Multiple Regionals

[archiver]

Posted by Michael Betts, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 4/8/99 10:53 AM MST


In Reply to: Extended Sleep Deprivation posted by Raul on 4/8/99 6:00 AM MST:



Raul's point is very well taken. The amount of work WILL expand to fill all available time!

I once had a company CEO who's favorite saying was that 'Engineers, left to their own devices, will never bring a product to market.'

FIRST asked me (approx 3 years ago) about lengthening the design phase. My reply was 'God NO!' (please excuse the blasphemy). If you give a team 6 weeks, they will have a working machine in 5-1/2. If you give them 12, it will take 11-1/2!

While the situation I just described is a little different than Dodd's proposal, the premise is the same.

If we had our robot right now, I know we'd still be working on it. I do not think I could possibly stand a longer season.

I still have not done my taxes....

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/8/99 3:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Crashing and Burning... I agree! posted by Michael Betts on 4/8/99 10:53 AM MST:



I agree that the work will just expand. I would not be in favor of this.

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST


In Reply to: 6 week fig leaf posted by Joe Johnson on 4/8/99 4:06 AM MST:



Raul, I'm with you on everything you say, BUT the devil in the mirror is the one we all have to wrestle with in all these questions of balance. Six weeks strains the limits of the possible, given the sophistication of many of these incredible robots we're trying to make. There is no question of balance - everything else in our lives takes a back seat.

And that brings me to fig leaves. The six week build period of FIRST really stresses the relationship of the engineers/coaches with our employers. Maybe the 'big sponsor' companies can and do openly assign a team of engineers to the project for six weeks during work hours (I doubt this is true, but we little teams often grumble about rumors of it), but most of us have to just fit it in somehow. And the somehow is that our work suffers, our clients suffer, and our employers suffer. We may bargain, explicitly or otherwise, that 'it's only for six weeks,' but Joe is dead on that this is a fantasy, and it's a hard one to maintain. I suspect there are a number of us who feel like we're really pushing our companies' ability to look the other way when we do this for a second or third year, or more. This is not good for the future of FIRST, it's not good for our companies, and it's not good for us.

Frankly, I think the six week pressure cooker is a carryover from the structure of Woody's design classes, and it doesn't serve a constructive purpose in the FIRST context. Yes, college students need no sleep, run full tilt on carbohydrate junk, have no relationships or other responsibilities, and need to learn that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger (and smarter). Been there, done that, and I'd like to see from FIRST a little more professional respect for the value of our time and our contribution to achieving FIRST's goals. Going at 200% for six weeks and then sitting on our hands for four weeks, rousing for a weekend Regional, then again sitting for five weeks, to go to the Nationals is an arbitrary jerk around. This is the stuff of burnout. My hat is off, and off again, to Dean and Woody for making FIRST go, but it requires the sustained help of the current thousand or so engineer/coaches to make it grow. I feel strongly that this six week business is an area that definitely needs reconsideration for the future interests of FIRST.

Guess I better go take a cold shower, while our bot sits in the box in Orlando and I have all this time on my hands.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/8/99 6:23 PM MST


In Reply to: Excuse Me, Mr. Adam, But Your Fig is Showing posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST:



Dodd,

You hit the nail on the head with that 'devil in the mirror' reference.

I know that it is only our own mania that causes this to be such a rough process. If we were only in it to make a machine that could play the game, we'd all be able to get some sleep, but the fact is, we are not.

I tell our students (and I really believe) that we should do our best to play to win.

From that believe flows the imbalance during the X weeks we do this FIRST thing.

I really don't know what we can do about it.

While part of me agrees that 6 weeks is too short and having no robot for months at a time stinks, I will tell you that more time will not really address the problem.

I am as hooked as Raul O. and Mike B.

I am afraid that more time will only bring more imbalance.

Here's to looking in the mirror...


Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/8/99 8:46 PM MST


In Reply to: Excuse Me, Mr. Adam, But Your Fig is Showing posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:42 AM MST:



Dodd,

I think FIRST has a very calculated formula for this. 6 weeks is a great way to teach us students the value of simplicity. Simplicity is elegance. I have always stressed to my team members the importance of the KISS principle.

When we were reviewing possible robot designs, I sat at a table with 4 other students and watched my friends come up in little groups to show us the foam core mockups they had been working on. I remember looking at a few GREAT designs that we could never have finished in time. I recently heard a team member saying 'I'm glad we listened to the comittee, we could have NEVER finished my design'. People only learn this AFTER experiencing the pressure, and it's a wonderful thing to learn. We were essentially forced to keep it simple. I like that.

===============
Here's why:

(1) A simple robot forces you to make the best use of your environment (i.e. ally, human players)

(2) A simple robot allows you to have parts which students can actually manufacture without using some fancy-shmancy shop

(3) A simple robot gives you a chance to finish in time to practice, while working at a student pace (I'm sure you experienced engineers could whip out a monster in 6 weeks, but we like to have the students doing the designing, manufacturing, assembly, etc.)

(4) A simple robot gives less potential for breakage (considering there's less to break)

(5) A simple robot can win the simplicity award...I wonder why they've got one of those =)
===============

I could go on all day. Basically, I'm trying to say that perhaps your solution to finishing on time is to simplify, not to extend. I think that's exactly why FIRST hasn't extended it.

I'm just afraid that the more time you give, the more complex the robots will become; and soon, nobody will be ready for regionals, 'cuz they'll be busy building Frankenstein.

Besides, don't you like to brag to your friends about building a robot in 'only 6 weeks!'?

Just my thoughts on the matter...
-Daniel Lehrbaum
GRT #192 Student Co-Captain

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/8/99 10:20 AM MST


In Reply to: A Simple Proposal posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/7/99 9:46 PM MST:



Great idea. I really like it.


:I disagree with Chris' analogy here about the expense of open wheel race car practise/testing. All we need is a flat patch of carpet, some electricity, and a roof. And lots of pizza.

Just for clarification purposes:

Sorry, I may have not made this clear. In the analogy, the practice/testing sessions were analogous to regionals. The teams had to pay to use the track (like our entry fee), travel to the track (like our travel), and make repairs(like our repairs). This all came to a substantial cost (like our regionals). What you mentioned here was not what I intended. What you mentioned is analogous in racing to working at the home garage, which is not limited since it has no real extra cost.

But anyway, great idea.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/8/99 11:41 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: A Simple Proposal posted by Chris on 4/8/99 10:20 AM MST:



Chris,

Sorry to misinterpret your analogy. Under my proposal, the 'lucky' teams still have the advantage of trial by fire in multiple Regionals, but the 'less lucky' teams at least have the benefit of more systematically improving their machines and technique under working conditions less frantic than in the competition pits. It seems to me at least like a reasonable tradeoff in addressing the inequities of the present system.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/8/99 2:44 PM MST


In Reply to: Leaping to Conclusions posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 11:41 AM MST:



I love your proposal and I think it's a great compromise. I'll use my big mouth to help lobby FIRST if you need support.

Chris


: Chris,

: Sorry to misinterpret your analogy. Under my proposal, the 'lucky' teams still have the advantage of trial by fire in multiple Regionals, but the 'less lucky' teams at least have the benefit of more systematically improving their machines and technique under working conditions less frantic than in the competition pits. It seems to me at least like a reasonable tradeoff in addressing the inequities of the present system.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Your idea is great. posted by Chris on 4/8/99 2:44 PM MST:



I think you are underestimating the power of a competitive free market. If there are 'lucky' teams out there right now giving 100% for 6 weeks compared to 'less lucky' teams giving 80-90% for six weeks, do you think the 'lucky' ones are going to scale back from 100% during the extra time alotted by your proposal? Someone advocating this proposal suggested that there would be time to work in a 'less frantic' atmosphere. Its my opinion that the 'lucky' teams work at a frantic pace nearly all the time.

Ken

(I know this doesn't address multiple regionals. But I think effort and ideas are bigger determinants of success than multi regionals.)

(I'll probably regret being this blunt - I hope you accept my apology if you think this is too blunt.)

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/8/99 7:01 PM MST


In Reply to: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST:



Ken,

I agree with you. Ideas do matter. They matter alot.

The ideas or design of robots matters a great deal.

But I will also grant that practice matters a great deal as well.

I tell our team over and over again every year that ANY robot delivered at (Shipping Time - 7 days) will beat ANY robot delivered at (Shipping Time - 7 minutes).

I think that there is little disagreement about the following:

1) It is not possible to be competitive without a robot that is well designed and built.

2) It is not possible to be competitive without drivers who have had time to drive the robot.

3) It is easier to be competitive with opportunities for continuous improvement.

Multiple Regionals do nothing to address the first point but can make a huge difference on the last two.

The various shades of opinion on this really boil down to each person evaluation of each of these three points and how 'fair' they find the balance that FIRST currently strikes.

Before I sign off, I want to restate that while I think our discussion here is very valuable, I think that there is one more point that most of us can agree upon and that I hope everyone will keep in mind as they type their messages:

Reasonable people are going to disagree.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST


In Reply to: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 3:54 PM MST:



Ken,

Blunt is fine. Let's return to the subject of this thread, the sense of some teams with limited resources that the ability of better endowed teams to attend multiple Regionals is inequitable. In my posts, I have used 'lucky' as a euphemism for well financed and 'less lucky' for not so, equating that roughly with the ability to attend multiple regionals or not. From what I've seen and been part of, ALL the teams give 200% for six weeks, well financed or not. The simple fact is that well backed and supported teams have the OPTION of competing and then spending Saturday PM thru Tuesday 5PM (I think) with their bot virtually every week throughout the season, ie: 6 days out of seven. In theory, and those people would be absolute mad-ones, and I admire all those who approach this limit. Team 47 comes to mind. The teams without the money don't have this option, period, end of story.

Now you may assume I'm addressing competitive advantage, the liklihood of taking home the gold from the Nationals, numero uno, blah, blah. While there's an undeniable competitive advantage to the teams who CAN spend more time with their machines, that's not my personal motivation. I'm in the fraction trying to push the creative envelope, please the crowd, knock some socks off, show our kids about swinging for the fence, purely for the beans of it. Seems like we aimed a bit too far out this year and ran short of time to make it all work. So I wasn't looking to have Dean and Woodie save us from ourselves at week six. I was snorkel deep in the most satisfying/maddening/challenging part of the year when somebody said 'put it in the box - it's 4:45.' Those of us who need Dean and Woodie to turn us off to have a rest have my sympathy. Those of us who don't, also have my sympathy, because we've had our creative outlet snatched away unnecessarily and arbitrarily. I say arbitrarily - I haven't heard any reason for the six weeks other than saving people who can't pace themselves, the devil in the mirror. Is it necessary to impose this solution on others?

Addressing your post directly, I don't understand the competitive free market reference. I don't expect well funded teams or anybody else to scale back their effort during the additional time I propose - each team could do what they choose with it. Those who are well funded and like frantic work in the pits are fine by me, and they have a wonderful opportunity for memorable and inspiring experiences. If you believe that better development work is more likely to occur for your team in the FIRST pits than in a less frantic atmosphere, we differ in our approaches. I don't think we differ on effort and ideas being bigger determinants of success than multi regionals, but we might define 'success' in somewhat different terms. With the time we'll have after the Nationals, we can make the effort required to successfully implement our central technology idea for this year in time for the Rumble, and succeed by doing what we don't expect any other team to do in this year's Nationals. If some other team beats us to it, they're a better team than we are this year.

My proposal is not intended to provide advantage to some teams at the expense of others, nor to help them somehow 'catch up.' It takes nothing away from anyone and requires no one to change their behavior. It gives the gift of time - which better funded teams advantageously enjoy now - to all teams. I have no idea whether or how this might effect any outcomes, but I think it could vastly change the process and the FIRST experience in positive ways for the teams who have less to work with.

[archiver]

Posted by Mike King, Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 4/8/99 9:44 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST:



Ken, you had a long post, and i'm not going to copy it here. I just want to reiterate somehting that I said before, but now i have more facts. In 1997, at the end of the New Jersey regional, we were giving the option of going to Flordia. (we didn't have approval till then). We had two weeks, and we fundrasied over 10,000 dollars, booked a flight for over 80 students (our traveling team that year), and got hotel reservations at disney. I do want to say we would never have gotten hotel reseverations or flights down (and back) if it wasn't for the work of one secretary at Johnson and Johnson.

I guess the point i'm trying to make is, money isn't really as a limiting factor as alot of people are making out to be. Yes, I realize that 80 very driven students is a force to be reckoned with, fundraising or cheering wise. (You guys must be beginning to go deaf from us at New Jersey.) I also realize that some teams are in area's where it's just not possible to raise that much money. But it can be done.

Mike

The picture included is our 1997 team picture, from NJ.

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/8/99 11:56 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/8/99 8:06 PM MST:



Dodd,

Sorry for jumping off topic a bit. Thanks for redirecting me...

I agree that its an advantage for some teams to go to more regionals than others. As I said a few days ago in another post, I'd go along with a one regional rule if we had, say, 1000 teams competing around the country. Until then, I think we can use all the teams we can get to have as high a profile as possible so we can make this thing grow (I see that as the key measure of our success in FIRST). But, bottom line, multi-regionals is an advantage.

You relate the number of regionals a team attends exclusively to funding. I agree, but I think there's another factor: how you allocate your money. Our team goes to 2 regionals, the ones we can drive to in ~1/2 day, Chicago and Ypsi, because they are the most cost-effective to attend. I know only the rustbelt and northeast teams get this 'advantage.' Additionally, we have 'only' 20 students on our team, while many teams have double that. I think that number is okay (some disagree btw), because everyone gets an important, critical job that way, and its more of an honor to be selected for the team. But another reason is that it is cheaper. These things help enable our team to go to two regionals and still do the PR projects that we want to do. I think Greg Mills from Baxter said something similar in a recent post - they sent a skeleton crew to one event to save money.

My 'practical' defense of six weeks: It doesn't upset my/your life for too long. If the time were made longer, it would be harder on everyone who puts their heart/mind/energy into FIRST. Because we would just do it for a few more weeks.

My 'philosophical' defense of six weeks: If the students see that, as a team, we can do an 'impossible' job in an 'impossibly' short time, they will be more inspired. Inspired about engineering and about teamwork. Newcomers to FIRST are amazed that we can do this. I think we should keep amazing them! )

The competitive free market reference: What I mean is that the 'big time' programs, because they want to remain competitive, will likely increase their lead over the 'not so big time' programs, because they will apply whatever 'advantages' they have (money, people, facilities, ideas, pick your favorites) over a longer period of time. So the 'gift' will end up being a curse IMO.

In defense of 'trying to win': In my opinion, it is okay, in fact its right, to try to win. By win, I mean 1st place gold medal all the chips lets go see slick willie. Please note I say *try* to win, with the emphasis on try. If you believe you can win, you will prepare yourself to win. And if you prepare yourself to win, YOU HAVE WON. Regardless of what place your robot gets, since ***sarcasm on*** everyone knows thats a crapshoot! ***sarcasm off***. My sincere thanks to Jeff Burch for the sarcasm alert, and my sincere admiration for Dr. Stuart Walker for writing about the try to win philosophy.

I like your 'knock their socks off' approach. I'm not sure it represents a balanced model for the typical engineering product development process where you have to meet requirements on time, but I still like it. I'm going to check our photos of your robot and see if I can figure out what you are up to! )

Thanks for putting up with my posts. See ya in Florida. I'll be flying down on our team helicopter. )

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/9/99 8:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: watch out.... posted by Ken Patton on 4/8/99 11:56 PM MST:



Thanks to Ken and Daniel ('Ambition...', further down this thread) both for thoughtful and persuasive posts in support of the six week schedule. I will even cop to heaving my own sigh of relief when we ship the bot and then can rest a bit.

But before I drag my soapbox off to another street corner and try to rattle cages there, I'd like to comment on related points from the two posts, product development discipline and KISS. We're all fortunate to work in a profession with niches from R&D through product development to manufacturing and construction, with lots of other areas in between and no heirarchy implied or intended. I work in R&D, so I'm a sucker for gizmos that open new horizons on what we can do with our little metal monsters. We were all set this year to clone last year's chassis/drive/control system - which worked well and was reasonably simple - until we opened the boxes at kickoff and saw those yaw rate 'gyros.' A whole new vista of navigation, mobility, and control opened up, and our grasp on reality went right out the window. Sigh. Well, we're halfway there. We've got the mechanicals in place and working, now to pound down the RF noise and calm down the feedback loops. We'd very much like the opportunity to work on this (in our 'less frantic' rural shop) while others who are able duke it out at multi regionals and carry out their product development in the pits and post mortem periods.

Not hearing a mass uprising in support of giving FIRST a license to another six weeks of our souls, we'll follow plan B - the long term R&D cycle. We'll work it over the summer, try it out in local Invitationals, and incorporate what works into next year's bot. I sure hope we don't have to fly, swim, or play a wall game next year.

See you in Orlando. We'll be the ones trudging down the Appalachian Trail when your team chopper passes overhead. Say, how many can you carry in that thing?

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/9/99 9:51 AM MST


In Reply to: Multiple Regionals posted by Dave on 4/4/99 12:23 PM MST:



I brought this one up a long time ago but didn't get much reaction on it, so try this one on for size:

Instead of giving us all another six weeks, we could do this (a little more complicated on FIRST's part):

1. After the registration deadline, determine which team is going to the most regionals.

2. Multiply the number of regionals the team in part 1 is going to by 3 days.

3. Allow every team to have the extra number of days calculated in part 2.

4. For each regional a team goes to, subtract 3 days off of your allotted 'extra time'.


The advantages with this system:

1. Teams that can afford to go to multiple regionals still get to go and have their fun, show off their robot to the lesser teams, get their practice, and everything else that goes with going to multiple regionals as pointed out by Joe and everyone else.

2. Teams that can't afford the extra regionals get the equivalent time to improve their robot or practice had they been to the extra regionals. (Key selling point: Everyone gets the same amount of time, or thereabouts.)

3. This fits within the current rule structure. Currently there is a rule that says if you aren't going to a regional you get an extra two or three days (I can't remember which). The current flaw in this rule is that it is antiquated. This rule was written when there was only one regional. I just think it needs to be updated with the changes that I suggested, and then everyone should be happy (er).

Disadvantages:

1. Keeping track of what each team is allowed to do.

If this system is too complicated, one simplification is to change part 1 as follows:

1. Multiply 3 days by the number of weeks in which there is at least one regional being held.


What does everyone think of these changes?