's important to understand that FRC is not a robot-building contest, it's a project-based, team-building experience. FIRST does not dictate how much robot design and fabrication is to be done by students. What is important is the students learn the process used to develop the robot. There are a few FIRST teams which are 100% student operated, but this is not something FIRST endorses. The mentor-student partnership is key to the FIRST experience. Your team will establish what level of mentor involvement is possible and appropriate for your team goals. Your team will evolve accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
Match scheduling. If you want people to 'watch the monitors' make them visible! Being next to FTC, the only thing we saw was FTC. Being 8 minutes ahead of schedule, in my opinion, is unacceptable. If times are given out to the minute, then that schedule should be stuck to. Sure, fall behind, but getting ahead? We had to fix a bent frame from a match right before, which took A LOT of work, and then we show up at the field 8 minutes early and the match had already started.
Being ahead of schedule is rare, but the time pressure to get matches completed is intense. One field fault or rules interpretation issue can cause the schedule to slip substantially (there was such an issue on Friday at Newton that delayed matches by about 45 minutes). At regional events, the pit announcer will page a team repeatedly or a queuing person will come get you - this just isn't possible at Championship. In Atlanta, teams typically arrive field-side 15 to 20 minutes before the match. I was "symbolically scolded" by a senior veteran coach (pointing to wrist watch) when our team arrived less than ten minutes before we went on the field. If you are working on your robot, a human player needs to be sent early to let the the alliance partners know whether to expect your robot or not for the match. Missing a match is painful for the entire alliance (and a hard lesson learned for the team involved).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
Overall, I see a lot of unnecessary control in places, and not enough/no control in many others. I agree on several other things in this thread, like G14 and the control that human players had. Having a good human player could easily win the match for you, not the robot. But I won't elaborate that stuff.
Miscues by alliance partners, questionable calls by referees and other factors outside of your control can adversely affect the outcome of a match. At Championship, the emotions can and will get amplified. Human player scoring was far more important in regionals than at Championship. Teams 67, 111 and 971 earned the Championship with superior machines, skillful drivers and effective tactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BurtGummer View Post
I will say that I am glad I went to Atlanta and had the opportunity to experience it, because it will be much harder to get there after our rookie year. It had the fun parts.....and it had the parts that made me steaming mad. Some improvements can definitely be made though.
EVERYONE (rookies to veterans) in FIRST will have both terrific and frustrating experiences at competitions. Hopefully, your team enjoyed the experience and learned from it. Don't sell yourself short on going to Championship in future years. As a rookie all-star, your team is obviously doing things well. In future years, can find your team back at Championship by being on a regional winning alliance. If your team is focused less on winning matches and more on building a complete team, you can come as Engineering Inspiration or Chairman's Award winners. Some teams will sign up their team for Championship during open registration (October) every two to four years, to ensure each student has at least one opportunity to experience this most amazing event.
__________________
"There's never enough time to do it right, but always time to do it over."
2003 AZ: Semifinals, Motorola Quality; SoCal: Q-finals, Xerox Creativity; IRI: Q-finals
2004 AZ: Semifinals, GM Industrial Design; SoCal: Winners, Leadership in Controls; Championship: Galileo #2 seed, Q-finals; IRI: Champions
2005 AZ: #1 Seed, Xerox Creativity; SoCal: Finalist, RadioShack Controls; SVR: Winners, Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technologies"; Championship: Archimedes Semifinals; IRI: Finalist
2007 LA: Finalist; San Diego: Q-finals; CalGames: Finalist || 2008 San Diego: Q-finals; LA: Winners; CalGames: Finalist || 2009 LA: Semifinals; Las Vegas: Q-finals; IRI: #1 Seed, Finalist
2010 AZ: Motorola Quality; LA: Finalist || 2011 SD: Q-finals; LA: Q-finals || 2013 LA: Xerox Creativity, WFFA, Dean's List Finalist || 2014 IE: Q-finals, LA: Finalist, Dean's List Finalist
2016 Ventura: Q-finals, WFFA, Engineering Inspiration
Reply With Quote