Team Update 14 (2016)

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

The "we built this robot in only 6 weeks" slogan is so false for our team that I have become very uncomfortable saying it, and we don't even build a practice robot. If you think saying that is a fair representation of the work you have done on your own team, that's great, by all means keep saying it. Unfortunately though, this slogan does not accurately capture the reality of the effort many teams put into their robots.

Was about to post the same thing. Saying we built the robot in six weeks is just not true.

And is it really THAT much less impressive to say 8 weeks? Or 12 weeks? It is still a huge accomplishment regardless of how you choose to "sell" it.

You listening Dean?

-Mike

[Nemo]

"Copy" is the wrong word.

If our team has a need to upgrade an ability, and we see a concept that works, and we conclude that we can use it to good effect, we are going to try to build something that uses that concept. But we're building our own version of it according to our resources and abilities, and according to what's possible given our existing robot and weight and space limits. We will put our own sweat and ingenuity into it, and then we're going to spend as much time as possible iterating and tweaking and tuning it.

"Copy" makes it sound like a team prints out a set of drawings, sends parts off to be cut, and then assembles a thing according to pre-made step by step instructions. Then tests it and finds that it works just marvelously on the first try.

Edit: Also, the experience of installing this new mechanism on Thursday of the next event and getting it to actually work on Friday is just *glorious*. It's hugely rewarding. Given the choice between going through this challenging and grueling process versus accepting mediocrity from an existing design invented by one's own team, creating the new, 'copied' mechanism leads to superior results in terms of both inspiration and providing awesome engineering experiences.

[SamM]

I think one of major aspects of bagging that isn't being discussed enough is that it provides an artificial deadline well in advance of the actual deadline to compete.

This, in combination with the time before competition to more accurately asses what they can accomplish on practice day allows teams to make the tough decisions about what they need to do to play.

While the floor may be raised for everyone, the number of teams showing up at the last possible minute(or after the last possible minute) for inspection with incomplete robots will also go up.

Speaking as someone who has organized (non-FRC) robotics competitions, without bag and tag I predict there will be a lot more no-shows and robots still getting inspected on Friday(or Saturday) than there are currently.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by SamM

I think one of major aspects of bagging that isn't being discussed enough is that it provides an artificial deadline well in advance of the actual deadline to compete.

This, in combination with the time before competition to more accurately asses what they can accomplish on practice day allows teams to make the tough decisions about what they need to do to play.

While the floor may be raised for everyone, the number of teams showing up at the last possible minute(or after the last possible minute) for inspection with incomplete robots will also go up.

Speaking as someone who has organized (non-FRC) robotics competitions, without bag and tag I predict there will be a lot more no-shows and robots still getting inspected on Friday(or Saturday) than there are currently.

Have you been an inspector at an event? The number of teams not ready for inspection could not possibly go up. Without Bag and Tag we could also hold pre event inspection nights where volunteer inspectors/mentors come and help point out flaws in robots before they go to inspection at the event. Removing bag and tag allows for teams, volunteers, and the great people involved in FRC to find creative solutions to these problems. Yes we try to do this now but like I have said before there is only so much you can do in 6 weeks.

[EricH]

Here's my suggestion to improve bag-and-tag:

Cut the withholding allowance to 20 lb SPARE parts. (Or remove it altogether.) COTS items remain unlimited.

The loose translation would be that if it doesn't match what's on the robot already*, it's gotta be in a bag on bag day.

[insert "grumpy mentor" "back-in-my-day-we-boxed-up-the-robot-and-all-its-spares" section here]


*The definition of "match" is intentionally left a little bit fluid, because no two parts will be 100% identical--maybe something got an extra hole somewhere or something like that. I hate to use the "reasonably astute observer" standard but that may need to be what is used.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's my suggestion to improve bag-and-tag:

Cut the withholding allowance to 20 lb SPARE parts. (Or remove it altogether.) COTS items remain unlimited.

The loose translation would be that if it doesn't match what's on the robot already*, it's gotta be in a bag on bag day.

[insert "grumpy mentor" "back-in-my-day-we-boxed-up-the-robot-and-all-its-spares" section here]


*The definition of "match" is intentionally left a little bit fluid, because no two parts will be 100% identical--maybe something got an extra hole somewhere or something like that. I hate to use the "reasonably astute observer" standard but that may need to be what is used.

Now we have to make any "new" parts at the event, right? So we'll outfit our new pit with a CNC router, mini-lathe, chop saw, and use Thursday to build-build-build all those new parts for our competition robot.

Your bag and tag rules just put us in even more of a corner. We have to waste more time and money to achieve our team's goals.

Why you gotta be like that?

-Mike

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Now we have to make any "new" parts at the event, right? So we'll outfit our new pit with a CNC router, mini-lathe, chop saw, and use Thursday to build-build-build all those new parts for our competition robot.

And of course you'll make those available to other teams to use, right? Floor just went up!



My opinion is that there are two ways this can go. Both have valid points for and against them. Both sets of valid points go either way (pro to con, or vice versa) depending on who is making the statement!

EITHER we return to a 6-week challenge (at least mostly) by cutting out withholding to some degree (see: FRC 10 years ago), OR we go to a straight-out "show up with your robot at the event" challenge (see: FTC, FLL, VRC).

While we're doing that, can I get ChampionUNSplit discussion going?

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by EricH

While we're doing that, can I get ChampionUNSplit discussion going?

I am ALL for this!

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Now we have to make any "new" parts at the event, right? So we'll outfit our new pit with a CNC router, mini-lathe, chop saw, and use Thursday to build-build-build all those new parts for our competition robot.

This will fit nicely in my pit

[D_Price]

it could for sure be of some use!

Originally Posted by Doug G

This will fit nicely in my pit

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's my suggestion to improve bag-and-tag:

Cut the withholding allowance to 20 lb SPARE parts. (Or remove it altogether.) COTS items remain unlimited.

The loose translation would be that if it doesn't match what's on the robot already*, it's gotta be in a bag on bag day.

[insert "grumpy mentor" "back-in-my-day-we-boxed-up-the-robot-and-all-its-spares" section here]


*The definition of "match" is intentionally left a little bit fluid, because no two parts will be 100% identical--maybe something got an extra hole somewhere or something like that. I hate to use the "reasonably astute observer" standard but that may need to be what is used.

Doing that would take the ability to do significant iteration and rob the students of the full engineering experience. Yes currently many teams do not get to go to a second event and thus do not get the full engineering experience. However as more and more areas join the District System everyone will eventually go to two events and have the ability to properly iterate.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by EricH

Here's my suggestion to improve bag-and-tag:

Cut the withholding allowance to 20 lb SPARE parts. (Or remove it altogether.) COTS items remain unlimited.

I'd vote for remove it altogether.

Originally Posted by EricH

The loose translation would be that if it doesn't match what's on the robot already*, it's gotta be in a bag on bag day.

[insert "grumpy mentor" "back-in-my-day-we-boxed-up-the-robot-and-all-its-spares" section here]


*The definition of "match" is intentionally left a little bit fluid, because no two parts will be 100% identical--maybe something got an extra hole somewhere or something like that. I hate to use the "reasonably astute observer" standard but that may need to be what is used.

Define match as "functionally equivalent"
Also, limit the weight of the bag to 200 LBS.

[Paul Richardson]

Here's one data point for this clone debate: In 2014, team 1477 worked on a design that would have converted the robot into a "254 clone". Building that design was well within their capabilities, but the team decided not to use it, considering that the existing robot wasn't too bad and it would be a lot of effort for something that wasn't guaranteed to work. Just like Cory and Adam said:

Originally Posted by Cory

A team that would wait until week 2 of regionals and copy a robot like 1114 isn't going to be good enough to actually get the details right.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

It's not realistic for most teams, but it is possible for some teams currently (with high resources).

1477 is a pretty high resource team, relatively speaking. Not quite on the level of 254/118/148/1114 right now, but well above average. The students took their design for the 254 clone and turned it into an offseason project. Turns out, cloning a 254 robot is pretty hard, and it was really buggy because of small details.

I don't think successful cloned robots can be made in the 3-4 weeks between reveals and late competitions. It takes too much testing and iteration to make a top-tier robot (see 1477 in 2013 with 3 regional losses before winning one and then Champs).

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Paul Richardson

Here's one data point for this clone debate: In 2014, team 1477 worked on a design that would have converted the robot into a "254 clone". Building that design was well within their capabilities, but the team decided not to use it, considering that the existing robot wasn't too bad and it would be a lot of effort for something that wasn't guaranteed to work. Just like Cory and Adam said:

Actually this is a good idea, what other teams have attempted clones in the off-season? I remember Wave brought a robot to IRI in 2013 that was similar to 254's 2013 robot. AusTin Cans had a robot in 2013 off-season that took it's cues from the Holy Cows, Killer Bees, and other robots of that archetype. I've never seen a cloned FRC robot that works even remotely as well as the original. I'm pretty sure if teams tried to clone most designs just from CAD they would have a lot of trouble as well.

Our gearbox this year is based on 1114's gearbox from 2014. It met a lot of our design needs and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel. Even just building that part of the robot with a CAD file in hand took some reverse engineering and thought.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

I've never seen a cloned FRC robot that works even remotely as well as the original.