POLL: Six Week Build Season

[gblake]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

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.

Using forum posts, we might be stuck with talking past each other.

I suspect that in a face to face conversation we would agree that there is more than one way to skin this cat.

Blake

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

Using forum posts, we might be stuck with talking past each other.

I suspect that in a face to face conversation we would agree that there is more than one way to skin this cat.

Blake

I know that as well and I presented one solution right here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...&postcount=149

Literally remove the boundary of it being an activity in a school which is closed several months of the year (liability insurance reasons). Remove the obligation on the other people who only want to budget for the 6 weeks+ they can manage (since I do honor any help they can offer). Open the door to year round - literal vocational style education - and then the 6 week build issue is almost no issue.

There will already be practice robots because in order for what I have presented in the linked post to work, and be relevant to FRC, you must achieve that. Course you do so at the expense of basically becoming a makerspace or vocational school.

In this case - wouldn't it just more transparent that this is one way to pull this off? Instead of pretending with 6 weeks, an average high school education and the cost of entrance you will be a contender? I lived that pain when I founded Team 8/11 with Bill McGowan. Can't we just be honest? The stress alone that this passive duplicity drives is unnecessary.

[Jim Zondag]

Originally Posted by 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 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

So clearly there are differences of opinion in the room. Good.

I think we are all after the same ultimate goal, but some of us seem to think that there are vastly different ways to inspire young people. Perhaps this is true. I have spent decades of my life working with young people, and while this does not give me all the answers, it does provide a lot of insight into what works and what does not.

The accusation above by Blake seems to indicate that wanting to run a fun and exciting robotics competition is somehow not in the spirit of FIRST, and that somehow prioritizing a few operational things like enabling a better environment for continuous improvement is somehow not inspirational. Meh.

The mission of FIRST is stated to be: "to transform our culture by creating a world where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."

Great. We all agree on this goal.
So as a "technology leader" myself, I guess I should internalize this goal a bit and turn it into: "How can I get lots of young people to want to be like me?" As leaders and mentors, this is really the question isn't it?

The key point of the mission statement are the words "transform our culture". This implies something huge. Not big, huge. Not the small potatoes stuff of impacting merely thousands of people that we have all been carefully doing for the past 20+ years, but impacting MILLIONS of people. Cultural transformation will not happen at anything less than this kind of scale.

We all know that other organizations have been able to pull off major cultural changes in the past: Sports leagues, political campaigns, consumer groups, religions, and many more. It can be done, but we in FIRST haven't actually pulled it off yet.

My personal view of how to do this is to follow the sports model. Dean himself spoke of exactly this on the recent RoboLeague program, so this is nothing new. Why do sports work to attract and inspire? Three big hooks that sports have going for them is that sports are fun to play, fun to watch, and excellence in sports is very inspiring to the young. The hallmark of a truly successful sport that has transformative ability is if the population of fans and spectators is larger than the population of participants. We are certainly not there yet in Robotics......not even close.

So this is the heart of the matter. If we are following a sports model (and we most certainly are at FIRSTinMichigan), and we want to reach a transformative level of impact, then we must put some much needed attention on "fun to watch" and "inspiring the pursuit of excellence". These two things go hand in hand. Better performing robots are more fun to watch, and better performing robots are more inspiring to the public. Allowing more of this will only help all of us better reach outsiders.

Blake you corrupt my message. It is certainly not all about win, win, win, robot, robot, robot. It is about inspiring more success by allowing more success.

My students are inspired by teams like 1114, 254, 971, 148 and their kind. These are the rock stars of robotics. Our team meets all year round, not because of me, but because my students beg me to allow them the chance to try to be as good as those they are inspired by. My students will never stop working while there is still a chance to improve. To me, this is the essence of inspiration, and for them excellence is a way of life. Their passion is what inspires me to keep doing this year after year. If there were millions like them, then we would really have the cultural transformation Dean speaks of. But this will never happen if we tell everyone to stop after 45 days.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

Bad robots that cannot play the game are neither inspirational nor educational to build and to watch...but continuing to improve a bad robot and turning it into a good robot is one of the coolest opportunities available to teams in FRC.

The cycle of:
"Hmm, my robot can't do X" ->
"I have an idea! Let's try Y" ->
"No, that didn't work, but in the process I learned something that makes me think we should try Z" ->
"Hey! Z works pretty well! Our robot just did X on the field!"

...is the single most rewarding, inspiring, educational, confidence-building, team bond-strengthening, burnout-alleviating, sleep deprivation-justifying, life-altering aspect of the program that is available to all FRC participants to experience. The more of this that happens, the better. The greater the number and difficulty of X, the better. The greater the despair before you find your Z, the better.

(I challenge anyone who has experienced this as a student on an FRC team to disagree, regardless of where you sit on "competitiveness")

These cycles happen all the time, from prototyping, to CAD, to manufacturing, to developing software in your school gymnasium, to going to a week 0 scrimmage, to showing up at your first practice match at your first (or only) official event.

Currently a large portion of the available opportunity to experience these moments are not available to all teams because of the bagging day. Took too long to assemble your robots? Sorry programming students! No inspiration for you. Hastily bagged a bunch of parts because it's almost midnight (even though your regional is 2 weeks away)? That's okay, we'll spend 1/3 of our $5000 regional finishing building the thing, and spend the rest of the event paying several hundred dollars per match so the kids can learn how to drive it. Disappointed by your performance at your first event? Hope you spent thousands on a practice robot so you have a chance of making effective improvements before the next one!

Depriving any student of the opportunity to experience as many and as significant of these "A-Ha!" moments as possible limits the opportunity to make a real, lasting impact on FRC participants. The fact that more "A-Ha"s leads to more good robots, which leads to a more spectator-friendly and interesting on-field product is a great thing, but you don't need to start with that line of reasoning in order to arrive at the same conclusion. Crowning a winner is nice and all, and it's fun to hold a plastic trophy, but even after 15 years I enjoy watching my effective robot play the game far more than I enjoy blue banners.

Open robot access will result in more opportunities for more "A-Ha!" moments for more participants. Not all teams will benefit, but many will. Open robot access + multiple plays for all via districts + better local access to practice facilities? Now THAT'S what we should really be shooting for

TL;DR:
Putting artificial obstacles in the way of FRC's magical process in the name of:
* Tradition
* Helping adults with poor time management skills
* An elevator pitch about "six weeks"
* Teaching some sort of life lesson about "deadlines" (which is exactly what your first competition would become)
* Fairness
* Or any other reason you can think of

...runs contrary to the most fundamental, grassroots aspect of the program.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by gblake

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".

So what? The argument that the FRC culture needs to cling to the founders' original intent gets weaker every year. A generation has gone by since then! As participants in this program, we have the privilege of defining and redefining the culture as we see fit. Please remember Dean's speech at the 2013 championship where he expressed deep regret about the program still being a "best kept secret" and called for urgent and fundamental changes to the program. "If it's really that good... and if it's having the kind of impact on all of you that I know it is... the numbers should be bigger!"

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

So clearly there are differences of opinion in the room. Good.
...
Blake you corrupt my message.
...

Ouch! Next time I'll leave out complimenting you for presenting a strong argument to back up your thesis.

I did my best to quote your message, and supply contrasting opinions without taking what you wrote out of context.

I guess that we both have our blind spots.

Sincere wishes for the best of luck to you in whatever set of rules FIRST decides to carry into the future.

Blake

[Max Boord]

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, ...

Most people here would agree they like to compete in robotics competitions and win them with there robot.

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

This isn't the science fair. As Jim Zondag has shown, For the most part teams are not actually all that good. How am I supposed to use a robot to inspire students when the average robot last season was only able to put up 6-10 points? Why is it that when i go to introduce someone to FIRST i have to go videos of Einstein or heavily edited reveal videos of top teams performing at their best to even stand a chance of getting someone to say " That looks cool, where can i see this"?

Originally Posted by gblake

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?

It would make the robot better. Which just so happens to be the device both FIRST and I want to use in order to inspire students, gather sponsors, and change culture. So yes, you are correct.

Originally Posted by gblake

I'm pretty sure that making robotics into a spectator sport is explicitly not FIRST's primary goal.

idd argue its a pretty big part of it.

Originally Posted by gblake

As such, it should only be allowed to support the true goals of the program.

Sorry but if i decide to build a robot (Something that has to be done for R and C parts of FRC to happen) and it performs soo well people actually want to watch it, i am going to use it for more than "supporting the true goals of the program".

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

This is your opinion. I am reasonably sure a large part of the community does not share it. Personally, I design a robot to win the competition by any means necessary only restricted by the rules and the resources I have or can obtain. If doing so results in a robot that just so happens to be interesting to watch ( it generally does) than im fine with that.

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

Are you saying that driving practice on a 2nd robot dosnt improve a teams ability to play the game?

Originally Posted by gblake

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.

Then why do we have a multi tired succeed to advance system where trophies and banners are handed out with words like "Winner" put on it? Or that ever present C in FRC. You can argue the significance of the competition in the program but you cannot deny the First Robotics Competition is a Competition. After all it is the "varsity sport of the mind" and ive never heard of a sport that dosn't crown 1 or more champions.

Im going to stop here. My point is that most of us are here to build robots. We do it for a variety of reasons including: its fun, we like to compete, and to inspire others. I don't walk into a build space thinking " how can I build a robot that accomplishes the goals of FIRST without using it for anything else". I do however try to lead students to design a robot that can complete a task in the best way possible and by doing so may accomplish some side objectives.

[jman4747]

I think both sides see time management challenges associated with both and neither has a negative effect powerful enough to be a major detriment to FRC. But one has potential to greatly increase how effective a team is at whatever they want to focus on by giving them more time to do it.

I don't think the urgency of the build takes a major hit because of how I would compare it to an off season project. An off season robot can start from June and stop at January. That's a whopping 7 months. But if you are building one just for training (like a t-shirt cannon) ie not for an off season competition, you don't have anything to lose if you don't finish it. In build season, if you don't finish you won't do well at competition.

Basically the build season will still have urgency because you have something to gain or loose by not being on time unlike an off season t-shirt cannon or vision testing rig.

[JB987]

I can think of a way to move beyond the postulating in this thread. Why not try one of the alternatives being presented and actually evaluate the results? Seems to me this is consistent with the changes in rules and practices that take place from time to time in FRC anyways. Don't like the results, modify or go back to the original rule set. Nothing proposed is likely to destroy FRC (IMHO).

[GeeTwo]

I voted for no change. While it is pointless to think that FIRST could level the playing field when the first rule of FRC competition is that "if it isn't forbidden, it's allowed." (I'm excluding the core values and mission of FIRST here, and focusing on the competition part.) Some of the inequalities can, however be mitigated, and should be. Bagging the robot dates back to when teams were required to ship robots to each event, and from event to event. Requiring the same "stop build day" reduced the inequalities between teams in early vs late regionals and between those located near and far from their regional. The "hands off" rules still help equalize between teams near and far from their regional. (In the interest of full disclosure, we're located about an hour drive from Bayou and "day trip" the tournament.) After so many years in the "hands off but development may continue" mode, going to a "tools down" rule would likely be ignored or seriously circumvented by many teams, and could prove to be a "gateway vice" to ignoring other rules. As a co-worker of mine once told me "the first rule of leadership is to never give an order that won't be followed."

Removing the stop build altogether would not be unreasonable, but we've used it to impose additional build discipline. For 2014 Aerial Assist, we built a prototype robot, "Woody" (guess what his skeleton was made of) and a competition robot, "Buzz". We bagged Buzz, but continued to develop code, driver skill, and maintenance procedures on "Woody" at a pace more relaxed than late build season, more similar to early build season. Last year, we built what were supposed to be twins, with "Atlas" being the guinea pig and construction on "Peabody" running about a week behind until the beginning of week six. We completed Peabody, ran some test suites, pulled the "rake" (which turned out to be different between the two robots) to be part of our withholding allowance, and bagged. Atlas was then primarily the "practice" robot. The mechanical and wiring team was then "hands off" of Peabody apart from maintenance, repairs, and quickly-installed upgrades. The programming team had a few "extra" sessions where they came in to tweak and tune code, but they knew they had to leave a stable bit of code for the next drive practice session. This discipline worked very well for us. Of course, if build season ended at CMP, we'd work out another discipline.
"Maintenance Windows" - yuck! Each team would be filling out dozens of forms and chucking dozens of tags into the landfill. Another of the great things about building a practice robot is that it is also a demo robot; you can have your drivers drive at demos and you only need to consume one tag and complete one tag form per event you participate in.