Mythical Six Week Build Season

[Jared Russell]

I just want to point out (again, as is annual tradition) that those who go "tools down" on "stop build day" are already making a choice. Don't pretend that you're not.

The only barriers to continuing to iterate on your robot legally are (a) the expense and extra work of building a practice robot (a few thousand dollars and many person-hours, which is significant), (b) fitting your post-bag modifications into your withholding allowance (which IMO has not been a problematic constraint in recent years), and (c) the feasibility of transporting your modifications to your next event (which is an issue, albeit a big one, for a small number of teams like my international and Hawaiian friends).

What tenable arguments could there possibly be for keeping the stop build day?

Fairness? Totally out the window. In fact, there are artificial obstacles to continuing to work that make it harder for a low-budget, low-hour team to keep up.

Preventing duplication of successful designs? (a) Copying happens to some extent already, but (b) it will never happen to the same extent as in Vex and FTC because it is much more difficult and nuanced to copy and perfect something in FRC. Moreover, I think that games that converge to a single optimal solution are fundamentally not very good games.

Saving us from ourselves? I sympathize with this and know all-too-well about burnout, but still don't think it's a convincing argument. Again, you are already making a choice and are more than welcome to continue to do so if build season rules are relaxed. For every "in the real world there are hard deadlines" point, there is a "in the real world, nobody keeps you from working yourself to death" counterpoint. I work at one of the most competitive companies in the world, and see at least as much value in the latter lesson as in the former.

Preventing escalation of the competitive arms race? This is already present to some extent, but every single year there are tons of examples of teams that succeed despite a disciplined approach to build hours. Look at 67 in any year - they are the prototypical example that proves that a team doesn't need to spend 80 hours per week in their lab to build a world-class robot. I actually think that removing the stop build day would remove barriers to competition rather than add to them.

[PayneTrain]

Since I have obviously never been in a situation where my team has developed something everyone wants to copy, maybe it can be explained by someone with that experience. Why do you think the potential for increased design convergence is a bad thing? As far as I can see, design convergence has a net positive for both teams off the field and the on-field product.

The only defense I have seen is anecdotal evidence to where design convergence already exists in the current environment only where conditions can easily present itself (a lightweight, simple and potentially even fully COTS solution to an over-weighted game mechanic).

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Preventing escalation of the competitive arms race? This is already present to some extent, but every single year there are tons of examples of teams that succeed despite a disciplined approach to build hours. Look at 67 in any year - they are the prototypical example that proves that a team doesn't need to spend 80 hours per week in their lab to build a world-class robot. I actually think that removing the stop build day would remove barriers to competition rather than add to them.

"world-class" robot with world-class engineers.

[Basel A]

Removing stop build day would be tremendously helpful to my team and others like us. We're a mid-level team, maybe the 50th to 60th best team in Michigan. Building a practise robot is both a significant financial burden and a significant temporal burden. A few $k can go a long way (an extra event, new tools/equipment, extra stock/components/motors). As for time, building a practise robot takes enough time to hurt the quality of our robot at our first competition. Over the course of the competition season, the practise bot makes up the ground, but not having to build one at all would immediately make our robots better.

I'm honestly not sure which teams making this change would hurt. I suppose it would narrow the gap between the teams who have to struggle to make/use a practise robot vs. those that do it pretty easily. But those teams aren't the type to shy away from competition.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I have to start off with a nod to Dave Lavery. Go check out his "six weeks" speech from Championships. I think that speaks volumes about our motivation.
While there are likely equal reasons for both views, I personally have some other reasons to keep the six week build.
One of the greatest things that grabs casual observers and potential sponsors is the statement that every robot on the field was built in six weeks or at competition. The additional development time is never discussed because, for those people, it is irrelevant. The memory trigger is watching any robot on the field with the thought that it was the result of a team approach to a six week build and design.
While students are constantly under a time constraint for projects in their academic life, very few schools actually teach techniques on how to best accomplish great results in a limited amount of time. The six wek build does that with mentor help.
I have been around long enough to know that the best built robot is not going to win just because the team has a lot of resources or time. Likewise the best design is not going to win every time because there are other factors like driver fatigue, mechanical breakdowns, and miscommunications.
Yes, we are one of those teams that builds a practice robot. Yes, we continue to improve designs after the build. No, we are not a team that has a lot of resources. Yes, we are a team of very driven students who feel a need to make improvements, assist other teams and play a part in improving the overall competition. One of the things that has not entered into this discussion is the value of the additional learning experience in planning the robot modification that can only take place a competition. We always talk about how we are training our students for a life in industry. Well, no industry sits back and does not make improvements to it's product. Many of them need to plan on improvements in the field. (Hubble to name just one.)
So for my money, I am all for keeping the six week build. I don't think we could attract as many sponsors and supporters without it. I don't think we can provide a quality, real world, experience without it. I don't think the competition will improve without it. (I suspect it actually may suffer.)
On a personal note, I often surprise my coworkers with the solutions and direction on projects we are given. I attribute that with my work on the team. If you think six weeks is not enough time, you need to work in live TV. By the time you have realized you screwed up, your work is on it's way to Mars.

[GKrotkov]

I had heard of this proposal before, and hadn't thought about it much beyond a knee-jerk reaction of something along the lines: "Oh, hell no! Don't take my bag day away!" So when this thread popped up, and I saw some folks I respect a lot arguing the other way, I figured that it'd be better for me to actually think about it, talk to some students on 1712, and come out with an opinion I felt I could defend. I can say confidently that my answer (and the answer of a lot of students on 1712) is still: "don't remove bag day." The main reasons for that (burnout and time limits) have already been covered in this thread, but I'd like to throw a personal example into the ring. Feel free to nitpick or criticize, I promise you that I won't be offended.

Bag day absolutely helps keep FRC viable for me. When I joined the team, I mainly characterized myself as a musician and performer, and they are still major factors in my life. For the 2 years I've been in FRC, I've always pushed the envelope as regards time management: it's difficult for me to maintain the grades that I require of myself, be a strong part of 1712, and keep music in my life. During build season, other parts of my life get pushed to the side and I focus on robotics. Asking for students to sacrifice other aspects of their life for 6 weeks is fair, given the massive benefits that FRC brings. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that students give much more than that, because we're getting to the point where it will prevent students from joining, or even continuing with the team. (I certainly do less after bag day. I still work, and work a lot, but no longer to the exclusion of other parts of my life.)

I am now more interested in CMU/MIT than Juilliard/Oberlin; in Randy Pausch than Placido Domingo; in data storage and analysis than in opera. I don't think it's overly narcissistic of me to consider that a success for FRC; it seems very much like what FIRST was founded to do. If bag day were removed and our build season schedule extended, however, then it may not have been possible. The "responsible" decision for me would have been to not join my FRC team, not be exposed to engineering as a possibility, and stay with music and performance as paths for my life. That would have been a shame. Ignoring the time demands of students with other interests detracts from FRC's appeal to students who aren't already interested in STEM.

That said, the compromises from previous threads look like really good ideas.