Quitting FRC for Vex?

[EmileH]

Originally Posted by Landonh12

I can see Vex being a good way to start feeder programs for FRC, but in no way do I see Vex replacing FRC. The amount of engineering that goes into FRC completely overshadows any reason to switch to Vex, unless your team has budget problems. I can see FTC teams switching to Vex, simply because they are similar.

The legendary Team 40 had VRC programs from 2004 on, but stopped their FRC program after 2010. They continue to participate in Vex.

[Aidan Cox]

Originally Posted by EmileH

The legendary Team 40 had VRC programs from 2004 on, but stopped their FRC program after 2010. They continue to participate in Vex.

2011 was their last year participating in FRC. A team from a smaller private school, their main sponsor provided them with a shop in another location. When that sponsor moved out of the area, they had no workplace suitable. They currently still work out of that school for the VEX stuff though. And Dan Larochelle is still involved with much of the VEX stuff that happens in the region.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Aidan Cox

2011 was their last year participating in FRC. A team from a smaller private school, their main sponsor provided them with a shop in another location. When that sponsor moved out of the area, they had no workplace suitable. They currently still work out of that school for the VEX stuff though. And Dan Larochelle is still involved with much of the VEX stuff that happens in the region.

I was wondering what happened to them since they were event finalists and event winners in 2011.

[Tom Line]

Put very simply, VEX is what FTC should have, and could have been.

This is one of those situations where FIRST should take a step back, re-evaluate FTC, and realize that VEX is a better program in many ways. Kill FTC, subsidize current FTC teams to move to VEX for one year, then partner with IFI to make VEX the cheaper alternative to FIRST around the world.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Put very simply, VEX is what FTC should have, and could have been.

What's sad is that VEX is what FTC was. For those of you who don't know, the initial iteration of FTC (then FVC) had a lot in common with VRC as it is today. The departure from the mostly COTS robotics competition model in favor of "FRC-mini" custom parts oriented builds in FTC really is quite a shame.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

What's sad is that VEX is what FTC was. For those of you who don't know, the initial iteration of FTC (then FVC) had a lot in common with VRC as it is today. The departure from the mostly COTS robotics competition model in favor of "FRC-mini" custom parts oriented builds in FTC really is quite a shame.

I would say that the proliferation of FRC mini robots in FTC stems from two factors: my experiences with the FTC kit make me think they probably never had a great kit to work with, and FTC in my opinion lacks an identity. What kids are we trying to reach? Middle schoolers, high schoolers, or both? Is it supposed to function as a bridge to FRC from FLL or is it a low cost FRC or a more involved FLL? Are we supposed to put FTC programs in schools that don't have any solid and consistent prospects for FRC? Is it supposed to be an intrasquad feeder for an FRC team? In trying to answer all of these questions, the program rarely adequately answers any of them.

I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the starter kit for VRC can rislistically play the VRC game for the year (at a low level). A new team can put that robot together and feel accomplishment but see where the design may not be their peak performer, so they can go back to the drawing board and order some more parts if they want to. I don't know what the FTC starter kit is but after seeing the design for res-q I would personally want it to be a revolver with 1 bullet.

FRC has an identity for FRC. Maneuvering from the larger powers in Manchester vs the actions of those that run FRC indicate to me that there is disagreement on the identity of FRC, but it is in some good hands. FLL has a great founding partner in the Lego group that has helped shape and maintain their identity. FTC didn't have that at all.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

(...) my experiences with the FTC kit make me think they probably never had a great kit to work with (...)

Sure they did; back when all of the parts were Vex, it was a pretty great kit!

The Vex robotics competition is amazing for how little it costs to compete. Whenever someone asks how to get their kids involved in robotics at a school with no team, Vex is usually my first suggestion.

There are lots of other robotics competitions out there as well that are just as fun as FIRST, but not as large of a budget drain. FRC is expensive.

[Michael Corsetto]

1678 has added Vex in the classroom setting as the basis for our "Intro to Robotics Engineering" class. This class was launched in the fall and we had over 100 new high school students across four periods in the class. The robust curriculum and engaging competition makes Vex an ideal program for the classroom setting. We will continue to use Vex as the basis for our high school intro class.

1678 is, for the first time, organizing 4-8 grade robotics summer camps in June. We are dropping our FLL support (after starting 23 teams!) and running Vex IQ at the summer camp. I am already impressed with the summer camp curriculum that Vex IQ offers, it is so simple the implement.

For our after-school elementary and junior high team, we are switching to Vex IQ starting now (parent meeting is June 3!). To ease the transition, we will likely buy kits for most or all of our existing FLL teams, and let them trade in their FLL kits which we will sell or donate to outside programs. The reasons to switch are many, but the main motivators are getting out of a broken NorCalFLL system and saving thousands of dollars in registration costs on a annual basis.

And, to be honest, if at some point we loose some critical teachers and/or mentors, I think the students on 1678 could be better served through 10-12 Vex Teams rather than 1 FRC team. We don't want to run both in the after school setting (rather, we are focusing on off-season projects and outreach efforts). However, without the solid mentor foundation we have, I believe our students would be better served building Vex robots.

When I look in my robotics education crystal ball, the future is Vex. It scales better, has far less financial overhead, and can be effectively run by organized parents out of a family living room. I don't know what the robotics landscape will look like in 10 years (#4champs?), but I would be willing to bet Vex is a huge part of that landscape.

-Mike

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

Sure they did; back when all of the parts were Vex, it was a pretty great kit!

The Vex robotics competition is amazing for how little it costs to compete. Whenever someone asks how to get their kids involved in robotics at a school with no team, Vex is usually my first suggestion.

There are lots of other robotics competitions out there as well that are just as fun as FIRST, but not as large of a budget drain. FRC is expensive.

Looking at a lot of these posts, there seem to be four reasons teams leave FIRST and/or join VEX:

1. FTC's kit isn't very good
2. FTC's (and FRC's) curriculum for teachers is nonexistent
3. FRC is too resource-intensive (space, time, money, etc.), and
4. The team(s) doesn't have enough student participation, teacher/mentor support to do FRC, and the VEX platform is easier to manage

I also wouldn't be surprised if current FRC teams are leaving for VEX because the switch to 2Champs conflicts with VEX worlds, though this a (generally) much smaller factor.

How do we continue to grow the FIRST program? I think FIRST organizers and the community need to realize large changes and additions are needed to the FTC to make it comparable to VEX. They need the curriculum, they need a better kit, they need to be better organized, and, most importantly, they need an identity in the FIRST landscape. To do this, more money, emphasis, thought, and time needs to be invested in that program from a development level.

FIRST could easily ignore that problem and simply keep the program as it is. That would be a significant oversight and a travesty, but it's the easiest path. Partnering with VEX, rather than trying to compete with it, would also be a good idea, if at all possible.

In terms of FRC, the problems are less massive but still crucial. The program needs to become cheaper. I'll be honest, I'm not sure how you do that, other than just getting more sponsorship or lowering the flashiness of the events (not an issue IMO), but they need to find a way to change the $5k number to $4k, $3k, or lower. Otherwise, the cost will continue to push teams out the door rather than welcome them in.

Additionally, FRC needs to take the same approach VEX does with teachers: combine it with a curriculum that can be taught in the classroom. There are ways to do this, and it needs to happen soon.

It would also be a good idea for FIRST to support/start AndyMark/VEX-type operations or shipping warehouses in Europe and Asia, to help improve the costs and operations for international teams. The increased expenses for international teams is hindering that growth heavily.

Overall, I think Greying Jay said it well:

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

The programs give different experiences to the students. I heard someone once say that "FRC is not about robotics. FRC is a life experience that involves robotics". And when I look back on what FRC is doing for the students I work with, I think that "learning to build/program robots" is actually pretty low on the list. Our students are learning more about how to outreach and connect with the community, how to work on teams, how to work on imbalanced teams, how to work under pressure, how to communicate an idea, how to manage their time, how large projects are structured and how each person fits into that. It's much more like how the real world operates.

But VEX still has enough other benefits that it's changing the robotics landscape, much more than FIRST. Slowly, but more quickly by the day, FRC is losing it's place as the pinnacle of high school robotics to VEX. If we and the people who lead FIRST want FRC to stay at the highest level, then we have to make some critical changes.

[GreyingJay]

Hey, thanks for the shout-out.

Originally Posted by TDav540

But VEX still has enough other benefits that it's changing the robotics landscape, much more than FIRST. Slowly, but more quickly by the day, FRC is losing it's place as the pinnacle of high school robotics to VEX. If we and the people who lead FIRST want FRC to stay at the highest level, then we have to make some critical changes.

If it was possible to make FRC competitions cheaper, and increase the build season period from 6 weeks to something longer, it would lower the entry barrier for all those schools/groups who can't stomach the two largest factors about FRC - namely, how much it costs (and how much sponsorship/fundraising is needed) and how insanely busy it gets from January to April just to field a working robot.

(Our parent feedback from this year was essentially - "holy cow we didn't realize just how much Billy was going to be in for - it was worth it in the end but holy cow!")

I recognize it may not BE possible. It would definitely change the competition landscape. The calendar logistics aside, a longer build season would allow the rookies to actually get a robot done but then the 1114's and 254's of the world would have that much more time to build something amazing. It could lower the entry barrier but widen the competition gap, forcing the rookies to work that much harder anyway just to keep up.

In the end, I think there's definitely a place for both programs.

[TDav540]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

I recognize it may not BE possible. It would definitely change the competition landscape. The calendar logistics aside, a longer build season would allow the rookies to actually get a robot done but then the 1114's and 254's of the world would have that much more time to build something amazing. It could lower the entry barrier but widen the competition gap, forcing the rookies to work that much harder anyway just to keep up.

In the end, I think there's definitely a place for both programs.

There definitely is the space for both. As Blake said, 95% of roboteers aren't in either program. We've still got a large space to grow.

The "extend build season/no more bag day" argument has been talked about so much that

If we want to start that discussion, there are plenty of other threads to do it. Let's try to avoid derailing this one.

[jman4747]

Originally Posted by TDav540

The "extend build season/no more bag day" argument has been talked about so much that

If we want to start that discussion, there are plenty of other threads to do it. Let's try to avoid derailing this one.

It is a distinct difference between the two programs, and mentor involvement and cost to teams are directly affected by this.

I also think that FRC is the technological pinnacle of high school robotics no one I've ever shown this to, especially an engineer, expects to find high school students doing anything this advanced. Like the comment one of our new mentors gave at the end of the season was: "this was more complex than my final project from college."

Another question for everyone: What do you think the purpose of FRC is other than what could be accomplished by another program? What does or could FRC do better than anything else?

PS I'm asking out of pure curiosity. I am completely invested in FRC and would only quit if it ceased to exist.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by jman4747

I also think that FRC is the technological pinnacle of high school robotics no one I've ever shown this to, especially an engineer, expects to find high school students doing anything this advanced. Like the comment one of our new mentors gave at the end of the season was: "this was more complex than my final project from college."

I agree with this, FRC robots are just amazing. There are some other programs like the Underwater competition that build some pretty amazing robots also.

I give the nod to FRC doing best is the complex tasks with a 120lb robot. This game brought out a lot of serious engineering to keep robots together for 2:30. The leap in vision from last year to this year was pretty amazing, I'd love to see next years game have a component that could be helped again by advanced vision systems.

I'd like to see FTC/VEX be allowed to use some of the smaller cameras as a off board vision system: Open MV programmed in Python

[gblake]

As an exercise, what are some specific reasons why you would want to keep your FRC program? Why do you do FRC given the alternatives?

This line of reasoning continues to perplex me.
In VRC (and other programs), students are explicitly expected or encouraged to work with mentors to do:

• Video,
• Web Design,
• CAD,
• CAM,
• Machining,
• Welding,
• Journalism,
• Rapid Prototyping,
• Public Speaking,
• etc.

Where is the notion that they aren't supposed to do these things, or aren't rewarded if they do these things, coming from?

And, even if the program didn't encourage all of those activities (and more), why-o-why would anyone who wanted to do them feel that the program(s) in any way discouraged them from doing it?

It is possible in FRC to 100% avoid/ignore all of the activities in that list. It is possible in VRC (and other programs) to 100% embrace & enjoy all of those activities.

In my mind, FRC holds your hand (and pulls you) a bit more; while VRC opens the door (and invites you to walk through).

There is a difference, but nothing stops a group from using either program as a springboard and "going" as far as they like.

In some ways, because you can build, modify, and operate several simple VEX robots for the price of one FRC robot, experimenting with VEX robots opens more doors (cooperative behaviors, intramural contests, etc.) than experimenting with highly specialized FRC robots can open.

On the other hand, because FRC bots are bigger, they can enable some valuable real-world experiments and demos/attractions that a pure VRC bot (built from the VEX EDR parts used in VRC) can't.

Blake

[Christopher149]

Originally Posted by TDav540

most importantly, they [FTC] need an identity in the FIRST landscape.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread mention it, but in Michigan, that identity for FTC is "middle school".