POLL: Six Week Build Season

[Ben Martin]

It is unlikely that FIRST would institute a 'Tools Down' policy-- every year, there is a snowstorm or some other uncontrollable event in some part of the world that teams aren't prepared for that shows the need to have at a minimum a withholding allowance.

I answered #2 because I think its benefits (more cost savings and practice time for teams overall will elevate the program as a whole) to me outweigh issues of burnout. Some of us meet every day, but a lot of teams don't. FTC and Vex work this way, and I don't see why FRC can't too. I am always surprised how much improvement I see out of FTC teams at later competitions versus their first event.

The new "thing that winning teams do" would likely be rebuilding whole robots after viewing early week events (as required, anyway). It happens now somewhat with the practice bot system, but total rebuilds would occur to a greater degree than they do now. Many teams would need to adopt the paradigm that the robot that they built over 6+ weeks might need to be completely overhauled in order to adapt to the competition if they want to win (as a captain/first pick, anyway).

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

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.

A question that I think is worth asking:

If we were starting FRC from scratch today, only with 3000 teams (including many international) and >100 events, would we still have a "bag" day?

-CF

[gblake]

Jim,

This post by me contains a lot of snippets from your two long posts, not because your arguments are the only ones I disagreed with, but because you did a good job of presenting the strong case for the side of this discussion that I disagree with.

Everyone,

In this thread [EDIT] and the related ones [/EDIT] what I see over, and over again is: Robot, Robot, Robot, Robot, Win, Win, Compete, Compete, Robot, Robot Compete, Win, Win, Robot, Compete, Win, ...

Sprinkled among those sentiments are the occasional mentions of the reasons Dean, and the other folks we respect founded the program.

Additionally, while I can't see into the hearts of anyone else, I get a sense that most of the folks who want a longer build season, want it because it strengthens only the on-the-field, crown-a-game-winner part of the program; and that their main motivation isn't using that part of the program to strengthen the entire program.

Blake

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

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

I think it would be more precise to say that you think removing access restrictions would make one part of the total FIRST FRC program better. Would that be correct? If I'm mistaken please let me know - I don't want to put my words into your mouth.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

If our ultimate goal is to make robotics into a spectator sport, ...

I'm pretty sure that making robotics into a spectator sport is explicitly not FIRST's primary goal. Sure, moving in that direction is certainly a tool FIRST uses, but I'm pretty sure that it's only a means and not an end. As such, it should only be allowed to support the true goals of the program. Investing in making FIRST a spectator sport should be justified by whether, and how much it contributes to FIRST's primary mission, minus its costs and/or any direct or indirect harm it does to that primary mission.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... There is considerable supporting data supporting this position: ...
Next if we look at team capability growth through the season, we can see a clear trend of how teams improve the more they use their robots. ... Teams get better if they spend time using their robots.

I think your point about teams becoming better able to play the game if they spend time with their robots is 100% correct, if you are talking about the time they spend at competitions. That is absolutely not the same thing as talking about spending an extra week or so of build-season time with their robots. Adding another week to the build season would have some effect, but actually being at a competition is a "forcing function" that simply does not exist earlier in the current process.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... Lastly, lets explore the statement that the best teams will always probably win regardless of the constraints. The data also supports the fact that this is almost certainly true.

According to FIRST, the "best" teams are the ones that earn the Chairman's awards and the Engineering Inspiration awards. The teams that win on the field are congratulated and their accomplishments are celebrated, but I don't think FIRST says they are the best teams. Are you suggesting that FIRST/we abandon or change that attitude?

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... but I thought FIRST wanted to change the world. ...

I think FIRST (still) does; and I think that FIRST is using a competition and other tools to accomplish that. However, using/including competitions is different from *being* competitions.

Originally Posted by MrForbes

... you can build a robot in 3 days. You can also take all the time available up to competition day, and not finish a robot. I'd like to know how you could change rules in a way that would affect teams' work habits, to give a better outcome?

Agreed

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

... This is a COMPETITION. ...

Anyone who has used CD for a while knows this sentiment, and knows both the mistakes and the truths it embodies. FIRST is a multi-faceted program that uses competitions. Neither FIRST as a whole, nor the FRC part of FIRST *is* a competition. Regardless of its somewhat unfortunate title, FRC includes a competition, but it most definitely was not created to crown on-the-field winners.

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. ...

Dang, I was hoping it would shift to being a discussion about how we can encourage continuous inspiration.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... The 6 week build period is a myth. ... it is a 365 day program.
Anyone who is even moderately serious about achieving any success in this sport must admit this and act accordingly. ...

I personally would act to make the 6 week build period into reality, because I wouldn't want to over-emphasize the robot. Other people would probably act differently.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... There are very few practices like this in any other machine sport. ...

I thought we were talking about a program that measures success by counting the numbers of newly inspired students, and didn't realize that were talking about machine sports.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

... These machine access rules are really just an extrapolation of a rule which was arbitrarily put in place in a failed attempt to force fairness in the league over 20 years ago. ...

I would be surprised if Woodie would agree with that statement, but you might be right.

Yes

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

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

Jim - This conclusion was my take-away from the data in your posts also. Hence my comment about the differences between build time before a competition, and the effects of actually being at a competition.

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Is that a topic for another thread?

Probably.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by gblake

In this thread what I see over, and over again is: Robot, Robot, Robot, Robot, Win, Win, Compete, Compete, Robot, Robot Compete, Win, Win, Robot, Compete, Win, ...

Sprinkled among those sentiments are the occasional mentions of the reasons Dean, and the other folks we respect founded the program.

Additionally, while I can't see into the hearts of anyone else, I get a sense that most of the folks who want a longer build season, want it because it strengthens only the on-the-field, crown-a-game-winner part of the program; and that their main motivation isn't using that part of the program to strengthen the entire program.

People shouldn't have to support an arbitrary, unnecessary, wasteful rule to avoid the accusation that we don't get what FIRST is really about.

Removing access does cost teams money. It does reduce quality of competition.

The stop build rule doesn't give us a benefit. Consider: there is absolutely nothing that we can do now, with a build deadline in place, that we wouldn't be able to do just as well with no stop build deadline. Want to do outreach in March? Great - do it.

Furthermore, having a longer build season would make it easier to do outreach in January and February. A longer season gives you more flexibility to spread things around, so it would be less of a big deal to take days off in Jan/Feb for non-robot activity.

We're talking about a rule change that FIRST can make for zero cost that can help a lot of teams.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Nemo

People shouldn't have to support an arbitrary, unnecessary, wasteful rule to avoid the accusation that we don't get what FIRST is really about.

A) You may call me on the carpet when you show me all the posts in this thread that express something/anything along the lines of

• "My team needs extra time in the build season to introduce more students to the fun of STEM and FIRST, regardless of whether we win.", or
• "My team needs more time in the build season because we spend so much time helping other teams get ready for their competitions.", or
• any sentiments along those lines.

Until that happens I'll stand by my comments about this thread generally containing an over-emphasis on the robots, and on winning the on-the-field competition.

Painting with a broad brush, this thread resembles a tail trying to wag the dog. That expression isn't 100% applicable, but I think it is in the ballpark.

I wrote about it more plainly than others, but I'm not the only person who has noticed it.

B) I'll repeat my general assertion that I don't think Dean, Woodie, and many others would agree with sentiments such as characterizing the rule as "arbitrary, unnecessary", and "wasteful".

C) Competition-Creep, if it encourages individuals and teams to divert too many resources and/or too much attention away from the primary focus of the programs, harms FIRST. How much or how many is too much or many is certainly open to debate. I approach the subject with an assumption that 6 weeks is long enough for any team to build a fine robot that they can enjoy competing with. If my assumption is correct, then I think we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether six weeks is long enough to build uber-robots.

If anything, I think the right thing to do is to figure out how to create a true 44 day build season, and how to make all teams successful during it. That's my 2 cents, and for better or worse, it's the opposite of what is in most posts in the thread.

Blake

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

A) You may call me on the carpet when you show me all the posts in this thread that express something/anything along the lines of

• "My team needs extra time in the build season to introduce more students to the fun of STEM and FIRST, regardless of whether we win.", or
• "My team needs more time in the build season because we spend so much time helping other teams get ready for their competitions.", or
• any sentiments along those lines.

Until that happens I'll stand by my comments about this thread generally containing an over-emphasis on the robots, and on winning the on-the-field competition.

B) I'll repeat my general assertion that I don't think Dean, Woodie, and many others would agree with sentiments such as characterizing the rule as "arbitrary, unnecessary", and "wasteful".

A) Well since this thread spawned from another topic may I call you out on my posts in that topic to this effect?
Other topic

Item 1 (and my first relevant post to these 2 topics BTW):
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...9&postcount=57

Item 1:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=78

Item 1:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=81

Item 1:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=87

Item 2:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=113

B) They may not agree with the tone but it's hard to argue that building a second robot when 14% of your teams can't, over this rule, is not wasteful and doesn't exclude that 14%.

Where did I get 14%? From here, which also spawned from that original topic:
Yet another topic

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...0&postcount=89

In fairness there are several strong feelings being expressed in all 3 topics so I am not surprised by page 10 no one can remember what happened on page 4.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

A) Well since this thread spawned from another topic may I call you out on my posts in that topic to this effect? ... In fairness there are several strong feelings being expressed in both topics so I am not surprised by page 10 no one can remember what happened on page 4.

Well, no, to a large extent I don't think you can. I wrote about this thread, not about your posts in that other thread. But you are right that it's easier to lose sight of the original question/sentiments the longer a thread is used. [EDIT] I have to eat my words somewhat here. I went back and double-checked. My impression had been strongly colored by what has been written in the other closely-related thread(s). So, to a certain techelpbb *can* call me out. [/EDIT]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

B) They may not agree with the tone but it's hard to argue that building a second robot when 14% of your teams can't, over this rule, is not wasteful and doesn't exclude that 14%.

If two to three days is enough time for a well-prepared group to build a successful-on-the-field, fun-to-use robot; how on earth does the current 44 day build season (or one that was a true 44-day build season) keep any team from building two, or three, or 44/3 = 14 robots????

Blake

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

If two to three days is enough time for a well-prepared group to build a successful-on-the-field, fun-to-use robot; how on earth does the current 44 day build season (or one that was a true 44-day build season) keep any team from building two, or three, or 44/3 = 14 robots????

Blake

I pointed this out in the other topic and one of the posts I linked above touches on it:
http://blog.idonethis.com/two-pizza-team/

I alone can build a robot with the FRC parts in my barn in less than 1 day.
Then again I have significant automation experience, deep knowledge of my tools, control over my shop and I would be answering to - well - me. I also won't make a unique website. Write a thorough business plan. Do any community outreach. Give me 10 days for that - all by myself. Heck I can create a LLC in NJ with a website in 24 hours and with what I have now be in business in <45 days complete with IRS information for that business. How? I bought all the FRC droppings off eBay. I hit the Andy Mark Tuesday 'Deals of the Day'. I've been a: FRC-mentor, CSA, FTAA, small parts, FTC-Judge, FLL-Judge. Little by little...step by step...I've made this possible. Just my professional robotics experience alone would not be enough.

Now put 75-125 students in a room who don't have intimate knowledge of: their shop, their tools, each other, the history, have to interact with the school, a control system that doesn't mirror their PC programming experience (if they have any), limited knowledge of control theory, limited funding, limited business experience....

Heck I can see a school that gets otherwise high marks for 'No Child Left Behind' not finishing a robot at all in 45 days. That's the whole point for me at least. What the schools are teaching - does not cut it. Worse no teams are more impacted than the new teams. At least after a few years with some luck most people figure out they can literally buy themselves extra time with the practice robot.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by gblake

A) You may call me on the carpet when you show me all the posts in this thread that express something/anything along the lines of

• "My team needs extra time in the build season to introduce more students to the fun of STEM and FIRST, regardless of whether we win.", or
• "My team needs more time in the build season because we spend so much time helping other teams get ready for their competitions.", or
• any sentiments along those lines.

Blake

I'll bite.

A longer total time to build will allow our team to better include mentors and students who, for any reason can't show up 3, 4, 5 times a week to help build. If we meet less often over a longer period costs to individuals can be spread out making it more likely that someone can contribute at more meetings. Some people can't show up to meetings 3 or 4 week days for good reasons and it can be hard to keep up with everyone else when you spend a third or fourth the time with them. And inspiration is certainly more effective in person. If we meet less days a week then, over an entire (longer) build, that person will have had more of an affect on the team and vise versa.

To the second point. Maybe people would if it were more practical now? You'll see "Drewbotics #5812" in my signature. They are a rookie team south of us and we are working with them to get them ready for build. The way engineers are distributed about this city they have few options for mentors and will be relying on us for a lot of engineering and FIRST specific help. I wish I could help them more but there is only so much I can do from 45min away (no traffic actually 2hrs on a week day). If I could participate in a higher percentage of their meetings I could have a much bigger impact on that team. Even if I were closer I need to spend a significant amount of time with my own still. If we had alternating schedules that weren't as rigorous on a week to week basis...

My final point that wasn't mentioned is students seem to get more motivated when build season is on. There's a since of agency that doesn't exist otherwise and people tend to be slightly more motivated. This time is thus a great time to teach a student (especially the more complex/hard stuff) except you have less time for that because the robot needs to work.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

I pointed this out in the other topic and one of the posts I linked above touches on it:
http://blog.idonethis.com/two-pizza-team/

I alone can build a robot with the FRC parts in my barn in less than 1 day.
Then again I have significant automation experience, deep knowledge of my tools, control over my shop and I would be answering to - well - me. I also won't make a unique website. Write a thorough business plan. Do any community outreach. Give me 10 days for that - all by myself. Heck I can create a LLC in NJ with a website in 24 hours and with what I have now be in business in <45 days complete with IRS information for that business. How? I bought all the FRC droppings off eBay. I hit the Andy Mark Tuesday 'Deals of the Day'. I've been a: FRC-mentor, CSA, FTAA, small parts, FTC-Judge, FLL-Judge. Little by little...step by step...I've made this possible. Just my professional robotics experience alone would not be enough.

Now put 75-125 students in a room who don't have intimate knowledge of: their shop, their tools, each other, the history, have to interact with the school, a control system that doesn't mirror their PC programming experience (if they have any), limited knowledge of control theory, limited funding, limited business experience....

Heck I can see a school that gets otherwise high marks for 'No Child Left Behind' not finishing a robot at all in 45 days. That's the whole point for me at least. What the schools are teaching - does not cut it. Worse no teams are more impacted than the new teams. At least after a few years with some luck most people figure out they can literally buy themselves extra time with the practice robot.

Go through the build-process once per month (August, September, October, November, December, ...) for those 75-125 students in a herd or in small groups. Re-use a single modest collection of parts and scrap lumber each month to keep costs down. Re-use past games if you need sample problems to solve.

Ask a mature team to help if your group needs a dose of wisdom.

Then use the results of your preparation/practice/training to build one or two prototypes, followed by a good-enough robot, during the 44-day build season.

After a year or two, use the parts you have accumulated to keep a driver-practice robot on-hand all 365 days of the year.

The bottom line remains that time exists, before each build season begins, to prepare the students, and that enough time exists to put that preparation to good use.

Neither the length of the build season, nor current bagging rules, prevent building second robots, or building a decent primary one with time to spare.

Blake

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

Go through the build-process once per month (August, September, October, November, December, ...) for those 75-125 students in a herd or in small groups. Re-use a single modest collection of parts and scrap lumber each month to keep costs down. Re-use past games if you need sample problems to solve.

Ask a mature team to help if your group needs a dose of wisdom.

Then use the results of your preparation/practice/training to build one or two prototypes, followed by a good-enough robot, during the 44-day build season.

After a year or two, use the parts you have accumulated to keep a driver-practice robot on-hand all 365 days of the year.

The bottom line remains that time exists, before each build season begins, to prepare the students, and that enough time exists to put that preparation to good use.

Neither the length of the build season, nor current bagging rules, prevent building second robots, or building a decent primary one with time to spare.

Blake

This ignores the point still. A new team without direct involvement from a more veteran team is not going to have the payload to be serious with the criteria you have set.

Sure FRC11 bootstrapped FRC193 this way. They are all experienced people with access to our entire shop. So of course they got moving and serious very quickly.

Now try this in reality: where you may have funding for limited play, limited robots and it may not be possible or practical for other teams to help because they are also burnt out.

We are both very experienced - FIRST is now 20+ years old - what do you actually think stops more teams from forming? What made MAR possible in the first place?

Money and commitment. Anything that increases the cost and complicates the commitment hurts expansion. Heck my friend: look at how many posts in 3 topics have been made to defend a -FAKE- 6 week deadline that 90% of the participants have argued they do, or would, buy there way around.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by gblake

After a year or two, use the parts you have accumulated to keep a driver-practice robot on-hand all 365 days of the year.

WAT?!?! Are you serious? How is that not a second robot?

[gblake]

Originally Posted by jman4747

I'll bite.

A longer total time to build will allow our team to better include mentors and students who, for any reason can't show up 3, 4, 5 times a week to help build. If we meet less often over a longer period costs to individuals can be spread out making it more likely that someone can contribute at more meetings. Some people can't show up to meetings 3 or 4 week days for good reasons and it can be hard to keep up with everyone else when you spend a third or fourth the time with them. And inspiration is certainly more effective in person. If we meet less days a week then, over an entire (longer) build, that person will have had more of an affect on the team and vise versa.

To the second point. Maybe people would if it were more practical now? You'll see "Drewbotics #5812" in my signature. They are a rookie team south of us and we are working with them to get them ready for build. The way engineers are distributed about this city they have few options for mentors and will be relying on us for a lot of engineering and FIRST specific help. I wish I could help them more but there is only so much I can do from 45min away (no traffic actually 2hrs on a week day). If I could participate in a higher percentage of their meetings I could have a much bigger impact on that team. Even if I were closer I need to spend a significant amount of time with my own still. If we had alternating schedules that weren't as rigorous on a week to week basis...

My final point that wasn't mentioned is students seem to get more motivated when build season is on. There's a since of agency that doesn't exist otherwise and people tend to be slightly more motivated. This time is thus a great time to teach a student (especially the more complex/hard stuff) except you have less time for that because the robot needs to work.

All good.

I understand the motivation that comes with being in "build season"; and definitely I applaud your willingness to go across town to help the other group (I have done a little of that myself, and it can be very draining)

You and I are not disagreeing. The point of my post was that this thread is dominated by posts very different from the one you just wrote.

If you were to ask me for a suggestion for how to improve what your team can accomplish during the build season, I would suggest chatting up MrForbes or JVN/Copioli, or .... to find out what their not-so-secret sauces are.

I, personally, would not suggest petitioning FIRST to lengthen the build season or eliminate the bagging policy. The length might appear to be a stumbling block, but it really isn't.

Blake

[gblake]

Originally Posted by marshall

WAT?!?! Are you serious? How is that not a second robot?

I agree. That would be a second robot(s). And it would have been created without a single modification of the current build season / bagging rules. That's my point. Those rules don't prevent second robots.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by jman4747

My final point that wasn't mentioned is students seem to get more motivated when build season is on. There's a since of agency that doesn't exist otherwise and people tend to be slightly more motivated. This time is thus a great time to teach a student (especially the more complex/hard stuff) except you have less time for that because the robot needs to work.

I think this is a great argument for a strict 6 week build season. I've seen what often happens with a soft or too far away deadline--there is no sense of urgency, and things just don't get done. The bag day deadline makes me push hard to get our team moving right away, and keep moving, because I know we have to have something looking and working like a robot by the end of week 4, if we want to do well at the competition.

I don't expect to be able to teach students many complex things during build. Sometimes it happens...but there is all school year for this to learning take place. It is difficult to get motivated sufficiently without the hectic bag day deadline. But is removing that deadline going to help? If you lengthen the build time so you can spend time teaching new complex material, you also remove the urgency that is needed to motivate this learning. It sounds to me like Catch 22.