Why do we bother bagging?

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by dibblec

A
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.

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.

If you would like a more restrictive competition, they're out there. The way I see it, there may be more affordable, more restrictive, more "realistic" programs, but FRC is the high end "flagship" program. It is expensive, big, and flashy. It is not for everyone. It doesn't make sense for some areas to support FRC teams-- look at Iowa, where there are a few hundred FTC teams and (if I remember correctly) less than ten FRC teams.

If you want a cheaper, more controlled program, try FTC, VEX, or BEST. It may sound selfish, but I like the spectacle of FRC-- and so, I believe, do sponsors.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by dibblec

"Run what you brung" for you bracket drag racers out there.

I thought that saying applies more to heads up drag racing...????

Run what ya brung, and hope you brung enough

[xXhunter47Xx]

Bagging and tagging is part of the fun.
We used it as a means of celebration.
And then we had to high tail outta the school because it was midnight.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by dibblec

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?

I don't know what teams you're looking at, but I can only think of a couple that might have $100,000 budgets.

Most of the ones I can think of? They have 2 or 3 FRC teams which they take to multiple events. The Robodawgs from MI, teams 216, 244, and 288, all went to two districts plus GTREast and Western Canadian regionals in 2013. That's $35,000 in entry fees alone, never mind travel expenses in to Canada twice, plus the cost of 3 robots.

Originally Posted by dibblec

I think FIRST should evaluate budgets in terms of the spirit of FIRST and their actual goals and mission.

What exactly about going to more events, building more robots, and reaching out to your community more doesn't fit with FIRSTs mission to Inspire and Recognize Science and Technology?

Originally Posted by dibblec

I think $4000 is too much budget for a robot.

We maybe agree on this point. Except: I don't think I've ever seen an FRC robot that was particularly close to being at $4000 BOM cost, by 2014 accounting rules, which allow you to count any item in the KOP, in unlimited quantities, at $0.

Originally Posted by dibblec

Scale the budget back and we can help a lot of teams be more competitive because the budget is more reasonable.

I disagree that budget is anywhere near the top of the list of reasons why teams aren't competitive.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

Where do you see this? It is definitely against the 2014 rules (and every year's rules back at least as far as 2003) to start building anything for your 2014 competition robot before kickoff.

There are definitely teams that work on various drive train prototypes in the off season to gain experience, but I've never seen anyone have a fully finalized design that they built before kickoff and then used.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

You are just patently wrong on this point. Dozens of teams with little to no resources DO perform well and win events. Yes, there are several powerhouses that have big budgets and spend lots of money, but that's not required for success here, its an artifact of success. Those big budget teams? They got the budget by being successful and inspiring sponsors to give them more money by showing what they could do with it.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

I agree that the AM14U kitbot is a considerable improvement over the C-Base kitbot it replaced. I additionally agree that many teams will find that the kitbot is their best starting point to building a competitive robot. What I don't understand is what you think limiting teams to it would achieve, besides stifling creativity.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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

I already explained why I don't think lowering the budget will change anything. Extending the build season by a week is a no go for many logistical reasons (for starters, FIRST HQ play tests games with team built robots at Week Zero events on the last weekend before stop build, and then often adapts the game field for function and durability before Week 1 competitions.), and extending the build season would only make the gap between the best and the average bigger, because the best (who are already more efficient than average at perfecting their mechanisms) get more time to perfect them.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

There are too many reasons to list why this is a bad idea. If you want a more restrictive competition, go play in FLL, VEX, or FTC.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

As others have mentioned, there is no simple metric like team age that correlates well with team success. Any system like this would give unfair advantage to strong rookies and unfair disadvantage to weak veterans.

Originally Posted by dibblec

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.

The people involved are what makes rookie sensations like 2056, 4334, 4451, and 4814 happen. None of those teams started with big bags of cash as far as I know, and all 4 of them were hugely successful in their rookie years, because they all had great mentors that understand what this game is all about and how to be successful at it.

The #1 mistake I see teams make is that they try to do too much, and end up not being able to do anything well. Teams that are less fortunate in the resource department are best served by doing a single game function really well. See: 4334 in 2012, 2200 in 2009, numerous teams that only had a really good minibot in 2011.

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by waialua359

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.

Actually, the point I am making is that a team like yours DOESN'T have the resources to make two bots. Manpower is a finite resource just like time is. The old team I was on was large enough, and had enough skilled mentors, that we could work just as productively in tandem on two different robots. We had the money, the materials, and the manpower to do it.

FIRST's ultimate goal however is to create competent and impassioned students, and I am not sure that giving teams who have amassed "access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience" an advantage is the best way to accomplish this.

To be fair, I understand that those teams who work the hardest and fight to become successful deserve that success. I think showing students that in reality hard-work brings access to better equipment, design, etc. is a positive thing. I don't, however, think that because they are so successful and large that they should get to continue testing and tinkering on-robot when everyone else is barred from that by their team-size, money, or other factors.

[pilum40]

We built our robot in a portable classroom that is used for school materials storage, girl's gym changing area and former elementary classroom without a bathroom that worked.

We have the sum total of: 1 drill press, 1 chop saw, 1 90 degree drill, 1 battery operated small rotary saw, 1 Dremel tool and accessories. The rest of our tools are classic hand tools like...wait for it....screwdrivers, hack saws and the like.

I think we had a great build season. I much rather would walk into a regional knowing my STUDENTS designed, built with sweat equity and actually knew how and why their robot does what it does than outsource all the parts just to keep up with the big spenders. Sometimes we do forget what this is all about. It's about having fun, learning some tech, learning how to operate in work teams, dealing with obstinate mentors (like me), and buying into knowing our robot may not be very "pretty" but it works, works well and does the following consistently: score, catch, pick up and can play "D" if necessary. Our mentors are wood working guys, and our robot looks it. My students walked out of the bag/tag on Tuesday with smiles on their faces knowing they'll be able to compete quite hard in March. We have the funds for 2 robots but neither the technical/mechanical/student numbers to do the second machine. We'll settle for our second/demo CRio and dummy electrical system to fine tune code.

You won't hear any whining from 3355. We learned a long time ago the old Darrell Royal adage: "You dance with who you brung to the prom". Buck up y'all. See ya' at the Dallas Regionals!

Steve Miller
Coach 3355
Purple Vipers

[dibblec]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I thought that saying applies more to heads up drag racing...????

Run what ya brung, and hope you brung enough

Only used the analogy in response on how to strictly enforce a stop build day. It is obviously impractical for a mired of reasons.

And before I get taken too far out of context on my original post, my comments are from a 2nd year team/mentor that had challenges beyond just being a 2nd year team. We lost a week and half in terms of build days due to weather and school cancellations. We still managed to get a robot that can pick up a ball, pass a ball and shoot it into the goal or over the truss on limited resources. I am not saying it can't be done.

I also know in reality and in our area we will be challenged to have the fund raising opportunity and the ability to build two robots every year.

I by no means meant to offend veteran teams or any other team. I am concerned for teams in our situation that if FIRST raises entry fees, or budget for robots where will it leave many teams and how competitive can we be. I would hope FIRST would not make it cost prohibitive that teams would have to drop to lower costing organizations. There is a lot of good things going on here and we want to be a part of it for the long haul.

In the meantime we will work to be as competitive as we can with the resources at hand and like many teams will get better towards that goal each year.

[Brandon_L]

Being a new team isn't about 'having a chance'. You're not going to end up at the Superbowl the first time you pick up a football*, expecting to do so is just silly. Being a first year team is about going out and giving it what you got, and seeing how the pros play. See what works, understand why it works, and what doesn't work.

I really think FRC would be a better place if we all learned from the top tier teams instead of complained that they always win. Don't ask for the bar to be lowered, try to raise it.

*There are exceptions, 4334 or 2056 for example. But, look at who was guiding them.

[geomapguy]

Originally Posted by Libby K

^^ The cool thing about that is, 'that Frank guy' and others at FRC do read ChiefDelphi. Our discussions here on things, as long as they're constructive, help make FIRST a better place sometimes.

^^^^ This is awesome!! I can definitely see some correlation between CD and the Team Updates

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by Monochron

FIRST's ultimate goal however is to create competent and impassioned students, and I am not sure that giving teams who have amassed "access to better equipment, better design support/capabilities, and more experience" an advantage is the best way to accomplish this.

Actually, the ultimate goal of FIRST is to inspire students to pursue a STEM related higher education, so they can become competent and impassioned STEM professionals...thus bettering the entire world.

Back on the original subject (ie; bagging) our team worked tonight and probably will be continuing our regular build schedule for practice, spare parts, iteration, etc...up until we atleast play our first district event. Then we will see what additional work is required to continue improving to obtain our goals. Bagging after 6 weeks or not, does not change the process we follow, it just make it more of a hassle to do them once on a practice bot then again on the competition bot.

For our team, we want to inspire through success first and foremost (inspiring through failure when we have too).

This process works for us. What works for you, is for you to decide.

[Courtneyc303]

The point of the program is to provide a learning experience to high school students. When we get into the real working world we will have to face deadlines. Just like in the engineering field you have a project and a deadline for said project. Our project is to build a robot and have a well working team, while working with limited resources, by the time that deadline rolls around.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

I really think FRC would be a better place if we all learned from the top tier teams instead of complained that they always win. Don't ask for the bar to be lowered, try to raise it.

Just making this distinction again. "Hey, these people are great - how can I be like them?!" is much better for the community as a whole than "Those people are great - how unfair is it that I don't have that right this second?"

[mrnoble]

Regarding the actual topic at hand of bagging: I vouch for all the posts here of people who are bone tired, whose real jobs have suffered, and whose families are at the end of their patience. I NEED stop build or I will go crazy. A bit of practice bot work, or light show coding, is fine, but low pressure.

Regarding the zombie topic of how the spirit of FIRST is being lost, I will ignore most of it except the budget issue. My team's budget has never been as large as it currently is. It is beginning to approach about 1/2 of the number that was tossed out as ridiculous. Guess what? We still cannibalized last years bot. We spend our money on trips to explore technology fields, hosting luncheons for young women who meet with a panel of women with careers in advanced technology, paying for our school's Science Olympiad team to compete, buying a spare cRio to share with another team in need of one, and providing the ONLY funding for our school's teen mothers support group. And, for once, the entry fee for a second regional. I'll bet that other teams with large budgets and major sponsors are finding equally worthy ways to spend their money, probably even better and more organized ways.

[bduddy]

To me, the real issue is that the current system is a mashup of the six-week build period and a vague unlimited one that, as far as I can tell, not too many people really like. Almost everyone seems to advocate for either a deadline or the absence of one, and the soft deadline we've ended up with seems to be the best way to keep both sides... at least sort of happy, anyway. Is this really a good long-term solution, though? Compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be when it doesn't end up helping anyone...

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Actually, the ultimate goal of FIRST is to inspire students to pursue a STEM related higher education, so they can become competent and impassioned STEM professionals...thus bettering the entire world.

It annoys me when people use a statement like this essentially as a counterargument to anyone saying that FIRST can do other great things. Why can't it be both?

This may be a controversial statement, but here goes: Given the massive amount of time, money, energy, etc. put into FIRST, if all it does is convince a few students to switch their college majors, it's not a very efficient program. There's so much more FIRST can and should be doing, and just pointing to the mission statement isn't a very good argument to begin with.