Practice bot morality

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Clinton Bolinger

This thread shows why FIRST should just lift the 6 week build time frame.

Having unlimited time to build would actually help the teams that have less resources. Also, I believe that some of the teams with more recourses would still build two bots, even if there was an unlimited build time frame.

-Clinton-

The 6-week build limits the pain. If the build time was increased teams would still pack in 5-7 day work weeks to stay competitive. IMO many mentors and students would burn out with an extended build season.

With an extended build season I could see some serious teams building 3, 4, 5 or 6 robots, with basic teams still only building 1. This would only serve to further increase the performance gap and driving up the cost of running a competitive team.

[Aur0r4]

I'm going to definitely agree with James. Limiting the build season makes the competition manageable for all involved, including FIRST themselves, I'm sure. FIRST is a sprint, and 6 weeks seems to be a very close optimum between "just enough time" and "total burnout".

I will say that one very positive effect of the fast build season is that it ignites a drive to think outside the box and gets juices flowing that ordinarily wouldn't with loads of time. Anyone that has worked on a multi-year project knows that a very bad side effect of taking your time is a real developmental lethargy. Contrast the Big Dig (a massive, 25+ year highway project in Boston that, sadly, isn't an example of excellence in our field) and the race to the moon. I think there is such a thing as "too much time" to complete a task where passion, innovation, and excitement dies and complacency, bureaucracy, and lethargy take their place due to human nature. For me, FIRST is a breath of fresh air from normal design processes!

As an aside, the above thoughts are shared with complete acknowledgement of the constraints that budget, processes, safety, and external factors have on project development. However, its a rare long-term, "more than enough time" project that seems to produce anything spectacular, whereas we all love reading about the amazing feats of engineering skill by teams "under the gun". Its inspiring!

To the original topic, I do have to agree with others that FIRST is inherently a change from the typical world of making everything artificially "fair" for everyone. That's not the spirit that drives innovation and is the opposite of FIRST. FIRST promotes competition through collaboration and inherently rewards those who work hard. For those who don't have the resources, the opportunity is there for those who have excess to voluntarily reach out to share. Or, there's the opportunity for teams to improve their own circumstances through fundraising and reaching out to companies or teams around them.

This is the opposite of forced sharing or regulations that restrict achievement. If another team has a full CNC shop and an unlimited budget due to hard work fundraising, they should get to reap the rewards! FIRST is about rewarding achievement and teaching students that good things come to those who work hard for them. Its the hardest fun around!

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

The 6-week build limits the pain. If the build time was increased teams would still pack in 5-7 day work weeks to stay competitive. IMO many mentors and students would burn out with an extended build season.

With an extended build season I could see some serious teams building 3, 4, 5 or 6 robots, with basic teams still only building 1. This would only serve to further increase the performance gap and driving up the cost of running a competitive team.

What would be the advantage of building 3 or more robots? If the build limit were lifted there would be little advantage in even building 2 - wear and tear is the only reason I can think of that a team might make 2 robots. By lifting the build limits, teams that can't afford the practice robot would be able to continue to work and make improvements. The hard part for teams might be the discipline that would be needed to keep yourselves to the 5-6 week build schedule and use the rest for improvements.

Burnout can be an issue, but individual teams need to figure out where that limit is. Weigh the desire to do well vs. the busy schedule. It all comes down to what the team goals are and how much the team is willing to work to attain those goals.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

What would be the advantage of building 3 or more robots? If the build limit were lifted there would be little advantage in even building 2 - wear and tear is the only reason I can think of that a team might make 2 robots. By lifting the build limits, teams that can't afford the practice robot would be able to continue to work and make improvements. The hard part for teams might be the discipline that would be needed to keep yourselves to the 5-6 week build schedule and use the rest for improvements.

Burnout can be an issue, but individual teams need to figure out where that limit is. Weigh the desire to do well vs. the busy schedule. It all comes down to what the team goals are and how much the team is willing to work to attain those goals.

The advantage to 3+ robots is not having an extra practice robot, but significantly changing the design of the robot over and over.

I agree with your second point, that teams need to self-regulate in that manor. Consider that teams with significantly more students and coaches due to population density or local specialty high schools and tech companies would be at an even greater advantage because they will be able to leverage their increased people-power for a longer period of time, potentially increasing the disparity between large and small teams.

I am not arguing that FRC is fair (and I don't think it should be), but I do think it's a pretty $@#$@#$@#$@# good recipe for a robotics competition, and I think the 6-week build is a key ingredient.

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

The advantage to 3+ robots is not having an extra practice robot, but significantly changing the design of the robot over and over.

Good point...I suppose a rule could be made that lifts build season time limits, but restricts teams to building only 1 robot.

[jvriezen]

An FRC team's success should not be measured in how many robots it can build or how many blue banners it can collect. It should be measured by how many engineers (and other professionals) it 'builds'.

That's easier for mentors to see than students, but its true. My son was a founding student on our team in its rookie year. Frankly, competition wise, the team stunk its first few years. But he and others were instrumental in getting the team formed, organized and off to a strong enough start to where in its fourth year, it came in 2nd in the Lake Superior regional and first in the MN Robotics invitational. That's a success in itself for those who were willing to start the team.

[JB987]

987 has made a practice bot for the past 5-6 years now and have benefited from the extra practice time it has given us before/between Regionals and Championship events. It does mean that we put in more hours and resources but everyone has been willing to sacrifice for improved competition performance. That said, I think we would be less likely to suffer "burn out" if we could stretch out the hours allotted for build and revision in such a way that we wouldn't have to work 6-7 days for 6 weeks straight with late and all night sessions. I think FTC and FLL have it right. An open build season would put a lot less stress on everyone involved. Maybe we could even have more that a Friday off every week (which we went to this year to help avoid burning out).

[Brandon Holley]

One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the effort behind a practice robot.

Building more than one robot is flippin' HARD! Teams and individuals who feel that another team building more than one robot is unfair, should really look themselves in the mirror. As has been said, all teams have the ability to go out and find resources. This program is all about what you put into it. The more put you in, the more you get out, plain and simple.

Building more than one robot comes with advantages, sure. As with all things it comes with tradeoffs. NO TEAM has infinite financial resources therefore money is one thing to consider in another robot. Time is another massive issue. Resources both in terms of mentor commitment, machine shops, etc. All of these things need to be considered when deciding to go past one robot.

The teams that do this, work extremely hard to make that other robot happen. To maximize the value of the second robot, your team now must work extra hard after build season ends. Again, time, money, mentors all need to be considered in this.

I've done it. It's really hard to pull off. I respect teams who can do it on an annual basis knowing the commitment it takes. I applaud those teams for pushing themselves to their maximum potential.

-Brando

[IraJason]

Let's be honest, things like this are just a fact of life.

In the real world, there are companies that have vast resources, that can afford the time, people, and finances needed to play around with concepts, ideas, and prototypes that they know will never see the light of day. At the same time, there are small or start up companies that don't have those same resources, but may be competing in the same markets. What is the smaller company to do? Give up and say that it's not fair that the large, established companies have so much while they have so little?

It's the same thing with FIRST teams. You have the larger, more established teams, that have worked hard to get where they are now. You also have the smaller teams, which strive to compete in the same competition as these "powerhouses". So what is a smaller team to do? Say its not fair?

The point I'm trying to make is, no matter what, whether you're a FIRST team or in the real world, there is not going to be a balance. The key is taking what resources you have and being smart about it. If you know you don't have the resources that other teams have, be clever about using what's available to you. Set realistic expectations and don't try to work on designs that are outside your scope. We all can't build a world class robot, but sometimes the simplest robot can be just as competitive, and make or break any team's season.

There are going to be teams that have the ability to build a second robot, and that is truthfully a feat in itself. It's hard enough to slap one robot together, but if a team has the drive to not only design and build one robot, but to replicate it, it's a major accomplishment. Smaller teams shouldn't be intimidated by this, but should strive to reach that point. For some teams, they may not be able to get there, but they can at least try to use what they have to build a robot that will give those teams a run for their money. Building a competitive robot is not out of reach for any team, as long as they are smart about what they have available to them.

[Taylor]

So every year, Woodie Flowers says during the kickoff that this challenge is one that mirrors the real world. We have not enough time, not enough money, not enough labor, to complete a project that's too vast, too intricate, and too difficult. The six week barrier is a studied, optimized constraint. FIRST has shown that if something doesn't work, they're not afraid to tweak it or dump it all together. The fact that the six-week build continues to exist speaks to their belief in its efficacy.
As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Taylor

As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

Yup -- and that's no choice at all. I am stretched to the limit of what I can handle now, and much prefered the days before the withholding allowance, where you were allowed to work on nothing -- not programming, not mechanisms, not anything -- unless you were at competition. I'm willing and able to do what we do now, including the withholding and practice bot and all that, but an unlimited season would be untenable for me as a human and husband.

(It would also seriously skew which regionals people would sign up for...)

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Taylor

As I've said before, if FRC went to a limitless build season, I'd be forced into the choice between my team and my family, and I'm sure there are many more powerful individuals in the FRC world than I that would similarly step away.

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

There are teams that would have the population to work full-bore for the entire time. These teams have a well-earned advantage now, but the advantage would become astronomical if they could work for the 6-week build, the two weeks before week 1, and then the 5 weeks until week 5 and 6 competitions. Not to mention there would be a huge disadvantage of week 1 and 2 regionals.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

There are teams that would have the population to work full-bore for the entire time. These teams have a well-earned advantage now, but the advantage would become astronomical if they could work for the 6-week build, the two weeks before week 1, and then the 5 weeks until week 5 and 6 competitions. Not to mention there would be a huge disadvantage of week 1 and 2 regionals.

If the ship date bag-n-tag date were to be eliminated (allowing a team to work on their robot all the way up to the competition), the return on investment/advantages gained by a lower or middle percentile team would be significantly larger than the R.O.I. gained by a top percentile team.

Think of it like the graph of natural log, with the x-axis being man-hours of work and the y-axis being robot performance. There is a minimum amount of man-hours of work it takes to just build a Kitbot drive train, but the more and more man-hours you put into prototyping, testing and refining, the lower and lower your returns will be for the amount of time/work invested in it.



Many top percentile teams have robots that are nearing the physical performance constraints of what can be accomplished with the given motors and electrical systems. And having more time to build wouldn't impact these teams for driving practice either, as many of these top teams already build an identical practice robot and build or have access to a full-size practice field.

The other reason why eliminating the ship date would help lower and middle percentile teams more than top ones is turnaround on parts. Finding a machine shop willing to donate time and labor to help make parts for your team is a lot easier if you tell them you have a two week turnaround time rather than a 5 day or less turnaround time.

Or for vendors like AndyMark or Banebots, being out of stock of a critical motor or gearbox is not as crushing to a team who lacks the resources to design a custom one in short order if the ship date is eliminated. How many teams were burned last year receiving gearboxes after ship date? How many of those struggled on practice day at their regional to mount these gearboxes and power up their robots for the first time? How many of these teams could have performed much better on the field if they had the ability to mount these motors and test their robots a week before the competition?

I also think the mentor/student burnout would be eased if ship date were eliminated and we have another several weeks to work on the robot. Given the extra time, why burn the midnight oil early in the build season? Why stress about trying to have Mechanism X completed and working in exactly 32.4 hours to make ship date?

Every other high school or college level robotics/competitive competition allows their teams to work right up to the competition, and every competition is exactly the same: all but the last three or so weeks are spent mostly easy-going, and then everyone crams like crazy in the last few weeks to get everything done. So even if the amount of man-hours of work is the same, the lessened stress from waiting for parts ordered from the Internet is definitely worth it. A one or two week turnaround for out-of-stock parts is not something to stress about then you have 7-10 weeks, but is a major source of anxiety when you only have 6.

Edit: And the "advantages" of teams who compete at later regional would be severely curtailed as District-style events spread throughout more of the country, as with multiple events, the likelihood you won't compete until late in the build season is reduced.

[RDX1466]

IMO, it is not immoral or against the rules to build and use a practice bot if you have the resources. Yes you are gaining the advantage of having a bot that your driver can practice on and that you can make improvements to after the ship date, but you also will be using up valuable resources from your team that could be used making your REAL robot better. It's a classic situation of quality vs. quantity.