The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

Also, 6 weeks is just one of those things that makes modern FRC what it is, just like 120 lbs, 60" tall (to start), 27' by 54" fields and 3v3 alliances. It's so much a part of the FRC system that it isn't going to change.

You realize that two of those four things have changed at least once in the past couple of years, yeah? (One year--I forget which--maximum weight was tied to starting configuration height. This year, you could be 84" high at the start of the game.)

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

You realize that two of those four things have changed at least once in the past couple of years, yeah? (One year--I forget which--maximum weight was tied to starting configuration height. This year, you could be 84" high at the start of the game.)

Variable weight was 2007, and you couldn't be more than 60" tall at the start of the game this year, per G22.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by sentientfungus

Variable weight was 2007, and you couldn't be more than 60" tall at the start of the game this year, per G22.

(a) Thank you, and (b) yes you could.

[Grim Tuesday]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(a) Thank you, and (b) yes you could.

Number one missed rule this year. I always like to read the manual for changes to 'standard' rules and try to figure out why the GDC changed them.

Even with that, I didn't notice that you could be over 60" in starting config until mid week 4.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

One is make the withholding allowance smaller or larger. They might actually do this, but I still think 30 is a good number.

They have done it in the past. Let's see how good my memory is... A couple years back, they went up to 60 or so due to what I'll call "special circumstances" due to my fuzzy memory (I want to say 2009 and weather). Back in my day... Oh, wait, wrong place... IIRC, we had it as small as 10-15 back in the early days of the withholding allowance. (Before then? Unlimited spare, replacement, and upgrade parts, provided they were built in a FIX-IT Window, which could be very lousy hours for teams...)

2007, where to be full weight of 120 lbs you had to be no more than 4' tall at the start of the match, was quite an interesting year. After that, 110 lbs up to 5' tall, and 100 lbs up to 6' tall, which was the maximum that year. A very well-liked change that left the next year, for reasons unknown. (Also memorable: "How do you fit a 6' tall robot into a 5' tall crate? Plan ahead."--paraphrase of Woodie Flowers at Kickoff that year)

I remember when the weight went from 130 lbs with battery to 120 lbs without--2005 season, as I recall. I remember when bumpers were optional or not used at all. I remember when the size last changed--30x36 went to 28x38, in 2005. At the same time as 2v2 became 3v3, and as I recall the field size changed slightly too. The following year, a 1-8, 1-8 selection became 1-8, 8-1.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(a) Thank you, and (b) yes you could.

My bad-- really should have kept up on that Q&A!

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by EricH

They have done it in the past. Let's see how good my memory is... A couple years back, they went up to 60 or so due to what I'll call "special circumstances" due to my fuzzy memory (I want to say 2009 and weather). Back in my day... Oh, wait, wrong place... IIRC, we had it as small as 10-15 back in the early days of the withholding allowance. (Before then? Unlimited spare, replacement, and upgrade parts, provided they were built in a FIX-IT Window, which could be very lousy hours for teams...)

2007, where to be full weight of 120 lbs you had to be no more than 4' tall at the start of the match, was quite an interesting year. After that, 110 lbs up to 5' tall, and 100 lbs up to 6' tall, which was the maximum that year. A very well-liked change that left the next year, for reasons unknown. (Also memorable: "How do you fit a 6' tall robot into a 5' tall crate? Plan ahead."--paraphrase of Woodie Flowers at Kickoff that year)

I remember when the weight went from 130 lbs with battery to 120 lbs without--2005 season, as I recall. I remember when bumpers were optional or not used at all. I remember when the size last changed--30x36 went to 28x38, in 2005. At the same time as 2v2 became 3v3, and as I recall the field size changed slightly too. The following year, a 1-8, 1-8 selection became 1-8, 8-1.

All good stuff. I think the first year they allowed it, the withholding allowance was 15 lbs... <grumpy old man>And yes, kiddos, there was a time before the withholding allowance, and people built robots and competed with them! Now get off my lawn!</grumpy old man>

[Walter Deitzler]

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

Took 172 posts for a student to weigh in on the issue. Tells you something...

See what you don't understand about us students is that we don't know when to stop. By the time build season is over, I find that a large majority of the students are burnt out and need to take a break from robotics. I know a lot of people who towards the end of build season already start to fall ill and fall behind on school. Making build season longer would just hurt these students even more.

+1 to this.

On top of that, some of us students play a spring sport, that happens to begin right after build season is over. For most of spring, I am running competitions and games in parallel, going to state Latin conventions, and playing in my church and jazz bands, giving me little time to do the work I need to (I still get it done, somehow). If build season was expanded, I would be willing to cut my sport, but would not be happy about it, and would most likely end up ruining myself after trying to do sports, robotics, music and AP homework.

I vote, as a very active student, to keep the 6 week season. It fits my schedule nicely.

[EricH]

Oh, I forgot one thing. BONUS TRIVIA!

--In what two years was ship day extended, and by how long was it extended each time?
--What was the reason in each of those years?
--How many teams used much of the extra time to make improvements?

Spoiler for :

--2003 and 2004 both saw the ship day extended by two days.
--In 2003, teams in the Northeast couldn't even get to their robots, let alone get them onto the FedEx trucks (which weren't running). In 2004, severe KOP delays across the board was the reason.
--Anybody that could get to their robot, from what I hear. In 2003, I know of at least one team that made an upgrade in those two days that would not have been possible before ship without them.

Yep, folks, that's right, there have been FRC build seasons longer than 6 weeks, 3 days.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

(a) Thank you, and (b) yes you could.

Yes, but I was using these examples more in the sense of "usually." I can't think of any team that really built their robot to have an 84" starting configuration, and 120 was still a max in 2007.

My gist was that were not going to have 40 lb robots or 100" tall ones anytime soon. But yes, you were technically right.

[ToddF]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

While a lot of good points in this discussion were brought up, I'd like to remind everyone that possibly none of the suggestions here will be acted on.

...


So what can Manchester do to, reasonably?

There are some very simple rule changes which would help teams alleviate the time crunch imposed by the 6 week build season.

-Allow reuse of bumpers. Bumpers are one component in which zero creativity is allowed either in design or fabrication. Requiring teams to repurchase materials for and re-fabricate bumpers every year serves no purpose other than subsidizing the plywood/pool noodle/fabric industries. It's immensely wasteful of materials and valuable build season time. Bumpers should be re-classified into the same category as the drivers station console. The option to reuse, modify or completely re-fabricate each year should be up to the discretion of each team.

-Publish the list of legal motors, the robot size restrictions, and bumper rules on October 1. This allows teams to begin designing drive trains, or even pre-purchasing motors, during the fall. Keep the rule that designs must be published before kick-off day to be used.

-Current rules allow for fabrication during build season of previously designed parts if the design was published prior to kickoff day. This is good, because it encourages out of season development efforts. Suggested rule change: Make it legal to use any parts fabricated after October 1 or November 1. This preserves the intent of the rules that the current years students are the ones building the robot. But it allows teams to take educated risks in choosing to pre-build some parts of the robot. It also would promote closer cooperation between rookie and more experienced teams, as the experienced teams could help rookies come up to speed outside the pressure cooker atmosphere of build season.

I would give my left arm if someone would start a company making bumpers as COTS items at a reasonable cost. With a clever bracket system design, no modifications would be required, and they could be used year after year. Not having to make bumpers every year would go a long way towards reducing burnout on our team.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by DampRobot

This thread seems to involve three separate questions:

• Would expanding the build season add or reduce the number of hours a team works?
• Is the 30 lb witholding alowance too much, and if so, how is it best reduced?
• Does robot work always expand to fill all available time?

1. Add.
2. Too much. 10 lbs max.
3. Yes - this can be minimized with near-perfect mentorship and time management practices, but yes.

Originally Posted by ToddF

I would give my left arm if someone would start a company making bumpers as COTS items at a reasonable cost. With a clever bracket system design, no modifications would be required, and they could be used year after year. Not having to make bumpers every year would go a long way towards reducing burnout on our team.

"Reasonable cost" is arguable, but there is this.

Also - I wouldn't dream of building the drivebase before knowing the game challenge.

[Jared Russell]

For those that seem to think "6 weeks" is some sort of sacred number and that hard artificial deadlines are the best real world experiences for the students...

I honestly do not run into this situation very often professionally. A more realistic scenario for me is a longer period of time with intermittent milestones and an actual deadline (like a demo or delivery) at the end. It requires good project leadership and pacing yourself while avoiding procrastination.

I cannot get behind the "limit robot access" or "reduce the withholding allowance" arguments for other reasons as well. Maybe it is because my team doesn't have a practice space and can't really test our robot in match conditions until after "stop build day". Every team learns something about their robot once they have played a real match. Usually that means one or more improvements you need to make to the robot to get it to work the same way it did in the shop. We have taken advantage of withholding allowances at virtually every competition that 341 has competed in.

If you take away or significantly reduce the withholding allowance, how can I improve the robot? By frantically and stress-fully fabricating parts in my pit during practice day? Been there, that is a not a happy experience. During an unbagging window? Better, but unless you have all of the equipment you need in-house you are still limited in what you can actually accomplish.

There is virtually no analog in real world engineering for a "build the whole thing, never test it except on the bench, and if it doesn't work you won't have a chance to improve it" project.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Jared341

There is virtually no analog in real world engineering for a "build the whole thing, never test it except on the bench, and if it doesn't work you won't have a chance to improve it" project.

um ...

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Taylor

um ...

Not the same thing. They have dedicated testing facilities, simulators, etc. The beauty of "engineering done right" is that we can do amazing things and be very confident that they will succeed the first time. But only because simulation, testing, and incremental improvement are such fundamental parts of the engineering design process.