Why do we bother bagging?

Working backwards:

5) Low resouces teams often find themselves in a position that their robot is primarily complete but programming and testing is not. This is why I have seen many teams including ours not make a single practice round. There is very little help available at competitions, as everyone is very busy with their own robots. An extra week for programming and testing only, would provide the relief mentors need from the build and also provide relief from the highly stressful Thursdays.

4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.

3) System specifications would keep everyone honest.

2) The major financial commitment that multi regionals require, prohibit many teams from going to more than one. This is a direct relation to cost/performanance. One extra regional and a practice robot would double our budget.

1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.

If the rules require that these bots be built in 6 weeks, then let's keep it 6 weeks.

Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by DMike

4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.


1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.

I don't understand how so many people can complain about practice bots, but not about withholding allowance. A practice bot is just an effective way of using your withholding allowance to continue to develop components. You can't just ban teams from making practice bots, but keep a withholding allowance when you argue that practice bots are against the spirit of FIRST build season. Either be content in the argument that practice bots are a way to utilize the withholding allowance, or eliminate both.

EDIT: Fun fact, there used to be a time in FIRST where there was no withholding allowance. It was just 6 weeks, can't bring anything into competition except tools, and you couldn't even write code between ship day and competition day. It would be interesting to see if there was any data on average scores before and after withholding allowance was a rule.

My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by DMike

My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.

Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?

Where in the "real world" do you have a safety net

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by DMike

Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?

Not saying it is good for consumers, or acceptable, but almost every single video game with an online multiplayer component made in the last few years fit this definition.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by DMike

Working backwards:

5) Low resouces teams often find themselves in a position that their robot is primarily complete but programming and testing is not. This is why I have seen many teams including ours not make a single practice round. There is very little help available at competitions, as everyone is very busy with their own robots. An extra week for programming and testing only, would provide the relief mentors need from the build and also provide relief from the highly stressful Thursdays.

4) Restricting holdback to 20% would prevent teams from major redesign's of major systems. I have seen many "bagged" robots that were not operable, only to go through a complete overhaul.

3) System specifications would keep everyone honest.

2) The major financial commitment that multi regionals require, prohibit many teams from going to more than one. This is a direct relation to cost/performanance. One extra regional and a practice robot would double our budget.

1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.

If the rules require that these bots be built in 6 weeks, then let's keep it 6 weeks.

Where in the "real World" Do you get to manufacture a part or assembly, deliver that part to your customer and then in a few weeks deliver the one that works?

I'm sorry but this is just absurdly ignorant.

Your point 5 is valid for way more teams than those who just have "low resources."

Your point 4 is alos bad because withholding isnt just for entirely new systems. If any team wants to create backup parts for alot of their robot knowing that it is very likely to be damage or take damage over time, they wont be able to because the withholding allowance you propose is too little; thus cutting their season short for not have a competition capable robot.

Your point 3 is just pointless.

Your point 2 is probably the absolute worst one you made. Limiting teams to 1 regional is a slap in the face to those students and team members who worked for 6 weeks to build a robot and however long to fundraise there travel/competition money to only be told that they can only go to 1 competition; you tell those kids that they only get 10 matches guaranteed a year and watch how quick the life drains out of their faces.

Your point 1 also emphasizes the fact that you really dont understand what a practice robot is. Most teams that I have known to build practice robots build the entire robot simultaneously with their competition robot. That means they bag the whole thing and just use the extra for driver/programmer practice. Also, you seem to think teams with enormous resources only build practice robots; I know for a fact that teams without enormous resources and tons of students build practice robots no problem. Like many others have said, it truly does depend on student drive.

Also, I guess you've never heard of Beta testing.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by DMike

My interpretation of the withholding allowance is to help teams that don't finish their bot , finish them. You are assuming that every team that uses the allowace has a practice bot and is revising their systems. Some teams just dont get it done, the withholding allowance is a saftey.

Why have your own interpretation when R18 and Team Update 2-11-14 clearly outline FIRST's intention with regards to the withholding allowance

Also, I never implied in my post that all teams that withhold have practice bots. I simply stated that practice bots are a way of utilizing the withholding allowance.

Originally Posted by MichaelBick

Where in the "real world" do you have a safety net

Unemployment Insurance benefits

Originally Posted by BigJ

Not saying it is good for consumers, or acceptable, but almost every single video game with an online multiplayer component made in the last few years fit this definition.

The world does not exist on video games alone

Originally Posted by dodar

I'm sorry but this is just absurdly ignorant.

Your point 5 is valid for way more teams than those who just have "low resources."

Your point 4 is alos bad because withholding isnt just for entirely new systems. If any team wants to create backup parts for alot of their robot knowing that it is very likely to be damage or take damage over time, they wont be able to because the withholding allowance you propose is too little; thus cutting their season short for not have a competition capable robot.

Your point 3 is just pointless.

Your point 2 is probably the absolute worst one you made. Limiting teams to 1 regional is a slap in the face to those students and team members who worked for 6 weeks to build a robot and however long to fundraise there travel/competition money to only be told that they can only go to 1 competition; you tell those kids that they only get 10 matches guaranteed a year and watch how quick the life drains out of their faces.

Your point 1 also emphasizes the fact that you really dont understand what a practice robot is. Most teams that I have known to build practice robots build the entire robot simultaneously with their competition robot. That means they bag the whole thing and just use the extra for driver/programmer practice. Also, you seem to think teams with enormous resources only build practice robots; I know for a fact that teams without enormous resources and tons of students build practice robots no problem. Like many others have said, it truly does depend on student drive.

Also, I guess you've never heard of Beta testing.

You assume much about me and my experience and speak for a large group of other teams. I off no personal attacks, withdraw my post and cancel my account good luck to all.

[Brian C]

Originally Posted by DMike

1) Practice robots are clearly an enormous advatage to teams that have the resources to complete them. Using an exact replica to practice with and revise, is no different than working on the one in the bag. Put a non-working bot in the bag, refine parts on your "practice bot" install them on Thursday. Teams could continue to use their "practice bot" for their intended purpose, PRACTICE. Driver traing, game strategy would remain a huge benifit alone.

To this point.

So is attending more than one event. How would you address teams that build a Betabot for practice and attend only 1 event.

These Betabots aren't necessarily fully compliant and up to date with this years rules. Most are modified versions of prior year machines. The ones that are identical twins to the bagged machine are in the very very low miinority.

Remember, there is a very large contingent of teams that attend only 1 event.

Would you restrict teams to the number of events they can attend?

It's interesting once you bring up questions about how things are done that, after researching it a bit you find out that pretty much everything is a compromise.

This applies to many things outside FIRST too.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by DMike

The world does not exist on video games alone

You asked for an example in the real world. I gave you one.

[Mr. Van]

It seems that many people are missing the real issues here. It's far, far less about money than it is about two other things.

First the minor one: Space to practice. Yes, I know that some teams perform well having nothing less than a classroom with a low ceiling to practice in, but having space for a full practice field or even a full competition field is a huge advantage. In some places, this real estate is by far the greatest donation a team has. It doesn't make sense to build a practice robot or even have access to your competition robot if you have no space to practice with it.

But the most important "resource" any team has is MENTORS skilled and experienced in doing this robotics thing. Specifically MENTORS who have TIME. I would argue that this is most likely the single difference between "powerhouse" teams and struggling teams in terms of their performance on the field. FRC is a game of mentors. For some teams, it is a struggle to get 60 mentor-hours during the 6 week build season and then they show up at a regional. Other teams have up to FIFTY TIMES more mentor-hours starting well before kickoff and on through the competition season.

If you don't have the mentors who can spend the time away from their jobs/families/schooling/other commitments, it doesn't matter what your other resources are. In order to buy the time with a practice robot, you have to have the time in the first place.

I, for one, would like to see a "build one, bring one, no withholding" system, but even then, the difference will be the mentors each team has.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Brian C]

^^^^

This

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

It seems that many people are missing the real issues here. It's far, far less about money than it is about two other things.

First the minor one: Space to practice. Yes, I know that some teams perform well having nothing less than a classroom with a low ceiling to practice in, but having space for a full practice field or even a full competition field is a huge advantage. In some places, this real estate is by far the greatest donation a team has. It doesn't make sense to build a practice robot or even have access to your competition robot if you have no space to practice with it.

But the most important "resource" any team has is MENTORS skilled and experienced in doing this robotics thing. Specifically MENTORS who have TIME. I would argue that this is most likely the single difference between "powerhouse" teams and struggling teams in terms of their performance on the field. FRC is a game of mentors. For some teams, it is a struggle to get 60 mentor-hours during the 6 week build season and then they show up at a regional. Other teams have up to FIFTY TIMES more mentor-hours starting well before kickoff and on through the competition season.

If you don't have the mentors who can spend the time away from their jobs/families/schooling/other commitments, it doesn't matter what your other resources are. In order to buy the time with a practice robot, you have to have the time in the first place.

I, for one, would like to see a "build one, bring one, no withholding" system, but even then, the difference will be the mentors each team has.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Definitely going to 3rd this.