[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

For the vast majority of FRC participants, being the best of the best at a worldwide scale is not in their vocabulary. Using the rationale of the very top echelon in terms of on-field success is not a representative sample for the FRC population as a whole. What it takes to "keep up" with these teams should not be a primary driving factor in determining what is the healthiest decision for the entire FRC team base.

Please refer to my verb usage.

You are not keeping up if you want to be the best of the best at a worldwide scale unless you do not stop working until comp with 2 robots (or more).

In my world, FRC teams should strive to get all they can out of the program and to learn the most they can. What I have stressed on my own team and my own career is the importance of iterative design and never having a product just be good enough. Strive to create the best thing you can, and any great engineer knows you can always improve your product. That thought process is how you become an innovative individual.
Eliminating bag day will give more teams an opportunity to continuously improve and learn from that on a cheaper scale. Imagine how many teams could add more things with more time! They would learn so much more about engineering.

FRC is expensive. And learning more for a cheaper price than 2 robots for a majority of teams seems like something we should be striving for.

Thanks!

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

Please refer to my verb usage.



In my world, FRC teams should strive to get all they can out of the program and to learn the most they can. What I have stressed on my own team and my own career is the importance of iterative design and never having a product just be good enough. Strive to create the best thing you can, and any great engineer knows you can always improve your product. That thought process is how you become an innovative individual.
Eliminating bag day will give more teams an opportunity to continuously improve and learn from that on a cheaper scale. Imagine how many teams could add more things with more time! They would learn so much more about engineering.

FRC is expensive. And learning more for a cheaper price than 2 robots for a majority of teams seems like something we should be striving for.

Thanks!

This leads us right back to the conversation that was occurring regarding burnout and what it means to "keep up." Nobody doubts that having more time means teams will have the capability of doing more with their machines. What is in doubt is the other impacts of extending the official dates of build season. At the moment the discussion is specifically focusing on what pressures teams will feel to expand their work schedule to fill that new time, and the implicit impacts of that on student and mentor burnout. That ties directly into a number of other factors that have been discussed previously in other threads (student recruitment, student grades, mentor retention, team retention, etc). That's why I challenged your evaluation of using Einstein-caliber teams.

In short, few people are disputing that more time can mean you can do more with your machine. What people are disputing is what that time costs, and whether the standards of the teams that already work that time are truly a proper metric to compare the rest of the FRC population to.

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This leads us right back to the conversation that was occurring regarding burnout and what it means to "keep up." Nobody doubts that having more time means teams will have the capability of doing more with their machines. What is in doubt is the other impacts of extending the official dates of build season. At the moment the discussion is specifically focusing on what pressures teams will feel to expand their work schedule to fill that new time, and the implicit impacts of that on student and mentor burnout. That ties directly into a number of other factors that have been discussed previously in other threads (student recruitment, student grades, mentor retention, team retention, etc). That's why I challenged your evaluation of using Einstein-caliber teams.

In short, few people are disputing that more time can mean you can do more with your machine. What people are disputing is what that time costs, and whether the standards of the teams that already work that time are truly a proper metric to compare the rest of the FRC population to.

The point I am getting at is teams have way more options on how they would like to construct their own build schedule without a SBD. So many programs like VEX, FTC, FLL, sports strive from this and can add so much more to the product.
If team's want to work more they can, if team's want to slow down they can, the possibilities are endless. Having a harsh deadline (especially a short 6 weeks) makes things harder in my world for both high performing teams and low performing teams. High performing teams want to be competitive so they must build 2+ robots to be the best of the best. Low performing teams have to stop working on their robot and can't add things, test, and more.

For Code Orange, we can't have 40 kids working on one robot, so we are going to build 3 to give our kids more opportunities to chase excellence. Many teams don't have that option, but eliminating a stop build day would give more kids the chance to work on features on the robot.

I helped start 2 rookie teams this year and both wanted to be competitive to ensure their sponsors stayed interested, kids were engaged, and parents would continue their support. So they both put in time to create 2nd robots. Both teams did exceptionally well (One even was #1 seed at SDR) and supporters raved and their program grew because of it.

Imagine how many more teams would get more support if they could show a little bit of a better product!

Kids get the most inspiration by seeing their hard work pay off. I've been on those low resource teams. We just want to have a bit more of a chance. Giving us more time would of helped with that!

The strive for excellence isn't something that "burns out all kids." What burns a lot of them out is wanting to be slightly competitive without enough funds or time to make a robot that works.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

The point I am getting at is teams have way more options on how they would like to construct their own build schedule without a SBD. So many programs like VEX, FTC, FLL, sports strive from this and can add so much more to the product.
If team's want to work more they can, if team's want to slow down they can, the possibilities are endless. Having a harsh deadline (especially a short 6 weeks) makes things harder in my world for both high performing teams and low performing teams. High performing teams want to be competitive so they must build 2+ robots to be the best of the best. Low performing teams have to stop working on their robot and can't add things, test, and more.

This is what generally I've been thinking about.

Do Vex/Vex IQ students/teams struggle with burnout? Honest question here.

-Mike

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

This is what generally I've been thinking about.
Do Vex/Vex IQ students/teams struggle with burnout? Honest question here.

I have no statistics on this, but student/mentor burnout is still an issue for some VEX Robotics Competition teams.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

This is what generally I've been thinking about.

Do Vex/Vex IQ students/teams struggle with burnout? Honest question here.

-Mike

Mike,
last year we had 8 VEX/VEX MS/VEX IQ teams. Many of our teams built multiple robots throughout the season in hopes of improving their robots. More than half of them were completely different than their original designs at the start of the season which competed in at least 1 event.
Generally speaking, there was no student/mentor burnout. More than 1/2 of our High School students that do VEX also do FRC. Even with that, no burnout.

However, if we tried to do that for FRC, I would guess that student/mentor burnout would definitely take place. This is why I dont believe VEX is a good comparison with respect to building multiple robots for FRC with respect to resources, time spent, and the amount of energy needed.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Mike,
last year we had 8 VEX/VEX MS/VEX IQ teams. Many of our teams built multiple robots throughout the season in hopes of improving their robots. More than half of them were completely different than their original designs at the start of the season which competed in at least 1 event.
Generally speaking, there was no student/mentor burnout. More than 1/2 of our High School students that do VEX also do FRC. Even with that, no burnout.

However, if we tried to do that for FRC, I would guess that student/mentor burnout would definitely take place. This is why I dont believe VEX is a good comparison with respect to building multiple robots for FRC with respect to resources, time spent, and the amount of energy needed.

Having a school with students that do both makes you a good person to ask... what's the difference in person-hours/meeting hours between building one VEX robot and one FRC robot? when looking at burnout, measuring the difference in terms of number of hours probably makes a decent metric to compare two programs with.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Having a school with students that do both makes you a good person to ask... what's the difference in person-hours/meeting hours between building one VEX robot and one FRC robot? when looking at burnout, measuring the difference in terms of number of hours probably makes a decent metric to compare two programs with.

Our students spend roughly 3-4 hours per day for about a 6-week time period to build a VEX robot from scratch. Its much harder to determine subsequent designs, because after already competing at events and seeing youtube videos of other tournaments, they can get ideas of subsystems that can be replicated much easier than in FRC.
In FRC, we put in over 300+ hours for the average student in the 6+ week build season to build 1 robot.

Here's something that no one has really elaborated on yet. What about student/mentor talent?
IMO, elite teams will always be elite teams no matter what rules you change. They are good not because they build 2 robots and continually iterate as the main reason. Its plain and simple.....talent.
I was blown away to here recently that teams could put in less than 1/2 the amount of time and build world class, Einstein ready robots.
I dont think you can do that with all the resources in the world or a change in schedule, without first and foremost the talent and experience to do so.
In Jim Zondag's white paper, he specifically names some example elite teams. Change the rules and they will STILL be elite.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Here's something that no one has really elaborated on yet. What about student/mentor talent?
IMO, elite teams will always be elite teams no matter what rules you change. They are good not because they build 2 robots and continually iterate as the main reason. Its plain and simple.....talent.
I was blown away to here recently that teams could put in less than 1/2 the amount of time and build world class, Einstein ready robots.
I dont think you can do that with all the resources in the world or a change in schedule, without first and foremost the talent and experience to do so.
In Jim Zondag's white paper, he specifically names some example elite teams. Change the rules and they will STILL be elite.

I don't think anyone is trying to bring the bottom 10% up to the level of the top 10%. The goal is to increase the level of play and capacities of all teams, so matches are more exciting and more inspiring. Robots sitting dead or unable to accomplish game objectives isn't an inspiring experience for most people, not if they continue to do that year in and year out. Teams that have to put completely untested mechanisms on the field and have them fail with little hope of improvement isn't inspiring. The best teams are the best because they have worked hard, and have passionate people that have gained great skill at this sport. That won't change but for the majority of teams that are just trying to play the game, I believe they will be helped by this change. I know for sure that the teams we mentor each year would be helped by this change. They could get more days at our machine shop. They could come with us when we go scrimmage with our friends in the area. There is so much more they can do. Right now we sometimes have to help them attempt to build upgrades for their WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE with no knowledge if it will work on their robot because it's in the bag and they don't have a duplicate or an exact CAD model.

One of the strangest things we have to do most years is to explain to the teams we help why we are building two robots or explain why we get to keep working on our robot (they may not see the bagged one) but they have to have theirs in the bag. It takes a while for most people to fully grasp that concept.

[Duncan Macdonald]

We get a new manual every year. We can pilot baglessness for a year and if the results are worse then we bring the bag back.

I believe that life without a bag would be better, but I'm prepared to accept a bag again in 2018.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Duncan Macdonald

We get a new manual every year. We can pilot baglessness for a year and if the results are worse then we bring the bag back.

I believe that life without a bag would be better, but I'm prepared to accept a bag again in 2018.

2019, that is. 2017 will definetly have a bag day, as stated by Frank.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Here's something that no one has really elaborated on yet. What about student/mentor talent?
IMO, elite teams will always be elite teams no matter what rules you change. They are good not because they build 2 robots and continually iterate as the main reason. Its plain and simple.....talent.
I was blown away to here recently that teams could put in less than 1/2 the amount of time and build world class, Einstein ready robots.
I dont think you can do that with all the resources in the world or a change in schedule, without first and foremost the talent and experience to do so.
In Jim Zondag's white paper, he specifically names some example elite teams. Change the rules and they will STILL be elite.

1678 is not an amazing and successfully competitive team because we are talented. We got to where we are today with long hours of mostly well planned out hard work.

We could not have reached as far as we have without the practice robots we build that enable us to keep iterating our designs. In 2013 we were a unknown player to the greater FRC community, nobody knew who we were outside of California. Then we won our division after being turned down by our first 3 picks. We made it that far not because of talent, but because of working our butts off to make our robot ready to compete on the world stage every moment we were able. 2014 was much the same story for us. 2015 we had a good robot, not overly amazing, but our success was because of the time and work we put into developing our can grabbers. We finished the design of our final can grabbers the day before we left for Champs, not one team ever beat those can grabbers.

Our robots would still be good if we didn't build a practice bot, but they wouldn't be Einstein good. And a good robot is useless to a driver that can't drive it to it's potential.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by RoboChair

1678 is not an amazing and successfully competitive team because we are talented. We got to where we are today with long hours of mostly well planned out hard work.

We could not have reached as far as we have without the practice robots we build that enable us to keep iterating our designs. In 2013 we were a unknown player to the greater FRC community, nobody knew who we were outside of California. Then we won our division after being turned down by our first 3 picks. We made it that far not because of talent, but because of working our butts off to make our robot ready to compete on the world stage every moment we were able. 2014 was much the same story for us. 2015 we had a good robot, not overly amazing, but our success was because of the time and work we put into developing our can grabbers. We finished the design of our final can grabbers the day before we left for Champs, not one team ever beat those can grabbers.

Our robots would still be good if we didn't build a practice bot, but they wouldn't be Einstein good. And a good robot is useless to a driver that can't drive it to it's potential.

Actually, it was 4.
I'd argue that we worked just as hard as you folks. I'd also argue that there are other teams that work even harder than we do but with results that are much less successful on the field. Is it because of talent?
You brought up some good points though. But let me also ask you this. Why was your can grabbers unbeatable? Everyone else in the world saw what 118 did early on during their unveil and week 1 event.
Perhaps....talent?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Is it because of talent?

I'd call it skill not talent. Talent often has a component of natural ability that can't be learned which is where i think he was making a point that be cause they worked hard they developed the ability and skill to be world champions.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Actually, it was 4.
I'd argue that we worked just as hard as you folks. I'd also argue that there are other teams that work even harder than we do but with results that are much less successful on the field. Is it because of talent?
You brought up some good points though. But let me also ask you this. Why was your can grabbers unbeatable? Everyone else in the world saw what 118 did early on during their unveil and week 1 event.
Perhaps....talent?

I still wouldn't say it's talent, it was mostly a somewhat reckless view of the safety implications. We were just crazier than everyone else so we put a LOT of surgical tubing on those things, cocking them was a 3 person operation. They hit the cans at somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 mph. The whole process of developing those grabbers had a HUGE pile of fail to get the final design.

One interesting thing I have noticed is a lot of teams seem to meet for short hours every or most days during build season(from what I keep reading here on CD). It's typically less efficient to do that from a productivity view, you end up loosing the first and last 15 minutes or so of your meeting times to getting started and cleaning up. That's a big deal when you only meet 3 hours. We get the vast majority of our work done on weekends because we work 9-5 which is 8 straight hours to do things. I know we get more done per unit of meeting time on the all day weekend meetings.

If I had to attribute our success on the field to just 3 things it would be the following in order of value.
1. How we deconstruct every element of the game and rules in our best attempt to determine what strategies will be used at the highest levels of play and selecting what features our robot must have in order to use those strategies, then and only then do we begin to come up with mechanisms to test and later design into a robot.(see post #342)
2. Heavily prototype key robot features to determine the variables that are important for them to succeed and continually iterate our designs and strategies until they work 100% of the time.
3. We put a lot of time and effort into training and practice for all our team members in the off season to maintain and expand our teams knowledge base. A big part of which is building a team culture where veteran students take on mentorship responsibilities with the newer students. In a given year I could give 15-20 students a working knowledge of mechanical fabrication or I could give 4 or 5 students a far greater depth of knowledge that they can then pass on to several others during the time they are on the team, greatly lessening the teaching burden on myself.

Number 2 is made easier by the removal or significant modification of Stop Build Day. Number 3 is also made much easier because when there is less immediate pressure to get something finished and into a bag there is more time to teach, mentor, and maintain the knowledge base of your team. I have seen many teams have a number of students graduate and see the results of the loss to their knowledge base because they were unable to train their juniors with the knowledge they gained over the years. It is so much easier to teach someone when you don't feel like the process is going to slow you down enough to where you will miss a deadline.(see post #337)

Now we do have talented people on our team that contribute a great deal to our overall success, but talent alone is worth nothing without the practice and training to use it well and the time and hard work to make valuable use of it. In almost every single case, talent just means you learn faster than the rest because you have the drive to learn and work hard on your own. Talent is not something you are born with, it's something you were inspired and driven to embrace.

Talent is never enough. With few exceptions the best players are the hardest workers. -Magic Johnson