Mythical Six Week Build Season

[marshall]

Originally Posted by gblake

YES!

The program's founder(s) and eminent spokesmen, are publicly proud about this. It's definitely a feature, and not a problem.

I don't remember ever hearing one of them complain that the best (or any) on-field robots needed a few more weeks of work put into them. I don't remember ever hearing them complain that participants aren't receiving enough vocational training.

I do remember hearing them encourage everyone in FRC spend time adding/inspiring new participants, and helping rookies or struggling vets have a good, inspiring, experience.

Encouraging everyone to invest any excess competitive passion into looking outward, rather than inward, remains my 2¢

Blake

At the risk of poking the bear...

Is it disingenuous to say to people that "these teams built these robots in just six weeks" when in fact it is often 10 or 12 weeks for many (not all) of the top teams?

I know that I've had more than one comment from a mentor that they didn't expect to invest more than 6 weeks into the FRC build season only to find out that they invest a lot more time.

EDIT: Changed a word.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by marshall

At the risk of poking the bear...

Is it disingenuous to say to people that "these teams built these robots in just six weeks" when in fact it is often 10 or 12 weeks for many (not all) of the top teams?

I know that I've had more than one comment from a mentor that they didn't expect to invest more than 6 weeks into the FRC program only to find out that they invest a lot more time.

I would say a robot is a lot like a home. There is likely a date when the house finished being built, but that doesn't mean your finished making it your home.

If the goal of the statement is a nice sound-bite for an investor/reporter, I think you can generally make that statement and sleep at night. If you are trying to warn a prospective mentor, then I think it is wise to give a range. IE, this is the minimum amount of time we would be looking for to still be considered a mentor. Maximum amount of time can vary up to XX hrs/week for potentially 4 months...

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by marshall

At the risk of poking the bear...

Is it disingenuous to say to people that "these teams built these robots in just six weeks" when in fact it is often 10 or 12 weeks for many (not all) of the top teams?

I know that I've had more than one comment from a mentor that they didn't expect to invest more than 6 weeks into the FRC build season only to find out that they invest a lot more time.

I'm going to commit to stop talking about the 6 week build season. I moved to calling it 45 days a few years ago but I think I'm done with that too. At this point if anyone says "All the teams have only six weeks to build their robots.", it's pretty much a lie. If that is helping get sponsors we shouldn't be doing it anymore since it's not the truth. Does "building a robot in 6-12 weeks" sound all that less impressive?

From and including: Saturday, January 9, 2016 (Kickoff)
To and including: Saturday, April 30, 2016 (Last Day of Championship)
Result: 113 days

#113Days

[gblake]

Originally Posted by marshall

At the risk of poking the bear...

Is it disingenuous to say to people that "these teams built these robots in just six weeks" when in fact it is often 10 or 12 weeks for many (not all) of the top teams?

I know that I've had more than one comment from a mentor that they didn't expect to invest more than 6 weeks into the FRC build season only to find out that they invest a lot more time.

EDIT: Changed a word.

If I understand you correctly, what you are writing about are some of the reasons I would love to see this thread morph a robust discussion of the extremely complex subject of how to have a true 6-week build season, even if what gets built in that period might not be *every* single thing a team takes to a competition.

Human nature, and North American culture, being what they are, I don't expect that will happen; but that doesn't mean I can't lean in the direction of a cultural change.

Blake

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

If I understand you correctly, what you are writing about are some of the reasons I would prefer to replace this thread with a robust discussion of the extremely complex subject of how to have a true 6-week build season, even if what gets built in that period might not be *every* single thing a team takes to a competition.

Blake

We need an award for best robot built entirely at the competition with a runner up for the most neatly organized box of parts.

http://static.themetapicture.com/med...nt-kidding.jpg

[Nemo]

Having a Week 0 scrimmage event is just as good as having a bag day for the purpose of creating an incentive to meet a deadline ahead of a team's first event.

The Bag and Tag deadline is purely a disadvantage for our team from that perspective. We already have a strong incentive to get to a functional state in 6 weeks, and we already continue working after that 6 week period ends. Bag and Tag only adds cost and hassle. Purely artificial and unnecessary cost and hassle, I might add.

[Rachel Lim]

Teams that already do well will continue to do well without a bag day.
Teams that already struggle to build a robot will continue to struggle without a bag day.
Teams that already don't use all the time they have will continue to do so without a bag day.
Teams that already have trouble allocating time properly will continue to have trouble without a bag day.

But teams that are able to build a decent robot in six weeks but don't have the funds to build a practice robot built benefit from the elimination of a bag day.


Speaking as someone who has to deal with the school/robotics balance, and from a team that will probably take the lack of a bag day to mean we can put off making decisions even longer, I would definitely miss the bag day. But it's my (or my team's) own responsibility to allocate time properly.

It doesn't make sense to punish a very specific group of teams because of a rule that to many basically doesn't exist.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

But teams that are able to build a decent robot in six weeks but don't have the funds to build a practice robot built benefit from the elimination of a bag day.

Interesting take on it, Rachel. I think we fall into this category, yet I don't see how we'd benefit from eliminating bag day. We can build a decent robot in 6 weeks, then we get to stop for a little while and relax. I really like that.

[JVN]

As a supplement to this discussion, I posted a poll here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=139390

[the programmer]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

You make the call if the gap shrinks when low-resource teams get to play with their one and only robot while we're playing with our two or three robots.

Michael, in the end, once you bag your robot, you can build as many practice robots as you want but all you can do is fine tune the one you have in the bag. By opening up the build season, you can look at competitions, see what works, and build a completely new robot from scratch. The majority of teams can't do that. By keeping the six week build season, you're limited to minor changes to your robot, which can be achieved without a practice robot. In my opinion, this helps low resource teams be competitive and allows teams to dial down their schedule after build season.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

Mentor/Team Burn-Out and Level-Loading Higher and Lower Resource Teams: I grouped these together because they are connected when it comes to the lower resource teams. Though some have brought it up, it seems to me from reading this thread that some here have lost sight that Chief Delphi is not a proper sampling of FIRST Robotics Competition Teams as a whole. Most lower resource teams that I have talked with drastically reduce how long they meet in the weeks between stop build day and competition. So when deciding if mentor (and/or student) burn-out would happen, remember that you should be thinking of the teams that struggle to have enough mentors (and/or students) during build season due to the current time commitments already being a massive deterrent. As a result I don’t think the elimination of stop-build day will level-load these teams with their higher-resource counterparts, if anything it might just move them further down the bracket in terms of competitiveness.

Let's imagine that we never had a build deadline, and it was identified that low resource teams were having a hard time getting mentors and students to commit for the full 9-12 weeks. As a fix, somebody in our alternate universe proposes that we reduce the build season to 6 weeks. I think that proposal would be poorly received by the community, because it limits the high performers instead of lifting up the low performers.

Problem: >50% of FRC teams build robots that essentially can't play the game.
Solution: Give teams more time.

Regarding weeks 7-12 in our current setup:
1) Top teams use that time - they have the money and commit the time to utilize it.
2) Some teams can't use that time effectively because they lack funding to make a practice robot.
3) Some teams can't use that time effectively because their people won't or can't commit that much extra time.

If we get rid of the bag deadline, that helps group #2, but it doesn't help group #3. Is that a good reason not to help group #2?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Nemo

Regarding weeks 7-12 in our current setup:
1) Top teams use that time - they have the money and commit the time to utilize it.
2) Some teams can't use that time effectively because they lack funding to make a practice robot.
3) Some teams can't use that time effectively because their people won't or can't commit that much extra time.

If we get rid of the bag deadline, that helps group #2, but it doesn't help group #3. Is that a good reason not to help group #2?

You would need to characterize group #2 better before a useful answer can be arrived at. Group #2a currently doesn't work past week 6 because they lack funding, but could take advantage of more time if they had it. Group #2b has never thought about asking people to work longer because they don't have the funding to do so under today's rules, but if they did ask they'd find themselves alongside Group #3.

So you'd be helping some of Group #2, and you'd be contributing to frustration and/or burnout of the rest. It's a tradeoff, not an obvious win.

And don't forget Group #4, who can't work longer on their robot because they must pack and ship their robot since they're traveling to a distant competition.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by the programmer

Michael, in the end, once you bag your robot, you can build as many practice robots as you want but all you can do is fine tune the one you have in the bag. By opening up the build season, you can look at competitions, see what works, and build a completely new robot from scratch. The majority of teams can't do that. By keeping the six week build season, you're limited to minor changes to your robot, which can be achieved without a practice robot. In my opinion, this helps low resource teams be competitive and allows teams to dial down their schedule after build season.

Erik,

Please define "minor changes"

I'm not sure you understand the scope of work some teams are accomplishing within the current rules set.

References:

• 2011 Minibots
• 1678's 2015 Can Grabbers
• 1114's 2015 Harpoons
• 973's 2015 robot between their 1st and 2nd regional
• 1678's entire 2013 robot (minus drivetrain)

1678's 2013 robot is my favorite example. The hanger, shooter and pick up system were entirely different between stop-build and CMP (we actually took the pick-up system as carry-on on the plane to Saint Louis!)

I understand where you are coming from. However, this "building robots from scratch" you are talking about, which puts low-resource teams at a disadvantage, already happens. We just pay more to do it because this large plastic bag gets in our way every year

-Mike

[Brianna_G#839]

I still like the 6 week build season with being able to have our second robot being built and practicing. Imagine what St. Louis would be like with not as experienced drivers as we have when able to practice with our second robot.

[Drakxii]

Personally I really like 6 week format, it feels very fitting to an engineering project in the real life. Including the radical changes with short windows and/or weight limits. Also it gives a good amount of time in the fall for training.

Now if they were to change it they should just move kickoff to first weekend in October. Then start competitions in mid January So instead of 6 weeks you have 10 full weeks (ignoring holidays). Teams would have lots of time to practice, not have to worry about shipping/painting/cutting times as much and wouldn't have to meet as long during build season. Also could spread out districts, district champs and champs.

Now while I doubt that would happen any time soon, there would still be teams that show up with robots that didn't work or were just boxes on wheels.