[FRC Blog] Stop Build Day Survey Results

[Alex Chamberlin]

I see it more of a question of limiting reactants. If your limiting reactant is resources than stop build day is disadvantageous, because you aren't working on the second robot. So it helps well-established teams, but it appears less well-funded teams like it. And I personally like it. And a longer build season would not help and only stretch the gap between teams.
I Have two suggestions:

Increase the out-of-bag time to 12 hours. Out-of-bag time is not like normal build time because there is so much extra time to get things and is more even than just letting the second robot builders practice.

Let drivers practice as long as no mechanical changes are made this would include fixing it. If this decreases the value of a second robot your closing the gap between teams. Unforeseen consequences aside.

Keep the stop build day.

Side note: My feeling about the Un-even stop build time was that on average it helped with the gap. Given that on average east coast has more money than west. Also I loved ending at midnight.

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by marshall

This is at the top of the report:

So a majority of responding teams (2,196) build more than one robot...

Though this number does seem high, we should keep in mind that the question was worded such that the second "robot" did not have to be equivalent to your bagged robot, just that it allow testing of some aspect of your robot while it was bagged.

By that stance if you build a kit-bot on wheels to test programming or a spare arm and use that to test shooting angles, those both count as "second robots" per that question

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

Though this number does seem high, we should keep in mind that the question was worded such that the second "robot" did not have to be equivalent to your bagged robot, just that it allow testing of some aspect of your robot while it was bagged.

By that stance if you build a kit-bot on wheels to test programming or a spare arm and use that to test shooting angles, those both count as "second robots" per that question

You're right, but at the same time, any team building a non-bagged robot is continuing work after Stop Build Day. So every one of these teams is at the very least spending man-hours on a project (and probably money) in order to allow post-bag development of their robot. The bag is such a significant constraint that half of 2/3rds of FRC actively works around it, and is already not observing the "six week build season".

I'm curious to hear from teams that build significant or full practice robots that wish to keep bag day. That's probably where I'll learn the most about this perspective.

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I'm curious to hear from teams that build significant or full practice robots that wish to keep bag day. That's probably where I'll learn the most about this perspective.

That would be us. For the last few years (either six or eight depending on how close a copy you want) we have built a practice robot that is a pretty close copy of the competition robot. Not always exactly the same but very, very close. I have expressed it before, but my reason for wanting to keep stop build day is that we will lose team members (both students and mentors) if we do not. We practice with the second robot, and a few students work on tweaking devices sometimes. But we spend less than 20% as much time and have less than 20% as many students involved in the practice at any one time as we do during the build season. That is a sustainable level of activity for us after stop build day. Over half our team members do a spring sport or are in the spring musical, and we would lose some of them, and some mentors, if we changed.

As I said before, I have no doubt that on the average the robots would be better if there were no stop build day. At least in the short term. There is no reason that adding more time to work on the robot would make robots worse (excepting every once in a while where there is a catastrophic accident) and reasons that at least some robots would be better. Using the same logic I do not doubt there would not be as many participants in FRC, because I don't believe there are lots of people out there not participating because of the limited build season. So for me it is a question of better robots for fewer kids or not quite as good robots for more kids.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by mathking

That would be us. For the last few years (either six or eight depending on how close a copy you want) we have built a practice robot that is a pretty close copy of the competition robot. Not always exactly the same but very, very close. I have expressed it before, but my reason for wanting to keep stop build day is that we will lose team members (both students and mentors) if we do not. We practice with the second robot, and a few students work on tweaking devices sometimes. But we spend less than 20% as much time and have less than 20% as many students involved in the practice at any one time as we do during the build season. That is a sustainable level of activity for us after stop build day. Over half our team members do a spring sport or are in the spring musical, and we would lose some of them, and some mentors, if we changed.

As I said before, I have no doubt that on the average the robots would be better if there were no stop build day. At least in the short term. There is no reason that adding more time to work on the robot would make robots worse (excepting every once in a while where there is a catastrophic accident) and reasons that at least some robots would be better. Using the same logic I do not doubt there would not be as many participants in FRC, because I don't believe there are lots of people out there not participating because of the limited build season. So for me it is a question of better robots for fewer kids or not quite as good robots for more kids.

Thanks for the input; I understand this perspective on how the soft deadline helps limit the flow of work after the deadline.

My follow up is, if we kept the bag system, and added access windows, what do you feel would be the right amount of time to allow, such that teams like yours did not have to build a second robot, but the system of a soft deadline and more limited after-build work is preserved? I feel this kind of compromise is a step forward that more people can agree on than just ripping off the Band-Aid of Stop Build Day right away, and this is where people should focus their efforts on finding common ground.

My gut says... 10 hours a week without competition, 2 hours a week with competition, in addition to any unbag windows provided to District teams already. But maybe that's too much?

[Mark McLeod]

The way that question about 2nd robots was worded doesn't equate with teams necessarily working on them past bag day.
Teams simply strapping a prototype arm to last year's robot during week 2 would be answering "yes" to that question.

[Jessi Kaestle]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

You're right, but at the same time, any team building a non-bagged robot is continuing work after Stop Build Day. So every one of these teams is at the very least spending man-hours on a project (and probably money) in order to allow post-bag development of their robot. The bag is such a significant constraint that half of 2/3rds of FRC actively works around it, and is already not observing the "six week build season".

I'm curious to hear from teams that build significant or full practice robots that wish to keep bag day. That's probably where I'll learn the most about this perspective.

In both examples I gave, the primary purpose of building this "second robot" might not be to allow post bag development. In the case of the kit-bot to text programming my team does that to allow the programmers more than a few days with a drive-able robot to test autonomous code. In the case of a spare arm, it is exactly that, a spare.

I am not saying that teams might not use them to for post bag development but with the way the question was worded we can not infer that that is the purpose of these "second robots".

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Jessi Kaestle

In both examples I gave, the primary purpose of building this "second robot" might not be to allow post bag development. In the case of the kit-bot to text programming my team does that to allow the programmers more than a few days with a drive-able robot to test autonomous code. In the case of a spare arm, it is exactly that, a spare.

I am not saying that teams might not use them to for post bag development but with the way the question was worded we can not infer that that is the purpose of these "second robots".

Ohh, I get it, the NASA method. Build the robot, put it in the rocket, fire it off to another planet, and then work on coding a close facsimile before it lands.

Meh. Build season is a myth! Pop the bag!

[mathking]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Thanks for the input; I understand this perspective on how the soft deadline helps limit the flow of work after the deadline.

My follow up is, if we kept the bag system, and added access windows, what do you feel would be the right amount of time to allow, such that teams like yours did not have to build a second robot, but the system of a soft deadline and more limited after-build work is preserved? I feel this kind of compromise is a step forward that more people can agree on than just ripping off the Band-Aid of Stop Build Day right away, and this is where people should focus their efforts on finding common ground.

My gut says... 10 hours a week without competition, 2 hours a week with competition, in addition to any unbag windows provided to District teams already. But maybe that's too much?

I think 10 hours might be a bit much, but in principle adding some limited time each week with robot access is a good compromise. It would limit the workflow and not require the kind of time commitment the build season entails. I might instead offer some total number of hours over the time period. But I think you have hit the nail on the head with finding middle ground. (One big advantage of an unbagging period might be an increase in the number of robots that are operational for practice rounds.)

Just to be clear, I am not advocating for an un-bagging period as way to ease into getting rid of Stop Build Day. I think it is a reasonable middle ground instead of getting rid of it. I still think that if we get rid of Stop Build Day we will reduce the number of students who participate. (As a side note, we will also reduce the chances for those who opt to stay with FRC to do other things.) I think reducing the participation rate is a bad idea.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by mathking

I think 10 hours might be a bit much, but in principle adding some limited time each week with robot access is a good compromise. It would limit the workflow and not require the kind of time commitment the build season entails. I might instead offer some total number of hours over the time period. But I think you have hit the nail on the head with finding middle ground. (One big advantage of an unbagging period might be an increase in the number of robots that are operational for practice rounds.)

And that would be on top of the later practice match schedule that already increased practice match participation a couple of years ago.