Eliminating "Start Build Day"

[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".

[rick.oliver]

A number of questions have been raised in my mind by the different perspectives shared in the thread.

I think that advancing Kick Off to mid or late September would better address the issues (at least as I inferred them from the survey) than would eliminating Stop Build Day.

While I am "retired" as a mentor, I can state that I would have embraced the change.

I agree that it would facilitate training and inspiration. I don't think that it would necessarily inhibit outreach. I don't think that it would raise the ceiling very much. I do think that it could raise the floor and be a positive impact on "mid-tier" teams.

I think that it would enable participation (and therefore, inspiration) of a broader base of students, assuming teams were willing to deal with variable participation rates due to other activities and interests.

It would be a very different model.

[gblake]

Folks,

Would anyone disagree with the broad statement that a dramatically longer build season is likely to increase FRC teams' appetite for cash (to use experimenting with and/or improving the robot(s) they build)?

I understand that rush-shipping costs might generally drop (so long as good ideas are scarce near the end of the new build period). However, I suspect that in a dramatically longer build season, that reduction would be more than offset by the extra parts an evolving robot would consume.

For that reason, I think a dramatically earlier start date would put cash-poor teams at a greater disadvantage than the current season does.

I am assuming that human nature will result in most teams using a dramatically longer build season to put more labor-hours and more design iterations into their robot.

If I'm right, the increased hunger for cash would be one "Con" to remember.

Blake

[AllenGregoryIV]

I think the biggest thing we can do is better claify rule R13

R13 Physical ROBOT elements created before Kickoff are not permitted. Exceptions are:
A. OPERATOR CONSOLE,
B. BUMPERS (a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and
constructed as specified in Section 4.7 BUMPER Rules),
C. battery assemblies per R5,
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

Many people have missed the addition of D. which allows you to reuse all COTS electrical devices where you just modified the wires for use on the robot by adding connectors.

Also the interpretation of that rule varies from team to team. I have met several teams that think if you buy a 4'x8' sheet of Lexan during the 2015 season and cut a section out for use that year then you can not use any part of that sheet in 2016. This is an extreme strict constructionist view of that rule that I don't agree with but because of the limited explanation in the rules several teams view it that way.

Similarly if you are a strict constructionist on what it means to modify a COTS parts, things like adding lubricant to a gear or a small amount of normal wear would be considered modified and that part would be unable to be used on any future robot.

A FABRCATED ITEM is any COMPONENT or MECHANISM that has been altered, built, cast, constructed,
concocted, created, cut, heat treated, machined, manufactured, modified, painted, produced, surface
coated, or conjured partially or completely into the final form in which it will be used on the ROBOT.

Note that it is possible for an item (typically raw materials) to be
neither COTS nor a FABRICATED ITEM. For example, a 20 ft. length
of aluminum which has been cut into 5ft. pieces for transport is
neither COTS (it’s not in the state received from the VENDOR), nor
a FABRICATED ITEM (the cuts were not made to advance the part
towards it’s final form on the ROBOT).

The above portion of the manual is very important and often overlooked by some teams. We have to be able to judge weather or not the modification to a COTS parts were made to "advance the part towards it's final form on the robot."

Clearing up these portions of the manual will help several teams who have been spending more money then they need to ensure they have pristine new parts and stock to use for each season.

More specifically to this subject, I think it could be useful to allow some previously constructed components to go on to future robots. However what we don't want to see is a team just reenter the same robot year after year and just change out a few mechanisms.

[Wayne TenBrink]

I am all in favor of allowing teams to use parts that were fabricated prior to kickoff.

In a world where you can buy so many FRC-specific COTS parts and assemblies, the current rule just discourages teams from developing their own stuff. For example, why build your own gearbox (that you designed/published during the off-season) when you can free up so much valuable build-season time by just buying one?

If we can buy a complete chassis or use the kit chassis, why can't we use one (or spare components from one) that we build for a previous game?

In most cases, I think that re-using assemblies from previous games is more of a hindrance than a benefit, but why not give us the option?

PS: I support ending bag day, but not moving up kickoff. That would put FRC into conflict with too many other things in my life, etc.

[Conor Ryan]

So I'm on my 7th team in 13 years. I have a new job and I got my company to sponsor a team. We ended up working with a team that previously operated January-April only and now we are doing things differently.

So whats different. We have a team that previously operated from January to April, not much structure a lot of chaos, but they still got a robot built at a high level. We've been meeting as a full team every Tuesday and we have other student run meetings going on daily. Additionally we've grown from 20 students/2 teachers to 35 students/2 teachers/2 parents/7 mentors.

1) We are building a full blown off season robot now (that will be easy to use for demos/fundraising). Deadline for this to be completed is 11/30.

2) We are establishing a Booster Club/501(c)3 so we can fundraise money and grow parent involvement.

3) We are addressing the team's chronic issue of programming. They've struggled with it in the past and now we have a structured programming curriculum. Its not solved entirely, but expect us to be auto targeting come December.

It may seem trivial, but we are very much moving right now like it is build season. We are managing to difficult deadlines but everyone is onboard and making it happen. Expectations for the build season are raising, but we know we have a ton of work ahead of us to make it happen.

[JesseK]

If I have to spend an inkling of Christmas break (Thanksgiving->New Years) on robotics in order to remain competitive in FRC, I'm out. I do things with the team during that time, but it's more training, managing the non-profit, and team building than anything.

I'm also of the opinion that people who build things before they know what they're building for are fooling themselves if they believe they'll be competitive with teams who are able to build on a much shorter timeframe after knowing what to build. It's like saying "design a car in 1 year" vs "design a car that is THE BEST at fuel economy in 6 months".

[Foster]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

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.

As a long time VEX mentor let me chime in here some. The VEX season is 365 and 1/2 days long, since they announce the game 1/2 way through the VEX championship. Lots of teams are on the new game the next day, the VEX forum is on full blast for the rest of April and the first part of May.

Once summer hits in the US, not many teams are working on things. We have a VEX summer camp in July for a week to give teams a chance to look / touch the game elements.

Most US teams start up in mid September and really start building. First events start appearing in Nov / Dec, with a bulk of them in Jan / Feb. Last World Qualification event happens 5.5 weeks before Worlds to allow teams to make plans.

In other countries, like New Zealand, they build in their winter (June, July, August) and have their world qualification events done by the end of February. for what it's worth, NZ runs about 25 events in a season, and 100 teams go to their country championships. They put the "competition" in competition robotics.

My teams (12 of them now in Delaware) meet about 2 hours a week with a 4 hour Saturday session before the first event and again before states (it's like our Bag and Tag frenzy). So there less time involved per week, but there are more weeks. I estimate that the roboteers do about 80-100 hours of build and compete in 3 events. (As an FYI, I clock about ~700 hours in a year doing robotics, still far less than what Koko Ed does)

Because of the spread of events (first event late May, last event early March) there is a convergence of designs. Last game (tossing balls into a basket/net) converged on wheeled shooters and punchers. So you don't see the full diversity of design like you do for FRC.

Pros to the VEX
-- Longer build means some flexibility in the schedule, a long chunk of bad weather isn't a big deal.
-- I'm home for dinner at least 3 nights a week during the busy part (Jan-April)
-- Trips to Worlds come with 5 weeks of lead time
-- For teams that want to do the outreach, build season isn't crushing them.
-- We co-exist with sports since we span many sport seasons

Cons
-- There is always a robot thing going on
-- Convergent designs

Neither
-- There is always a last min frenzy to complete the robot

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I am all in favor of allowing teams to use parts that were fabricated prior to kickoff.

In a world where you can buy so many FRC-specific COTS parts and assemblies, the current rule just discourages teams from developing their own stuff. For example, why build your own gearbox (that you designed/published during the off-season) when you can free up so much valuable build-season time by just buying one?

If we can buy a complete chassis or use the kit chassis, why can't we use one (or spare components from one) that we build for a previous game?

In most cases, I think that re-using assemblies from previous games is more of a hindrance than a benefit, but why not give us the option?

PS: I support ending bag day, but not moving up kickoff. That would put FRC into conflict with too many other things in my life, etc.

A "re-use" allowance would be a good addition that helps out mid and lower resource teams the most.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

I am all in favor of allowing teams to use parts that were fabricated prior to kickoff.

In a world where you can buy so many FRC-specific COTS parts and assemblies, the current rule just discourages teams from developing their own stuff. For example, why build your own gearbox (that you designed/published during the off-season) when you can free up so much valuable build-season time by just buying one?

If we can buy a complete chassis or use the kit chassis, why can't we use one (or spare components from one) that we build for a previous game?

In most cases, I think that re-using assemblies from previous games is more of a hindrance than a benefit, but why not give us the option?

PS: I support ending bag day, but not moving up kickoff. That would put FRC into conflict with too many other things in my life, etc.

Great suggestion!
I'm also in the camp that if FRC Start Build Day moved up much earlier such as September/October as others may have suggested, this would be my last season in FIRST.
Some people have a life....one outside of FIRST.

[Lil' Lavery]

For the sake of inquiry, how many of those claiming they would quit FRC if Kickoff was moved up would quite FRC if Stop Bag Day is moved back? Is it purely the holiday concerns that drive your reasoning? Or is it general burnout? Do you feel FRC would be an equal time commitment as a September-April program as it is currently?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

For the sake of inquiry, how many of those claiming they would quit FRC if Kickoff was moved up would quite FRC if Stop Bag Day is moved back? Is it purely the holiday concerns that drive your reasoning? Or is it general burnout? Do you feel FRC would be an equal time commitment as a September-April program as it is currently?

I think the difference is that build time would simply extend into competition season when most teams are still fairly active whereas moving kickoff back would extend the FRC season entirely. Something I could see happening way way into the future might be two separate FRC seasons but for now I also agree that extending the total time period of FRC is a bad move.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

For the sake of inquiry, how many of those claiming they would quit FRC if Kickoff was moved up would quite FRC if Stop Bag Day is moved back? Is it purely the holiday concerns that drive your reasoning? Or is it general burnout? Do you feel FRC would be an equal time commitment as a September-April program as it is currently?

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?

[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.