Why do we bother bagging?

[Joe Ross]

At the risk of further derailing this thread, for those interested in anecdotes of socioeconomically disadvantaged teams and robotics competitions, this is a great read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html

[MrForbes]

@ Joe:

[zinthorne]

My team has built out of a garage for its entire existence, last year was our first year with a second robot. We do not have access to a water jet cutting machine or cnc machine, yet we still made a second bot and a very good one too. It only took us an extra few days to finish the second robot.This was made possible by planning ahead and getting the parts for the second robot during the 6 weeks when parts on the final bot were finalized. Granted our second robot was not perfectly identical, but it was very close. Bagging the robot should be used, because it simulates real world deadlines. Yes, it is an honor system, but all teams should be trustworthy enough to bag their robot.

[Monochron]

I have two main points here to make.

1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.

2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.

The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.

FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

At the risk of further derailing this thread, for those interested in anecdotes of socioeconomically disadvantaged teams and robotics competitions, this is a great read: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html

You got it Joe, we learned to make up our differences by maximizing our strengths and minimizing our weaknesses.

@ Joe:

when you lose enough times you start to figure out how to win. The solution is not always money, although it helps. Human resources are far more important so we reach out to all for help, as you well know. We also post everything we discover in the hopes of helping others....

Thanks to all to have helped us, I can't say this enough!

[falconmaster]

Originally Posted by Monochron

I have two main points here to make.

1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.

2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.

The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.

FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.

A practice bot gives the teams that are struggling more time to come up with a better solution for their bot. Also keep in mind the withholding limits and the time it takes to make the adjustments at the tournaments. Its part of the game to work within those constraints. For us where we don't have the resources and the man power of the power house teams, the practice bot has helped level the playing field for us. If there are no practice bots allowed our chances would be greatly diminished.......We will live with in the rules

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by MichaelBick

I know of a team that builds 3 robots: 1 comp and 2 practice. This allows them to practice and program at the same time. Even if this rule was taken away they would still build at least 2 robots, because it really isn't that much more work to build 2 robots. It really comes down to teams doing anything they can to get an edge over the competition.

Actually it is a lot more work when you don't have the resources, materials or the dollars to purchase said resources. We have cannibalized last year's robot to build this year which is a good use of resources, but not enough for two bots. Fortunately we have a couple great sponsors that allows us to get parts we need to build a robot that does the tasks it needs to, but we try to budget so we have money to start next year, so there is not a lot of fluff to work with.

We are a second year team and I agree with others on here that some of these rules need to be looked at. I don't get having a $100,000 budget for a team. I don't care were you are from. How is that in the spirit of FIRST? In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations. If you get the big corporate sponsorship, then I guess more power to you, but I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.

I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot. That is were we see some really sophisticated robots that other teams will most likely never have a chance to build based on resources. Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.

Here is one of the rules I don't get. I have seen reveal videos of teams that say look what we built in the off season and they are using the drive train for this years robot. We did what we were suppose to do. Get our kit of parts, put it together and build up from there. We used last years robot to learn programming, use it for presentations and driving practice until we had to start robbing Peter to pay Paul. In the spirit of FIRST I thought the rule was for you not to build components that would be used for build season. You can argue with me about the semantics in the rules, but I am sure in "the spirit of FIRST" that was the idea behind the rule. Not to have a jump start on the drive train or other pieces before build season.

What started out to be for kids to get interested in STEM is turning out to be almost commercialized in the fact as in life money becomes the deciding factor of who comes out on top unless you are picked to be on the winning alliance team. Life isn't fair and we have to deal with what we have to work with, but I also don't think FIRST is about helping promote that idea. If it is, maybe I don't understand why FIRST exists then.

I would like to see FIRST consider the following:

1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.

2) Lower the budget on the robot, but extend the build season one week.

3) Look at starting an FRC Open class. Teams that want to go all out can. If you are not in open then you use a standard drive base and allowed to change gears. You could still run the same amount of matches and teams at a regional, just group them accordingly.

4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.

We are all coming off of a 6 week build and for some of us a challenging one due to weather issues, but speaking from a young team, I would say it is time for FIRST to evaluate some of these rules to allow new teams to feel encouraged they have a chance. There will always be those who find the loop holes and loose interpretations and go beyond them. After all that is why have them to begin with. In the end it comes down to the people involved. Like basketball, the ball is the same ball for every team, but it is the coaching and the players that make the difference. I would just like to see FIRST be more about having each team use close to the same ball and let the rest be decided for itself.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Monochron

I have two main points here to make.

1. I like the Stop Build method for one reason: it sets up a window in which you work on your robot. It enforces a challenging time limit to prevent teams with a huge amount of resources from designing and constructing for months. It helps level the playing field by imposing an even degree of difficulty.

2. Allowing teams to build and practice with a second robot breaks that level playing field. Like you say, teams that have the resources to do it, more or less, do not have that 6 week limit placed on them. Sure, they must do their building on a proxy bot, but the action of physical construction is where you iron out your unforseen problems.

The way I always saw Ship Day or Bag 'n Tag days was a way to ensure every team got the same amount of time to work (and as it has been posted before, that was the original intent of the rule). Now that teams continue work/training/debugging on a proxy bot they are breaking that limit of 6 weeks. The 6 week limit is a good thing, it is the same as having all Regionals on the same day and allowing teams to build up until that day.

FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.

Brian,
I can see your point........although not saying I agree/disagree with it.
Our program has the resources to build 2,3,4 or even 5 robots if we really wanted to. But we dont have the manpower, passion, or time to make even 1 practice bot at this time.
It also doesnt bother me that other teams do and have a lot more practice/refinement time than us. My body needs a break, my family needs me at home more often, and my day job needs attention after a long 6 weeks and all the preparations leading up to it.

I think the spirit of the build season is as you have described to create an even playing field with respect to time.
But the reality is, over the years, more and more teams have access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience to do a second robot while competing in more and more events.

I think FIRST has to figure out how the rules should evolve, if any to either stop it, or support the reality of the changes that hundreds of teams now employ.

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by Racer26

So:

I've taken the 2008 OPR's for Maryland from this Excel file: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2761

and Compared them with the Median Household Income by ZIP code for each of the teams I could find OPR data for in Maryland in 2008 from here: http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/cen...zip/index.html

Since the OPR's in that Excel were normalized and many are negative, I added 2 to them so that they were all positive.

Attachment 16343

I can see no particular trend one way or the other that greater socioeconomic status of a team's location correlates to better on-field performance. This is assuming we agree that in 2008, OPR was a good metric for performance, and that the median household income of a team's ZIP is a good metric for the socioeconomic status of a region.

But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.

While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.

[Alan Anderson]

There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:

Originally Posted by dibblec

In our area local sponsors are already sponsoring youth football, baseball, traveling sport teams, soccer, performing arts and etc. When we come around we are just another in a long line of other non-profits needing assistance. I can't in good faith think about taking up that much money away from other local organizations.

I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by Monochron

FIRST shouldn't be removing the limit, they should be enforcing it strictly by disallowing work on a proxy bot. Basically, disallowing proxy bots. How they enforce that . . . I'm not sure. But the level playing field time limit has to be preserved.

One way would be to not allow any extra parts to come in to the competition. "Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

There's a lot I could say in response to Mr. Dibble's post, but I want to focus on one thing:



I myself have absolutely no qualms about taking money from traditional sports programs in favor of funding STEM-related programs. FIRST's founder is fond of pointing out that FRC is among the very few high school sports programs where everyone has a good chance of "going pro".

Excellent point.

[J_Miles]

Originally Posted by dibblec

One way would be to not allow any extra parts to come in to the competition. "Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.

You don't have to think very hard to imagine what kind of problems this might cause. Drag racers aren't (supposed to be) colliding at high speed, getting tangled together, reacting against anything other than the ground. FRC robots get banged up. I doubt this is a rule change you'd be asking to make if, say, in your first qualifications match something causes your shooter tensioner to break, or a pneumatic cylinder to get bent, or your electrical system to short out.

Originally Posted by waialua359

My body needs a break, my family needs me at home more often, and my day job needs attention after a long 6 weeks and all the preparations leading up to it.

I agree - I think that FIRST has recognized that stop-build (I still call it "Ship Day" even though I've never seen a robot shipped on "Ship Day" in my time in FRC) is more of a soft-stop than anything. Students, mentors, and other volunteers need a break, and this "deadline" of sorts encourages a rest. And as far as I'm concerned, this deadline helps speed up progress. There's a deliverable due on stop-build day, and that encourages completion of the goal in my eyes.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by dibblec

I would like to see FIRST consider the following:

1) Have two or three drive trains that are approved and can be used, period. I have been impressed with the new one from AndyMark this year. Not that I have a lot to compare to from the ones in the past, but our team feels like it gives us a better starting point to be competitive.


4) Add one week to the stop build day or at least for rookie, 2nd and maybe 3rd year teams. This would just help with programming. How many teams startup and really understand things like visioning. There are teams on the forums just asking some of the basics on how to use Autonomous. Yet, you see samples of very sophisticated code for visioning from years of experience which is great, but how does not always help a young team to get started in programming. The answers on this forum a sometimes vague and answered by people with a lot of experience in a way that a new team should just understand what they mean. Having an extra week could allow more experience teams that stop building assist new teams just get through their code. That seems to be in the spirit of FIRST. Helping others get better. Understandably so, that is hard when we are all in a 6 week crunch time.

I don't see how either of these two make sense.

For 1, what do you gain from restricting people to specific drivetrains? What if a team wants to build a swerve drive, or a jump/H/octocanum drive? Our team likes to use 8020 and build a custom chassis, since it is so much easier to prototype and play around with frame geometry on 8020. If you want to use the kitbot (which is certainly a good drivetrain), then you are welcome to. Don't force it down the throats of teams that want to go the extra step and come up with something innovative.

For number 4, you could argue this would improve a lot of things, but it'll also be unfair for a lot of teams. There are teams that have been vets of FIRST for a long time that can't do what some rookie and 2nd year teams are capable of now. Allowing an extension for teams that have been in existence for only 3 years, regardless of their state of readiness, but ignoring those vet teams that still need help won't help.


I think this thread has derailed enough, and we should bring it back to the topic of discussing stop build day and the bagging rule.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by dibblec

But did you take into account what type of alliance they were on? I witness last year (our first year) rookies being on a winning alliance with two dominate robots. Were the two dominate teams that carried the alliance higher socioeconomic than the one rookie team? We finished 7th in qualifications as a rookie team and was the highest seeded rookies. It was exciting, however we got there not because we scored a lot of points, but because during qualifications we just go the luck of the draw with good alliances. We contributed 25 or 30 maybe 40 points compared to the winning alliance that could shoot all their Frisbees. One team was a rookie team on the winning alliance. That gives two rookie teams high scores. At least you did try to average it over 6 years. That should help level it out.

While the data is interesting, how they finish is not necessarily based on the build of the robot. I am not trying to take away from anyone and their building. Ours had a lot of wood and we really enjoyed were we ended up as a rookie team and we were fortunate to have the right alliances along the way.

I don't think that you understand what his graph represents. OPR is not a measure of how well a team finishes. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with elimination matches, only with qualification matches. Also, I don't believe he used a multi-year average. I think he just used the data from 2008 since OPR is generally considered to correlate well to robot ability that year. For more information about OPR, read the presentation referenced in this thread, especially slides 14 onwards. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&highlight=OPR