Is allowing a practice robot good for FIRST?

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

What if the 6 weeks were actually 8 and no practice robot was allowed? What is the 6 was actually 16? This would eliminate the advantage of the practice robot, while still allowing students more time to build and get inspired by FIRST.

I believe a big motivator for the 6 week build period is the burden on mentors. Many mentors have families who kindly put up with not seeing their family member much for 6 weeks. Asking those mentors to put in 8, or 10, or more weeks will decrease the number of willing mentors. Additionally, there's scheduling issues. With many weeks of regionals to fit in, and with not wanting to interfere too much with the end of the school year activities, it's just not practical to have a longer build season.

On a more general note, I'd like to add this: of course teams that can build a practice robot have an advantage over teams that can't. Is this far? Not at all. But if you say teams can't build a practice robot, does that suddenly make the competition fair? No. Teams with more resources will always have an advantage. The only way to take away this advantage would be to dictate everything: budget (TOTAL budget, not just materials for robot), suppliers, manufacturing methods, minimum number of students per adults (i.e. "You are not allowed to have more than 1 mentor for every 10 students"), etc. On my team we are lucky to have a large number of adult mentors. We have a sheer manpower advantage over teams with 1 mentor and a handful of kids, regardless of the other build rules & limitations. The flip side of that, though, is that we also have a LOT of students on our team. If we only build our competition robot, there's a practical limit on the number of kids that can be working on it at one time (there's only so many kids that can cram around a robot on a table). With a second, practice robot we can get twice as many kids up close and working on the robot. For example, sometimes we set up 2 crews - the "prime" crew which takes care of building and maintaining the competition robot (and serves as pit crew at events) and the up-and-coming crew where newer members get a chance to learn by building and maintaining the practice robot. Take away the practice robot and we will not be able to let as many kids get their hands dirty working on the robot (or each kid will get to spend less time doing it). This seems like exactly the opposite of what FIRST is trying to accomplish.

{edit} I also want to add that in high school I was on a team that, while still decently funded, did not have the same kind of resources that my current team has. We did not have nearly as much success as my current team, either. It didn't matter, though. We always had a great time and learned a lot. Losing isn't fun, of course, but we didn't really expect to win the whole thing anyway and just enjoyed the experience for all that it was. There's still things that I miss about that team; many people may not realize it but there are a few advantages of being on a small team. There were times as a student where I was able to go off and design a small feature of the robot and build it on my own. This isn't always practical with a big team because there's just not enough features to go around. There was also a great deal less pressure to win. Successful teams seem to experience a lot more disappointment when they lose which can in turn take away some of the fun of competition if you're struggling more than normal. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that average teams end up enjoying the competition more than successful teams because winning and losing is taken more in stride. {/edit}

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

My argument isn't that we should handicap the better teams to make the equal, limit the engineering quality of well designed robots, or limit learning to students. My stance is that FIRST should try to increase the fairness of the competition by giving all teams the same amount of time to build, test and practice with their robots. The current loophole of a practice robot should be addressed and fixed in future competitions.

Matt

Matt,
I think you are missing my point, (as well as some of the other folks here.) You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more". I am applauding the ability for students (and mentors) to learn more. Throughout history, learning has been suppressed, delegated to a select few, or dismissed in the name of some ideal. When one team learns, other teams benefit, through this forum, team interaction, and assistance and mentoring at competitions. If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today. We don't measure our success by the number of wins we achieve, but by the number of students who find themselves, decide to attend an educational institution beyond high school and become productive citizens and future mentors, parents, teachers. Weigh this in the balance of your mind...On one side the number of boys who made Eagle Scout while I was a leader (23) + the number of students who passed through Wildstang (during the time I have been a team member) and went on to college (200+) against National Wins (1). Does it seem a little lopsided? In that 200+, two perfect ACT scores, numerous above 30 scores, MIT, Purdue, Bradley, U of I students, countless engineering graduates and I am proud of every one of them. Now I know a practice robot didn't make those statistics but if one practice robot got one student to go to school and graduate it was worth every penny, every hour of time, every drop of sweat, every tear.
If you want to know how to build a more competitive robot, ask. GP demands we tell you, help you, guide you, teach you.

[Amanda M]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Matt,
I think you are missing my point, (as well as some of the other folks here.) You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more". I am applauding the ability for students (and mentors) to learn more. Throughout history, learning has been suppressed, delegated to a select few, or dismissed in the name of some ideal. When one team learns, other teams benefit, through this forum, team interaction, and assistance and mentoring at competitions. If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today. We don't measure our success by the number of wins we achieve, but by the number of students who find themselves, decide to attend an educational institution beyond high school and become productive citizens and future mentors, parents, teachers. Weigh this in the balance of your mind...On one side the number of boys who made Eagle Scout while I was a leader (23) + the number of students who passed through Wildstang (during the time I have been a team member) and went on to college (200+) against National Wins (1). Does it seem a little lopsided? In that 200+, two perfect ACT scores, numerous above 30 scores, MIT, Purdue, Bradley, U of I students, countless engineering graduates and I am proud of every one of them. Now I know a practice robot didn't make those statistics but if one practice robot got one student to go to school and graduate it was worth every penny, every hour of time, every drop of sweat, every tear.
If you want to know how to build a more competitive robot, ask. GP demands we tell you, help you, guide you, teach you.

I completely agree with Al.

But I don't really understand why this is such a big deal. Honestly, take a step back and think "How Important is it?" Is it really going to matter that much that some teams have an advantage over others? If FIRST is a program that brings students to real life problems, then this is a classic example. Some people will have the resources, and some wont. However, I still firmly believe that the resources are there, if you can find a way to attain them.

I guess that's what I mean to say.

How Important is it? Is it important enough for you to go out and find the resources so that you can create a second robot? If you want to have the advantage, just like everyone else, it's out there, you just have to try and attain it. And for the rookies, who will find it very hard, there is a great forum here that you can find veteran teams to help you with money, parts, CADs, etc.

It's all out there.

[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by Amanda M

Honestly, take a step back and think "How Important is it?"

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being critically important to the future of FIRST, and 1 being completely inconsequential... I would put the practice robot issue at about a 3. Maybe a 2.

But boy does it make for great discussion!

Matt

[dtk]

Many people have already expounded on the educational benefits to the teams who employ practice robots. Also the concerns of less funded teams who don't want to give away any more ground to the big budget teams is also valid. Perhaps there's another solution and it's one we have already tried.

Very few, if any, people will argue that being able to utilize a practice robot during the entire competition season (March/April) does not improve the performance and overall quality of a robot. It is inevitable that given extra time software will improve, mechanical issues will be solved, and drivers will become better able to control the machine. Thus if everyone had a practice robot the quality of robots attending competitions would be higher than it currently is. If no one gets any extra practice time it is likely the overall quality would decline. Whether it would be a large change is immaterial the point is simply that more time with robots leads to a higher level of competition.

Now for a question. Is it more inspiring, not only to current team members but to everyone watching and judging the program, to have robots that are well driven, break down less often, and can do what they are designed to do or, instead, to have more than a few robots who fail to even drive successfully in a match? Please don't take this to mean that I think a poor performing robot does not inspire those who worked on it, but, rather, that to many people, especially those who have not already been through the program it will certainly be more inspiring when the level of play is high.

To me a solution that brings up the level of the competition is infinitely preferable to one that is likely to bring it down. So, since some teams are unable to build a second robot to practice with why not let everyone have access to their primary robot. This is akin to some years ago when a repair/retest/practice period was included after each regional. Sure there are still problems, and many details that would need to be addressed. But, allowing teams a few days with their robot after each competition does some to level the playing field while giving everyone a chance to improve on their robot.

The major concern that FIRST seems to have with this solution is that it in essence lengthens the "build" phase of the season. This in turn increases the stress on the mentors and students who may then feel compelled to increase their time commitment. However there is no reason that every team MUST utilize any additional time with the primary robot. The fact of the matter is right now the teams that want the extra time and have the resources to get it are already lengthening the build season and many of them find it to also increase the benefits of the program. All adding access to primary robots would do is to allow other teams that wish to do the same, but lack the finances to also get this opportunity. Those who wish to abstain as they are doing now would still be free to do so. It's just that the option would be available to everyone.

As far as leveling the playing field goes. It is impossible to make the argument that a highly resourced veteran team would not be able to make more improvements or get better practice (VIA a full practice field) in this time period than a low budget rookie. So the "Have" teams will most assuredly still have an advantage, but the point is they have it anyway. The benefit of allowing access to the primary robot is small to a team that already learns 99% of what they were going to by using a practice robot. However the benefit to a team with no practice robot can be huge. Therefore despite being a rule which will continue inequity among teams it will reduce the gap and, as removing the gap is impossible, reducing it is the next best thing.

-Daniel Kimura

[AHallows]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

There's been a couple of threads in the past asking which teams build two robots, and then one asking if building two robots is good for the students.

It's been recently ruled that it's perfectly legal for FIRST teams to build a practice robot for students to practice with during the time after the ship date and between competitions. It appears that a number of voters agree that practicing between competitions is good for the students.

Matt

Isn't that what this is all about?

[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by AHallows

Isn't that what this is all about?

Good catch. I didn't make this clear.

The point I was trying to make is simply this:

The students who are on teams that are big enough to support a second robot get this extra time to learn and become more competitive. The students who aren't on large teams don't get this extra time to learn and are at a competitive disadvantage. I am hoping that through we can steer this discussion to propose ways to still give students the additional experience they'd have by working on a practice robot while making strides to reduce the competitive advantage gained by having it.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

You are attacking a practice robot as giving teams an unfair advantage because they allow the team to "learn more".

I'm don't think I've attacked much of anything. I'm just calling it how I see it - allowing a second robot is a loop hole (something within the rules that allows for an unexpected outcome). The 'unexpected outcome' is simply that only 'have' teams can get this critical advantage. Again, I'd like to see a way for this advantage to be evened out, either by removing it, or (preferably) by allowing it to happen for all teams. Note that my preference is a change of opinion from my original post. I've been persuaded by the benefits that have been discussed.

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

If you think we are competitive because we are a "have" team, or build a practice robot, or as suggested above, skirt or bypass the rules and the meaning of GP you are doing a great disservice to the engineers who mentor, the students who work on the robot, pit, or other activity, and the teachers who keep us focused on a learning tool that exceeds many programs in schools today.

First, I never meant to imply that building a practice robot is not GP or unethical. We'd be building one this year if we could. Though I hope everyone has given me the benefit of the doubt, this isn't about MY team not being able to build a practice robot, it's about making the competition fairer and hence more competitive for all teams. I think that's something that we should all strive to make happen.

As to the main point you wrote here... let's be candid for a second: of course 'have' teams are more competitive because they are a 'have' team.

'Have' isn't just about money... teams with incredible engineering talent, incredibly dedicated mentors, incredibly dedicated students, incredible facilities, and incredible machining resources will always build incredibly robots. This incredible combination along with building a practice robot is what makes 'have' teams competitive year in and year out. I don't think making this obvious statement is a diservice to any engineer, mentor, teacher or student on your team. 'Have' teams didn't become that way overnight; a lot of people put in a lot of hard work to make it so. Everyone knows that most of the 'have' teams are incredibly generous with offering their resources to other teams. There's nothing shameful about being a 'have' team - I think every team should strive to become a 'have' team so they can share their 'have' with the 'have nots'.

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

If we only build our competition robot, there's a practical limit on the number of kids that can be working on it at one time (there's only so many kids that can cram around a robot on a table).
...
Take away the practice robot and we will not be able to let as many kids get their hands dirty working on the robot (or each kid will get to spend less time doing it). This seems like exactly the opposite of what FIRST is trying to accomplish.

This is among the most legitimate arguments I've seen. +1,000 points to you.

That's all folks,

Matt

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by dtk

Many people have already expounded on the educational benefits to the teams who employ practice robots. Also the concerns of less funded teams who don't want to give away any more ground to the big budget teams is also valid. Perhaps there's another solution and it's one we have already tried.

Very few, if any, people will argue that being able to utilize a practice robot during the entire competition season (March/April) does not improve the performance and overall quality of a robot. It is inevitable that given extra time software will improve, mechanical issues will be solved, and drivers will become better able to control the machine. Thus if everyone had a practice robot the quality of robots attending competitions would be higher than it currently is. If no one gets any extra practice time it is likely the overall quality would decline. Whether it would be a large change is immaterial the point is simply that more time with robots leads to a higher level of competition.

Now for a question. Is it more inspiring, not only to current team members but to everyone watching and judging the program, to have robots that are well driven, break down less often, and can do what they are designed to do or, instead, to have more than a few robots who fail to even drive successfully in a match? Please don't take this to mean that I think a poor performing robot does not inspire those who worked on it, but, rather, that to many people, especially those who have not already been through the program it will certainly be more inspiring when the level of play is high.

To me a solution that brings up the level of the competition is infinitely preferable to one that is likely to bring it down. So, since some teams are unable to build a second robot to practice with why not let everyone have access to their primary robot. This is akin to some years ago when a repair/retest/practice period was included after each regional. Sure there are still problems, and many details that would need to be addressed. But, allowing teams a few days with their robot after each competition does some to level the playing field while giving everyone a chance to improve on their robot.

The major concern that FIRST seems to have with this solution is that it in essence lengthens the "build" phase of the season. This in turn increases the stress on the mentors and students who may then feel compelled to increase their time commitment. However there is no reason that every team MUST utilize any additional time with the primary robot. The fact of the matter is right now the teams that want the extra time and have the resources to get it are already lengthening the build season and many of them find it to also increase the benefits of the program. All adding access to primary robots would do is to allow other teams that wish to do the same, but lack the finances to also get this opportunity. Those who wish to abstain as they are doing now would still be free to do so. It's just that the option would be available to everyone.

As far as leveling the playing field goes. It is impossible to make the argument that a highly resourced veteran team would not be able to make more improvements or get better practice (VIA a full practice field) in this time period than a low budget rookie. So the "Have" teams will most assuredly still have an advantage, but the point is they have it anyway. The benefit of allowing access to the primary robot is small to a team that already learns 99% of what they were going to by using a practice robot. However the benefit to a team with no practice robot can be huge. Therefore despite being a rule which will continue inequity among teams it will reduce the gap and, as removing the gap is impossible, reducing it is the next best thing.

I have been watching this thread with interest, and would like to thank all of you for a rational, well-reasoned discussion that has brought out a number of legitimate concerns and perceptions. But I do need to jump in for a moment and say tell Daniel that if Woodie Flowers were here right now he would probably give you a massive hug and "thank you!" for your comments. This is exactly the point that Woodie has been pounding into the heads of many of us for a while now - we have to look at the competition from a very broad perspective, and try to understand how to increase the impact it can have. There may be elements of the FIRST program that, at an individual or team viewpoint, seem to be contrary to what one might expect. But when the same element is examined from the viewpoint of a sponsor or competition audience or local community, all of a sudden the advantages become clear.

-dave

[misterfoo]

One thing that is the big equalizer at First competitions is the random pick of the partners. Last year in Atlanta our team made it to the Semi-Finals in the Newton division. We clearly were not the best robot in the pool, but we were paired with awesome partners for 2 days. In then end we picked a partner team that won their regionals but was in 50th place (or so) at the finals because of partner pairings that did not work out. So everything else said, about resources, rookies experience, it all gets washed out in the random pairings.