Sippin' on the haterade

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by ebarker

off topic but actually the legal name for FIRST is:

United States Foundation for Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology

dba (doing business as)

FIRST - For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology

so it depends on whether you want the legal name as incorporates as a 501c3 and filed with the IRS, or the common street name.

sort of like Coke the brand name vs. The CocaCola Company the legal entity

and that is how you end up with www.USFIRST.org
.

I think that Laaba 80 was talking about how Andrew's acronym spelled out to "FIRSM".

But hey, now I know the difference between FIRST's legal and street name. The more you know...

Originally Posted by Karibou

I think that Laaba 80 was talking about how Andrew's acronym spelled out to "FIRSM".

But hey, now I know the difference between FIRST's legal and street name. The more you know...

Hey! I'm proud to be on a FIRSM Robotics Team!

Wow. Big mistake on my part. I'll go back and fix that...

[Patrick Chiang]

Here's the story from another point of view.

Our team started 4 years ago with the bare minimum. We had the school autoshop and $6000 to buy the starter rookie kit and a position in the Seattle competition. We had about 20 students who came in every day and night for 6-7 hours, excluding Sundays. We had 4 mentors plus our head mentor who is also our school autoshop teacher. For three years, we pulled through with the bare minimum. (To make matters worse, our autoshop has its funding trimmed every single year and bureaucratic nightmares make it a chore to donate to our team.)

We raised our own funds, we applied for all the grants there are, and we use material sparingly. We made our own omni-wheels (semi-disastrous results), we foraged wood and plexi-glass from our school woodshop, and we borrowed materials from generous teams in the area. If I recall correctly, we were the only team in the area to have a total bill of materials with <$350 for 3-4 years in a row.

Our first year (Lunacy), due to a fair bit of luck, we went undefeated in Seattle qualifications (7-0) and landed first seed. So, as any rookie team would do, we shopped around and were looking at the top "elite" teams who would win every year to see if we could pick them (while saving the other slot for the team that helped us start out team). Our team captain got up there during the pick, asked 2 of the elite teams to join our alliance, and we got rejected by both teams (this was before there was a rule where you couldn't be picked if you rejected someone).

Now, I understand that there must be a valid reason why they rejected us. (They had a deal with another alliance, they felt their robot's strategy wasn't compatible with ours...etc). Which is why there wasn't really have any animosity against them or anything.

However, what really does tick us off, is that in years to come, we would go to these elite teams and their pits, try to be friends with them, asking around what their robot does, what each part does...etc. And the thing is, none of their students actually knows how their robot works. Their robots have custom-built carbon-fibre parts, machine painted at the factory or whatever...etc. Their team is 100+ students, but only 2-3 of them are at the pits at any time, while their squad of mentors stand around their robot, explaining how stuff works to curious passerbys and judges.

Then we go onto their nicely designed website (by someone in their PR department, kudos to them), and on week two, their robot is already done, and on the blog is says something to the effect of "today, we zip-tied this component down to the frame". (actual example phrasing here)

Now, I find it hard to believe that these "elite teams" that win every year do more to inspire science/tech than the underdog teams. Few of their students do anything on their robot (which isn't their fault) and they never get to the details. They see what being an engineer is like, but what use is that if they don't get to BE the engineer. (Also, there is the issue of fairness and how money shouldn't win games, but I won't get into that.) While not every top team is like these elite teams I describe, everyone knows there are a couple of teams like that at each competition. They win largely because their school is basically an extension of whatever large corporation that sponsors them, which is why they can afford to have their beautiful custom-built bot, along with their community outreach plans funded by the school that gets them their chairman's award every other year.

End rant. I realize that the world is unfair, money is a real life issue yada yada, but can you really blame our students for not liking an elite team because of reasons I've stated? (Note: this isn't directed towards anyone, just teams in general).

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't really want to join in on the somewhat circular discussion of everyone being outraged by this behavior. Most all of this forum is in agreement that this behavior is despicable. But there remains people (quite a few) who agree and participate in it. I would know, I used to be one of them

When I joined Chief Delphi as a Freshman in 2010, my team had this attitude. Honestly, it's not much more than an excuse ("we can never be better than them because they're [filthy rich; mentor built; insert other BS reason here]). It's a bad attitude for a team to have, and certainly not gracious nor professional, especially for a team that prides themselves in being so.

When I created an account on Chief Delphi, I got pulled into the singularity that is this forum. I've been around quite a few internet communities; this forum is without a doubt the most professional and polite. If I had to wager a guess, it would be because of the varied age range (mentors and students) on the forum, and indeed, it ties directly into the FIRST values of mentors teaching. This is one of the few forums where it truly isn't acceptable to flame, speak in camelcase, or not use periods at the ends of sentences. It also represents the worldwide FIRST community. Connecting with people from other teams is an experience that many are lacking, and something that one can learn from Chief Delphi.

I noticed the problem, and have worked to change it. I get up on a soapbox and told my team about the meaning of FIRST, much as Supernerd said above. Inspiration, not education. We used to hate on successful teams because of whatever reason. We still do it a little, and I'm working to stop it.

My point is, we can't just sit around tut-tutting on Chief Delphi. There are a couple viable and positive solutions:

Talk to your team. If you're on one of the teams that does this, don't just you stop it. Make the rest of your team stop it too.

On an EWCP cast a while ago, Karthik mentioned that there were a few different worlds of FIRST. There are teams like his, 1114, that do consistently well every year and are overall awesome. Then, there teams like mine, who are huge and do OK every year. We're atleast networked into the global FIRST community through Chief and other methods.

But there are hundreds if not thousands of teams who not have a single member on Chief Delphi. I would argue that CD is one of the greatest unifying forces in all of FIRST. What can we do as forum members to increase participation by currently no participating teams?

[BenD94]

Personally for me as a student I enjoy the time I put in machining, but I understand that my school is lucky to have a nice machine shop and the classes to teach one to use it. Some schools don't have that ability and I understand it. In addition if you can get laser cut parts that's great use the resources. The thing about power house teams that always irked me the most is the multiple regionals they compete in sometimes. The teams that don't have the budget to register let alone transport the kids and robot don't get that chance. Also it gives an advantage to those teams. Then again some of those teams are fairly Inspiring. If i could change one thing though I would put a max on 2 regionals and the second has to at a regional that is in your "region" still. That's my two cents.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by BenD94

Personally for me as a student I enjoy the time I put in machining, but I understand that my school is lucky to have a nice machine shop and the classes to teach one to use it. Some schools don't have that ability and I understand it. In addition if you can get laser cut parts that's great use the resources. The thing about power house teams that always irked me the most is the multiple regionals they compete in sometimes. The teams that don't have the budget to register let alone transport the kids and robot don't get that chance. Also it gives an advantage to those teams. Then again some of those teams are fairly Inspiring. If i could change one thing though I would put a max on 2 regionals and the second has to at a regional that is in your "region" still. That's my two cents.

Give this thread a good read http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...le+regional s

[davidthefat]

In my honest opinion, more money does not mean a better robot. We all have a maximum weight and maximum budget. You can only fit so much components into 120 lb... Sure, you can bring in the fact that some teams have access to CNC machines, 3D printers, whatever else there is to it. You also need drivers who are capable to utilize that tool. Having a great bot does not mean that you will win. You need the software to back up the hardware. It is not all about money. There are so many factors that make a team great.


It is also the mentality of the team and the members. If you choose to just pick up tools and make a robot beginning at the 6 week build season, you might just have trouble. But if your team has been prepping over the off season and getting work and experience done, you are in a better position than a lot of teams. In my honest and humble opinion, what makes a team great is not what they do during the 6 weeks, but what they do the rest of the year.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

In my honest opinion, more money does not mean a better robot. We all have a maximum weight and maximum budget. You can only fit so much components into 120 lb... Sure, you can bring in the fact that some teams have access to CNC machines, 3D printers, whatever else there is to it. You also need drivers who are capable to utilize that tool. Having a great bot does not mean that you will win. You need the software to back up the hardware. It is not all about money. There are so many factors that make a team great.

Yes, this reminds me of a study that concludes that "higher income does not equal more happiness, but lower income equals less happiness". At the highest level (max budget, optimal/max mentor capacity), it makes less difference, but remember that there are teams that can't shell out $3000-4000 to max their budget, and that money DOES make a difference. And it's not because we're lazy and don't spend all year fundraising for the events.

It would be more fair to lower the budget limit significantly, but I can understand why teams used to maxing their budgets would be against that too.

[davidthefat]

Our robot was a box with wheels on it. And one attachment to lower the bridge. Do you know why our robot was like that? In my opinion, it was because we never built something robot related during the offseason. The first 3 weeks of the build season was focused on educating 80% of the team. We did terrible in my book. Others on my team will disagree with my opinion, but we failed this year. We only achieved 50% of our goals, and the goals were very simple: to balance and pass balls to the other side. We only balanced. Last year, we were a bit more lucky because we had a veteran welder/mechanic join our team (He was a Senior, so he graduated).

We never maxed out our budget. Of course, 589 is not considered a powerhouse. We never were. It was because we rarely do offseason activities other than fundraising and outreach. We are a 12 year team for pete's sake, we need to step things up.

[dtengineering]

As a rookie mentor I remember commenting on the number of "balding, beer-bellied students" working on robots in the pits, and commenting that "that robot couldn't have been built by students." As a veteran mentor, inspector and judge, I see things somewhat differently. Now when I hear people talk about "student-built" robots vs. "mentor-built" robots two stories come to mind:

Story 1:

A student joined our team as a grade 10. He had an uncanny ability with the lathe, but couldn't design a part to save his life. We had to show him what to do, step by step, but he produced a quality product and enjoyed doing it.

He kept taking metal work and picked up skills on the mill and started to practice up his TIG welding. By the end of the year he didn't need step by step instructions... a good drawing would suffice.

As a grade 11 we (the mentors) would give him drawings of what we wanted and he would turn, mill and weld the part to spec. By the end of the year he would suggest changes to our drawings so that he could produce the part more easily.

In grade 12 he was our lead driver and team captain. He would bring drawings in, we would suggest changes, and he would show other students how to manufacture the parts.

The year after he graduated he would come back after work (he was doing an automotive mechanics apprenticeship... not everyone needs to go to university to be awesome) and would work with the rest of the team to design and build major components of the robot. Often his solutions to the problems were better than mine.

Story #2:

A neighbouring team used to take part in a local robotics competition. They decided to give FRC a try. After two years of FRC they went back to their local competition... using what they had seen in FRC they designed their robot in Solidworks, ordered some appropriate COTS parts, and had major components cut on a waterjet. (They negotiated time on the waterjet as part of a sponsorship package... something else they had picked up from other FRC teams.) Their machine looked awesome and blew away their competition, many of whom complained that their robot was "too professional".


The moral of the stories is that if you think that students can't build an awesome, professional-looking, competitive machine... you just haven't met the right students. (or you haven't shown them how to do it right...)

[~Cory~]

Originally Posted by davidthefat

It is also the mentality of the team and the members. If you choose to just pick up tools and make a robot beginning at the 6 week build season, you might just have trouble. But if your team has been prepping over the off season and getting work and experience done, you are in a better position than a lot of teams. In my honest and humble opinion, what makes a team great is not what they do during the 6 weeks, but what they do the rest of the year.

YES! You have to know what your team is at competition for. Some schools come as with FRC as a second thought to their stem programs, and thus the robot is a second thought. Some teams come with FIRST as a class in school. Some teams come as a complete package. Some teams come a product of the manufacturing department of their school. Some come from the science department (of their school). Some teams come from marketing. The culture of the team really tends to define the end product.

Culture change is doable. During the last two years, 706 has been attempting to change our culture to be one of the "package" teams and not just pure business and manufacturing (we spend a LOT of time in the machine shop). In our area there are teams like 537 who seem to do everything (you guys are awesome!) and we look up to them. We have attempted to change that over the few years to incorporate more community involvement and such. We build great robots, but the other side is actually turning out to be more difficult! (But that is just the culture of community).


I used to take part in some of the earlier described situations (until I heard them said about us). Some of this came from our team's culture, some came from actual experiences that may trigger such thoughts. Ideas such as not building your robot can stem from having non-knowledgeable members in your pit. I distinctly remember talking to a person that did not know if his team had a 6W or 8W tank drive. You may not realize that this person that you are talking to may not actually have been on team (as in my case) or may be a very new recruit seeing what competition is like!

[tzjin]

Interestingly, this thread seems to be dominated by Alumni and Mentors.

Anyways, coming from a pretty well-funded but completely student-run team, I see the views from both sides. Every year we work hard in the fall to raise money for competition season, and we usually go to three regionals a year. We are also fortunate enough to have an in-house machine shop, and a system set up where everyone is certified to use the tools.

I can certainly see this as being an unfair advantage, but even with the beautiful paint job from our powdercoat sponsor, we rarely, if ever get any hate from other teams. I guess this is probably because we only ever have students working in our pit.

As a result of our system, it bothers us slightly when we have neighboring pits with little or no students in them, because we worked hard on our bot, and would love to see how our peers had worked on theirs. I recognize that not everyone has the same benefits of a machine shop and strong traditions as we do, and that professional guidance is often necessary, but I would hope that the students would be given a larger role to play in all FRC teams. Integrating them in the design process, and every step of building the robot will be tremendously educational and memorable for the rest of their lives.

FIRST is For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. Dean Kamen founded this competition to inspire young people. Sure they can watch the competition and be inspired, but that can be equated with watching the NBA on TV. The larger role we as students can play on the team, the more ownership we feel towards the bot and the greater satisfaction we feel at competitions. Watching the fruit of our year of labor compete is truly the most inspiration I have ever felt.

I hope I have not offended anyone. This is just my opinion coming from working on a very unique team. Cheesy Poofs, our traditional rival, has a large mentor support, but their fantastic bots inspire us to be better at what we do. No hard feelings. We look forward to competing against them at SVR next week.


PS You theoretically could buy your bot from team221.com, but I have yet to see anyone do so.

[JABot67]

Umm.

To say that another team's students do not have enough influence on the team or on the robot is just the generic, baseless insult in FIRST.

I've heard it applied to other teams from students on my team (3322) and I've heard it applied to my team from the students on other teams. I'm not going to go into details about how my team works but I will tell you that the students play a gigantic role in every aspect of the team and are very knowledgeable about designing, building, and programming robots, but even so the mentors definitely have their hands full of work.

The reason this insult is completely baseless is because you do not know how another team works, or how much their kids are being inspired. I've read countless posts on CD that go something like "oh, their pits are full of mentors" or "golly, I tried talking to their students and they knew nothing about the robot" because chances are there are some students on the team that know about their robot.

One of the students on my team claimed that another team was mentor built and their students didn't know anything about the robot. I then went and talked to one of that team's students who proceeded to explain many great technical things about that robot and the programming thereof.

It's almost like teams are using "that team is mentor-built and their students don't know anything" as an excuse as to why they don't perform as well as another team.

On my old team (67), if I happened to be in the pits my freshman or sophomore year and someone came up to me asking how the robot worked, I would have been one of those "students who don't know anything because the mentors do everything". If that same person came back my senior year and asked me the same thing, he/she would have been quite surprised that I had programmed the whole robot while the mentors watched.

The obvious solution to this problem is just to not judge other teams.

end rant

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by JABot67

The reason this insult is completely baseless is because you do not know how another team works, or how much their kids are being inspired. I've read countless posts on CD that go something like "oh, their pits are full of mentors" or "golly, I tried talking to their students and they knew nothing about the robot" because chances are there are some students on the team that know about their robot.

On my old team (67), if I happened to be in the pits my freshman or sophomore year and someone came up to me asking how the robot worked, I would have been one of those "students who don't know anything because the mentors do everything". If that same person came back my senior year and asked me the same thing, he/she would have been quite surprised that I had programmed the whole robot while the mentors watched.

Not going to name names, but there *are* teams out there where the students tell us that the mentors took over and built their robot. That isn't baseless. I mean, I can't be the only one whose heard the words "our mentor built that" uttered multiple times by a team.

Also, I agree that some teams might say it's okay if some of the kids don't know how the entire robot functions (heck, I would say not everyone in our team knows how everything works). But when more senior members of the team (people you've seen at competition multiple years) shrug when you ask them how their shooter works, it kind of puts a question mark on how well the team has been inspiring and educating the students.

Again, this is just personal opinion.

[Ian Curtis]

I think the saddest part about this thread is the implicit assumption that "High school students are dumb." And it isn't just FIRST people -- it happens everywhere. I think a lot of people (especially smart people) tend to base everything off of themselves. They think 'If I couldn't do that when I was 16, how is this person doing it?!' In actuality, chances are pretty good they could've done it when they were 16, but no one was around to introduce them to the lathe or computer programming.

Designing or fabricating, it doesn't really matter. My high school team was one of the ones that did essentially all of our fabrication in-house with student labor. Since we had access to such nice equipment and good mentors, it came out pretty well. We got asked a lot who did it, and had people who straight up refused to believe it was students. Many of them didn't go on to technical careers, for example our best student welder and machinist is now a commercial fisherman.

I think engineers who don't come from FIRST backgrounds are often the hardest to win over. Engineers love to tell everyone that engineering is best, but I think they most love hanging out in the ivory tower.