Sippin' on the haterade

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

Without teams as strong as 1771, we wouldn't have a constant, dependable source of inspiring robots and teams. We wouldn't have anyone to look up to.

It took us 9 years to get there...... And as awesome as it would have been to get a robot winner trophy, it is REALLY awesome seeding ahead of 1771.....

lovin it man...

There are a lot of rookie teams in Georgia, and a few vets that need some help. We sent out an email to all the rookies yesterday asking them to keep working on their robot because we are going to have a series of mini-tournaments from May till September. We have not yet contacted the veteran teams.

No, it will not be IRI or GRITS, or Rah Cha Cha Ruckus. So for all you powerhouses wanting to spend a summer rocking and rolling, back up..

It will be oriented toward improving these weaker teams. All this leads up to GRITS in October.

What we need is strong vets is to work alongside these other teams to help them improve. Any vet team that wants to jump in contact me offline.

While I'm here - next year 1311 is going out of town chasing our non-robot awards, Peachtree will be robot only for us. We are looking for an out of town regional to go to.

Ed

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by martin417

While I agree that "students should be learning" (that is what a student does), I think you are misinformed as to the purpose of FIRST. We are not trying to teach kids to be an engineer or to design a robot, or even to machine parts. The purpose of FIRST is to INSPIRE kids, to make them take a look at engineering and technology as a career choice. If they learn something about CAD, or designing, or machining, that's just a bonus.

Using our model, how successful has our team been at that goal? Let's look at a few examples. The founder of the team graduated from MIT and is a grad student there now. Not the best example because he was destined to be an engineer from the day he was born. In 2009, 100% of the seniors on the team went on to college in engineering. I know of three that had never thought of engineering as a career before being involved with the team. By the way, all three of those happened to be girls. I consider that special because there are so few women that choose engineering as a career. In 2010, only one of the seniors did not choose engineering. She wanted to be a veterinarian. she has since thought about it and may change her major to biomedical engineering. Last year, we again had 100% of the seniors go into engineering. This year's crop are all planning to go into engineering. Every year, a high percentage of the team is female.

So is our model successful in inspiring kids to go into engineering and technology fields? I doubt you will find anyone who can honestly say that it is not.

This is not a new debate. A lot of folks think that T in FIRST is teaching and forget that the I is for Inspiration.

Inspiration is the yardstick that all things FIRST should be measured against (imho). It the kids learning new skills gets us to more inspired kids then let's get teaching. If kids seeing engineers and scientists do their magic behind a glass window gets kids inspired, then let's do more of that. The I think the optimal case is somewhere in between.

Two things that we should keep in mind.

First, it is about more than the kids on FIRST teams. I really believe that if it is about just our kids on our teams, then FRC is a very inefficient vehicle. Really. I am sure that my kids would be just a psyched about competing in a half dozen (much easier and much cheaper) robot competitions. I am equally sure that the community AROUND my team would not be as impressed with a tabletop robot competition. The size and spectacle of FRC make an impact that justifies the difficulty and expense (again, imho).

Second, I STILL think back to Hexcaliber, my rookie rookie year (the first year I was a rookie ;-) Our team was lucky to have a robot at all with all the mistakes I made designing that robot. And here was Hexcaliber. You could literally shave by looking at the mirror shine they had on their seat motor cans. I have no idea if how much the kids on that team did, but I can assure you, our kids were really impressed ("Not only does that machine kill at playing the game, they had enough time and energy to polished their MOTORS!"). We all swore that next year, our robot would be awe inspiring as well.

So... ...this is an age old debate. I know which side I come down on.

Joe J.

[wireties]

This is the 8th season for FIRST Team 1296. We have gone through a progression like many of the teams in this thread. These days we do not do a lot of large-scale machine work but it has nothing to do with money. We have 2 in-kind sponsors who help us. One makes commerical window frames and can cut out robot chassis built of reinforced 1" Al extrusion. The other is a first-class sheet metal company that can laser anything we need. Should we not take advantage of sponsors like these? Plus we have always had numerous EE mentors to help make the electronics and software fool-proof. But the students develop the design, learn CAD, wire the robot, write much of the code and other useful activities.

148 is a few miles up the road and we have always looked up to them. Their mentors have been very helpful over the years, extremely generous. There is a playful rivalry I reckon (because many of the 148 mentors work with our mentors or have kids in our schools) but we harbor no jealousy of 148 and never did.

I think it is a good thing to learn how to run a mill, lathe, break, sheer etc. It helps one create a build-able, testable design. But in reality most engineers do not do this day-to-day, they do the math and produce drawings.

[Megalodons333]

It is very unfortunate to hear about this going on. Being a student and a mentor, like many people in this community, we know how hard it is to build and program in six weeks. Personally the best part about this whole experience is when its over and the competition arrives and all you can do is dream, think, and talk about robotics. Then the big day arrives and you see your robot out there competing it just brings everything altogether.

As an alumnus I frequently come back to the school and help the team anyway I can especially since we have only 1 teacher in charge + a couple other alumni to help. However this year as much as I wanted to participate I was taking far too many courses along with work and just didn't have the time. Towards the end of the 6 week process when I stopped by to check up on the team I saw this unbelievable robot already done, programs running well. I was very proud and only comes to show how much a small team can do so much.

I don't care too much about teams who actually paid for professionals and had their robot made. As much as it may benefit them on the arena, the students are the ones who truly are scarred from this. They get deprived of learning science and technology and fully experience something as great and wonderful as FIRST.

Although this probably goes on in every regional, I see very little of this negativity in NYC. Competing in the NYC regional we are blessed with a wonderful audience and remarkable robots everywhere you look. Although teams do have a reputation of doing well in prior events the competition is always up for grabs.



CONGRATULATIONS ON ALL THE SUCCESS YOU'VE HAD TEAM #1771

[engunneer]

I also want to weigh in here. When I was a student, our team had a great sponsor, and four to six engineers from the sponsor would come help us out (not to mention great parents as well). We were a large team, and the different engineers were all interested in different things, so the mentor student ratio was pretty good all around in my view. We were lucky enough to have a machine shop in the school, and our teacher (A WFA winner) was the shop teacher and knew how to inspire kids, and guide design decisions with a light touch. The fancy parts of our robots were still made out of plywood and welded metal. I'll end this part by saying my experience in FIRST as a student made me want to go into engineering, and made me want to be a Mentor.

When I was a mentor with 1318 in WA, I worked for a machine tool company that made waterjets. The school had some drill presses, and that was about it for machine tools. Our milling machine was a bunch of freshmen with files. We had a few students very interested in CAD and design, and we spent a lot of time together talking about how to design with the given tools in mind. I got them thinking about how to design things that can be made out of flat parts. Our 2008 and 2009 robots were jointly designed, but students had the last say for final design. One student was taught how to make DXFs for the waterjet, and I'd cut them out at lunch and after work. The students got a tour of our shop and got to learn about how our machine tools are similar to the robots they build (and what a machine shop looks like). I don't think it should matter that I cut out the parts instead of the students. It was an exercise in ordering machined parts from a vendor. They had to learn about drawings, tolerances, and making sure it worked in cad before ordering. It's very much like a real engineering company. Our 2009 robot went on to seed between 111 and 67 on Galileo, and the students all went on to good college programs in things they enjoy.

This year with 2151, I didn't have access to a waterjet, but I do have a 3D printer. The tool situation is similar (they at least have a band saw). We were going to try to do CAD this year, and have separate Design/Build phases, but one mentor got sick, and the programming mentor had to travel for work for long periods during the season. The students turned out to be not interested enough in CAD for it to be effective, so we basically went to design while building. They decided the basic outline of what they wanted, but it took a lot of prodding to get them to prototype and build things. We made great strides this year, but I would estimate I designed at least 35% of the robot. I did not get to go into the design process as much as I would have liked with the students, but I think we'll still have a good competition. I've heard the students talk about the "rich, mentor built" teams, and have tried to discourage that as being necessarily bad. Most of the 3D printed parts on our robot were designed and printed by me. Towards the end, two of our seniors got to get into the process, and they have parts on the robot that they designed.

I guess my main point is that each team is working with the resources it has. Some have money, some have engineers, some have a machine shop, some have time, some have large numbers of people, and some have tenacity and resourcefulness. The nice thing is that any combination of these elements can create a successful robot and can inspire students to learn. I no longer focus strictly on Science and Technology, but just about learning and thinking in general. FIRST is good at teaching how to run a business, how to build confidence, how to present and talk to strangers, how to build things, how to use tools, how to write, etc.

Our robot isn't the prettiest or the best, but it works. 111's robot will be prettier (They know how to make a robot look good), other teams in the area will have faster and stronger robots. (This is my first year in this regional, so I don't know the other robots/teams well). Our mentors picked up tools and helped build the robot. Some teams frown on that to the point of extremes. We all do and think different things, and that is what makes FIRST great.

TL;DR, I agree with Taylor here. Student built vs. Mentor built is not as important as inspiring students to go on to do great things.

[IndySam]

We heard a few comments this weekend about our robot but we heard many many more compliments from people and I am proud to say that no team refused to cooperate with us.

I know that 234 has had to put up with this for a long at Boiler time because of their success and quality products they produce. I'm sorry to say that back in the day even I made comments. But I took the time to learn about their team and came to realize that it was hard work and organization that made them good. We came to the realization that we needed to work to emulate them and raise ourselves to their level and like most of the top teams Cyber Blue is always more than willing to extend a hand and help lift you up.

In the heat of competitions teams can get frustrated and even angry, it's just natural. It's times like those when its time for us to step up and teach.

[jblay]

I think that the main issue is that you have the majority of teams who do all of their own machining and design and go into the competition feeling very proud of what they have accomplished and then they get destroyed by the best teams on the field and they find the things that the best teams do differently. They take these things like getting your robot machined by companies, having mentors design the robot, etc... and they blame that team's success on it because let's be honest it is a massive part of that success. They find it unfair that some teams get this and some don't and they feel that the playing field should be even.

I am not saying that these teams are right or wrong considering that in my time in FIRST I have thought the way of those teams and I no longer do, but what I am saying is that it is an issue with the naturally developing culture of FIRST and I don't know that there is a way to change it.

[Seth Mallory]

Each team has their own goals and goes about it in the way that serves it best. How much is inspiring and how much is teaching is up to themselves. There is no best way. Our school now has over 200 students in 5 different engineering courses. Our modle works for us. You must choose your own way. Then the hard part is not to compare the way other teams work compared to yoursl

[Wayne Doenges]

At Boilermaker in the "Breakaway" year our team was the first match after the opening ceremonies. A couple of the judges were looking at our robot "Delta Ice" and one made the comment "There is no way this robot is student built." It was the wrong thing to say but we took that as a compliment and proceeded to show them it was student built. I'm the team photographer and I take a ton of pictures during build season and we made them available to them.

As it was stated before "Haters are going to hate." Live with it and go on.

As for the coopertition bridge, if you make a deal to cooperate, with an opponent, then please make the effort to cooperate. Don't make a deal and then leave them hanging.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

A couple of the judges were looking at our robot "Delta Ice" and one made the comment "There is no way this robot is student built." It was the wrong thing to say but we took that as a compliment and proceeded to show them it was student built.

I like your attitude....I agree that these type of comments should be taken as a compliment (even if not intended that way), and your team members should take this opportunity to explain how your team designs and builds your robot.

[JesseK]

I'm a bit late to this conversation, but the last time I checked CAD was free for FRC teams. Putting 100's of hours into CAD in Weeks 1 & 2 is also free.

The funny thing is, our secret to high-seeding success these last 2 years wasn't "be the best robot". Our secret is to simply work on Friday morning while many other robots are still working kinks out. This is a combination of building within our means during the build season and rejecting overly complex designs.

There's a quote that was repeated many times during the VCU competition and it goes something like this:
"The greatest pep talk in the history of sports cannot make up for a player who has cheated during his preparation. You're either ready or you're not".

Keep steam rollin'. See you at champs?

[Hawiian Cadder]

Although Alpine Robotics is absolutely 100% student centered, I don't think it matters how much mentors work on the bot, or where/how the parts are made. It is pretty interesting though, to go to a competition and see a pit of students working on one teams robot, and a pit of mentors working on another teams robot. I try not to judge teams by this however, as I do not know the circumstances of their build season.

[Gir_450]

Sounds like some teams need a little lesson in gracious professionalism. Team 1566 goes to the Utah regional (which was just last weekend). The last two years, team 399 and team 2122 formed an alliance and many teams found that unfair (they were the top two seated teams both this year and last...and they were champs last year). Well guess what? People griped, whined, and complained that it was unfair and it shouldn't be allowed. The teams that were going against them first instead of griping and whining instead wished 399 and 2122 luck and they met on the field. It all came down to the final seconds when their opposing alliance balanced two bots on the bridge and they got to go on. I'm all for thinking that newer teams should have a chance to win, but instead on whining and griping, make a strategy with your alliance and win fair and square please. And if you don't win, you did you're best, you made it far, and you should be proud!

[ttldomination]

Mr. Wilson,

Unfortunately my team's robot isn't good enough and doesn't look professional enough to receive the hate, but the only thing to say is let the hate power you to do better and better.

The hatorade tends to have one hell of a kick.

- Sunny G.

[Nemo]

If I could quantify the impact of having machining resources vs having a large budget vs having great mentors, I think the mentors would be the biggest factor.

If a team has a volunteer mentor that helps a lot with design and build, that person ought to be duly recognized as somebody who dedicates a lot of time and effort to a FIRST program. Those people are there because they believe in the program and want to help. It is unfortunate any time somebody tosses those contributions back in their faces in the form of "mentor-built" accusations.

Students on teams that have really experienced / involved / dedicated mentors should be grateful to have those people around, but they certainly should not feel guilty about it.

People should avoid assuming the worst about each other, especially in FIRST, where one is especially likely to encounter other people of outstanding character. Thus, people should avoid assuming that a great robot is the product of a group of overly competitive, bossy mentors who shove the students out of the way so they can bask in glory.

I also think that a lot of teams would be surprised to learn that even with a huge budget and nearly unlimited machining resources, it is still very difficult to produce a robot and prepare a team that competes well at the highest possible level. I'm not speaking from experience, but I am pretty certain that this is true.