Practice bot morality

[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-

[Jim Zondag]

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-

Amen Clint.

IMHO, the 6 week build restriction is an artifact of the early days of FRC, and is obsolete in the context of how the league now operates. The build period restriction serves primarily to keep weaker teams without the resources to buy redundant parts and equipment from doing continuous improvement. It does little to hinder the top teams. This causes quite a bit of stratifaction in the league between the 'have's' and the 'have not's'. This has gotten somewhat better now the suppliers like AM and BB can provide purchased solutions for many hard to make items, but the gap is still very obvious. Eventually this rule must die, it is really just a question of how long it takes NH to actually decide to do this.
Every step toward deregualtion that FIRST has taken in the past 20 years has served to make the robots better and the program more enjoyable. This change would be the same.

[PriyankP]

Is it moral to build a practice bot knowing that there is a team out there that does not have the resources to build a practice robot? Hmm...

In my opinion there is nothing about building a practice robot that is not moral. In fact, every team should build one because by building a practice robot, you become a better, smarter and a more efficient team. There is a reason why people say "practice makes perfect." If you want to be perfect at a competition, you HAVE to practice. It's as simple as that. I can't even imagine how frustrating FRC regionals would be if teams decided to learn to play the game on the field, during the qualification matches. We all know how exciting 0 - 0 matches are. We all know how exciting the first day of a regional is from the stands.

There are many things that give teams an advantage other than a practice robot. For example, mentors and coaches! Having knowledgeable and dedicated mentors is a massive advantage! I think, that's what sets one team apart from the other 40-50 teams at a competition. Coaches who can make the correct split second decisions also give teams a huge advantage! Someone mentioned that their robotics program is a credit course in their district. This could also be a potential advantage as students might work harder to get marks as opposed to not being worried about marks by joining robotics as an extra-curricular activity.

In fact, there is no way every team will have equal chances of winning a competition or doing well in general. If you are at a disadvantage because of one thing, work harder! Or, try to gain a significant advantage in some other aspect of FIRST!

[Andrew Schreiber]

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-

Oh but then it wouldn't be fair in some other contrived way. This isn't an issue of fair any more than the mentor/student debates or the multiple competition debates are. It is all about teams seeing what other teams have and wanting it but not having to work.

Teams need to stop hiding behind fair and GP and start realizing that if they want something they need to work for it because no one is going to HAND them anything.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

This change would be the same.

It'd also make many teams more complacent about procrastination.

The best thing about Week 6 the FRC build season is that there's an end to it. After it, mentors can re-focus on work and relationships that were singed by the build season.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

What would be cool is to see a powerhouse team with extra resources (people, parts, $) helping out a less mature team by helping them build a practice bot.

I don’t really consider us to be a ‘powerhouse’ team but I feel the need to respond questions about ‘hard work’ and what it can get you. If we are going to have a discussion about ‘fair play’ then it is perfectly acceptable to talk about ‘hard work’ and ‘organization’.

Two months ago we opened the Kell Robotics Innovation Center, a 3750 sq. ft. facility for training, mentorship, workshop, exhibit marshalling, etc. Just in the past month we have worked with four 4-H teams, two Boys & Girls Club teams, four High Schools teams, two Future Seekers teams, and a collection of mentors. We have done this type of thing in the past but now it is great to have a permanent facility to host this type of support. We have handed out parts in the past and have no great problem with that, but when all is said and done teams must learn how to feed themselves. Part of things to learn at the ‘IC’.

A couple of times in the past we have started the season trying to build two robot and we have always failed. This year we are trying it again and we are pretty determined to get it done.

Sure, having a ‘practice’ robot will be helpful but we really need it for the ‘road show’. Over the past 3 or so years students have contributed over 6,000 man-hours exhibiting at over 120 events promoting FIRST. There is probably another 6,000 hours preparing for the events.

This past fall we won at GRITS in large part because the LogoMotion robot has not hardly been turned off since last spring. Our 2009 Lunacy bot is on its third or fourth set of slick wheels. We burn them down to the rims doing road shows on concrete and brick pavement. AndyMark is out of 6” slick wheels and we could use a bushel of them.

This year we have a great visual game that is audience friendly. This year is an opportunity to leverage the game into more public attention. If you can keep your bots together, do some exhibiting, work hard, earn some money, you can get some more resources. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Any football coach will tell you the great games are not won with the hail Mary passes. They are won months and years before slogging away in the hot sun, rain, cold, and everything else when everyone else is sitting indoors eating snacks and playing video games.

I apologize if this sounds a little much but it is really important that people develop great work ethics. Your employer will appreciate you for that.

[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.

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Oh but then it wouldn't be fair in some other contrived way. This isn't an issue of fair any more than the mentor/student debates or the multiple competition debates are. It is all about teams seeing what other teams have and wanting it but not having to work.

Teams need to stop hiding behind fair and GP and start realizing that if they want something they need to work for it because no one is going to HAND them anything.

Quoting the harsh truth for truth.

People who are sitting around complaining and whining are the same people who aren't doing anything. Part of the challenge of FIRST (i.e. not just FRC) is to not only play each year's competition well, but to play every year's competition well, and become a "powerhouse" team. That involves getting devoted mentors, training students each year, fundraising enough for sustainability and yes, sometimes building a practice bot. If you think that teams doing these things well are at an advantage, it's because they are. And they EARNED it. Even mentorbot teams have to deserve those mentors; I'm sure that if the students didn't work hard at all, the mentors would get frustrated enough to walk away (and if they didn't, you'd really have to respect the patience of those mentors).

Don't be an Occupy FRC team. Actually do something instead of camping in public forums with picket signs.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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).

[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.