|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
The total time spent on the robot may be the same, but the functional state of the robot may be quite different between the former and latter at their first event. In other words, while team A has 7 weeks before they have to compete for the first time, team B has 11 weeks. Our robot would certainly perform better after 11 weeks of work than it does after 7. I guess, if you presume that everyone is equally handicapped at 7 weeks, it makes no difference. I think our current experience shows us that certain teams do MUCH more in 6 or 7 weeks than others. So, in the end, the teams are appreciably better today would be appreciably better without a stop-build day, but everyone gets better overall. I suppose that makes sense. Okay, I concede. But I still might die if I have to do for another six weeks. Last edited by Madison : 03-05-2013 at 14:02. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
But wouldn't that be true also of the robots you would be competing against at that event?
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Oh my heavens, we need to keep the 6-week deadline and if anything, get ride of the 30 lbs of fabbed parts rule. If I remember right, there was a time, you couldn't bring any fabricated parts to a competition, now teams can slap on a whole new shooter or intake at a competition.
Mentor burnout is a serious issue and I know for me personally, extending the build times will overwork our volunteers and myself. When we are overworked, we won't be volunteering at competitions, volunteering for community outreach events, etc. This is bad for FIRST! Keep the 6 weeks and modify the fabricated components weight limit... (maybe 15 lbs?) |
|
#4
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
I'm actually going to advocate that the 6 week limit is a DISADVANTAGE to teams that compete late, especially in the district system. Take team A who decides to attend events on weeks 4 and 6. With the current system, team A will have trouble going up against the 30+ teams at that event that have already competed in one event and have already had one event worth of refinement, practice, and fix-it windows. Team A is at a big disadvantage with the 6 week window. This is one of the reasons why we never schedule our first event after week 2. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
I'm against extending the build season, I can guarantee it would lead to more late build sessions for my teams. I am already stretched thin for 6 weeks and my college hates the fact I miss so many days of class (I still keep my grades up). If it were changed to an 8 or 9 week build season I simply would not be able to be a mentor in my current capacity.
More build time = more days missed of class/work |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
What advantage does a team competing in week 5 have over a team competing in week 1? All the teams competing in week 1 compete with other teams competing in week 1...and then 2, 3, etc... Are you saying that a team in week 5 will wait until the week 1 districts/regionals and then copy the best designs? Wow...I feel like EricH today...I think this is the most I've ever posted in one day... |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
In 2008 we wanted to "shoot the ball" but thought it would be deemed illegal. After we won Detroit and saw 27's awesome robot and how much fun and cool it was, we spent the next day ripping our arm off our practice bot to make a kicker...because it was sooooo cool to score that way. The students wanted to put in the time. The mentors did too. So we did. I think that was the last season of "big changes" other than minibot deployer in 2011...again...233 found such a cool way to launch those suckers... |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
It's possible to do this now even with the with-holding allowance. You don't need to take your robot home in order to do it. In 2011, my old team (2079) built an elevator that didn't run smoothly and we had trouble calibrating it. We took the 35 pound with-holding allowance (I think it was 35) and built a completely new 4-bar linkage manipulator lightly based off of the design from 148 that we were heavily inspired by (our linkage used box tubing, but the dynamics of the system were similar). I still question myself as to whether this was the right thing to do, but we learned a lot along the way, and it made our competitive season more successful. Long story short, even if you can't take your robot home, it's still possible to make drastic iterations that can be influenced by successes of other teams. Last edited by sgreco : 04-05-2013 at 16:38. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
For our team, the "stop build" day was last Saturday. We basically work 100% until we are eliminated. Having to build and maintain a practice robot costs us 2x and increases our workload by a significant amount. At each competition there is a massive push and stress to update the bagged robot to the current state. How nice would it be to show up to the competition and be ready to go?
There are teams that stop building at 6-weeks and their mentors get a break. I get it and respect it. However, without a stop build day your season can still be 6 weeks long... just go to a week 1 event and your done (maybe FIRST could even move it up a week). Right now, if you go to a week 5 event you will be competing against teams that have worked for 11 weeks... the stop build day accomplished nothing. For our team, removing the 6-week stop build day would not "extend" the build season at all... rather it would reduce cost and mentor burnout. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
The 6 week cap definitely puts a great deal of pressure on teams, since it is such a short amount of time to build a great, efficient working robot. But, I think it is helpful in some ways. It teaches members that there are certain deadlines, whether they are short or long, that must be met. And, this is quite true in real life. Essentially, I think it teaches us to make a well organized, balanced schedule to plan out how to go about building a good robot. Really, in a way, it sorts out the teams that are really dedicated to doing well during competition. Typically, the best teams are the ones with the best planning. Ultimately, it prepares us to deal with the sometimes ludicrous deadlines that are sent our way in college, and after college.
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
I disagree with eliminating the six week build season, the only thing I could see happening is that addition of an additional week. The whole idea of having six weeks is to prepare the students for life and real world applications, where there are strict deadlines that must be met.
I also suffer from burnout towards the end of the season both as a student and a mentor this past year. I can't even count the amount of hours I've spent on robotics in high school and university but getting rid of the time limit to build the robot removes on of the learning points that FIRST created. The students need to learn to meet deadlines, even in high school. To prove that it should not be problem to build the robot and test before the end of the six weeks take into account that us Canadian teams have to deal with exams during week 3 or 4 depending on the year, which makes all of us lose at least 4 days of build season. Even with this barrier Canada has been able to produce 2 world champions and some of the biggest powerhouse teams in FIRST. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
Quote:
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The 6 Week Build Season and 'Mentor Burnout'
I dislike the fact that because there are really no limits on working after stop build day, we invest thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to build an identical practice robot, when we could much more easily (but not currently 'legally') have only one robot and no bag. We are spending all this time and money to because we are required to put a few mils of plastic between ourselves and something we can just make two of and continue development on. In that sense, the bagging is absurd. But, it does have it's benefits, as indicated by numerous others previously.
Anyhow, consider this mentor burnt to a crisp. FRC is becoming a competition of which team has more experienced people who can sideline the greatest percentages of their lives for the greatest amount of time. It's a battle of who can sacrifice the most, and it's not healthy. It's tough to keep up. I wouldn't mind seeing something imposed that said "FRC teams may only meet a maximum of 6 days per week, and may elect which day per week they choose as their non-work day. On the non-work day, team members may not design, fabricate, assemble, procure, or program any piece of the robot, or take part in any activities directly related to FIRST Robotics." Of course it's not enforceable, and teams would find a way to bend the rule, but it would be nice to go home for even just one day per week. Come to think of it, this isn't really any less enforceable than bagging, which is honor system anyhow. FIRST HQ, I haven't wished much of you, but for 2014, my wish is to make us go home once in a while. Thoughts? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|