Driver Selection: A Discussion

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

"A good driver can make a bad robot succeed, and a bad driver can make a good robot fail". (Credit to Karthik from 1114 for the quote.)

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

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

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


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

[Chris Fultz]

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

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

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

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

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

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Warlord

The key is that rather than micromanage our every action, the coach helps us refine our game, he helps us play the best possible game we can by adding in an extra set of eyes and ears and an extra brain to help make the best possible decisions.

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

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by EricH

I can even put both of them on finals pit crew, allowing for emergency substitution if needed.

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

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

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




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

-Brando

[EricH]

Brandon, that's true. However!

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

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

[Duke461]

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

[Brandon Zalinsky]

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

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

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

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

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

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

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

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

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

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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

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

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

[Duke461]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

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

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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

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

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Duke461

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

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

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

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

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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

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

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

I have to agree on this.

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

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

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

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

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

-Brando

[Laaba 80]

Originally Posted by Flak-Bait

Our team has had kids at driver tryouts that don't know that our robot isn't really a tank. However, they'll drive like it is and can damage the machine.

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

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