Team Update 14 (2016)

[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!

[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).

[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

[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.

[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.

[meg]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

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.

We all have to keep in mind its more than the mechanical robot itself too. Trying to clone the programming for the drive system (254's spline in auto from 2014?) would be hard enough never mind trying to get any of the vision systems working.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

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.

Our 2013 IRI robot was based off of 254, sort of. We used 254 as a reference but the robot we competed with at IRI was what we should have built had we followed our original robot objectives we came up with on kickoff.

I would say that the IRI bot didn't perform as well as 254 that year, I think alot of that was due to a lack of practice time with that robot. We only finished it maybe a week before IRI.

Which brings it back to the topic of copying. Copy all you want but if you don't get practice time in you will never perform as well as those who get practice time.

A good practiced driver with an OK robot will beat a non practiced driver with the perfect robot every time.

[GeeTwo]

Bag and Tag actually simulates real world situations fairly well. You've got to get the main piece on a barge or slow ship across the ocean a couple of weeks before installation/use on the other side of the world, but the techs and engineers can bring a limited amount of stuff in excess baggage. COTS stuff can be procured at the install site, or shipped directly there from the manufacturer. This very closely resembles the situation of my department's data collection branch.

As a simple way to prevent further proliferation of things which look like a robot but aren't, and to avoid incredibly long, complex rules, how about these:

• The bagged robot (and spare parts) must weigh no more than 160 pounds (or pick another number) total for all bags. This applies both for initial bag-and-tag and rebagging after any demo, open-bag period, or event. Bags will be weighed by inspectors before teams may un-bag. Any overage is deducted from the weight allowed under the withholding allowance.
• At check-in to an event, each team is issued a "robot button" (e.g. 2 inches in diameter backed with velcro loops) bearing the team number. The robot must have this button affixed in order to enter the practice field or the match queue.

This would allow duplicates of assemblies, but in order to have duplicate robots, they would have to be considerably underweight or have a lot of quickly removable COTS parts.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

[image link]http://i.imgur.com/ojsV2ff.jpg[/image link]

I mean, doesn't that kind of prove his point though? The robot is on its side in the picture, when did 254 ever tip over in 2014? 973's wooden wonders were good robots and all, but I don't think anyone would say they were nearly as good as 254's machine, 973 themselves included.

As an aside: I don't think copying in FRC will ever be as rampant as it is in Vex. In Vex, you are mostly using a set of COTS parts that can be put together in a relatively finite number of different ways to achieve the game objective. There is less customizability and design flexibility than there is in FRC. The nature of Vex itself makes it much easier to copy and compete, and removing the bag won't make that suddenly happen in FRC to the same extent it happens in Vex.

With the argument that a powerhouse team would just build several different robots and give them out to alliance partners or whatever, when has that ever happened in Vex? That should be really easy in Vex, right?