Practice bot morality

[Ninja_Bait]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And how is this any different than competing at the top tier in high school athletics? They have trained staff (equivalent to engineers except the school PAYS them), they have facilities (shops that the school, again, paid for), and they have entire fields built for them that, AGAIN, the school paid for.

Honestly?

The difference between FRC and sports is that a lot of people show up to watch sports events, a lot of people pay for those events or the snacks or the jerseys or the hats, and a lot of money gets back to the school. In comparison, FRC looks like a mediocre, financially unsound, and dull waste of time.

However, once you're on the inside, you realize that what we're really doing is training the next generation of big thinkers. Regardless of how competitive we are against each other or against other forms of entertainment, we're preparing our nation to be competitive in the long run. And that is a great thing.

(EDIT: I actually have no idea how this applies to the morality of a practice bot, but I figured it was worth saying. )

[nitneylion452]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

Honestly?

The difference between FRC and sports is that a lot of people show up to watch sports events, a lot of people pay for those events or the snacks or the jerseys or the hats, and a lot of money gets back to the school. In comparison, FRC looks like a mediocre, financially unsound, and dull waste of time.

However, once you're on the inside, you realize that what we're really doing is training the next generation of big thinkers. Regardless of how competitive we are against each other or against other forms of entertainment, we're preparing our nation to be competitive in the long run. And that is a great thing.

(EDIT: I actually have no idea how this applies to the morality of a practice bot, but I figured it was worth saying. )

His point was that in high school athletics, there are schools that have top facilities, and those that don't. But just because a team has a better weight room and better coaches, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to win a championship. It's more about motivation and desire. We often hear the phrase "Who wants it more?" This applies well to sports and FRC. In FRC, you need to want to do well. That's not to say that having better facilities and more resources doesn't help, but where do you think the teams with those facilities and resources came from? They also probably started with limited facilities and limited resources. Everyone starts somewhere, it's about building up from where you are to where you want to be.

[Aur0r4]

I think some folks on this thread, and probably most of our society, have forgotten that a fraudulent advantage is completely different from a fair advantage. Without getting too philosophical, this concept is rooted deeply in some pervasive worldviews in recent history, and has created major problems in our nation and in history. Earned advantage must never be treated the same as stolen advantage and cut down when found.

What do I mean?

Well, to use a sports analogy, a HS football team who happens to have 20 big, fast, talented students has a major advantage. School teams get their athletes from their student body and some years there are better players, some years not. An unfair advantage would be if the team paid players from other schools, or even students who had graduated, to play on their team.

To use an economic analogy, a company that owns its own equipment, fabrication, or materials supply chains has a major advantage over one that doesn't. This is a fair advantage gotten by hard work and forward-thinking business strategy. A company that uses fraud and intimidation to secure suppliers and to squash competition has an unfair advantage. We make laws to prevent this.

So it is in FIRST. Teams that hire an engineering firm or fabrication company to build multiple robots would clearly have an unfair advantage. However, a team that works hard, is clever with resources, and seeks every possible opportunity for space, parts, and recruiting (within the rules) is probably going to be able to build multiple machines, a field, etc. This is a fair advantage in the FIRST system gotten by their hard work.

Yes, hard work alone isn't enough, but its a vital component of success. But, it must be balanced with initiative, creativity, and courage.

Hard work without cleverness results in wheel-spinning.
Initiative without creativity leads to marginal results.
Creativity without courage to act results in a whiteboard full of good ideas.

Engineering, like life, is most likely successful when its many parts are in balance.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by nitneylion452

His point was that in high school athletics, there are schools that have top facilities, and those that don't. But just because a team has a better weight room and better coaches, doesn't mean they are guaranteed to win a championship. It's more about motivation and desire. We often hear the phrase "Who wants it more?" This applies well to sports and FRC. In FRC, you need to want to do well. That's not to say that having better facilities and more resources doesn't help, but where do you think the teams with those facilities and resources came from? They also probably started with limited facilities and limited resources. Everyone starts somewhere, it's about building up from where you are to where you want to be.

Actually that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that schools already have programs that cost* them at least as much (if not much much more) that provide similar benefits to a select group. These schools have decided that this is worth their time and money to be competitive at the highest levels for those students. However, they complain when our program asks for the resources to compete at the highest levels for our students. If the schools don't want to compete at those levels they don't have to put up the resources. There is VEX or FTC or BEST for those schools. I fail to understand why schools expect the varsity program for engineering to be any cheaper to run than a varsity football team.

What I'm saying is, we all accept that, with our program, you get out of it what you put in. Why should money not work that way? If you want a top tier team you need to ensure that you have the proper resources and one of them is money. Another is committed students. Saying that a low resource team that spend $5000 a year and builds out of a garage with 3 students and a parent making sure they don't cut off each other's hands should be on the same level with the 254 type teams is just plain dumb. In many of those teams cases they put in significant effort to get where they were at.

TL;DR - Wanna run with the big dogs ya gotta take the time to train.



*Yes, I am well aware that SOME schools make money off their athletic programs but I highly doubt that every school does.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller.

That statement seems fairly loaded with misconceptions in my opinion. Engineering or technical expertise in some form (almost always mentorship) I agree is a necessity to be competitive. However, other resources like a sophisticated shop and resources for 2 robots are hardly necessary to be competitive. Sure they can help, but there are teams with sophisticated shops that do well and those with sophisticated shops who don't. There are those with 2 robots who do well and those that don't. Likewise there are teams WITHOUT sophisticated shops or 2 robots that do well and ones that don't. Sure the extra practice time, machining capabilities, and expertise can help, but it's certainly not impossible to be competitive with limited resources.

Plus search the web and you'll find things like kit bot on steroids...great way for teams with few resources to build a good (highly competitive) drive base.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

FIRST has a bad reputation already in most school circles as being expensive and difficult to be competitive, at least that has been my experience when talking with principals and school board members.

The real world is expensive, and difficult to compete in. "This is hard!" should be a call-to-arms, not an excuse to do something else. Students who go on to compete in technical fields should be well prepared for this, else they get steamrolled when they show up to college or the workforce. I tutor for introductory engineering classes here at RPI, and I see a lot of kids get steamrolled because no one ever taught them how to work. I was most inspired by my high school teachers that pushed me, the ones that made me work to find the solution in math class, and the ones that made me write draft after draft of my paper. I know a lot of teacher's take pride in getting the best out of their students. If the teachers have to work hard, think of how hard their students will be pushed?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
-JFK, Rice University September 12, 1962

Just my 2 cents.

(Best of luck in FTC & BEST, I'm sure your FRC experiences will serve you well!)

[2544HCRC]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

The real world is expensive, and difficult to compete in. "This is hard!" should be a call-to-arms, not an excuse to do something else.

By this logic FIRST should just pitch the rule book and open the taps too everyone. If you can raise 100k for your program great. There also seems to be some contradictory thinking. I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

[nitneylion452]

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

By this logic FIRST should just pitch the rule book and open the taps too everyone. If you can raise 100k for your program great. There also seems to be some contradictory thinking. I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

But again, the primary goal of FRC isn't to win the competition. The competition is used as a motivation to build a robot and learn about engineering, math, science, and technology. Sure, the glory comes on the field, but the actual successes of a team happen in the workshop and in the pits.

My team (3167) started in 2010. We had a very small workshop, no metalworking tools, and only one engineering mentor. For that year, we didn't build a second bot for 2 reasons: 1) we didn't know we could, and 2) we couldn't afford it. So in the offseason, our primary goal was to get new sponsors to support our efforts. We asked any company that was willing to listen and as you can see, we are now supported by ETC (a local company started by an alumnus of my high school), Comcast, Crown Holdings, Airline Hydraulics, JCPenny, Boeing, and MAC Tools.

Like I said earlier, all teams start somewhere. If you really want to make winning a #1 priority (though that's not really in the spirit of FIRST), then work to get the three things that you perceive to be the keys to winning.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

I'm seeing the same people post that if you can't build a second bot, tough, go do what it takes to build a second bot, and at the same time are saying it isn't really an advantage. If it wasn't an advantage, why do it?

Anyone who says it isn't a serious competitive advantage is definitely wrong. It is a huge advantage. It isn't an end all though, there have and will continue to be pretty successful teams that don't build two robots. My HS team only built one and was a picking team or first round pick for 5 straight years. Definitely not "elite", but we marked that down in the success column as we were more successful than any of our high school's sports teams.

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

I'm not saying that rookie teams can't be successful or that some teams don't do all of the right things without big budgets or machining or that some teams don't miss the mark with all of the right things. I am saying that from my experience, teams that consistently do well have these three things: ability to quickly produce parts, mentor support, and a substantial budget. If you don't have those things, you are going to have a difficult time of it in FRC.

I agree with this. I think where we differ is the viewpoint that if you don't have those things you can't get them. I grew up in a rural fishing community with no real industry, and it was our experience that over time our resource net kept expanding and we got those things. My first year we once left a copier on at the school and got a 3 page complaint the next morning, by the time I graduated we had full run of a machine shop with students running most of the machines (under supervision, of course). I recognize not everyone's path to success will follow that pattern, but I think if you keep pushing you'll find you will continue to meet people that can help you in their own way, and by using them you will find sustainable success.

That has been my experience at least. I'm sure my experiences aren't the only way that things can turn out.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by 2544HCRC

I've also been involved in car racing. I take a slightly different view. What happens in most racing series is that a few teams start to dominate the field because of resources. Pretty soon all of the other teams start to think "what's the use?" and quit showing up and pouring money down an unfillable hole. So racing groups including SCCA institute a class system. Imagine racing without the class system. You would have far fewer racers. It turns out it's much more fun when you show up and have a shot at winning. If the rules aren't adjusted the field dwindles and dies. I see that in FIRST. Rookie teams are sold one thing and show up to another. My guess is that if the presentation for FIRST went something like you are going to need a team of Engineering mentors, access to a pretty sophisticated shop, and the finances to build 2 robots + in order to be competitive, the field would and will be much much smaller. We did BEST this year as a trial and will probably switch over to FTC and BEST next year. For us as a small team with kids that aren't interested in building a big team and very limited resources, FRC has proven to be just too much. If you have a successful FRC program, great but this entire discussion seems to hit a nerve that most of us feel and that is, robotics is great, the idea is awesome as a tool for teaching kids, but FRC might not be the best fit for many of the teams. It's only fun being a back marker for a little while. Pretty soon the newness wears off and you have to make a decision, do you want to do what it takes to win in the class your in or do you want to find another class that might be a better fit.

FRC isn't meant to be fair. We go into it each year knowing full well we'll never have the funding of the Chickens, the facilities of the Robonauts, or the machining systems of the Wranglers. We've been a team for 6 years, and we've never won a regional. The kids still show up and have a great time. If you make it all about winning competitions, you're going to be disappointed and so will the kids. If you make it about personal successes and learning, you'll have a much better experience.

How much money does it take to create a good business plan and win some business awards?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

FRC isn't meant to be fair. We go into it each year knowing full well we'll never have the funding of the Chickens, the facilities of the Robonauts, or the machining systems of the Wranglers. We've been a team for 6 years, and we've never won a regional. The kids still show up and have a great time. If you make it all about winning competitions, you're going to be disappointed and so will the kids. If you make it about personal successes and learning, you'll have a much better experience.

How much money does it take to create a good business plan and win some business awards?

1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

[Craig Roys]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

1718 has never won a regional? I find that shocking.

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Craig Roys

Finalist 3 times, but no wins...unless you count our MARC Championship from 2010. But, alas, no regular season wins.

Fun facts that I'm sure you know. In the time period that 1718 has existed 27 has only won 1 event (2011 Grand Rapids) and 33 has only won 2 (2011 Kettering, 2011 MSC). Both of these are teams that are competitive on the international stage. Prior to the 2006 founding date of 1718 you have to go back to 2003 and 2005 respectively for either of these teams to have won an event.

Hard to believe no?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by nickdog8891

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

Originally Posted by nickdog8891

I couldn't disagree with you more. Whole-heartedly, unequivocally disagree. And not just in regards to FIRST

On what grounds? Basically you are just sitting there saying "NO!" with your hands in your ears. Explain exactly what part it violates? One of the requirements for a discussion is that you can't just pretend that you have veto authority, you have to convince me you are right.