Is Bag and Tag Necessary?

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by btslaser

The point is that stop build is not really a deadline (only for those that can't afford it). The only thing real-life about it is that people have figured out a way around it. Underprivileged, privileged... not sure how that fits in the FIRST mission. After figuring out how important it is we fund and build 2 robots... it just seems unnecessary.

For your argument, I'd really like to point you over to (the now defunct) team 1771. Team 1771 has always operated on a very low budget, often having to build their robots on plywood. They've also always had very few mentors and students on the team. Yet 1771 has always been a dominating force in the south, and has gotten very far in championships. In 2011, they seeded first in their division, with 6 members at the competition. Team 1771 was literally the definition of limited resources, but that didn't stop them from iterating and designing and using the time between competitions to improve. It doesn't take $50 grand to make 2 robots, it takes smart use of your resources and labor.

[protoserge]

Originally Posted by Undertones

FIRST is trying to mirror real life situations. If you have a deadline, you work to complete by the deadline, and find ways to work around it (practice robots). This ties into the whole "there are two types of underprivileged teams; the ones who whine about being underprivileged and the ones that work to become privileged". Bag and tag is an integral part of FIRST. It will always be around.

+1

FIRST is more than the robot... It's about the culture. Believe it or not, we're training the future workforce of the USA and the world. Working under tighter pressure to produce more with less, while maintaining a high quality standard is required for competition on a global scale.

While I see the OP's point, I will disgree that Bag and Tag is unnecessary.

First, I'd like to state that building a complete second robot isn't that expensive, especially if you're getting donated components. The initial higher cost in buying duplicate transmissions and a cRIO (which is dirt cheap at $525 loaded) will be less in future years if you end up reusing the COTS items.

It's not a bag-it-and-forget-it competition. You're allowed to bring a weight-limited sum of parts (R21) to the competition to add to your robot, why stop at Bag and Tag? Watch webcasts of regionals, get inspired, come up with strategy refinements, and add to your robot.

Life isn't fair. Overcome its challenges and learn. I guarantee you the most successful teams had a steep learning curve before they "got it". Understand your constraints and work within them. Learn what your team does well and capitalize on it.

Over the last three years, my team has grown in expertise and skill tremendously. At the same time, we've had funding difficulties, but found ways to make it work. We have also made a firm decision to build two robots every year because that's what it takes for us to field a successful robot and a trained operator team.

I don't see banning use of second robots or eliminating bag and tag to be of any use for this competition and it would only serve to spoil the experience for the tens of thousands of students and mentors.

[tsaksa]

I doubt very many teams have the resources to build more than one robot. Many of the teams I know struggle to find the resources just to buy their kit of parts. Yes there will always be some teams with the money and resources to build two robots, but I expect they are the exception rather than the rule. And, even if they are not, I chose not to worry about what other teams do or do not have anyway.

Our team probably does not have much of a chance to win at nationals, or to even get there except on a luckiest of years when they take all the right gambles. But that is not important. The students have already achieved a lot and benefited from the entire process. Dealing with significant limitations in resources can be a important skill in itself. Going through various design concepts, prototyping, building, and debugging is just as valuable on a simple design that takes advantage of our teams unique strengths and resources, as it might have been on a more complex one that we did not have the resources to build.

Our current robot is relatively modest, and needed to be because of budget and resource limitations. However, it is solid and well thought out. Our team is just as excited over our robot as any team I have seen, and has learned more than I could ever have expected. They will go to regionals and will be very proud of what they have accomplished, and they deserve to be. They have felt the fire of what science and technology at work can do and they are spreading the word at their school and community. With all that going on, who has time to count robots?

[PayneTrain]

"Once upon a time, there was a competition called the Fair Robotics Competition..." -Issac Rife, FRC #33

I think Bag and Tag could get dropped in the somewhat distant future based on a number of things (what if the whole country shifted to mostly Districts and required all district events to be held in the first 4 weeks of the season?), but for now let's put aside that.

Yes, there are well funded and well staffed teams that do exist, and total disclaimer: a lot of the incredibly dedicated mentors alumni, and students of teams like that are regular and/or long-time users of this forum. There are also mentors, alumni, and students of teams that are historically understaffed and hyper-conscious of resource management to ensure long-term sustainability of their team(s).

422 is one of those teams, but they still managed to develop some kind of practice platform. The kids and mentors are just dedicated man. They find a way. The day after stop build day you think they would make contact with their families, significant others, maybe catch up on a TV show, but no. Everyone is blowing up my inbox and chat windows... and I love it. No amount of money or other tangible resource can replace the dedication of the team (but if any potential sponsors are reading I'd love to put a price tag on it for you! )

I've seen teams with enough money after registration to buy half of a Little Caesar's Pizza find a way onto the field on Saturday afternoon.

Android has an advantage over iOS. The Baltimore Ravens had an advantage over the 49ers. GM has an advantage over Tesla. 1114 has an advantage over 49xx. It's the way it is and the way it should be. Like IKE was trying to say in one of the dozen or so "practice bot morality" threads, FIRST isn't supposed to be fair. It's work. It is hard work. It is a 52 week a year commitment if you want to be the best and it's wrong to lower the ceiling of competition for any reason except safety or something equally crucial.

And people forget that at the end of the day, it's just a game, man. When I have students that end up teaching me a few things every day, I've already won (as cheesy as it sounds). Besides, For Inspiration and Recognition of Winning and Fairness (FIRWF) doesn't really roll off the tongue.

[jason_zielke]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently. I have heard a lot of similar themes in discussing it with teams and mentors...

Leave the stop build date because...

"We need the rest"

"It ensures all teams have similar amounts of time to complete the competition robot"

Remove the stop build because...

"Teams build practice bots to get around it"

"With 30 lbs of additional parts, almost anything can be brought to the competition"

However, I have come to the realization that there is a much more compelling reason to eliminate stop build day...and it is at the core of FIRST's mission...Inspiration.

Imagine the excitement that teams could build in their schools and local communities prior to a competition if they were actually allowed to demonstrate that robot BEFORE and DURING the competition season. Our teams need this ability to build a fan base and a following. We need students, parents and community partners outside of our teams to get excited about our robots before they get to competition so we have a way to get them to attend.

Teams could show off their robots at prep rallies just before they head off to district or regional competitions just like all the athletic teams in the district.

If we really want to be the "Varsity Sport for the Mind", we need to market ourselves like a varsity sport. I can think of no better time (and I have tried) to show off our robots than right before we head off to competition.

With this simple change, our ability to inspire others would grow immensely.

In my opinion, this benefit outweighs any of the possible downsides, because this is the true mission of FIRST.

[Short Stuff]

Originally Posted by tsaksa

Our team probably does not have much of a chance to win at nationals, or to even get there except on a luckiest of years when they take all the right gambles. But that is not important. The students have already achieved a lot and benefited from the entire process. Dealing with significant limitations in resources can be a important skill in itself. Going through various design concepts, prototyping, building, and debugging is just as valuable on a simple design that takes advantage of our teams unique strengths and resources, as it might have been on a more complex one that we did not have the resources to build.

Our current robot is relatively modest, and needed to be because of budget and resource limitations. However, it is solid and well thought out.

I agree with this because Team 2594 is a team with low funding an dour robot is also one that has a solid design and intesting was hitting almost every one of its shots at the high goal. All this was possible bacause of the dedication of the students to plan and build out a well planned and tested robot that we can take to competition and be proud of no matter what the results are.

[Brian Selle]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

"Once upon a time, there was a competition called the Fair Robotics Competition..." -Issac Rife, FRC #33

I think Bag and Tag could get dropped in the somewhat distant future based on a number of things (what if the whole country shifted to mostly Districts and required all district events to be held in the first 4 weeks of the season?), but for now let's put aside that.

Your link is a great post and thread. Thanks. I searched before starting this one but didn't find anything this meaty. People are obviously passionate about this both ways. I think using the word "fair" amped things up and really wasn't what I was after... I was mainly thinking is it "necessary".

I'm totally on board with doing what it takes to achieve your goals no matter what the circumstances. I work tirelessly and endlessly for my FLL and FRC teams. We have made incredible progress in the last several years and will continue to get better. We are blessed with resources to field 2 identical robots. Perhaps it came across differently, but there is absolutely no whining from this camp. We do what it takes to get the job done.

I don't like rules that have loopholes rendering them ineffective to their original purpose. I'm relatively new to FRC and when I first heard about teams building practice robots I thought, really? It's certainly within the rules but honestly it felt like a little sidestep. Within the goals of inspiring students for science and technology I don't see stop build day as helpful. There is still a deadline... choose what week(s) you want it to happen. I like the idea of the districts where everyone has to attend a week 1-3 event. On the other hand, those that want to wait until week 6 to compete, great.

In the end, removing the stop build day will not change the outcome of the regional or national events... the same teams will still be on top. It will simply provide more opportunity for kids to be inspired throughout the competition season at a lower cost for everyone.

[itsjustmrb]

I would like to see the stop build day actually mean STOP BUILD!!! Let's forget about the extra 30 pounds of prefabricated parts and whatever you finish with on stop build is what you bring to competition. I assume there are 6 weeks of competitions because of the lack of competition fields available, not for a 12 week build season. I don't like the way you can continually improve your robot for 6 more weeks and then add the 30 pounds on competition Thursday.

It's just my opinion,

Mr. B

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by btslaser

The point is that stop build is not really a deadline (only for those that can't afford it). The only thing real-life about it is that people have figured out a way around it. Underprivileged, privileged... not sure how that fits in the FIRST mission. After figuring out how important it is we fund and build 2 robots... it just seems unnecessary.

Stop build is still very much a deadline, even for teams that build practice bots. It's not like you can bag a pile of raw materials and spare parts and assemble it on Thursday at the competition. Teams that build two robots still have to finish at least one by stop build day. You have to have that deadline in there or you lose an awful lot of the challenge of the program. Without the deadline, you're going to see new strategies like Sean's suggestion of attending a week 6 regional and not bothering to build anything before you're seen the results of week 1. You only have to look at the Vex Robotics Competition to see this is not the greatest thing if you're trying to encourage innovation and actual engineering problem solving. Vex is great for introducing kids to robotics and getting them some practice with the complexities of building an integrated robot, but there's far far too much temptation to wait around a while and check Youtube so you can make yourself a clone of a proven successful design. I really don't want to see FRC follow that path or we'll lose a lot of what makes it a great program.

Also, I probably couldn't participate in any meaningful way as I can't really afford to absent myself from family life for more than a quarter of the year.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by itsjustmrb

I would like to see the stop build day actually mean STOP BUILD!!! Let's forget about the extra 30 pounds of prefabricated parts and whatever you finish with on stop build is what you bring to competition. I assume there are 6 weeks of competitions because of the lack of competition fields available, not for a 12 week build season. I don't like the way you can continually improve your robot for 6 more weeks and then add the 30 pounds on competition Thursday.

It's just my opinion,

Mr. B

I certainly don't like watching competitions with robots that don't even move, or box bots. 6 weeks is already tough for teams to get a robot up and running for most veterans, now imagine what would happen if teams couldn't work on their bots outside of competition. It's already a struggle to get all teams to pass inspection before Friday, now imagine teams frantically trying to fabricate some part on thursday AND pass inspection. It won't be a pretty site.

[coldfusion1279]

The bag and tag is not only necessary, it's insufficient. FIRST is growing fast that it can't wrap its arms around everything anymore. Bag and tag and 2 day events are designed to make things easier and cheaper, but sacrifices some integrity to the 6 week build season. With open bag hours, witholding allowances, transparent bags, second robots, and constant prototyping and discussion on CD, the build season just doesn't end unless your own team says it does.

Is this an issue of fairness? I don't know, but I think FIRST is experiencing some serious growing pains.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by tsaksa

I doubt very many teams have the resources to build more than one robot. Many of the teams I know struggle to find the resources just to buy their kit of parts. Yes there will always be some teams with the money and resources to build two robots, but I expect they are the exception rather than the rule. And, even if they are not, I chose not to worry about what other teams do or do not have anyway.

You can build 2 robots and make Einstein with a far lower budget than many of you think. Resources aren't just cash, it's the teams' design skill and planning.

A practice robot need not be a full robot. Have a kitbot from last year or anyother working drive base lying around? If you built a modular robot and wisely planned out your witholding allowance you have a fully usable practice bot that will get you plenty of mileage with your drivers.

A practice robot is just another design constraint you add during design. It will cost you almost nothing but time and labor, IF YOU PLAN AHEAD!

[pyroslev]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

FIRST is growing fast that it can't wrap its arms around everything anymore.
FIRST is experiencing some serious growing pains.

The bag and tag for me has never sat right. I walked through the pits on check in night at the Virginia regional last year. Lots of robots that were completed or looked like something been removed. No skin off of my back. But a few robots were bare frames. No wheels or electronics. I asked a team member later if that was right. "It doesn't violate the 30lbs withholding rule." and they then added. "It's in the gray area."

As FIRST has grown, teams have been looking at, expanding and using that gray area to play the game in new and exciting ways. But I think it's time for FIRST to take a long hard look at said area. A refinement of the bag and tag rules and perhaps even an official ruling on the practice robots are needed.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Wing

I certainly don't like watching competitions with robots that don't even move, or box bots. 6 weeks is already tough for teams to get a robot up and running for most veterans, now imagine what would happen if teams couldn't work on their bots outside of competition. It's already a struggle to get all teams to pass inspection before Friday, now imagine teams frantically trying to fabricate some part on thursday AND pass inspection. It won't be a pretty site.

I don't think the weeks between Stop Build Day and first (usually only) competition are a big help to the teams that show up with box-bots or robots with no chance of passing inspection.

And for the people who are constantly going on about how "life isn't fair": That's not a reason to make it less fair if possible.

[DELurker]

[CYNIC] As has been said, life isn't fair, so why should the competition be? [/CYNIC]

Having said that, let me relate a short story. I once worked for a machine design firm. We delivered a $300,000 machine to a customer on the deadline. We then spent 4 months integrating the machine into their environment.

Is this any different from the Bag-And-Tag versus after situation? Not significantly.

This is the first year 1370 has made a practice robot. It has taken us three years of work to gather up the spare electronics and wheels to do it, but we think it will be worth it. We used a donation of materials and another of services to get two "identical" frames cut and welded so that we could make both bots work. Unfortunately, we didn't get enough weldments made, but the 30 lb witholding is our friend.

The short form is it's not really a cost issue, it's a resources and partnerships issue. We have a metals distributor that sells materials to us at really low prices. We have a mentor who used to teach welding at our school before anything similar to a vocational program got taken away. The total incremental cost for making twice as many frame pieces as strictly needed was a few additional hours of a mentor's time and a longer teaching opportunity for the students. If you have a local welding shop who could donate an employee for a few hours as a mentor, all of this could be yours, too.