Another Culture Change

[Paul Copioli]

OK I have sat by and kept silent on this thread long enough. I very wise man told me long ago that if you spread an untruth or a statement not based on fact long enough that people will believe it as fact.

Please, if you are going to make statements like, "these powerhouse teams that have the mentors build the robot ...." make sure you have the facts to back it up. You may not call teams out by name, but we all know who you are addressing.

So, to spread some facts:

Team 217 has 44 students and about 10 mentors (including the teachers). 12 of these students were on the design team along with me and three engineers from FANUC Robotics. The FANUC engineers were mostly there during the week while I was in Texas to answer SolidWorks questions, etc. The students are trained by a SolidWorks professional for 1 week and are trained by me for one day on how to do sheet metal the IFI way. I design certain parts of the robot and the students design others. In most cases I design less than 40% of the robot, but check 100% of the students work.

My challenge to other "mentor built" teams: please share your facts ... all of them.

In short, if you don't have facts, please stop making assumptions.

One last thing, if you ever run into a 217 student from 2004 and earlier ask them what our team was like back then. I had the pleasure of running into a former student leader from 2003 and 2004 and her comments about how far our team has come since then really hit home with me ... thanks Jacqui!

Thanks,
Paul

[IKE]

Only 1 time has someone openly told me they thought that our robot was "mentor built". That team's machines were built by professional craftsmen due to sponsor and shop space rules, and they assumed we operated the same way. Ironically I always assumed that particular robot was nearly 100% student built (this is after competing with and against them for 4+ years). We don't get the public comments like a lot of the big teams, but I think that is because we go to events where there are often better teams to take the brunt of those comments.

On our team, what the students to vs. what the mentors do varies from year to year depending on the skills and interest of the students. We strive for the kids to build as much as possible. We often hit around 90% if you did a raw part count. Our school is a college prep school where the kids often have never "gotten their hands dirty". We place a high priority them getting this experience.

Who does the specialty skills changes a lot. These are the skills that require some amount of talent, and a lot of practice. Every year around 10 students say they want to weld next year in the post season interveiw. Every year around 6-8 will make it through the 2 hours of "IKE's introduction to welding". Most don't go beyond that. I think the biggest problem is the hours of isolation from the team while perfecting the craft. Every few years, we will get a student that has the determination and talent to weld. I am very excited as we brought on board a new mentor with welding skills, so hopefully there is more instructional time available in the future.

During the design strategy phase, we engage the entire team. After strategy, we will break into smaller groups for particular subsystems. These are usually a mentor or 2 and 4-8 kids. We brainstorm all the different ways we could do something and then prototype the ideas we like best. We also present these ideas back to the larger group to get the groups insights and critiques.
During the design phase, we teach how to do engineering estiamtes for forces, dimensions, motor selection, and gear ratios. I help with which equations to use, and then make the kids do the math. They generally hate it initially, but become fond of it really quickly. We also do the math for scoring, game strategy, and tournament strategy. Almost every team member was present and participating when we analyzed the value of the Double-Ubertube manuever. This was essential so that everyone understood their role in making that auto-mode possible. The gripper, chassis, elevator, arm, and even minobot team (CG effects on auto) needed to have a vested interest in making that successful.
The last couple of years, we have used a few more CNC or Waterjet parts for things that in the past have resulted in a lot of scrapped parts. We have giant bins full of brackets with 4 motor mount holes in them. Typically there is 1 on size, 1 slightly larger, one that appears to be hand-drill slotted, and one that is indescrible. This has been very valuable as it makes having an actual dimensioned design more important which makes repeatability for a practice machine more likely. It has also saved a few days of precious build time.

If you take away anything from this post, please note the use of WE. I did a lot of projects when I was a kid where adult input was not legal. While you learn a lot of "what not to do", you frequently do not learn a "right way" of doing things. More often than not, you learned ways of getting the wrong way to work. I wish I had a mentor to explain why 15 lbs of thrust really wasn't sufficient for a 3lb rocket. Yes, they were beautiful, and they would go up... just not far enough for a successful parachute deployment. When "mentor input" is illegal, it also makes any mentor input significantly more valuable. In FSAE, they are not allowed to sue "ringers" yet they are allowed to have a professor in charge. Guess which teams often do the best year after year? FIRST is really cool that you get to legally work with the students in stead of working for them, or them working for you. I may be their mentor, but I am also their teammate.

P.S. I was also a "hater" when I was younger of big resource (farmers, horse & pony members, sports teams, supermileage teams, solarcar teams...). Luckily my first year on Team 33 (2005), I had Jim Zondag and Tim Grogan set me straight when I made a disparranging remark about Team 67. They taught me to try to befriend and learn from everyone. I was very fortunate to have mentors like that set me straight early on.

[craigcd]

The amount of time the mentors spend working on the robot depends of the make up of the team. I have recruited several teams in Louisiana that the majority of the students have never picked up a hand or power tool. They have never met an engineer and have never seen a robot. Out of a team of twenty students you may have two that feel comfortable using tools. These are the teams that need the most support. They are also the teams that need the most encouragement and guidance. Hopefully by the end of the build season you have core of students that can help in the repair. When you take a group of students that have never been involved in any kind of design project and try to introduce them to the First competition it requires a special kind of mentor. We try to get the students involved in the design of the robot but a firm direction is needed to keep the team focused. You want the teams to be able to compete and have some kind of offense capability. The first year is the hardest. I try to introduce all the schools that I can to the First program. I try to get them the engineers that they need to help build the robot. I try to get them the money they need to supplement any grants they have received. I have been fortunate in the fact that I have recruited several very good mentors and engineers to help the Lousisana schools. I does bother me to see only mentors working on the robots in the pit. Some times it can’t be helped. What really bothers me is to see mentors working on the robots and there is no student around to watch and learn.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

In most cases I design less than 40% of the robot, but check 100% of the students work.

...and I'll bet that if you look at most of these "student-built" teams, their ratios aren't that far off from that.

[Ryan Caldwell]

It's the easy way out to hate on organizations like the Yankees or the Redwings or the Patriots. It’s a much harder thing to put in the work and build an organization that is capable of being contenders year after year after year.

To get away from the Sports if you go back and read this thread the "Power House" teams weren’t born into it. They built what they have overtime, I was a ThunderChicken in 2002 when we took a chance on a Crazy Transmission that required a can of circuit chiller after every match so we didn't melt the copper in the motors (my bad on the Ozone layer) Then in 2003 our strategy was right on for the first 15 seconds and then we ran out of a plan, but from all this our team learned our organization evolved we took a look at teams that were winning Hammond, Wildstang, Bomb Squad and asked them what they did. Was there Jealousy back then? Yup, a "man I wish we could just go out and dictate the match, I wish our robot worked every match. Their mentors obviously finished work on the mars probe with enough time to design that whole robot…." Teenagers take allot at face value and even with Google still don’t find out all the facts. It’s part of being young and impressionable…mentors

The team I mentor now is a third year who looks at the "power house" teams as targets. How do they recruit? How do they do their fund raising? How are they structured? How do we get them to pick us? How do we beat them? How do we beat them next year? What do we have to do now to lock up Chairman’s in 2015?

There allot of questions and ~2000 answers to each one, as each team dose their own thing. The really cool thing about FIRST is its transparency and the "Power House" teams give out more information and recourses than most.
The key is evolution, if your team is better this year than last, that’s good. Personal growth is part of what FIRST dose, but don’t think the “Power House” Teams are sitting back, 67 doesn’t win 2 in a row by sitting back on a good year and coasting you know their developing new tricks to put in their magic bots.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by santosh

I cosign this almost fully.
At first, we hear about in first such as how one day it will be a first student to end world poverty, provide clean water to the world, and cure cancer. This implies that lift is not fair and that it is our job to help make it fair by helping others.

You know what is not fair, having mentors design and build robots while kids get "inspired."
Although some call it fair, most of society would call it unfair. Not to compare something as trivial as how well your team's robot does to world wide issues, but you do as well as you do in first many times because of simply what school you go to.

I don't know why people want to silence public discourse on the matter. Yeah, what happened to simbotics sucks and should never happen, but is it that hard to believe?
I'll be the first person to admit that I dislike the idea of mentors fully designing and cading robots and having those mentors/ a shop put it together. I instantly shot down the idea of having that happen to the team that I started and mentor. I couldn't/still can't see how students could have fun and take pride in their robot if they weren't the ones putting in the work for build design and debugging.

I simply cannot see how a student can be inspired when they havent made extensive contributions to their machine. I think inspiration comes from the students seeing what they built and seeing it run and run well, Not seeing an engineer built robot dominate a bunch of other teams. At that point it isn't a high school robotics competition.

Forgive me if you disagree with me and forgive me if thus doesn't make too much sense for I have been up late catching up on school work.

I'm not going to get into the 100% student vs. 100% mentor built argument in this thread, as it has been rehashed many times on these forums. Your opinion seems very firm, and you are completely entitled to it. Since Team 1114 was mentioned in your post, I do want to talk about our design and build philosophy, to make sure that any misconceptions are dealt with. (A few others have discussed our design process in this thread, an captured it very well, I'm just going to reiterate for emphasis) So following Paul's lead, here's the real story about The Simbots.

Team 1114 has never been and will never be a 100% mentor designed and built team, despite the inaccurate assumptions of many people. Our students work hand in hand with our mentors during the entire design phase of the robot. Whether it be brainstorming discussions, preliminary sketches or actual CAD, the project is done as a team with students working with mentors. In terms of fabrication, many parts are built in house by students in our high school shop (we have a few lathes, two CNC mills, a manual mill, an assortment of drill presses and bandsaws and a variety of hand tools), while more complicated parts are sent out to be manufactured by local or not so local machine shops which sponsor the team. Finally, all assembly is done in house, 95% of which is done by our students, with minimal assistance from mentors. At competitions, all maintenance and repairs are led by the students in the pits, with mentors being called in when needed. The entire project is a collaboration between students, mentors, teachers and sponsors, with all four groups learning from each other. The students on our team come out of their experience being both educated and inspired.

Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, as it seems like we have to deal with these allegations on a fairly regular basis, both on these forums and via other communication avenues. If anyone wants to learn more about how Simbotics operates, we have a long standing open invitation for any team to visit our shop and/or practice field during the build season. If you can't make the trip, drop by our pits. Granted, we're a very busy and focused group during competitions, but if someone has a free moment I know they'd be glad to share it with you.

If I seem agitated by people claiming that our robot is designed and built by the mentors, it's because I am. Any claim of that sort, is stripping credit away from the students who worked so hard to build their robot and their team. Think about how you would have felt as a high school student, if you were publicly booed and insulted, while people were saying you couldn't possibly be capable of building your robot. I'm tired of having to prepare, defend and protect our students from this onslaught of negativity. Most importantly, this isn't just about any one team. No team should ever have to deal with this type of negativity, and it happens far too often in FIRST. Not just to powerhouses, and also not just to FRC teams. (Yes, I've seen FLL teams who have been subjected to these types of attitudes and it actually makes me sick to my stomach.) We can do better. We need to do better.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I'm tired of having to prepare, defend and protect our students from this onslaught of negativity.

Dear Karthik,

We love your team, and we want and strive to be more like you.

Sincerely,

1551

[Andy Grady]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

In short, if you don't have facts, please stop making assumptions.

l

To add to that, how about this for a fact.

All these teams who people complain about being "100% mentor built" are probably the teams that have the largest number of students returning to volunteer, mentor, etc.. Ask around to some of the FIRST alumni around where they originated from, I bet you will be surprised.

That is a pretty heavy fact, and in my opinion should end the debate over mentor/student built robots flat out.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Andy Grady

That is a pretty heavy fact, and in my opinion should end the debate over mentor/student built robots flat out.

This post gets my vote for "Least-likely-to-come-true prediction of 2011."

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Not just to powerhouses, and also not just to FRC teams. We can do better. We need to do better.

After having been personally accused of designing and building our team's VEX robots, two things struck me:

1. Wow! We must have hit the big time (in VRC) - we've been accused of being mentor built!

2. I was quite flattered to realize that some people actually thought that I was that good. (The students who do the designing of our VEX robots are really talented - far more than I am!)

Karthik is absolutely right: WE NEED TO GET BEYOND THIS ISSUE. There are hundreds of ways to run a Competitive Robotics Team. Do what works for yours and keep trying to improve it. Don't worry about teams that do something different unless you wish to borrow some of their ideas. In that case, just go over and talk to them...

Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[O'Sancheski]

This is unbelievable. I volunteered on Curie at championships last year (the field that the Simbots were on) and ever time they had a match I was amazed with the calmness of the drive team. These team members of 1114 are some of the best students that I have seen at a FIRST event. I am ashamed to say I am part of something where people treat fellow peers in that way.

I hope that the students and mentors of the teams that took part in those comments and actions will read this thread and realize how ridiculous they are and get their act together.

[Mr. Pockets]

The issue of student vs mentor designed always perplexed me. Some of our teams most blatant failures have been concieved by mentors while some of our greatest successes were designed by students.

Main topic: I have been a rather long hiatus from this forum so I had totally missed most of this discussion, but the idea that ANYONE would stoop that low over a robot is saddening. Since when were these rolling paperwieghts the reason we do this? We do this to be inspired: be it by building, outreach, cheering, or learning. We're supposed to be the one's driving the robots not the other way round >.>

[galewind]

Our team has a largely mentor-designed machine with student input on how they feel devices should articulate. In other words, students feed mentors ideas (mentors contribute as well), then mentors work on designing and developing parts, sometimes WITH students. Sometimes students even assist mentors by inventoring parts before construction. Students do the assembly.

Now, I've shared my piece. Now I'll share this: this is going to sound crass, but I don't care exactly how you design and build your machine. Our goal, is to INSPIRE. Take a look at your students -- are they INSPIRED? Do they WANT to pursue engineering, technology, or problem solving in general?

I guess my point is: we all know that this is an uneven playing field. For the most part, I think we need to stop looking outside of the borders of our own team to make sure we're in-check with what I see as the primary goal of first: "inspiration" of our youth to pursue science and technology. Are WE accomplishing our mission? What's our track record? How many students have we succeeded? How many have we NOT succeeded.. and how do we lower that second number?

Past that, go on and TALK to other teams, WITNESS how they work, try to GAIN information to help TRANSFORM your team to MAXIMIZE YOUR INSPIRATION. Whether it be your design process, your team structure, or your meeting structure and activities, you are building PEOPLE first... focus on THEM before you criticize a team's robot design process.

This discussion should NEVER be about hating on teams... it should be about LEARNING from each other, SHARING ideas and experience, and RESPECTING the work that we all do.

I love you all for what you do, but please, let's remember, the robot and competition are just celebrations of hard work and inspiration. What we're really doing is building people, and our measure of success only comes after these students graduate high school and college.... NOT how we rank amongst other teams, or the details of our design process.

Good night.

[Brian Ha]

This is really sad. I didn't know this kind of stuff even happened in first. (Although i do and i have heard it on my team) I saw first hand 1114's robot and just sat in awe. My mentor and i have joked around because the video we were watching was very slow so one frame you see them on one side of the camera and the next second one the other side. I made comments about the speed that they have and the fact that the driver can still control their robot at the speed their going is outstanding. It is really disappointing to hear that people would go out of their way to do the things that teams did to 1114. If i ever see them in real life i think i would say sorry because first is really a family and nobody should ever really treat someone else like that, EVER! even if you dont like them.

[MrForbes]

I've been thinking about the issue a lot recently. I had an interesting insight I'd like to toss out for discussion. I wonder if the students that are being disrespectful are accurately expressing what they're upset about? I wonder if they're actually upset about this common trait of top teams: the mentors do not allow the students on their team to fail