Successful teams in FRC history

[tindleroot]

There are some iconic teams out there in FRC. 71 with 4 world champions! 254 with 37 blue banners and the first Curie world champion! 33, 359, 118, 1118, the list goes on and on. What do successful teams do to robot-wise to win division champs and Einstein from year to year? My team has never won a division in the 17 years we have gone on (although we've been close a number of times). Anyone have insight towards national success? Please give thoughts to particular reasons of success instead of just naming successful teams.

[Brandon_L]

Attention to detail

[M. Lillis]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

Attention to detail

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

I'm going to guess that they mean 1114

[DonRotolo]

The obvious answer is building a winning robot. Let's look at what that really means.

First and foremost, your analysis of the game (just after kickoff and before the design phase) must be spot-on. You have to deeply understand the game and all its nuances, and how it will play out - not just week one or week six, but divisions and Einstein too. Without this, the rest is not going to be effective.

Then you need to understand the capabilities your robot needs to have to score a lot and be hard to defend (i.e., play the game well). This means WHAT things you must do, not HOW you will do them.

Only when those two very important parts are done, can you start on actual design and prototyping. Design a robot that will do what it needs to, then fabricate it the very best you possibly can. Many teams feel that "cut & try" is good enough. Maybe it is, but that's not the path to Einstein.

Last but possibly more important than all the rest is your drive team. They should have a few hundred hours experience with the robot (or its duplicate <hint>), so that driving from Here to There, lining up to Score, driving around defenders, and EVERY other thing you CAN imagine they will need to do during a match, they can do with their eyes closed. Then, when something you didn't imagine comes up, they can concentrate on managing that, since the rest is so well-practiced it doesn't need much mental effort to be perfect.

All this is easy to say, but not easy to do. Miss any of it, you're watching Einstein instead of playing it.

1676 also struggles with these. We've been finalists at CMP before (beaten by 1114 & 469) and in the Elims many times, but we have yet to crack onto Einstein.

Maybe next year

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

The obvious answer is building a winning robot. Let's look at what that really means.

First and foremost, your analysis of the game (just after kickoff and before the design phase) must be spot-on. You have to deeply understand the game and all its nuances, and how it will play out - not just week one or week six, but divisions and Einstein too. Without this, the rest is not going to be effective.

Then you need to understand the capabilities your robot needs to have to score a lot and be hard to defend (i.e., play the game well). This means WHAT things you must do, not HOW you will do them.

Only when those two very important parts are done, can you start on actual design and prototyping. Design a robot that will do what it needs to, then fabricate it the very best you possibly can. Many teams feel that "cut & try" is good enough. Maybe it is, but that's not the path to Einstein.

Last but possibly more important than all the rest is your drive team. They should have a few hundred hours experience with the robot (or its duplicate <hint>), so that driving from Here to There, lining up to Score, driving around defenders, and EVERY other thing you CAN imagine they will need to do during a match, they can do with their eyes closed. Then, when something you didn't imagine comes up, they can concentrate on managing that, since the rest is so well-practiced it doesn't need much mental effort to be perfect.

All this is easy to say, but not easy to do. Miss any of it, you're watching Einstein instead of playing it.

1676 also struggles with these. We've been finalists at CMP before (beaten by 1114 & 469) and in the Elims many times, but we have yet to crack onto Einstein.

Maybe next year

This guy, right here knows what he is talking about! This is one of the biggest reasons 1678 was so successful this year and last year. But after you have an Einstein level robot your whole Team must be able to follow through with practice, scouting, pre-scouting, and Alliance strategy. Two big things I have picked up over the years about being a winning team are; Your drive train may not win you a competition, but it can absolutely LOSE you a competition; Great Scouting and not a great robot is what gets you to Einstein, its the teams that have the scouting to pick up a robot that the other alliances passed over and should NOT have. In alliance selections as a 1st seed you get the 1st and 23rd pick, at our first event this year our second pick(robot 23) was 6th overall on our pick list. At Champs our second pick was 14th overall and 4th on our second pick list! Scouting matters not only for elims, but for your qualification matches as well. If you know the opposing alliance you can do a better job of shutting them down and improving your own strategy as well at the same time allowing you to win more matches and seed higher.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

No, no joke. Attention to detail is important. Doing a lot of little things better can help push you over the hump. Overlooking a lot of little things will make you fall backwards.

See:
610 and their Design Book. It's a good read.
254's build blogs
1114's Strategic Deisgn
One of my personal favorites, JVN's 2010 Build Journal

I have no idea who/what '1118' is anyway

[Michael Hill]

Spending more time developing a winning strategy. You can have a robot that looks awesome, but if it doesn't play a winning strategy, then it won't win.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

I have no idea who/what '1118' is anyway

Neither do we

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I'm going to guess that they mean 1114

I think that's a good guess.

1114 has worked hard to get good at developing FRC game strategies. Studying their methods is time well spent.

[Jscout11]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Spending more time developing a winning strategy. You can have a robot that looks awesome, but if it doesn't play a winning strategy, then it won't win.

This especially.

[Chris Endres]

It takes hours of work and dedication to go far in a season, and years of experience helps too. Remember, winning is not everything.

[Chris Fultz]

You need to design a robot that can play and win at the CHP level.

There are robots that can win a District / Regional, and there are robots that can win a Division / CHP. They are not necessarily the same robots.

[Tungrus]

The title seems to be misleading, please don't get me wrong. A more appropriate would have been something like "Championship winning teams strategy?" or something like like that. Some of the teams that I know measure success by number of students that are inspired into STEM education.

[M. Lillis]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

The title seems to be misleading, please don't get me wrong. A more appropriate would have been something like "Championship winning teams strategy?" or something like like that. Some of the teams that I know measure success by number of students that are inspired into STEM education.

But, the initial post sets the tone. It states things like blue banners, divisional wins, etc. I see what you mean, but if you read the first post in the thread I think it speaks for itself.