FRC Blogged-Frank Answers Fridays: August 16,2013

[techhelpbb]

Here's where I stand on this...it is in reply to no one specific:
It is based on my experience as I have been doing this on and off for 17 years.

I am a mentor because:

1. I want students to have the experience of really building things.
An experience I know they will barely taste in 4 years of college.
An experience untainted by negative feedback common in real business.
On the scale of FRC it requires more resources than most folks have alone.
I am an FLL Judge it is more about the next 2 points.
2. I want students to be included in their community.
School is fine but I do not agree that it develops all the skills and
experience to be successful.
3. I want to contribute to my community.
I never ask more of anyone that I am willing to do myself.

Specifically with regards to FRC:
The way the competition is structured currently is a challenge.

1. It is more practical when you start months before the 6 weeks start.
2. It is more practical when you have resources that take years to acquire.
3. It is more practical when your schools teach programming.
4. It is more practical when your students know programming.
5. It has what I consider an uneasy and confused relationship with
electronics (I am not talking about wiring here I mean electronics).
6. Teams that can build practice bots have an advantage in part because
of item 5 above.
7. FIRST funding is a perpetual issue unlimited by the build season but
focused on a goal that is limited by build season.

As a mentor the timing of those 6 weeks is a problem:

1. Tax season ends April 15th and the season sits directly on top of the
entire period in which I get the documents I require to file taxes:
My taxes are way more complicated than most peoples'.
I own and operate several business.
I have many commitments in the high finance community.
I have physical issues that impact my ability to work when exhausted.
2. It entirely ignores differences in local weather.
3. I rarely think people are really honest with themselves about the *real*
build season which effectively for me and others on Team 11 is year round.

For me I would like to see:

1. Real test fields provided in regions by FIRST. So that people can see the
actual robot work on the actual field.
2. I would like to see those fields remain available until the next competition.
3. I would like to see more development of systems that make the advantage
of the practice bot to training drivers less.
4. I would like to see more emphasis on electronics in general.
5. I would like to see more consideration of mid-April in planning.
6. I would like to see more planning and scouting of solutions by FIRST.
7. I would like to see FIRST make it clear that this is in no way a 6 week
project openly and directly encourage year round commitment.
8. I would like to see a recruiting website that teams can attach a portfolio
in public where new people can see what each team is all about and so
that we can contribute a sense of scale to the new people. Team websites
are fine but I would like to see more metrics than most provide.
9. I would like to see more solidarity in regions.
10. I would like to see pictures taken of robot designs between competitions.
So that massive changes in design are noted as I feel it's a metric of how
the 6 week build fits the resources of the people doing it.
11. I would like to see more recognition in the build season duration as to the
particular challenges some obstacles create. Teach people to pick
low-hanging fruit for the foundation and then build higher on that.

[RoundTabler]

The problem with some of these proposals is that they remove things that teams can grow in. If you make it so every rookie team can be as good as the team that hasn't lost a regional yet...I would say that is a problem. One of the major aspects of FIRST is that you get out of it what you put into it. So, if you are willing to put more into it, you should have an advantage over those who don't. If you get more sponsors, work on CAD training, do 'moni build seasons', and other pre-build season prep, you should be better off than a team that doesn't.

My 2 cents.

[who716]

In my opinion I'm fine exactly how it is... The teams that don't have the resources to build two robots learn how to imprevise Indifferent ways to accomplish that same task whether its building the robot in 4 weeks so that you have 2 week to practice (like us) or converting an older robot into a similar robots.( also like us) so I don't think it has to change as the overall purpose of first is to interests kids In science and technology and prepare them And I believe since the real world isn't all ways the fairest place it's important to teach each of us that. yes the competitive advantage is there and will always be there in some way even when we are looking for careers it what we do to lessen the advantage that I feel is a more important lesson.

[KrazyCarl92]

Originally Posted by who716

so I don't think it has to change as the overall purpose of first is to interests kids In science and technology and prepare them

Then there's the other part of the FIRST mission about changing culture to celebrate science and technology. This is where my argument takes place. More robots moving, scoring points, or otherwise doing cool things = more inspiration, celebration, and opportunities to get others hooked, inciting a cultural change. Why have teams keep their robot in a bag when they could otherwise be working to make it work in competition? An expensive, glorified paperweight is far less inspirational than a point-scoring robot.

[JB987]

Originally Posted by KrazyCarl92

Then there's the other part of the FIRST mission about changing culture to celebrate science and technology. This is where my argument takes place. More robots moving, scoring points, or otherwise doing cool things = more inspiration, celebration, and opportunities to get others hooked, inciting a cultural change. Why have teams keep their robot in a bag when they could otherwise be working to make it work in competition? An expensive, glorified paperweight is far less inspirational than a point-scoring robot.

+1!

[evanperryg]

I disagree with the notion that only teams with a lot of resources can make a practice bot. My team made a second bot this year, and we were hugely successful. We were only permitted a single, simple waterjetted part and we aren't allowed to weld. We have more resources than many teams, but we don't have a 'huge' amount of resources.