Eliminating "Start Build Day"

[Jon Stratis]

Eric - I had thought about moving kickoff all the way up to Champs... But I don't like it for four reasons.

First, you have that impulse for graduating seniors to start the robot and then go to college and not see the project through all the way. I don't know about the rest of you, but having one of the people that knows whats going on disappear like that mid-project can be devastating, on both sides!

Second, you have the incoming rookies that have no time to get trained - which means their rookie year they get to basically watch a robot get built, then trained in during whatever gaps they can to be able to build the following year. Sure, you might say "well, they still get 3 years of building!"... but I know schools that run 10-12 already, where no one is on the team for more than 3 years, and schools that run a JV program using FTC or another program, again limiting how long people are on the FRC team.

Third, while teams do go year-round, the lower intensity of the summer/fall allows students to pursue other interests. As much as we all love FRC, it really is important to be a well-rounded individual and the off-season gives kids that opportunity. I can't even begin to count the number of students my team would lose if they had to pick between the team and soccer, softball, volleyball, cross country, swimming... even as it is, we lose some very promising students to winter sports (we had one freshman try the team out in the fall but ultimately not join due to conflicts with competitive skiing... and she already had a patent for a device she designed to help with arthritis, and that device was going through clinical trials, too!).

Fourth, it's not all about the robot. Many teams just don't have the numbers to be able to pursue outreach while building a robot - it's one or the other. The off-season provides a time for so much outreach to happen, I would hate to give that up.

Personally, I would rather push competition back to after AP tests than move kickoff forward. That gives you more time with the robot, and with a lot of competitions happening after school lets out you take kids out of class less. There is the problem with some schools limiting graduating senior involvement that would have to be addressed though... Is anyone on here at a school like that? I'd love to see us bring that to a school administration as a hypothetical to see how we could work around it best.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Second, you have the incoming rookies that have no time to get trained - which means their rookie year they get to basically watch a robot get built, then trained in during whatever gaps they can to be able to build the following year. Sure, you might say "well, they still get 3 years of building!"... but I know schools that run 10-12 already, where no one is on the team for more than 3 years, and schools that run a JV program using FTC or another program, again limiting how long people are on the FRC team.

Third, while teams do go year-round, the lower intensity of the summer/fall allows students to pursue other interests. As much as we all love FRC, it really is important to be a well-rounded individual and the off-season gives kids that opportunity. I can't even begin to count the number of students my team would lose if they had to pick between the team and soccer, softball, volleyball, cross country, swimming... even as it is, we lose some very promising students to winter sports (we had one freshman try the team out in the fall but ultimately not join due to conflicts with competitive skiing... and she already had a patent for a device she designed to help with arthritis, and that device was going through clinical trials, too!).

Fourth, it's not all about the robot. Many teams just don't have the numbers to be able to pursue outreach while building a robot - it's one or the other. The off-season provides a time for so much outreach to happen, I would hate to give that up.

I think you have a lot of good points here, and I'm generally a fan of the January to May competition model we've been doing. But I think implicit in these points in particular is the assumption that an FRC build season spread out over a year would remain as busy, intense, and generally the same as one condensed into six weeks, and that just can't be true.

With incoming rookies, they actually do get time to get trained with a dramatically longer build season. Untrained rookies are pushed to the side during the real build season because of the pressures of the time crunch and the need to get it right the first time. Neither of these persist with a 9 month build season. It's okay to let rookies build something very slowly or to let rookies make mistakes, especially in the first several months of build. It would actually be much easier to incorporate training for many teams that don't do anything in the pre-season.

With regards to "can only do outreach or the robot, not both", I think that too is a function of the intensity and focus required by the six week build period. Teams put their outreach on hold because of the limited time and energy they have. All of their spare effort needs to go to getting the robot done and perfect. The removal of this time crunch would not prevent these teams from doing outreach and more slowly working on the robot at the same time. The same is true for the "frc kids have lives and want to do other stuff" argument - if kids are only available sometimes during those 9 months, they can still contribute when they can and back off when they have other stuff to do. The continuous commitment isn't as required and you don't have to shut out everyone involved in winter sports.

I'm not sold on the year round model like Vex does, for many reasons, but I see some of the benefits and how a lot of the drain and pressure of the FRC season is completely artificial.

[Lil' Lavery]

This is 100% not "trolling." While this thread was obviously meant as a parallel to Stop Build Day discussions, it is meant to be legitimately discussed. That's not to say I 100% support removing Kickoff, but I think discussing it is at least as worthwhile as discussions focused on removed Stop Build Day. More to the point, I hope that discussions regarding this topic can end up highlighting someone of the implicit assumptions being made in all of these discussions.

As for design re-use, it's allowed only for designs that have been released publically. Same as with robot code. Qualifying what counts as a design and the enforcement of using previous designs is entirely unenforceable. Highlighting that issue was partially aimed at showing that kickoff is already a bit of a soft start date, similar (but not to the same extent) to bag day being a soft stop.

However, there is currently a hard and fast rule regarding fabrication and construction prior to kickoff. In some cases, to the point of lunacy. If you follow the rules to the letter, you're not allowed to use a COTS component that you've previously assembled. You're technically not allowed to re-use the Talon SRs that you crimped connectors onto the year prior or a wheel you already riveted a tread to. Rules like that can cause budget teams to have to spend additional money on and devote resources to items like gearboxes, speed controllers, camera gimbles, wheels, etc.

Originally Posted by NShep98

I can't really say kickoff is "artificial" in the way Stop Build might be for some teams, especially since the rule right now is you can't use anything made/developed before kickoff unless it is publicly available. Mess with that rule too much, and I fear we will get the same complaints as we do with Stop Build, that high resource teams will be getting that much more time than other teams.

How many high end teams do you see using a drivebase design that's not optimized to the game? I think it's obvious there's a contingent of teams that use kit drivetrains with little (or no) adjustments for the current challenge, and that many of those teams could benefit from having more time to build and test their chassis, drivetrain, and electronics without taking time away from their manipulator efforts.

Originally Posted by NShep98

Additionally, one could argue that the reason FTC and VRC have such significantly longer seasons is because they are meant to be less intense than FRC. Part of the appeal of a "six week build", even considering the time available after Stop Build, is the idea of having such a limited amount of time for the challenges FRC offers.

This is one of the cruxes of the debate. Is the "high intensity" an integral portion of the FRC experience? Could removing the "high intensity" build allow for better integration of FRC into students and mentors lives? Could FRC be integrated right into school curriculum if it wasn't a 6-13 week sprint? Would removing the "high intensity" decrease the value to participants? How much more time has to be added to the build season to make it lower intensity? Is adjusting stop build day enough? Would it have to be a year round activity?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

You're technically not allowed to re-use the Talon SRs that you crimped connectors onto the year prior

Wrong.

Originally Posted by R13, Section D

FABRICATED ITEMS consisting of one COTS electrical device (e.g. a motor or motor
controller), connectors, and any materials used to secure and insulate those connectors

Originally Posted by Blue box

Example 2: A Team re-uses a 2016-legal motor from a previous Robot which has had connectors added to the wires. This is permitted, per exception D, because the motor is a COTS electrical COMPONENT.

And with that, I'm out of this thread. I still think you're trolling with this. If you had wanted a reasoned discussion then why not frame it as "Is the FRC calendar optimized for FIRST's stated goals?" instead of "let's eliminate start build day".

[NShep98]

I'm not quite clear on what "eliminating" Kickoff entails, unless it is supposed to mean moving it earlier in the year.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

How many high end teams do you see using a drivebase design that's not optimized to the game? I think it's obvious there's a contingent of teams that use kit drivetrains with little (or no) adjustments for the current challenge, and that many of those teams could benefit from having more time to build and test their chassis, drivetrain, and electronics without taking time away from their manipulator efforts.

I may very well be misunderstanding your point here, but isn't it that, in the current state of things, any team has the same opportunity to experiment with non-kitbot drive trains because they'd all have to start over after Kickoff?

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Is the "high intensity" an integral portion of the FRC experience? Could removing the "high intensity" build allow for better integration of FRC into students and mentors lives? Could FRC be integrated right into school curriculum if it wasn't a 6-13 week sprint? Would removing the "high intensity" decrease the value to participants? How much more time has to be added to the build season to make it lower intensity? Is adjusting stop build day enough? Would it have to be a year round activity?

Is it integral? I would say so. If we're going to dub FRC "the sport for the mind", I would hope there is a fair bit of intensity to it. While we do have to caution ourselves against burning out, I believe intensity is part of the challenge, and for some, part of the fun.


Additionally, there likely is a split between low tier teams who don't have enough time to build effective robots for which a longer season would help, and low tier teams who simply do not know how to build effective robots for which no amount of extra time will help them significantly improve.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I wouldnt participate in a sept-april program primarily because that would mean all of the pre-planning would take place during the summer. My guess is that you would lose a lot of teachers who arent willing to do that.
While many such as ourselves come in during the summers to prepare many of the same things, we do it at our own relaxed pace vs. an intensified one.

Many schools do not start at the same time. There would be a huge disparity/advantage for some teams and not others. We started our school year the week after IRI. I know of many schools who dont start school until after Labor Day weekend.

The biggest hurdle would be student preparation. Do we really want to throw a kid into build season right when school starts, especially new students?

Do you really anticipate that a Sept-April program would be the same intensity as our January-April program? What about a 365 day a year program? Can planning, preparation, and training of students still not happen in the same fall time period, even if there's a game announced? If anything, I'd echo some of the earlier posts hypothesizing it may actually be good for younger students to be able to get their hands dirty on a competition robot in a more relaxed pace. It's far less crippling if a new student makes a mistake and you have 4 months left to fix it rather than 4 weeks. It would also allow for more teams to get their fabrication and prototyping students up to speed while still having time to design a robot before they start cutting metal.

I think it's obvious that our current structure results in a very high demand, sometimes burnout inducing, pace for the 6 weeks of build season. For some teams, that can spill over into competition season. Adjusting stop build date opens the potential for that burnout to adjust up or down for many teams, but ultimately building a 120lb machine in either 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 10 weeks is still going to be a high stress, high intensity task. If we're serious about giving teams more access to their machines, but also don't want to burn people out, exploring the possibility of moving the start of the season to the left (either by adjusting kickoff date or relaxing "don't touch" requirements) may actually create the possibility of a season with less burnout. Removing bag day likely doesn't create a low stress pace by itself, but perhaps adding another 12 or 16 weeks on the front end might.

You do bring up some good points regarding teacher perspectives. We've seen similar splits among teachers regarding stop build day. Since you're also involved in VRC, how do you feel about the 365 day schedule of that competition and its interactions with your profession?

Originally Posted by NShep98

I'm not quite clear on what "eliminating" Kickoff entails, unless it is supposed to mean moving it earlier in the year.

The "eliminating" verbage was designed to parallel the verbage being used in stop bag day discussions. Practically, we're discussing both the potential movement of the Kickoff date (up until perhaps the point a 365 day schedule, in which the next game is revealed at championship), as well as the relaxation and adjustment of the rules governing what can be done before kickoff.

Originally Posted by NShep98

I may very well be misunderstanding your point here, but isn't it that, in the current state of things, any team has the same opportunity to experiment with non-kitbot drive trains because they'd all have to start over after Kickoff?

As it stands currently, teams are not allowed to use components fabricated prior to kickoff. I'm suggested we consider relaxing those rules. In a situation where those rules were relaxed to the point teams could fabricate their kitbot chassis prior to kickoff, I think that would benefit low-to-mildly successful teams more than it would high performing teams. Top tier competitive teams would be unlikely to invest substantially in designing and fabricating a chassis (or other system) for a game they do not yet know, as they want an optimized solution for the challenge. Lower performing teams often already employ sub-optimal solutions, so effectively allowing them a head start would allow them to focus more on optimization and game piece manipulation after the game is revealed. I'm also sure that high performing teams would find ways the relaxed rules could help their design and fabrication process (such as moving menial fabrication jobs on items like wheels or gussets ahead of the game reveal).

Originally Posted by NShep98

Is it integral? I would say so. If we're going to dub FRC "the sport for the mind", I would hope there is a fair bit of intensity to it. While we do have to caution ourselves against burning out, I believe intensity is part of the challenge, and for some, part of the fun.

Does the intensity have to come in the form of a 6 or 13 week sprint? Could it come in terms of final rushes up to competition dates or other deadlines? Could it come at competition itself?

I'm not dismissing your viewpoint, as it's definitely a valid one. Some people relish the burn of competition season. However, there are others that are kept away because of it, and I think it's worth examining if we're at the ideal point.

[EricH]

It would be "interesting" to relax the pre-build rules.

As a refresher, the current rules are, in a nutshell:
Code, CAD, and other similar "soft" products have to either be publicly available or done post-Kickoff. "Hard" products for the robot, in general, can't be in final form, or significantly towards final form (frames, etc.), before Kickoff, with some exceptions for electronics with connectors attached and similar items. The enforcement is the captain and mentor signature on the inspection form with "We followed all the rules."

In shorter form, you can have all the planning done before Kickoff, if it's public, but you can't cut metal or use unmodified nonpublic code or CAD.


So let's do a thought exercise in what would happen if some tweaks were made. Just for kicks and giggles, we'll assume no official "start build" time is given, but that KIT robots, if used, ship in early December. We'll also assume that the Kickoff doesn't move (for this one--I think we can draw conclusions that are applicable to if it does).

Non-public software and CAD usage: Basically, removing the "make it public" restriction. Frankly... Bad idea. The current rule actually increases the quantity of available resources at the start of the season. Removing that rule will allow "proprietary" items to stay "proprietary". Now, some folks will disagree that that's a bad thing, it'll more closely reflect the real world. But I would posit that being able to learn from the work posted is going to be better for the students in the long run.

Pre-build "hard" products: I could easily see a LOT of teams going kitbot here--the chance to build that before Kickoff could be big. Actually, you can almost do that now... except that you'll need to disassemble it at least partway afterwards and rebuild it. Wait, you need to do that for sizing anyway, if I'm not mistaken.

Here's the biggest trap with allowing "hard" products to be pre-built, and I'm willing to bet that a few teams walk into it. With no game to design for, teams don't know if they'll be able to use preseason robot X without modification. It's a gamble.

I could see that being a bit of an equalizer.

Personally... I would take a middle route. COTS items may be assembled, and/or put together as a robot, prior to season, and used in that configuration or in any other configuration. (Kitbot, AM chassis, Versa-everything--you get the idea.) I would probably include a couple of "allowable modification" rules as well, related to length trimming and hole-drilling and similar items. All must be accounted for on the BOM if they're on the robot. Verification would be the BOM and possibly a photo from before Kickoff. CUSTOM items must be built after Kickoff (whenever that happens to be). "Soft" products need to be public before Kickoff (if there is one).

Thus, a team could play with drive system X in the preseason, and use the exact same physical drive in the season, if it was COTS, or if "non-allowable" modifications were made after Kickoff. But if it was customized before Kickoff, it would need to be built again or at the very least heavily modified (great chance for the team to make necessary modifications for the game, just a thought).

[Chris is me]

Quick point of order: Are you allowed to machine custom parts before kickoff made from CAD drawings and prints that you have made COTS by widely publishing in public spaces? Is it COTS then? I've never done this just wondered about it.

[pfreivald]

I'm approaching the point where I may have to step away from FIRST just because of the other demands on my life. (I do a lot more than just robotics).

Personally, I would like to see a hard step in the other direction--keep kickoff, and keep stop build day, eliminate the withholding allowance and forbid the use of practice robots--but extend the build season by one, maybe two weeks.

If FRC starts to take up any more of the 600-700 hours I already spend on it every year, I'm going to have to step away.

[New Lightning]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Personally, I would like to see a hard step in the other direction--keep kickoff, and keep stop build day, eliminate the withholding allowance and forbid the use of practice robots--but extend the build season by one, maybe two weeks.

Personally I believe that banning the use of practice robots is one of the most ludicrous idea's that I have ever heard proposed as a solution. I get that many teams don't have the resources to build one, and that it gives and "unfair" advantage to the teams that do. But the building and use of practice robots has done more for the develop of level of competition in FIRST than anything else. Second why should we punish the teams who take the time energy and effort to get more resources in order to develop a superior product. If you don't like it, then do something about it on your own team.

I'm in favor of leaving kickoff where it is. Students get a much needed break before the start of build season from school and bringing forward the date of kick off to somewhere in Nov/Dec will only extend the students stress from the end of the first semester, through build season, into the start of the second semester. However, I am in favor of allowing teams to use fabricated parts made before kick off because in reality they would have no idea what the game would be, or what the restrictions on size would need to be. The option would be to just make say a bunch of different launchers and arms and other manipulators and hope that one may work. Doing this comes with an inherent risk/reward that allowing teams to make would be interesting to see.

Where I see the use of fabricated parts being allowed to be used to greatest effect is in drive chassis. Many mid to mid-high teams develop and experiment with new chassis during the off season that they are contemplation using during the build season. Having the ability to use, say for example a custom designed swerve module that you made in house, custom built chassis pieces or even full chassis with electronics boards could be extremely useful as it creates a more realistic performance test bed for scaled prototypes. Allowing teams to further develop their concepts, thus making FIRST more competitive.

[Chris is me]

You also "can't" ban practice robots, because what is a practice robot? I challenge anyone to write a rule that rigorously prevents the creation and use of practice robots, without either being so broad it bans all sorts of normal activities, or being so narrow that any number of legal exceptions to the rule exist.

In general, changes that make FRC teams perform worse aren't a good idea.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You also "can't" ban practice robots, because what is a practice robot? I challenge anyone to write a rule that rigorously prevents the creation and use of practice robots, without either being so broad it bans all sorts of normal activities, or being so narrow that any number of legal exceptions to the rule exist.

In general, changes that make FRC teams perform worse aren't a good idea.

Code must be submitted to the FRC Code Submission System no later than 12am EST on [stop build day] via zip file. It will be loaded prior to each match by the FMS system. Teams will be given the opportunity to submit new code at the event via a change request process administered by the FRC Software Advisor (FSA). Only code written at the event will be allowed.

There, invalidated the primary benefit of practice bots and all iteration of systems while still allowing functionally identical replacement of parts and minor geometric tweaks and still allowing at event changes.

For the record - I think this is a stupid idea.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

There, invalidated the primary benefit of practice bots and all iteration of systems while still allowing functionally identical replacement of parts and minor geometric tweaks and still allowing at event changes.

For the record - I think this is a stupid idea.

Mechanical iteration and drive practice are still allowed, so I expect it would not stop anyone from building a practice robot. Even if they had to throw out and rewrite any code they worked on at home.

Keep going!

[gblake]

Originally Posted by New Lightning

Personally I believe that banning the use of practice robots is one of the most ludicrous idea's that I have ever heard proposed as a solution. I get that many teams don't have the resources to build one, and that it gives and "unfair" advantage to the teams that do. But the building and use of practice robots has done more for the develop of level of competition in FIRST than anything else. Second why should we punish the teams who take the time energy and effort to get more resources in order to develop a superior product. If you don't like it, then do something about it on your own team.

...

... thus making FIRST more competitive.

Some folks might be able to make a strong case for the idea that time spent building a practice bot could be better invested demystifying building fun LEGO/VEXIQ bots for new students who don't know how much fun STEM careers can be.

Other folks might make a strong case for the idea that having a practice bot helps teams improve their on-the-field win record, and helps teams put on demos, etc.; and that investing in both of those things will help them attract students who don't know how much fun STEM careers can be.

In either case FIRST hopes the teams invest their time and resources well; and are able to nudge their community cultures in a good direction.

Switching from practice bots back to build seasons ... As you and other posters rightly imply, adjusting the build season is a complex topic. Some folks' musings and suggestions strike other folks as ludicrous. One person's what-if suggestion is another person's troll.

Figuring out what changes, if any, would strengthen FIRST's ability to carry out its primary and related mission(s) is a tough, multi-dimensional nut to crack, especially in an online discussion thread.

Blake

[gblake]

This thread contains some opinions that I found useful when thinking about all sides of the ways-to-alter-build-season and motivations-to-do-it conversations. I suppose what is in it could be used to bolster arguments advanced by just about anyone who takes a stand on the subject(s). For me that speaks volumes about those conversations.

Maybe a good takeaway from that thread and from some of the posts in this thread is that out of the constellation of possible changes, any change should be made cautiously, after a full exploration of the entire problem space.

Managing Grades and Responsibilities While On A FIRST Team
PS: Jane Young started the thread back in May of 2007. As recently as Jan of 2016 someone found the topic pertinent enough to contribute to the thread.

Blake