The Spirit of FIRST

[steelerborn]

I know that we only have 6 weeks to build the best robot we possibly can. However what stops a team from building two bots, ship one, and then get an extra few weeks to practice driving with the other. I know that a few teams do this, and those teams are also very good.

This is totally against the spirit of FIRST, and gives an unfair advantage to those teams, and should not be allowed. It all comes down to if you think Dean would be upset, or not, with what those teams are doing.

I would like to know other views on this subject.

Thanks

[dodar]

How is that against the spirit of FIRST?
FIRST wants each team to bring students to the peak of their abilities and if that means that they are able to build 2 robots and for some to build 2 championship caliber robots, then why not gor for it?

[ideasrule]

How is it at all against the spirit of FIRST? It's not as if the teams that are doing this are preventing other teams from doing the same thing.

[PAR_WIG1350]

I don't see anything wrong with it if they decide to build a robot quickly and without much precision, then it's their issue. If they do it well, it's their gain the same is true for teams that build one robot or meet one day less per week, or whatever.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

I know that we only have 6 weeks to build the best robot we possibly can. However what stops a team from building two bots, ship one, and then get an extra few weeks to practice driving with the other. I know that a few teams do this, and those teams are also very good.

Nothing does. It's been known about for years, and is not disallowed. You should try it sometime.

This is totally against the spirit of FIRST,

I'm assuming by this you mean "against the 6 week build cycle". It's not, since you can't incorporate practice bot changes on your real robot outside of fix-it windows if I understand the rules correctly (I don't really need to as I'm not building one).

and gives an unfair advantage to those teams

How is it unfair? They worked harder to get more money to do so, and they chose to do so, which is a smart decision.

If you're able, yet unwilling, to do something completely within the rules, it's not "unfair" that others are doing what you don't. If you're unable... fundraise more!

and should not be allowed.

The GDC has had multiple opportunities to make it against the rules. Practice bots have been common since the introduction of autonomy.

It all comes down to if you think Dean would be upset, or not, with what those teams are doing.

No it doesn't. Even if it did, I'm sure many, MANY people in FIRST are fully aware of practice robots, and if it upset too many of them, it wouldn't be like it is now.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

I know that we only have 6 weeks to build the best robot we possibly can. However what stops a team from building two bots, ship one, and then get an extra few weeks to practice driving with the other. I know that a few teams do this, and those teams are also very good.

This is totally against the spirit of FIRST, and gives an unfair advantage to those teams, and should not be allowed. It all comes down to if you think Dean would be upset, or not, with what those teams are doing.

I would like to know other views on this subject.

Thanks

Cite a quote or a rule and I'll stop. Otherwise do not hinder the progress of those around you. Worry about yourself and improving yourself.

You can do two things from here:

1) Bicker and complain about "unfair" advantages. Whatever that even means (it means nothing to me).

2) Get your butt out there and allow the same success for your team.

"There are two ways to compete in this world, you can drag your competitors down, or you can rise above them. Which is better for the world in the long run?" ~John Abele- Chairman of FIRST, Founder Chairman of Boston Scientific

I encourage you to read this post by Adam Heard.

You're basically saying for teams to stop being smart and actually make a practice robot if they have the ability to do so. That logic is very flawed. I don't know how many times I've said this by now "Every year someone makes this competition about whining rather than winning."

PS- Dean would be proud to see all the successful teams who can pull of multiple robots. He's an engineer. He knows how things work in this world.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

I know that we only have 6 weeks to build the best robot we possibly can. However what stops a team from building two bots, ship one, and then get an extra few weeks to practice driving with the other. I know that a few teams do this, and those teams are also very good.

This is totally against the spirit of FIRST, and gives an unfair advantage to those teams, and should not be allowed. It all comes down to if you think Dean would be upset, or not, with what those teams are doing.

I would like to know other views on this subject.

Thanks

Dean, Woodie, Dave, FIRST HQ are all aware and, to my knowledge, no one is upset in the least. Even if you had a rule in place, it's virtually unenforceable anyway. For those that have the resources to do so, fabulous. It raises the bar for all of us. My team does not build two, nor do we have the resources or schedule to do so, but I certainly admire those who do and look forward to competing against them.

[BrendanB]

I don't see it against the spirit of FIRST. We built two last year and plan doing it again this year. If anything, it takes more time and effort to get two running compared to one all while pushing our skills to the limit. Is that against the spirit of FIRST? No.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

I know that we only have 6 weeks to build the best robot we possibly can. However what stops a team from building two bots, ship one, and then get an extra few weeks to practice driving with the other. I know that a few teams do this, and those teams are also very good.

This is totally against the spirit of FIRST, and gives an unfair advantage to those teams, and should not be allowed. It all comes down to if you think Dean would be upset, or not, with what those teams are doing.

I would like to know other views on this subject.

Thanks

1) Search Before You Post, no really, discussed many times read those threads, might learn a thing or two.

2) So glad someone finally appointed themselves SPIRIT OF FIRST GESTAPO... again... You do what you think will inspire students I'll do what I think will inspire students. My team, my rules, as long as the students get inspired what difference does it make? Got 30 students and only enough room for 15 of em on one robot? MAKE 2 so they all get a chance, not against the spirit at all.

3) Unfair advantage, what stops you from building two robots? Nothing, if you don't like them beating you because of what you perceive as an advantage man up and do something about it. You can compete two ways in this world, rise up to their level or drag them down to yours. Me? I always want to rise to theirs, no matter what I learn something.

(Irritated by this post? There is a little scale, feel free to use it. I am sick and tired of people coming on here and saying Team X is un GP because of this, Team Y is not in the spirit of FIRST.)

[steelerborn]

I meant solely on the "six week Build season"

Our team was thinking of doing 2 bots.
However several people brought this up topic up.

I respect everyone's opinion I just needed to know what other people thought.

[steelerborn]

wow I feel like I am being hunted lol

I just needed to know outside opinions.

I apologize for getting anyone upset.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

wow I feel like I am being hunted lol

I just needed to know outside opinions.

I apologize for getting anyone upset.

Asking for outside opinions and passing judgement are two very different things. Statements like, "This is totally against the spirit of FIRST" are passing judgements and is in no way asking for an opinion.

[Doug G]

Ok instead of the usual... "bash the post", which is already well done in this and other threads, I'd like to offer some advice and wisdom that comes from 10 years of experience.

In 2001, our first season, we built the scrappiest robot and went out and competed fairly well and had to go against the Bionic Bulldogs from Kingman, AZ. It was a fun quarterfinal and had that David and Goliath feel to it. The following year at SVR, we went against them once again in the Finals and lost. For those that know about their robot in 2002, it was a marvel of engineering on par with Beatty (71). But our team felt a sense of, "that's not fair, they had they help of Ford engineers, more sponsers, etc..." . We had very little engineering help or sponsors and it really just seemed unfair. We then witnessed the rise of the poofs, wildhats, and many other NorCal powerhouses. We were quite jealous of them all, could we ever compete on a level playing field with these teams? It's just not fair.

BUT then a few years back, we stopped comparing ourselves with other teams and just focused on the best WE could do with the resources we had and if we needed more, we took the steps to improve. Now we raise over $50,000 each year, started a non-profit, build partnerships with sponsors and community and while building a great bot is always a goal, it is NOT our focus. Because of this we feel a lot more successful, garnered a few more awards, AND still no banner to show for it (yet).

So as others have already stated, focus on your team and robot - don't worry about other teams. If you want to go through life thinking about what's not fair or unGP then your missing the point of FIRST. Dean doesn't strike me as a type of person that focuses on what's not fair, and perhaps that's why he has the success that he does.

[Doug G]

Originally Posted by steelerborn

wow I feel like I am being hunted lol

I just needed to know outside opinions.

I apologize for getting anyone upset.

Don't sweat it, just remember you're not the only one thinking this, you just posted your thoughts, and I respect that.

We thought we could do 2 bots in 2008, but found out it took too many resources since we do most everything in house. We instead focus on finishing a robot early. That can be the biggest advantage a team can have. It's a five week build - at least that's what we shoot for. Give your drive team several days of practice. Give your programmers several days to troubleshoot their program and auto code. Decorate/paint the bot, etc...

[EricH]

There are 3 things I want to talk about. All of them are relevant; none of them is an attack on the original poster, or intended as such. If it is perceived as an attack, I apologize in advance.

1) All teams have the same amount of time. Another poster brought up fix-it windows. We have fix-it windows this year that are from ship day to competition. Maybe not all teams have the same resources, or the same practice space. Meet the incentive to get those resources--the robot that has them and beats yours (or not). For reference, my team used old robots as practice until 2007, when we built a practice robot first, as a prototype, and then used what we learned to build the real deal. We won the Championship in 2005 without an accurate practice robot, just a retrofitted 2004 robot that wasn't really meant for driving on the floor. Since 2007, there have been several practice robots...

2) No rule prevents any of the following: collaboration, intentionally identical robots on different teams, mentor-built robots, student-built robots, or practice robots built by one team. If anyone can show a rule, I'll shut up on that topic. (Also note: this is the umpteenth year that all of the above items have been legal--collaboration was officially approved in 2004, and was the last of the list.)

3) What is the spirit of FIRST? Does anybody know? United States Foundation For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology... Does that not describe the spirit of FIRST in a nutshell? For those wondering, yes, that is the full official name of FIRST. They've since stopped using the United States part, and to a large extent the Foundation part. I don't see how building a second robot detracts from either inspiration or recognition--in fact, it may even expand it by allowing more students to get their hands dirty playing with science and technology, and improving their understanding.

In short, you have to define the spirit of FIRST before you ask if something is a violation. That definition is a very good topic, because we all need the reminder. "Asking if" something is a violation is not the best topic, as we all just found out.