Should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots?

[Collmandoman]

Originally Posted by Cory

If they don't care, they either a) shouldn't be in the program,

I hear this argument all the time from many of the 'extreme-FIRSTers'
I don't believe sandrag means they don't care at all, they just don't have the same passion many do that spend alot of time on this forum. I believe everyone in the program has some excitement for it, whether it be large or small. And even if there excitment is little, I believe this to be no reason to say they SHOULDN'T be in the program. Many aren't in the program for the pursuit/interest in science/engineering but to be with friends and like minded company - I think some of us forget this often. FIRST is fun, even if you don't like robots.

[Koko Ed]

I would like to see teams be pushed to make a more quality FIRST program (more school involvement, community involvement, help to strengthen the local and national FIRST scene and such) then I would "just building a quality robot". FIRST can only become stronger when teams strive to lift up the program and not just build the robot and leave it at that.

[Madison]

My experience -- all 7 years of it, if you can imagine -- has been that teams that produce robots that have a high polish in design, fabrication and function have a better understanding of process than do teams that haphazardly and aimlessly assemble a robot. Both deserve to be proud of their efforts and, undoubtedly, both have learned something new that they did not know yesterday, last season, or last year -- but they're proud of different accomplishments. In other words, some teams are proud of pulling through at the eleventh hour, and others are proud for not having to stay awake for three or four days in order to meet their goal. Ultimately, there is no absolute arbiter to determine which accomplishment is better than another.

Where I'm concerned, process trumps ingenuity. A successful process that can provide a solution that is reliable, safe, cost-effective and on-time is far superior to a solution that prioritizes unorthodoxy and originality -- especially at the particular expense of reliability and safety. Students with a better understanding of process will be better equipped to handling projects of increased scale. Burning the candle at both ends to finish a project may be possible when you're surrounded by 30 students in a classroom, but it becomes less feasible when you're working beside 500 professionals at a company, each of whom have families and homes they must attend to.

Is process inspirational? Well, no. It's boring, actually. Process is built around meetings and approvals and budgeting and performance-review. It slows things down because it requires that we first explain and justify our intended course of action to others. Whether the others understand that action is almost inconsequential, as much of the value comes from simply slowing down and reexamining the decisions we make and their impact. I work fast alone; I work better in a group. Working with a group and explaining to them everything I do forces me to be more thoughtful and honest about my ideas. This benefits everyone and, where FIRST is concerned, usually results in robots that work. Is there anyone here who believes that fielding a robot that functions as designed and reliably so is not inspirational? It's certainly more enjoyable than spending six weeks on an ingenious gizmo that, come competition, doesn't work as advertised -- no matter how clever it looked on paper.

[slickguy2007]

It is not always possible for teams to create a robot that is "visually pleasing", but isn't that really apart of the challenge? It is difficult enough to finish the robot on time and some teams (including my own) have made adjustments that make the robots less professional looking. You know what though, I am glad we made those changes because it allowed for us to get a great robot functioning and competing despite its less lack of beauty. FIRST, however, does recognize a team's ability to make the robot neat, organized and more "professional" by awarding the Motorola Quality Award.


As for teams not working hard enough, I graciously disagree with that. Especially now, when companies are not able to contribute as much as they use to, it is unfair to point fingers and claim that due to lack of funding or resources a team has not been working hard enough. The challenge was not meant to be easy, if it was meant to be easy it wouldn't be much fun.

I really don't like seeing fights on CD, so lets please lets not continue this.
In Sanddrag's defense, I don't think he meant anything disrespectful by his opinion nor do I believe that he wanted to start a fight. It is glorious year 9 for me in FIRST and I admit that I still have a lot to learn about myself, my team and GP. I <3 FIRST!

GO FIRST!!!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Collmandoman

I hear this argument all the time from many of the 'extreme-FIRSTers'
I don't believe sandrag means they don't care at all, they just don't have the same passion many do that spend alot of time on this forum. I believe everyone in the program has some excitement for it, whether it be large or small. And even if there excitment is little, I believe this to be no reason to say they SHOULDN'T be in the program. Many aren't in the program for the pursuit/interest in science/engineering but to be with friends and like minded company - I think some of us forget this often. FIRST is fun, even if you don't like robots.

I'm not talking about people who aren't hardcore FIRSTers.

Im talking about the people who show up only to eat your food and screw around (yeah, you all know what I'm talking about. Every team has this happen )

If they add absolutely nothing of value to the team, they should be asked to leave, or to start reforming their ways.

Maybe mechanicalbrain was referring to the type of people you were talking about though, and I misunderstood him.

[CJO]

Im talking about the people who show up only to eat your food and screw around (yeah, you all know what I'm talking about. Every team has this happen )

Absolutely.

It is not always possible for teams to create a robot that is "visually pleasing" . . .

While I understand that "pretty" is not always possible I do believe ths in good design form and function are intrinsically related, and that sloppy welds, and useless pieces cannot add to the robot. On the otherhand, pieces which look like what they do (at some level) tend to function better and work longer with fewer problems.

As far as "process" goes, it is nice to have meetings, the officious people get to talk a lot, and people get to hear the sound of their own voices, however, we have tried (not always successfully) to keep meetings to the bare minimum. The question is, do you trust the people working on a particular part enough to let them follow the common plans and not breathe down their necks? As someone "in charge" of certain project aspects, I can personally attest to how hard it is not to micromanage. Furthermore, process creates totally functionaless people, people whose only purpose is to facilitate the "process," and who use up resources while creating nothing of value.

[KenWittlief]

One of the defining characteristics of engineering is that: Real engineers don't care about appearance!

Esp when you are designing what is clearly a prototype (one of a kind, tweak and improve as you go along) machine, like a FIRST robot, the only things that matter are form, fit and function.

Any time you spend making your robot pretty is wasted resources, because with the short 6 week design cycle you could ALWAYS put those resources to better use, making your robot function better, giving your drivers practice time, tweaking the SW in your control routines.

Real engineering is not about buffing and polishing metal and paint, its about finding the best solution to a real-world problem.

In the realm of a FIRST competition, a higher quality robot is the one that performs on the playfield and wins.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Real engineers don't care about appearance!

Then I guess whoever was responsible for making the Segway an absolute masterpiece of art isn't a "real" engineer. They were only pretending then right?

Would you pay 5 grand for a segway if it looked like this? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...le&picid=11889

I think not.

However much some may want to deny it, I think a notable portion of engineering (and the FIRST competition) is being able to sell yourself.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Any time you spend making your robot pretty is wasted resources, because with the short 6 week design cycle you could ALWAYS put those resources to better use, making your robot function better, giving your drivers practice time, tweaking the SW in your control routines.

The idea I'm trying to present is that teams need not "waste" the resources they have but just find new resources. Make more time, get more help, strive for more, push for quality.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Then I guess whoever was responsible for making the Segway an absolute masterpiece of art isn't a "real" engineer. They were only pretending then right?

Would you pay 5 grand for a segway if it looked like this? http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...le&picid=11889

I think not.

However much some may want to deny it, I think a notable portion of engineering (and the FIRST competition) is being able to sell yourself.

If you read the book Code Name Ginger, it was revealed that marketing, and Dean himself played a role in the look of the finished product, not the engineers. They were too busy actually making sure it worked.

Once that was done, it was redesigned many times by the engineers to specifications from higher up to make it marketable.

[EricH]

Having a quality robot is a good thing, right? OK, then, should teams be pushed to make higher quality robots? No. They should push themselves. If the level of competition is high enough, teams who want to win will push themselves.

The best quality robot, IMO, will be the one that has an adequate or top-notch design for the purpose and is built with the best that the team can throw at it. For one team, that is CNCs, mills, etc. For another, hand drill and hacksaw. The team with hand drill and hacksaw might not be able to produce a better robot, but they should not be discouraged. They should be supported by the rest of us to learn from what they did so that they can go beyond where they did the year before and further push themselves in the future.

[shyra1353]

Yes, to the outsiders, it is important to be watching pretty robots move around the field.

But you have to look at the people involved in building the robots and the goal of FIRST. What is more inspirational to the students? Having a gorgeous robot who just sits on the field and might be able to get you points at the end of the match if the other two robots make it back in time because she doesnt move. Or having a robot that isn't so visually pleasing, but she works and she does what she was intended to do? Which one of those two robots is going to make the students want to return? The one that looks good in pictures, or the one that looks good in vidoes?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by shyra1353

The one that looks good in pictures, or the one that looks good in vidoes?

My point is not that you must sacrifice one to get the other. My point is that you CAN have time, money, and resources for both if you are determined to make it happen. Believe it or not, it is possible to build a robot that both looks good and performs well.

Also, I think if you read between the lines, several of the posts in this thread actually go to support my point that a lot of teams don't care and don't strive for more because they don't think it's necessary, they don't want to spend the time, or then don't think they can. I have no jurisdiction over how any team chooses to spend their time or whatever, but what I'm saying is don't sell yourselves short. You are capable of more than you know. Don't fall into that "we have no big sponsors and are lucky if our hack saw blade is sharp" mentality. Instead, do something about it. With a little effort and determination, you can suprise yourself with what you're able to pull off.

[shyra1353]

SOME teams have the money, time, and resources. Others don't. And that is always going to happen. Teams all have their own set of behind the curtain problems that they have to deal with., whether its money problems, resource problems, management problems, or even just social problems within the team. And all teams have to work together to overcome these problems.

I agree that a great looking robot is nice, and I should have stated that earlier. But, it is not necessary, and it should not be a requirement. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so to some pretty is a robot that can function smoothly, but to others it may be something completely different.

You say with a little effort as if there are a lot of teams who aren't putting in a lot of effort already. Being in FIRST is not an easy task. And many times, teams are hanging on by a thread. That's the reason a lot of teams don't have the time, etc. to beautify their already working robots.

In engineering, the visual aspect of a product is just as important as the functionality of said product, and I will agree with that. But, FIRST is meant to mimick the engineering world, not copy it exactly. If it were to do that, I would be expecting a cheque in the mail tomorrow.

[CJO]

You guys are getting too hung up on visual meaning "nicely painted" as opposed to "not canned together." One of our favorite sayiongs is "you can't just put a bearing in and ship it." The point, "git er done" but do it right.

More importantly, aluminum polish is surprisingly cheap (a couple of dollars for a whole tube) and it gives the freshman something to do.

There is no reason why so many robots need to look like overgrown erector sets, especially from teams with 3 digit numbers.

Furthermore, as I have stated earlier, a good design is one where the function dictates a form that is clean by itslef and that does not need to be covered.

[wilshire]

it should not be a requirement that the robots look pretty and neat. There should however be a clear understanding and following of the safety issues that could arrise with a robot. It should be able to complete its task and do it in a safe manner. In my eyes that robot can beat and CNCed or TIGed robot anyday that can't even do the task for the game. While it being visually appealing is nice it is still not a must and probably will never be. We are given an objective and a task. If a robot that has tape hanging off it can do do the task then how are you to say it is less than any other robot.