[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[jaredhk]

Originally Posted by Cory

This poll is bad and it should feel bad.

Seriously though, it is very poorly written and the way the choices are laid out does not make a lot of sense. I question whether the data they get back will even mean anything given that.

It definitely has a lot of flaws but it should still very much be filled out. IF people don't fill it out because they don't think it has any merit, that will discredit it even more. May as well give it a shot and if they interpret it badly then that's really too bad but hey, we tried.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I agree that the questions were confusing and difficult to parse. I hope this is only the first step in their (public) research process on this issue.


As this thread is starting to (d)evolve into a discussion of the actual possibility of eliminating bag day, I have one main thought on that. Nobody knows. Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently. The bottom line is that we simply don't know. That doesn't mean we cannot pursue the change or that the change will be bad, but it does mean there's a lot of uncertainty.

Sean,

I agree no-one REALLY knows.

I think we can observe the lack of "stop build" day in FTC, VRC, Vex IQ, and FLL, and draw a few basic conclusions. I know that won't tell us everything, but I think it could tell us a lot.

+1000 to poor survey. I still don't understand that first question

-Mike

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I still don't understand that first question

You should have cheated off Andrew Shreiber like I did for that one.

[polytechnique]

I personally think that competition quality could really be increased if the deadline was eight weeks rather than six weeks... I'm a team captain right now, and I've seen the same thing happen with my team for the three years I've completed. The stressful rush all the way through, having to ditch schoolwork (often with slipping grades) to finish a robot... it's a lot of pressure on high school students.

Six weeks for some teams, especially those with small amounts of man-hours available to them or shorthanded teams, I think is too short. It makes me really sad every time I see a team struggling to get their robot to function properly... when they're obviously shorthanded, scrounging for resources... and then to be crushed by a much higher-funded, higher-resource team with prestige and four banners hanging off their pits with a practice bot on display, etc.

It's a hard problem. But I think some teams just don't have the man-hours, resources or funding to assemble a competitive robot. I feel like getting steamrolled by another team without ever having a fighting chance doesn't inspire kids into a love of science in technology, but instead kinda... turn them away from it. I don't feel like that's what FIRST stands for.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Ed Law

The way the survey is written, I cannot think of a reason except the following

1) Hoping to confuse some people so with a large sample, the data will average out to the middle with both extreme. The conclusion will be inconclusive so we will keep things the same.
2) Questions are biased to educate/convince people to answer a certain way and hope for a certain outcome. The conclusion will be we will keep things the same.

If they really want to consider the possibility of a change, the survey will look very different.

Ed,

I agree. This intro is pretty slanted:

FIRST Robotics Competition has a 6 week build period that encourages Team Members to be creative, work hard, take risks, experience failure and success, and develop skills while maintaining Gracious Professionalism. It is hard fun. By having the 6 week build deadline, there is opportunity for student and team growth, but also challenges for students and the Team. The next set of questions ask for your feedback on some aspects of the build season that may be advantages or disadvantages for students, the Team, and Mentors.

-Mike

[euhlmann]

Originally Posted by Cory

This poll is bad and it should feel bad.

Seriously though, it is very poorly written and the way the choices are laid out does not make a lot of sense. I question whether the data they get back will even mean anything given that.

Don't be so harsh on FIRST

I have to agree though. I don't think many of us here are able to generalize anything so specific outside of our own teams. FIRST might get some useful data out of the later parts of the survey though.

[Daniel4547]

I don't think anybody has pointed this out yet, but if Stop Build Day is eliminated then there is really no reason for a team to reveal their robot at all. If any team can change anything they want at any time, then no team would want to show what their design was because with several weeks another could completely steal their idea make an identical robot.

I know there are a lot of advantages to getting rid of Stop Build Day in terms of evening the playing field for teams that cant afford to make a second robot, but I think sharing the ideas that teams had and giving a quick showcase of what they built (like in a reveal video) does a whole lot more for making better competition than having more time to work on your robot and sacrificing the sharing of robots.

Also +1 to poorly written survey

[JABianchi]

I want to share what I wrote in my survey, as I feel it represents a viewpoint that is not voiced much in this thread, which may be more representative of teams that would be thrilled just to have a competitive chance of making it to the World Championships.

"Stop Build Day is an essential component to keeping FIRST equitable. With a longer build season, teams with many resources (money, school support, parent support) will be able to leverage those advantages to an even greater degree to the detriment of less-resourced teams' ability to be competitive and likely, less inspired. This is the same reason why we need to continue limiting the cost of the parts used on the robot.

"Additionally, coaches & volunteers that are stretched thin for those 6 weeks will feel compelled to keep up that break-neck pace for possibly double the time just to stay competitive, leading to much higher rates of burn-out. The way my team is currently structured, we would not be able to effectively compete without Stop Build Day. If FIRST is serious about reaching out to under-served communities, we will choose not to stack the deck further in favor of the privileged.

"The question is: 'Does FIRST want to be a club for the competitive elite or does FIRST want to create an equitable experience for a broad range of schools to realistically compete?' Far less than 20% of teams qualify for the Championship event each year. What can we do that will help that 20% have a high turnover rate?

"When the amount of time is limited, there is much more variance in a competition. This is why the NFL is the most equitable pro sports league in North America. Only 16 games, and single games determine elimination in the playoffs. On 'any given sunday', the worst underdog has a legitimate chance of upsetting the very best team. In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by JABianchi

In any given FRC season, with a limited build season, even a struggling, under-resourced team can have a shot against some of the best teams. Please don't change that."

Could you explain this more? How would giving teams who only can afford or have time to build one machine be at a disadvantage from getting access to their robot over a long period of time?

Teams at the top end of FRC already have this with practice bot(s) and practice fields.

[Nathan Pell]

What is wrong with making iterative design changes and testing those design changes at a tournament? This is exactly what happens at the other high school level competition the First Tech Challenge and its great!

[virtuald]

As others have said, while the 'idea' of stop build day makes things more equitable in theory, in practice well resourced teams ignore it completely by building a second robot, thus disadvantaging lesser resourced teams.

I would like to see a happy medium -- have a stop build date something along the lines of "no major physical changes after this day", but still allowing driving practice and other minor changes (eg, you can fix things you broke).

Obviously, this is impossible to enforce, and people will lawyer it, and the details are tricky to get right.