Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

Uhh im not sure i agree with this fully. Speaking strictly from actual experience being a engineer gives a mentor no advantage over a student when it come to building robotics. As mentioned in other threads robotics is rarely covered in college. In fact i know a mentor who has designed xray systems for submarine inspection yet has no clue when it came to our robots specific abilities. He was knowledgable about electrics but in plenty of cases it just didn't carry over.

This generalization is wrong and essentially insulting to engineers.

1. Being an engineer is advantageous for building successful robots. There are thousands of companies around the world who design and build robots (automated industrial systems, consumer robotics, and robotic toys, just to name a few markets). Who does the majority of the designing and developing of these robots? Engineers. Companies in these markets who want to hire someone to help them build their next 6-axis, servo-driven, wafer-insertion robot or their next robotic lawn mower mostly hire people with engineering degrees to do engineering. Usually, these companies wait until a student gets out of college to offer them a full-time position.

2. Colleges do teach their students to design, debug, test, and produce robots. Where was this mentioned that these were rarely covered, and by whom? Sure, there are many engineers who have not specifically studied machine design and they might not know FIRST game play, but they still are engineers. If these people are willing to help, students should show enough respect to at least hear them out. They might not be able to discuss the intricacies of a swerve drive, but at least they can teach V=IR, F=MA, and the basics of C programming.

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

THIS is what i have a problem with. I think this is hardly true for reasons mentioned before and because a student with experience can design amazing pieces. Two great examples are Tytus and Arefin (the first to come to mind. hope you guys don't mind) who both did great work while in college. Even Engineers with knowledge in a specific area can have trouble because they can design a otherwise amazing system but find that unless they have experience in robotics that their system just isn't practical (inappropriately weighted systems and a lack of understanding of parts limits is a primary problem) Again mentor run teams are not bad but its the generalizations that get to me. I know I'm a hypocrite in making this post and if any of you figure out why don't bother posting.

(One a side note, it's good to see that Tytus and Arefin have been leading double lives as college students. Also... ask either of them how they have learned to do some good designing. My guess is that they will say that knowledgeable engineers helped to show them how it is done.)

I am going to go out on a limb to make an assumption and offer a suggestion.

My assumption that there are engineers who are deemed "unhelpful" because they are thrown a FIRST-related technical challege during week 2 or 3 of the build season. They come up with a solution without really knowing the details of the game and after not shown a FIRST match. When these un-informed engineers give a sub-par design that might not be advantageous, students shake their heads and think "oh, he's just a engineer who doesn't know anything about robotics".

Here is my suggestion: instead of simply going to an engineer during week 2, actually bring them into your team now. Let them become part of your team. Take them to an off-season event. Invite them to your fund raising events, your bowling nights, and your fall planning sessions. Believe it or not, these engineers will probably come up with better input come build season. They might even show you something and possibly even inspire someone on your team.

Call me crazy, but this just might help your team.

Andy B.