[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[tjf]

First and foremost, the survey is terrible. The questions are incredibly confusing, and abstracting any data out of it should be done carefully.

Secondly, bag day, though a challenge is part of the larger one. Having only 6 weeks to build a robot is a very looming challenge, the stop build timer counting down like an evil overlord. To me though, it's part of the fun (or lack thereof when I'm asked 3.5ish months from now.)

However, if they were to remove bag day, you get into the whole Ship of Theseus problem of "if they change every part of their robot, is it still the same robot?" Where is the line drawn between "improvements" and "totally different" robot?

I digress, the survey stunk, and should FIRST want better information, the questions should be worded to make more sense. We may be roboticists, but we're not all rocket scientists.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by tjf

However, if they were to remove bag day, you get into the whole Ship of Theseus problem of "if they change every part of their robot, is it still the same robot?" Where is the line drawn between "improvements" and "totally different" robot?

In 2013 we went to 2 regionals and Champs. We built 2 robots(second was mostly just a drive base). At our first event we didn't like how our shooter performed so we made an entirely different shooter and that was our 30 pound withholding. At our second event we didn't like how our intake was working so we made a completely different one and took off our shooter so we could keep working on it. At champs we had a completely different robot than what we originally bagged. The only part of that robot that was not changed was the drivetrain.

Withholding and bagging is only really a hindrance to teams without a second robot and who only go to one event. 1678 stops working on our robot when we leave from Champs. I believe every team should get the same time advantage we have because of how we choose to use our resources.

[edisler]

Ok, I agree, the survey was a bit one-sided, however, IMHO I would prefer to see bag and tag ended. Now I get that I may not have thought through of all of the repercussions but I really can't think of how I have been helped by this rule. As a rookie coach, in (less than) six weeks I had to not only deal with learning a bunch of technology that was unfamiliar but also how to be a good mentor to the kids. After a couple of years, I figured out that in order to be competitive I had to build two robots so that I could keep working on development after the deadline. Of course that means that we are spending twice as much for spare parts(If I can get them, after all, everyone else has to buy parts for two robots) and building 2 robots means that I am having to use our sponsor's shop to build twice as many parts as I really need.

During the meet season, well equipped teams are able to practice using their practice bot and use the 30 lb allowance to perfect the robot defects while smaller teams have to let their robots wait in the bag until meet day.

Isn't meet day a good enough deadline? What are the downsides to ending bag and tag day?

[roboruler]

Originally Posted by edisler

After a couple of years, I figured out that in order to be competitive I had to build two robots so that I could keep working on development after the deadline. Of course that means that we are spending twice as much for spare parts(If I can get them, after all, everyone else has to buy parts for two robots) and building 2 robots means that I am having to use our sponsor's shop to build twice as many parts as I really need.

I disagree, when we build practice bots, we build two identical robots and then remove mechanisms from the practice robot as spares for the main competition robot. This works fine for us. so there isn't actually a lot more fabrication and manufacturing of parts necessary, obviously there is a necessity for more control system parts etc. but you would normally bring spare control system parts to a competition anyway. If you design the robot to be disassembled easily your practice robots mechanism can easily serve as spare parts( within the 30lb withholding)

[DonShaw]

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

Every team that attends a week one event will have had the some amount of time to work on their robot. The same goes for a week seven event, every team that attends (a week seven event) will have the same amount of time to work on their robot. The event dates are your production deadlines and at the end of the season you would still have a championship(s) event where everyone has the same deadline.

In Minnesota we use a similar registration system for FTC, yes the later events tend to fill up faster because teams want more time to practice but in the end it doesn't really make a difference. Most of the competitive FTC teams compete in 2 events, one early and one late event - the change in competitiveness from the first event to the last event is huge but each team gets an equal amount of time to work on their robot between events. At the state championship all teams are on the same level and no one feels slighted by attending an early event vs a late event (at least no one has shared that issue with me).

I did have one Minnesota FRC student and family come up to me at the MN FRC State Championship last year that felt the level of competition was unfair. They felt this way because the teams that had attended two Regionals, followed by the World Championship had multiple hours of unbag and practice time vs the teams that qualified at their first and only Regional but didn't qualify for the World Championship. Eliminating the 6-week build season would fix this (somewhat unique) problem.

As for the topic at hand, I would set my stance as neutral-leaning towards eliminating stop build day, that being said I do really enjoy having a six-week build season.

[BrendanB]

I'm not 100% sure how it would impact our team however what we have seen (for both my current team and prior teams) is that in order to keep up with the field second bots are a norm and if you don't have one you have to work really, really hard to pull it off. Teams like 359 have made it work with one machine however they are far from your average FRC program, but that's mainly in part due to the huge efforts they have put in to grow their FRC/VEX programs.

This year 1058 built two complete machines but in doing so our strategy/design discussions usually centered around us aiming simpler because we had to do it twice. It was really tight on a budget for two machines and the only way it worked for us was we made design decisions based around what COTS items we could reuse along with making one electronics board we swapped between them as part of our withholding allowance. The process worked well as we saw an increase in on field performance and our level of prepardness going into our events. I saw the same things on 1519 when we moved to a second machine in 2009, capitalized on it in 2010, and they continue to do so today. Same goes for 3467 we built a second chassis in 2013 and since then they've made a complete second robot.

Its really hard but its becoming the norm.

For me at least stop build day really just means we meet a little less but that's mainly because the prior two weeks were spent working our tails off because there was a deadline around the corner. We took a little time to recover but found ourselves spending even later nights before our Week 2 event and similarly Week 4 & 5. The reality is teams end up killing themselves twice now: once before stop build day and the other before their first event.

I would see it as a huge pressure relief for our team if we removed the deadline because the reality is for us with building two machines plus out of bag time before our qualifying events we are investing time and money into machines on a level that doesn't compare to my time as a student in 2008 when we finished the robot(s)*, put it in a crate, and didn't see it until our only regional that year a week later. That was also back in the day when there was no 30lbs of prefabricated materials you could bring to an event to upgrade your robot only functionally identical parts. If you wanted to rebuild your robot you had to do it exclusively at the event on a Thursday as simply as possible.

FRC has changed dramatically since then. We play more, iterate more, modify more, and meet more. The idea of a "6 week build season" no longer exists for most of the teams in FRC who compete non-stop especially with some of the top tier now building two complete practice robots or one with a prototype for software or "other" mechanism development. The short window between development of ideas, design, and the time to build a machine impacts some companies who can provide parts for teams. Giving a potential sponsor a one or two week window for parts doesn't always end with a "yes".

I do believe no stop build day would open many doors for some schools to bring FRC into the classroom allowing more teachers to start teams if they can meet during school and a little after school for a longer period of time before there first event.

*In 2008 we built two machines but they weren't the same for a specific reason.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

Yeah! It doesn't get harder to compete as the season goes on!

Ohh wait, we have that data, average match score by week:

http://www.thebluealliance.com/insights/2016

[edisler]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

If you can afford build a practice robot then there is still an incentive to enroll in the last possible events regardless of a bag and tag rule. Having the extra time to practice and build spare parts is incentive to wait to the end, even with the bag and tag rule.
There is also incentive to enroll in early events in either case because teams are still learning the game and have not had time to fully develop their robots and game play tactics, thus increasing the odds for a more inexperienced team to be successful.

[Nathan Pell]

Originally Posted by DonShaw

There needs to be a stop build day at some point or teams would enter the last possible events before states ( if a district model) to get more work time in on the robot. Teams that get a week one home event would be impacted by the lack of time.

In real world there are production deadlines at some point.

Just my fifty cents.

As others have pointed out, I believe you can look at the FTC and VEX program as real world data/examples of what happens with an open build season. You end up with some teams who don't want to be very competitive and they bring what they made and go home and are happy with it. Then you get the competitive teams who enter as many tournaments as they can to make improvements. As everyone knows the real test is when you put your robot on the field at an event and play the game. That is when you know for sure how the designs and mechanisms end up functioning. While I also completely agree the FRC build season should be like the FTC build season I think this would be difficult to do until all of FRC is district based. By having events close to your geographical locations makes it much easier to attend the events, and they are usually short thus requiring less time (if any) out of school. Here in Florida I don't see teams not attending the Orlando Regional just because it is 'early' and they aren't ready.

[Oblarg]

All the questions except for the last one are pretty bad, but the last one is rather important, I think, so claims that there won't be anything useful from this seem to me a bit overblown.

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by tjf

First and foremost, the survey is terrible. The questions are incredibly confusing, and abstracting any data out of it should be done carefully.

Secondly, bag day, though a challenge is part of the larger one. Having only 6 weeks to build a robot is a very looming challenge, the stop build timer counting down like an evil overlord. To me though, it's part of the fun (or lack thereof when I'm asked 3.5ish months from now.)

However, if they were to remove bag day, you get into the whole Ship of Theseus problem of "if they change every part of their robot, is it still the same robot?" Where is the line drawn between "improvements" and "totally different" robot?

I digress, the survey stunk, and should FIRST want better information, the questions should be worded to make more sense. We may be roboticists, but we're not all rocket scientists.

It is already possible within the rules to change to a 100% new robot over the course of a whole season.

I am all for open build season. Save us the time and money of a twin robot and let us iterate as much as we want.