Building more than one robot / expanding the "season"

[pras870]

I can't decide on a side to take in this discussion, since I feel this is both a good idea, and a bad idea.

I believe, in a way, allowing this is in the spirit of FIRST. You can think of it as debugging/beta testing after the product is complete. We all know a machine has flaws, and it's also "beta testing" if you will that solves these problems. I've always looked at the first 6 weeks as 1 big prototype/base build project. My team has never built a second robot, but we have continued to program and use simulators. Granted this can't solve a lot of mechanical problems, but it does solve a lot or program errors. As far as building spare parts in the off season goes. I know a lot of teams have done this already before. To my knowledge, you've always been able to create spare parts and bring them to the event, just never bolt on assemblys or radically change your design after it has been shipped. For example, you were not able to create a drive train, assemble it, and $@#$@#$@#$@# it with your robot, then design and build an entirely different drive train. I may be wrong on this, but this was always my understanding.

As far as building a second additionala robot for testing and such. I feel it is unfair to the rookie teams as opposed to the more experienced. Teams just starting out, or even teams that have been around 2-3 years, don't have the funds to buiild a second bot. "Too bad for the rookies," some of you might be thinking, which is just wrong. Remember, we were all rookies once, so put yourself in their shoes. You see teams that build a second robot, and have an amazing driver from being able to practice in the "off-season" (now should be called extended-season). How does that seem fair to you? Just because you don't have the funds, you don't get the same opportunities as someone else?

So do I agree with it or disagree with it, it's an issue that I honestly can not comment on.

And Mr. Van. Congratulatioons on still having a wife after the 6 weeks, must be some woman you have. Let's see how she handles another 6 weeks now

[ShadowKnight]

the "problem" is not arising because FIRST is allowing us to keep our controller for another few weeks, all besides the rookies, everyone had an oi and rc to work with to control their clone robot in the event their team decided to go down that path. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with driving a bot around, getting practice. In fact, I see no real problem with them building a second robot to trouble shoot a design with. Unless the contraption was built during the 6 week period, they have to re-engineer the part on site at the regional. Anything that the team is able to construct within that first day I see no problems with.It's not liek they can completely re-design and build their arm out of raw materials when they arrive. This is nothing new for FIRST teams and I see no reason why everyone is getting all upset. Granted, the prgrammers get a few more weeks but then, I believe that such rules even the playing field for rookie teams who have not been able to construct an autonomus mode, and have a higher curve to climb than veterans. In all honesty, the effect of FIRST allowing teams to keep their oi will be minimal at most. Maybe we'll see more teams who run can with a functional autonomous mode this time.

[RogueThorn]

I'm rather new to all of this. I was drafted just last week to help in the programming. On looking it all over, it seems to me that the programming should begin when the construction begins. A fully functioning robot is not needed to test the code in all circumstances (it is the best, of course).

In my panic to bring myself up to speed, seeing as how I've never programmed a robot before, I built a mini-bot using a robot kit that the school had sitting in a corner collecting dust. I think I spent 2 hours on it. With this silly mini-bot I have hammered out a potential solution to the "follow the white line" using the kits sensors. If what I have doesn't quite work, I think I know what to do next.

They finish the robot tonight...and now my work begins. Wish me luck!

Carl
"Try to relax and enjoy the crisis." Ashleigh Brilliant: Brilliant Thoughts

[OneAngryDaisy]

(in response to "Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots")

I really have to disagree with how its a neccessity- we (341) are serious about doing well in this competition, but there is no way we could build 2 robots. First of all, we would not be able to afford two of every part, considering we are using almost every motor. Buying an additional OI, a bunch of spikes and victors, and all the other parts for our robot is just simply not possible. But hey, we still showed up all day on friday, saturday, sunday, and monday, 50+ hours in total over the weekend.

Keep in mind we are a veteran team with access to a full machine shop (tech center alliance), chances are if we can't make a second robot then the majority of other teams can't as well..


I can tell you we would LOVE to have a second daisy to practice autonomous with. The fact is, we can't do that. Last year we seeded 4th in Galileo and won it all even after only having one robot, thanks to our programmer spending hours on perfecting his gyro. I applaud all of the teams that can achieve this, but we're thrilled to just finish our one robot.

[ngreen]

Our programmer has been working from day one. We switched out RC's on last years bot and he has programmed several options for competition. It takes more time to switch the battery on our robot than it would to make a new program.

Work from week one and you won't need the extra time.

[Jon K.]

Originally Posted by ngreen

Our programmer has been working from day one. We switched out RC's on last years bot and he has programmed several options for competition. It takes more time to switch the battery on our robot than it would to make a new program.

Work from week one and you won't need the extra time.

RAGE has for a long time now made two robots that were as identical as possible. We are also lucky enough to have a space donated to our team in which we can build a full size playing field every year and we have always been willing to open it up to other teams in the area if they wanted practice. All you would have to do is ask our team leader Mr. Nystrom and he would be willing to set something up with your team. I have found that have the second bot gives your drivers a feel for the robot, but not always an advantage. Last year we still had mechanical issues that were not encountered while practicing, like our arm chains breaking all the time. So just becuase you are able build a second robot doesn't mean you are able to account for everything that might happen on the field at a competition. And it definately doesn't prepare a rookie team or a rookie drive team in general for the pressure placed on them during a real life competition.

[Chris Hibner]

This is a good reason to get rid of the "ship after 6 weeks" rule. Teams that build two robots (to work while their robot has been shipped) are already working through the entire competition. The six week deadline isn't saving these teams any work or any stress. In fact, if we didn't have to ship the robots, these teams would be doing less work (since building a second copy of the robot is obviously more work than only building one copy and keeping it).

It seems to me that the only teams that build two robots are the teams that have the money and/or manpower to do it. If FIRST is interested in a level playing field (for the small teams), then perhaps it's time to do away with shipping the robot off in 6 weeks. That way, everyone has a robot to work with between competitions.

I also think that this takes away some of the advantage to going to many regionals. At the regionals, the teams get to work on their robots, work on programming, make modifications, fix problems, etc. The more regionals you go to, the more opportunity you have to fix things. If teams keep their robot, every team has equal opportunity to fix the robots, make modifications, etc.

Some may argue that this takes away from the "real engineering experience" of having a deadline. I disagree. You would still have a very real deadline: your first competition. If you don't like having to work on the robot at the end of six weeks, then don't - no one would be forcing you to.

[Shawn60]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

This is sort of what I was getting at. As a teacher/coach/mentor, working an additional 30 hours a week during "build season" is something that I plan for and my wife is able to cope with. The problem comes in when "ship-date" is not the end of the intensive building season - it is just the beginning of the intensive driving/autonomous programming season.

How do other mentors/coaches feel about this?

-Mr. Van

I work with my team 11 months a year. So the additional time is not that big of a deal. Also, I am not the primary "robot mentor". I have three other adults who head that up. I am the teacher that runs everything else. The key, I think, is to have other adults and students to help.

If you really want to be sneaky... find something on the team your wife may want to help with. When she is addicted like you... that is when the real fun begins.

Shawn
Team 60

[Swan217]

I agree that it's really taxing when the build season doesn't end with the six weeks. It's like "Well, robot is shipped. Let's keep working." But I think that it's part of the Gracious Professionalism thing; It all has to do with your mindset of what you're doing with your time.
If you think of it as: the coding or robot that you have at the end of the 6 weeks is your final product, barring some totally unexpected freakish bug, and you're using the post-build time as specifically testing the robot, I think it's ok.
It's like in the real world: The product that Ford or GM ships is the final version of the car for that year, but if there's a problem, then they can issue a recall and fix it, or a customer can bring it in under warranty. As long as you're just "tweaking" the existing model (program code) and not creating an entire new one or changing it drastically, I think it fits in with the spirit of FIRST.


Two of our so called "Robot Widows" ended up getting so fed up with the engineers not being home, that they decided to be part of the team too.

[Jon K.]

Originally Posted by SwaDan

Two of our so called "Robot Widows" ended up getting so fed up with the engineers not being home, that they decided to be part of the team too.

One of our engineers has been working with the team so much his wife did that too.

[Wetzel]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

This is a good reason to get rid of the "ship after 6 weeks" rule. Teams that build two robots (to work while their robot has been shipped) are already working through the entire competition. The six week deadline isn't saving these teams any work or any stress. In fact, if we didn't have to ship the robots, these teams would be doing less work (since building a second copy of the robot is obviously more work than only building one copy and keeping it).

It seems to me that the only teams that build two robots are the teams that have the money and/or manpower to do it. If FIRST is interested in a level playing field (for the small teams), then perhaps it's time to do away with shipping the robot off in 6 weeks. That way, everyone has a robot to work with between competitions.

I also think that this takes away some of the advantage to going to many regionals. At the regionals, the teams get to work on their robots, work on programming, make modifications, fix problems, etc. The more regionals you go to, the more opportunity you have to fix things. If teams keep their robot, every team has equal opportunity to fix the robots, make modifications, etc.

Some may argue that this takes away from the "real engineering experience" of having a deadline. I disagree. You would still have a very real deadline: your first competition. If you don't like having to work on the robot at the end of six weeks, then don't - no one would be forcing you to.

To me, that is a very profound thought. The 6 week rule is something that has been so consant in my 5 years in FIRST, that I'd never enven considered getting rid of it. I will have to give it some thought, but I think I may end up liking it.

As for 'robotics widows', one of our electrical engineers made a deal with (got an ultimadum?) with his other. Try comming to meetings for a year, and if you like it, then stay, if not, she gets a cat to keep her company. As it turns out a few years later, his current job is keeping him later, so she is at more meetings then he is. For the currious, 'she' is MissInformation.


Wetzel