POLL: Six Week Build Season

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

I agree, but I personally believe that removing access restrictions to the robots will make the FRC better.......Much Better

<snip great graphs and comments>

Many people fear change.....but I thought FIRST wanted to change the world.
This is not the changing the world, this is changing one simple rule.......give us back our robots please!!!!

I've been told many times that FRC isn't about the robots, the robots are there as a tool. But with the shift to make FRC more viewer friendly and to bring in more outside people, has that thinking also shifted?

I love the graphs, they really support the thesis that the more you play the better you get.

That is why I love the districts. For the "same money" you get a lot more play time in two different events along with a chance to do another design, build iteration.

As far as the second robot goes, I've always said the three "legs" are Mechanical Design/Build, Computer Code, Driver Skills. Because of the way the 6 weeks falls out, the last two really don't get a chance to be fully developed. The second robot really gives drive team a chance at lots more stick time to hone their skills before stepping across the white line.

I've also seen teams use the second robot as a PR tool. "Look what we built, now come see us in action at Event A and Event B". Which may help with the new FRC push to get new spectators.

[AcesPease]

The six week build season is an arbitrary but useful way promote time management and engineering creativity. After build season robots already start becoming more alike. Are we so focused on competitiveness that we want everyone driving the "best" solution to the problem?

[Mr_I]

Thoughts from a long time but periodically absent poster ...

FIRST is a program with a challenge too hard, a calendar too short, a team too large and a budget too small. - Dr. Woodie Flowers

"FIRST isn't fair!" - Dr. Woodie Flowers

Just a reminder of what we all should be thinking about: I know we all want to beat "that team", the one that always seems to have a robot built by the finest engineering firm on the planet, driven by the greatest Indy driver equivalents of all time, the team with the mentors who think it's all about them and not the students, etc. But in reality the only ones we need to beat is ourselves. Team 811 has had some shining moments, when the planets aligned and everything fell our way ... and some less-than-stellar moments when we really shot ourselves in the foot. Longer Build Seasons or open bag times won't change those realities.

As many have stated, there will be teams that figure out ways around any restrictions put in place (such as "tools down"). And teams will find ways of screwing up even if there was a 52 week Build Season. That's one of the life lessons we hope our students learn!

That said, I agree that an infinite build time will result in all robots looking the same; this is one of the reasons that I tend to dislike RI3D. What could FIRST do to avoid this Attack Of The Clones? Maybe "post Bag Day" work sessions must be fully documented, with mandatory CAD descriptions detailing how and why Team XYZ decided to fully scrap their original 6-week creation and replace it with a carbon copy of the Week 1 winner? (I know this would be a nightmare for the judges, but let's face it, real world companies like defense contractors have to put up with that kind of stuff.)

Anyway, I'm voting to "Leave Things As They Are", if for no other reason than it makes it easier to compare the 2016 teams to their 2006 (for example) counterparts. And also to prevent the inevitable FIRST alumni from sitting on their rockers on the front porch moaning that "When I was on the team, we had real challenges, none of this 'never stop building' nonsense." ("Back then we had to cut the aluminum with our teeth, and wind the motor armatures by hand!" )


Thanks for listening, everybody, and here's to a great season!

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

This whole debate needs to shift to a discussion about how we can encourage a spirit of continuous improvement amongst all teams in the FRC.
Continuous improvement is the essence of how the top teams operate and is the essence of how Engineering works in the real world.
Teaching anything else does a dis-service to our participants.
Today, only the well resourced team can really do continuous improvement, everyone else is pretty much screwed.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your view of FRC. I'm still pondering the mission of FRC...

I find it paradoxical that this rule is not consistent even within the FIRST programs: Small robots are much easier to change and copy than large robots, but there are no restrictions on the FLL and FTC machines.

I think maybe that's why the rules are as they are? It is not easy to change large robots, and continuous improvement for many FRC teams would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. If you get it way wrong the first time, you pretty much have to start over. Since I am not convinced that having every team build a top notch robot is the point of FRC, the existing rules make sense to me.

As far as making FRC into a sport that the public will want to watch in droves...I am not so sure about it being a reasonable goal. I also do some drag racing, and I've seen how to get folks interested in watching the sport--it's called Street Outlaws. The robot equivalent is Battlebots, but it would need a lot more soap opera content to get folks really into it.

Culture change is a difficult thing.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

If you get it way wrong the first time, you pretty much have to start over. Since I am not convinced that having every team build a top notch robot is the point of FRC, the existing rules make sense to me.

It's not about every team building a top notch robot, I don't care if you're 254 or 5xxx. Building a robot blindly is only half of the engineering process. The other half is testing your original design, learning why it isn't perfect, and re-engineering/redesigning/rebuilding it to make a closer approximation to the perfect solution. Sure, you can do a lot of this in your shop if you have the resources at home, but never as well on a real field with 5 other robots.

By having more access to your robot between your first and second competition (I realize not every team competes twice), your students can learn how to solve problems much better than building a robot blindly and never improving it. The end result is not only better robots, but most importantly, better students.

I think we're getting caught up in the "let's make all teams more competitive" argument and missing the "let's make all teams more inspiring" argument.

[techhelpbb]

It is a problem when about 50% of people doing something (as of the time of this post) see a problem of some kind with this:
http://www.btsquarepeg.com/about/productivity-triangle/

We can see from this post:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=24

Quality is directly impacted by the extra time and experience that students right now have to get over the course of 2 expensive competitions. Those competitions are driving participation cost.

We know that we are not completely out of bounds because FIRST does get enough return in the end to have a spectacle that attracts sponsors and spectators. However we also know that there's an additional hidden cost in the practice bots so many think need to exist for a variety of reasons:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=139391

So what we may have here is a triangle where the cost is definitely impacted by the shortening of time and the quality is impacted by the shortening of time and it is definitely a linked system.

So the thing is: outside of FIRST I've worked 1,000 hours of time over 8 hours in about the last 10 months at my job. As a people leader (it's part of my job role) I have noted points of dissatisfaction about this work from about 50% of my direct reports. That drives the risk they will be less dedicated, act against policy or outright leave. These people I am working with are on top of their fields. They make medical doctor kind of money and the demand for their skills is very high. So as a people leader it's not wise to ignore such a large concern as it does not drive value to my organization. It's not wise to loose dedicated and extremely talented people from your team to your competitor.

Unless those numbers change a lot via participation in the poll maybe it's time FIRST study this more. Personally I feel there's a glass ceiling at work here. You can see success but you are blocked from it because of factors you don't consider and are not better controlling. A vast majority of teams are building the same robot or something similar for more than 6 weeks so that's not a real deadline at all. That is driving up the cost to everyone. Even then the first 2 competitions for a team teach them a lot and they demonstrate it in their delivery quality. We can say we want to maintain the status quo, but we can't be honest saying it because we don't have a 6 week build season with so many practice bots.

PS: A goat for a family in need costs like $120.
http://www.heifer.org/gift-catalog/a...FdgYgQodLo4KOA
That $1,000 control system is 5 goats and some smaller critters.
I hate to Steve Jobs this: but you could save entire villages with that sort of money.
I am intentionally ignoring it's a terrible idea to send animals to a place that won't support them in favor of the idea these people will be smart enough to send them to places where the animals make a positive difference.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Thanks for taking the time to explain your view of FRC. I'm still pondering the mission of FRC...



I think maybe that's why the rules are as they are? It is not easy to change large robots, and continuous improvement for many FRC teams would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. If you get it way wrong the first time, you pretty much have to start over. Since I am not convinced that having every team build a top notch robot is the point of FRC, the existing rules make sense to me.

As far as making FRC into a sport that the public will want to watch in droves...I am not so sure about it being a reasonable goal. I also do some drag racing, and I've seen how to get folks interested in watching the sport--it's called Street Outlaws. The robot equivalent is Battlebots, but it would need a lot more soap opera content to get folks really into it.

Culture change is a difficult thing.

Software and drive practice are able to improve without spending money. Software improvements can be written at home and tested maybe once or twice a week in between competitions or in the time before your only one. Drivers could practice some between too but neither task requires any more time than anyone wants to spend. Both would help a team at competition.

If you have to start over but can't build a complete robot than you can practice defense and fund raise without being automatically out because you learned your manipulator wasn't any good too late.

FRC matches are fun to watch for uninformed spectators when something is going on. I don't think anyone will televise a strait FRC event featuring just matches. But we will get people looking longer when more robots are moving and completing meaningful tasks.

[sastoller]

Originally Posted by Cory

By eliminating bag day you DO have a chance to bring the bottom up.

This is absolutely true, and I think that this alone would help improve the overall level of competition at FRC events by allowing all teams to spend more time building on the competition bot. Teams with low resources could be brought up. Teams with a high amount of resources remain unaffected. This alone would help to bring up the overall level of competitiveness in FRC.

Just based on observations at competition events, there seems to be a very different work culture in the pits between teams that play at a highly competitive level and those that do not. Just look at which teams are in the pits until they close every night, and which teams go to dinner as soon as the last match for the day ends? Do you think this translates to work ethic during the build season as well? Teams that compete at a high level just seem to be more organized in their build operation. They work harder. They work smarter. They put in the time it takes to build a kick-butt robot. They don't just settle for something that will barely pass inspection. They only settle for doing the best they possibly can. Just like nearly everything else in life (school, work, hobbies, interpersonal relationships), you are more successful, and excel more at those things that you dedicate the most time to.

Here's a fact: Many teams failed initial inspection due to their failure to follow the very clear rules regarding the display of team numbers on the robot. What does that tell you about a team, and their drive for success and excellence in FRC?

FISRT has a huge challenge: How do you inspire students and teams to compete at the highest level possible?

I think the implementation of rule changes to help all teams compete at a higher level is crucial. Success inspires excellence.

[MrForbes]

I doubt that giving teams more time to work on their robot will inspire them to work more hours.

I participated in NURC during it's run from 2007 to 2013. The build season was from 1 November till the competition in mid June. Many teams did not get their robot done and in the water before the competition, several teams spend most of the competition building their robots. The teams that did well (like ours) used their time wisely, and spent at least a month testing and improving.

You can build an FRC robot in three days.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

I doubt that giving teams more time to work on their robot will inspire them to work more hours.

I participated in NURC during it's run from 2007 to 2013. The build season was from 1 November till the competition in mid June. Many teams did not get their robot done and in the water before the competition, several teams spend most of the competition building their robots. The teams that did well (like ours) used their time wisely, and spent at least a month testing and improving.

You can build an FRC robot in three days.

The key thing is giving teams access to their robot AFTER they compete.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Mr_I

FIRST is a program with a challenge too hard, a calendar too short, a team too large and a budget too small. - Dr. Woodie Flowers

"FIRST isn't fair!" - Dr. Woodie Flowers

I like the quotes from Woody, and think those quotes would still hold true without a stop-build day.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I like the quotes from Woody, and think those quotes would still hold true without a stop-build day.

These are just two teeny nuggets of Woodie's incredible, sometimes multi-faceted, and profound wisdom. And I agree - I think they apply to both sides in this discussion.

...and because echoes are cool, I'd like to ask this question:

What is definitively lost by giving teams the opportunity (but again, NOT the obligation) to continue building until their first competition and on throughout the FIRST season?

I've been kicking this around since yesterday. I have reached no conclusions.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The key thing is giving teams access to their robot AFTER they compete.

Is that a topic for another thread?

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Is that a topic for another thread?

It couldn't be more about this thread. Getting rid of the 6 week build then bag inherently gives teams access to their robot after their first event assuming they compete at more than one.

[Kevin Ainsworth]

I agree with Jim, and the others that believe there should be no bag day.
I am not saying this so the top teams get better, Jim already showed they can outperform the vast majority of teams.
I am saying this so the vast majority of teams can get their robot functioning the way they intended them to. So they can enjoy playing the game and fully contribute at the events. It breaks my heart to see great robots, creative robots sit idle in matches because the kids were not afforded the time to finish them. Scrap that, not finish, get them working to actually play the game the way they envisioned. Yes there would be teams would take on more and still fall short in the end, but that would be their choice.

Teams would spend less time on building a duplicate practice robot, this would allow them to fine tune the robot that will actually be competing. THis would help elevate all the robots at the competitions and make the events more exciting. Of course teams could still choose to have two robots for additional drivers practice and development.

With no bag day, there would be no set reveal day, which would mean no beginning of copy cat day. Everyone could focus on what their robot was intended to do, not on what someone elses robot can do one time for a release video.