Feasability of a FRC team at our school?

[dooey100]

I was the driving force behind creating an FTC team at our school this year, and I think it would be awesome if we could move up to FRC. I'm wondering how feasible this would be, and if I should pursue this.

We are a small school of 300 kids from grade 7-12. We are relatively isolated, so combining with another school isn't really an option. We would also likely find it very difficult to fundraise, the FTC team had to work very hard to get $2500 this year (although we did not charge any money to join the team), and having to fly to a tournament doesn't help.

I would love to do FRC, but do you think it would work? FTC is great and I loved competing this year, but moving up would be awesome too.

[EricH]

FRC costs $6,000, assuming that a) you don't have to travel and b) you don't buy anything outside the KOP.

If b) isn't true, it could be up to another $4,000 for parts, maybe more if you build a second robot, assuming that a) is still true.

If a) isn't true, then add in the transit costs.

This is per year.

I don't think it'll work, but that's no reason not to try. Do a trial run this year: raise the $6,000-10,000 needed for FRC, but do FTC/VRC for the year. If you can raise the money, you're ahead on your fundraising. But don't stop there, keep going. If you can't raise the money, you've funded your FTC team for another couple years or so.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by EricH

Do a trial run this year: raise the $6,000-10,000 needed for FRC

Eric,
your figures are a bit low. Assuming that they have nothing at the school and are starting from scratch the minimum I would recommend is 12,000. On average it takes about 15,000 to run a FIRST team and more in the Rookie year because you have to buy everything.

[Molten]

Does Nasa still pay the entry fee for rookies? If so, that will save 6000. Also, if your willing to make your bot with a kitbot chassie and random stuff, your extra costs won't be much.(maybe less then it cost for your FTC)

As for the event goes, road trip. Have parents fill their cars and drive. That saves quite a bit. If you are within an hour of a regional, drive each day. If your more, you might need some hotels which might be costly depending on your regional.

1766 has built its bot pretty cheaply over the years. They use aluminum tubing which is reasonably cost and a few odds and ends, but most of it is cheap.

So, YES, it is definitely feasable. Go for it, it is well worth it.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Molten

Does Nasa still pay the entry fee for rookies?.

While there are NASA grants for rookies I HIGHLY recommend not counting on them. While it might take a big chunk out of your financial needs, nasa grants are only on a year to year basis and you want to start a sustaining FIRST TEAM. The only way to do it is to assume you will not get a NASA grant and try to get enough funds to cover your team. In the chance that you do get a NASA grant keep the extra funds in your account for the next year or the championship if you qualify.


I also must say that FRC is not for everyone. There are many teams in FRC which probably should be in FTC or Vex only due to resources such as engineers, mentors, sponsors, build location/facilities, etc. Remember you can learn just as much from building a small robot as you can from a large bot because all of the key concepts are the same.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

Eric,
your figures are a bit low. Assuming that they have nothing at the school and are starting from scratch the minimum I would recommend is 12,000. On average it takes about 15,000 to run a FIRST team and more in the Rookie year because you have to buy everything.

I was running the absolute minimums, and not including travel or tools. That's why they're so low. If they can't do that, then they should stick with FTC and start building a base so they can, at some point in the future, transition up a level to FRC.

I would actually recommend $20-30K+ the first year, if at all possible. This way, they will be able to continue for one year with no fundraising, if needed. Then fundraise enough for each year.

Molten, if the location listed is right, Google it. I think you'll be surprised.

[Rick Wagner]

And all that being said, remember JFK's words to the effect that we did not go to the moon because it was easy. It will be hard, but it will be worth it 10 times over.

[kmcclary]

Originally Posted by dooey100

I think it would be awesome if we could move up to FRC. I'm wondering how feasible this would be, and if I should pursue this.
We are a small school of 300 kids from grade 7-12. We are relatively isolated, so combining with another school isn't really an option. We would also likely find it very difficult to fundraise, the FTC team had to work very hard to get $2500 this year (although we did not charge any money to join the team), and having to fly to a tournament doesn't help. [...]

(FYI, I'm insane about FIRST... I've started a number of FRC teams...)

Do you have any industry locally to partner with, to finance your basic fees? How about a school grant for the first kit fee? (Heck, schools often spend tons on sports, so try to tap a bit of it for academics...)

If you have either of those, it's possible. Also, you may be able to find state funding to get you started.

If however you are in the midst of farmland without ANY industry, and have to raise ALL of your money via the "bakesale method", it's still possible but honestly it's difficult to make it sustainable. NASA Rookie Grants are only good for two years. Even if you do win them, the second year is ONLY "matching funds" (IOW, you must have as much from others as you get from them).

After those first two years, the NASA grants are burned up. Without some OTHER funding source already lined up it's a tough road, AND you can't "reboot" a failed team with a NASA grant later if it THEN crashes.

Therefore, I'd only start a team and use the NASA for "bootstrapping" once you HAVE lined up additional funding. You use the NASA grant for the kit fee, and use your OTHER funding sources to bootstrap your shop, tool collection, and fill the parts bins.

THAT gets your team up and running well, and helps reduce a later year's money needs closer to "refill of consumables", R&D, fees, and travel costs.

Does this make sense?

- Keith

[Molten]

Originally Posted by EricH

I was running the absolute minimums, and not including travel or tools. That's why they're so low. If they can't do that, then they should stick with FTC and start building a base so they can, at some point in the future, transition up a level to FRC.

I would actually recommend $20-30K+ the first year, if at all possible. This way, they will be able to continue for one year with no fundraising, if needed. Then fundraise enough for each year.

Molten, if the location listed is right, Google it. I think you'll be surprised.

I have a feeling your team does funds quite different then 1766. For instance, we empty our account every year to avoid tax problems. Also, grants help a lot. I don't have a clue what regionals are in that area. I'm quite a ways away.

All I'm saying is that many teams have a ton of stuff they don't need to be competitive. For instance, hand outs can be costly and unnecessary. Shirts can be done with iron ons. In some places, PVC will make do. If you compete, I wouldn't expect to have 3 sets of team shirts, hundreds of buttons to hand out, water jet cut parts, and a practice robot. However, you can expect to make it through the season with an educational experience. Remember, "where there's a will, there's a way."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Molten

I have a feeling your team does funds quite different then 1766. For instance, we empty our account every year to avoid tax problems. Also, grants help a lot. I don't have a clue what regionals are in that area. I'm quite a ways away.

We have our own account... and we don't empty it. We're a 501(c)(3), or operating under one, so it's a little easier on us.

The nearest regional to the area is probably Seattle.

[dsm]

There is a wealth of official guidance on this subject here:

http://www.usfirst.org/what/frc/content.aspx?id=5504

They include sample budgets in the handbook...though I personally think their estimates are somewhat low.

[Rick TYler]

A variety of random comments:

1. Starting with FTC and choosing to switch to FRC is not "moving up," it's "moving differently."

2. I would rather be part of a successful, well-funded FTC/VRC program than struggle to build a BLT as part of a marginal FRC team.

3. The quality of science, engineering and math available in Vex and FTC is not inferior to that of FRC. In FRC you will learn more of the machinist and fabrication trades, but that is the only real technical difference.

4. A team of five or six building an FTC or VRC robot is a much more hands-on, involved experience than being a "cheerleader" on a 60-person FRC team. Most FRC teams I've spoken with, been part of, or read about on Delphi end up being 8-12 core builders and programmers (some of whom are mentors) and 10-30 people around the fringes. All that other stuff is part of "team" but it doesn't have much to do with STEM. In some ways, a big FRC team is a better simulation of a whole business rather than just the engineering department. In VRC and FTC, it's 90% technology and 10% other stuff.

I think FRC is terrific. I am simply trying to argue that it is not necessarily an end-goal for every robotics program, and that it does not fit everywhere or everyone. Too many FRC teams have folded when the easy money ran out or the mentors burned out. VRC and FTC can be successfully run at any level the team wants. We have about 40 students who built and competed four VRC and three FTC robots this year. We raised more than $10,000, we are already going to the VRC world championships, and at least one of our robots has a better than even chance to qualify for Atlanta at an FTC event in Seattle tomorrow. I would have to go count to be sure, but we've added about 10 trophies to our VRC/FTC collection so far this year, with three events to go. We didn't start this way, though. We started in 2006 with one FTC robot that won a regional finalist trophy in our only tournament. Last year, we earned three awards, including Inspire, with 18 students and three FTC robots. This year we doubled the number of students and added VRC. I positively don't think our students have learned anything less about the engineering process than a similar FRC team.

Wow -- quite a little speech, huh? Don't feel that doing FTC makes you a second-class citizen. Do what's best for you and your school -- what you can be successful at and can sustain from year to year. That's how you can do some good. That might be an FRC program, but don't feel like it's a tragedy or failure if you can't handle the resources and money involved.

[writchie]

Originally Posted by dooey100

I was the driving force behind creating an FTC team at our school this year, and I think it would be awesome if we could move up to FRC. I'm wondering how feasible this would be, and if I should pursue this.

Although every situation is different, I think the primary different between FRC and FTC involves the availability of engineering mentors. The FRC is intended to be a collaborative effort between professional engineers and students where the students learn first hand about engineering process by working together with the pros. IMHO this is the essential character of FRC and what makes it unique among Robotics programs.

So until you can recruit at least a couple of engineering mentors to devote the considerable time and energy during the 6 week build season to drive the engineering of your FRC bot, it may make more sense to stick with FTC. Until you have the engineering mentor resources, I think you may find that FTC may be more bang for the buck.

IMHO it is also almost essential to have team capability with Inventor (or Solidworks or Pro-e). The value of CAD to engineering process today is indispensable. You can use FTC to build these skills and having them will dramatically increase your probability of success with FRC.

We have 4 FTC teams which function as a Jr. Varsity and an FRC team that is the varsity. Our FTC teams are student directed with "light" mentoring. FTC is fun, produces instant gratification, and is 100 times safer than FRC. In FTC it's easy to recover from even major mistakes. The FTC program, however, is in most respects just another robotics competition. It does not provide the unique life changing experiences that become available to the students of mentored FRC teams. Our FRC teams have "heavy" involvement from mentors because that is the essential character of that program.

Remember what Dean says - It's not about the robot.

[dooey100]

I probably should have mentioned that I am Canadian, so all my dollar amounts are Canadian Dollars. This increases our costs (by a lot if the exchange rate holds)

Originally Posted by kmcclary

How about a school grant for the first kit fee?

They gave us $100 for FTC.....

Originally Posted by Molten

If you are within an hour of a regional, drive each day

9 hour drive from the nearest regionals if they let us travel out of country, 37 hour drive if they don't.



Thanks for all your input, I've decided to keep going with FTC. I would much prefer to have an enjoyable FTC team than a struggling FRC team.

[Molten]

Isn't the canadian dollar worth more then the american dollar now?

Enjoy the FTC.