Practice bot morality

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

I don't understand this. If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks. Why not just organize your team to stick to a 6 week season?

For teams that want a practice robot but are already stretched too thin, eliminating the 6 week limit lets them practice.

For teams that already build a practice bot, eliminating the 6 week limit is a large relief from burnout from having to build 2 robots within 6 weeks.

For teams that have no interest, feel free to impose a 6 week limit to save your team from themselves.

Project schedules always grow to fill the maximum allotted time. There's a theorem or law or something in the software world that more elegantly states it.

If even 1 or 2 people on the 'team' isn't on board with arbitrarily cutting a build season down from an 'unlimited' amount of time, then they can easily convince the rest of the team that their view is better when the end of the arbitrary deadline hits. This is especially true if they're someone with a critical system that isn't finished.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

If FIRST dropped the 6 week build limit, there would be no one from FIRST HQ holding a gun to your head to work beyond 6 weeks.

FIRST HQ wouldn't force teams to work beyond 6 weeks, but the pressure to keep up with the elite teams essentially would force teams to work past that point if they want to be competitive. I already think most competitive teams work too much as I don't think its healthy for high school students to work 7 days a week or till midnight. The reason teams are pressured to work long hours is so they can be competitive with the 111/1114/254/148s of the world. Now if you extend 'build season' until the competitions, we all know the elite teams won't just stop working but will be working on improving every facet of their robot. In order to stay competitive with them, your team will have to work after the first 6 weeks.

I also think that for the teams that show up to the competition with just a box bot, adding more time won't solve their problems. Those teams likely suffer from lack of mentors, lack of tools, lack of resources, and procrastination. Giving them 10 weeks opposed to 6 weeks won't take them from a box bot to a successful basket making, balancing robot.

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

What would be cool is to see a powerhouse team with extra resources (people, parts, $) helping out a less mature team by helping them build a practice bot.

I don’t really consider us to be a ‘powerhouse’ team but I feel the need to respond questions about ‘hard work’ and what it can get you. If we are going to have a discussion about ‘fair play’ then it is perfectly acceptable to talk about ‘hard work’ and ‘organization’.

Two months ago we opened the Kell Robotics Innovation Center, a 3750 sq. ft. facility for training, mentorship, workshop, exhibit marshalling, etc. Just in the past month we have worked with four 4-H teams, two Boys & Girls Club teams, four High Schools teams, two Future Seekers teams, and a collection of mentors. We have done this type of thing in the past but now it is great to have a permanent facility to host this type of support. We have handed out parts in the past and have no great problem with that, but when all is said and done teams must learn how to feed themselves. Part of things to learn at the ‘IC’.

A couple of times in the past we have started the season trying to build two robot and we have always failed. This year we are trying it again and we are pretty determined to get it done.

Sure, having a ‘practice’ robot will be helpful but we really need it for the ‘road show’. Over the past 3 or so years students have contributed over 6,000 man-hours exhibiting at over 120 events promoting FIRST. There is probably another 6,000 hours preparing for the events.

This past fall we won at GRITS in large part because the LogoMotion robot has not hardly been turned off since last spring. Our 2009 Lunacy bot is on its third or fourth set of slick wheels. We burn them down to the rims doing road shows on concrete and brick pavement. AndyMark is out of 6” slick wheels and we could use a bushel of them.

This year we have a great visual game that is audience friendly. This year is an opportunity to leverage the game into more public attention. If you can keep your bots together, do some exhibiting, work hard, earn some money, you can get some more resources. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Any football coach will tell you the great games are not won with the hail Mary passes. They are won months and years before slogging away in the hot sun, rain, cold, and everything else when everyone else is sitting indoors eating snacks and playing video games.

I apologize if this sounds a little much but it is really important that people develop great work ethics. Your employer will appreciate you for that.

[KennyLives]

We build a replica of our robot every year. I see nothing wrong with this. It really takes the strain off the drivers as they are able to get a ton of practice hours. And really... once you get to the pits at a competition, you are going to modify it outside of the build season, so...

[nickdog8891]

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

[connor.worley]

The challenge is NOT your friend. Successful teams aren't going to shy away from any sort of opportunity (provided it's legal) to get ahead of the pack because it's not "in the spirit of the challenge." The same goes for those who are successful in the real world.

[Grim Tuesday]

Maybe I've spent too much time on Chief Delphi and been influenced by the greats around here, but I agree with them:

If you don't have a practice bot, then you have the opportunity to. If you can't, then work harder, and you will. There is nothing unfair about it.


Unfair would be FIRST offering the rules to rookie teams a week early, or changing the rules to make the game harder for veteran teams. Utilizing your resources is not unfair.

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Grim Tuesday

Maybe I've spent too much time on Chief Delphi and been influenced by the greats around here, but I agree with them:

If you don't have a practice bot, then you have the opportunity to. If you can't, then work harder, and you will. There is nothing unfair about it.


Unfair would be FIRST offering the rules to rookie teams a week early, or changing the rules to make the game harder for veteran teams. Utilizing your resources is not unfair.

The only serious inequality here (I hesitate to say "unfairness") is what I would call 'enthusiastic student and mentor population density.' Not every team will have the same result if they involved every single interested person within a practical travel radius simply because of where they are located. For this reason alone some teams will be more capable than others, all else being equal, because they can simply recruit more mentors and students because there is a larger pool to draw from.

To highlight this I would compare Stuypulse (694) and The Grasshoopers (95, my team) simply because I am somewhat familiar with Stuy HS and 95. Stuy is a high school dedicated to science and math with ~3300 students, a fantastic student body to draw from by any stretch of the imagination. 95 draws students from three local public high schools with a total combined student population of ~2300 students. One of these teams will probably wind up with more students than the other when all interested students are recruited

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

The only serious inequality here (I hesitate to say "unfairness") is what I would call 'enthusiastic student and mentor population density.' Not every team will have the same result if they involved every single interested person within a practical travel radius simply because of where they are located. For this reason alone some teams will be more capable than others, all else being equal, because they can simply recruit more mentors and students because there is a larger pool to draw from.

To highlight this I would compare Stuypulse (694) and The Grasshoopers (95, my team) simply because I am somewhat familiar with Stuy HS and 95. Stuy is a high school dedicated to science and math with ~3300 students, a fantastic student body to draw from by any stretch of the imagination. 95 draws students from three local public high schools with a total combined student population of ~2300 students. One of these teams will probably wind up with more students than the other when all interested students are recruited

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything

What am I going to do? Hold a gun to people's heads? It's hard to wrap my head around, but a large portion of the student population around here simply isn't interested in anything like FRC.

My team has demo'd the robot for many high school classes and watched many students' eyes completely glaze over. We'll offer to let anyone drive the robot and get cricket chirps. We demo at every local high school. We demo at the local FLL event. We demo at sponsor's businesses and at trade shows. Trust me when I say lack hard work is not the issue here. Maybe we're doing something wrong, but a lot of it is a pure and simple lack of interest in anything related to robotics.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Work harder to recruit more. Simple solution.

If you make everything into black and white, hard work solves everything

One pregnant woman takes 9 months to have a baby.

Nine pregnant women still take 9 months to have a baby.

"If it can't be done with brains, it won't be done with hours" - Kelly Johnson (or something like that, the internet doesn't seem to agree on the original phrasing)

On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment. Not everyone can be a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett. But you can be absolutely sure that Bill and Warren wouldn't be where they are today if they were lazy. Hard work is a necessary prerequisite for luck.

Ether has mentioned books by Malcolm Gladwell before, I read them and Gladwell has lots of good ideas on the subject.

Mostly Unrelated:
This is my favorite comic, and it ties in directly with comments about aerospace not being able to afford mistakes. I think you certainly work to avoid mistakes, but not making any is impossible. That is why aerospace requires so much testing, as when you do make an error you want to catch it in a non-critical situation.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Currently, elite teams have been able to nearly complete redo large amounts of their robot.

Within the current rules, they are the only teams really capable of doing so however.

I disagree. I think ANY team can do this. My team has proven this many times that if you design with as many COTS, super Vex, and standard stock as possible you can build/rebuild a robot cheaply at an event. In 2009 We replaced our entire frame because of a bad design forced by part availability.

We have believed for several years since that happened that if you go to 2 events you can completely convert your robot within witholding. This is why we joke about a Thursday robot build off to show how stupid the rules are. If you plan a modular design well anyone can do this.



Slightly of topic:

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

I thought the Spirit and Opportunity robots had exact copies on earth for NASA to test with (one could call it practice) before having Spirit and Opportunity try it for real. Someone correct me if I am wrong. With aerospace, one cannot afford to make mistakes. You have to test before to be sure (often many times before).

As an engineer at an aircraft engine company I can attest to how true this is. For commercial aircraft engines we build and test engines on the ground first. Then we put them on a flying test bed, by replacing an engine on a 747SP. We have to do all kinds of ingestion tests and structural tests to certify parts before we can even fly a plane powered solely by these new engines.

Even when I worked at a commercial industrial division of the company building power plants all upgrades and software was exhaustively bench tested then implimented on a company owned test unit before the customers ever saw anything. This is the way the real engineering world does business. You never risk hurting a customer asset or your reputation by trying unproven systems in the field.

[SteveGPage]

Originally Posted by nickdog8891

I Disagree with the idea of a practice bot. I have no issue if you use a previous robot, but to build a new robot, a replica of your newly built FIRST bot, just to practice with seems to violate the idea of the 6 week build.

How does building a second bot violate anything? I, like Mike mentioned above, agree there is no right or wrong answers in this debate. Opinions will vary on whether or not you should - but saying it violates anything, without any rational behind that statement does not advance the discussion.

[Ben27Lacrosse]

My team (1296) is greatly looking forward to having a practice robot this year. We have made two of everything and assembled it all as we go.

[AlexRoberts]

Our team (3556) isn't planning on using a practice bot at all; we're putting all of our efforts into the actual bot.