Why do we bother bagging?

[Kernaghan]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

The only real issue with not bagging is, nobody would attend the first two weeks of events if the build season extended right up to the events, and for that problem, I have no solution.

I believe this may not be an issue. At early season events all teams will have had the same amount of time to work on their robot, and thus be on a level playing field. The neatest part about no bag and tag would be seeing the level at each competition progressively get better. This would also help low resource teams - because they do exist, FIRST is expensive - who can't afford to attend multiple competitions, where other teams get to work on their robot and practice.

With only a few exceptions, including the legendary Coyotes; having a practice robot gives teams a significant advantage. Looking at our twin robots before bag and tag last night, I couldn't help but think to myself, with all these resources used we could have completely funded another team. No bag and tag would improve the competition level, making the sport more spectator friendly and potentially lower the amount of resources used by teams, allowing space for new teams.

Just my thoughts.

[Duncan Macdonald]

610 is not lacking resources but builds 1 robot.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by BigJ

On the other hand, you can't think that every team should have to build out of a parent's garage. I have seen more than one rookie team that looks like a FIRST veteran even without a mentor with prior FIRST experience. I suspect it was because they did their research before jumping in, reached out to other veteran teams, and used the resources available to them to succeed.

There are multitudes of resources for all teams, not just rookies, to help them obtain more sponsors, help, and other types of resources.

Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.

[Steve W]

Really! It has been shown with RI3D that we don't need 6 weeks to build. Many of us have jobs and family that if build gets longer we will not be around. As you have been told many times, life is not fair. Some teams have more, some less but all must be completed at the required time. This is just like the world we live in. Get the job done on time or your out. Best to learn these lessons now than when you are trying to feed your family.

[Nemo]

If I got to decide, I would eliminate the bag deadline.

To be fair, there would still be high resource teams building two robots if we didn't have to bag. Instead of building two identical ones in 6 weeks, they'd build one before competitions and then build a second one using what we all learn from the early competitions.

I still say that would be better. It would be easier for a lot of middle of the pack teams to build better robots with the same resources.

People would have to get used to the idea that you don't necessarily want to meet 7 days a week for 3-4 months of the year. "But we have to, because Team ABCD does." No, you don't have to.

[Gregor]

This thread is an excellent read, and covers this topic pretty in depth.

Post 204 is biggest thing you could take away from the thread, quoted below.

Originally Posted by Jim Zondag

So, after all the back and forth in this thread, and all of the anecdotal and revisionist commentary on the history of what we do and why, I decided to do a little archeology. I went back and reviewed the actual game manuals from the early years (92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98). There is no available 94 Game Manual I could find in any of the archives.

In 92 and 93, there were no machine access restrictions at all. There was a kickoff, and there was a tournament. That was it....make a robot and show up to play.

In 95 we see the first indication of limits, as FIRST expanded to have more than one event. The rules of engagement were the same in 95 and 96. The excerpt from the 1996 manual is below:
-------------------------------------
Shipping Deadlines
To provide every team, regardless of events in which they participate, approximately the same number of design and build days, the following shipping regulations and dates apply:
New England Tournament (Manchester, NH) Competitors
1. Teams may either ship of bring their machine with them to the tournament.
2. After the tournament, all teams competing in the National Championship will have five days to make repairs and/or changes to their machines, within all rules outlined in this document
3. By end of business on Friday, April 5, machines must be picked up by a shipper for transport. This will give all New England teams five additional days to work on their machines.
National Championship participants only
1. Teams must ship their machines by end-of-business on Tuesday, April 2, 1996.
2. This will give all teams competing in only the National Championship an equal number of days to work on their machines as team competing in both events.------------------------------------

So, if you notice, this was not done to limit involvement by participants. It was done to try to equalize the number of workdays depending on if teams went to one or two events. You were allowed to work on your robot all the way upto and through the regional if you chose. Since the CMP required shipping robots to Disney, equalizing dates were imposed. Teams had 5 days to work on their robots after the first event before being required to give it up.

Actual "shipday" rules were not imposed until 1997. From the 97 manual:
----------------------------------------------------------
1. Machines MUST BE OUT OF TEAM HANDS by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb 25, 1997. This means you many ship the robot or drive the robot to the drayage/storage facility of your first event by 5:00 p.m. on February 25.

Regional Competitors
1. After competing in a Regional, any teams competing in another event will have two days to make repairs and/or changes to their machines, within all rules outlined in this document.
2. Machines MUST ARRIVE as the next site by the next Tuesday at 5:00 p.m.
-----------------------------------------------
After talking with some oldtimers from this era, they believe that the main reason for these changes in 1997 were due to LOGISTICS concerns. When events started to be scheduled on back to back weekends in 97, FIRST had to reduce the amount of time teams had to do repairs in order to make sure the crates could get to their destination in time.

Eventually (2002) the weekend hold back period was eliminated completely, again this was mainly to avoid the logistical complexity of hundreds of teams trying to all ship from various locations and instead allowed FIRST to control all of the logistics of all of the machines from the beginning to the end of the season by shipping direct from event to event. Again, the removal of these hands on repair and improve windows had nothing to do with limiting access by team, it was for LOGISTICS.

Phase forward to today. ALL of the Logistics for ALL of the teams are now entirely up to the teams and not any centralized control. So why does FIRST still maintain these rules? Seriously, they are nothing more than an artifact of an obsoleted system. Everyone who put the original rule in place at FIRST HQ is gone, yet these rules remain. Teams now attend anywhere from 1 to 6 events per season, so equalization of access time is functionally impossible, yet these rules remain.
So ask yourself, are we really doing something smart with the machine access rules, or is all of this just a collection of old rules, imposed for obsolete reasons which have been forgotten?

Post 207 and post 233 are also very insightful.

What I took away was, Jim Zondag is very smart, listen to him.

[Max Boord]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.

Ok, first the garrage thing: code orange has built out of a garrage up till this year and they are a powerhouse in there area.

2nd: the practice bot does a lot of things. It alows students to get 2x the machining experience, 2x the drivers and 2x the troubleshooting. We have never built a practice robot before this year and it was our most organized and ontime build season ever.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Max Boord

Ok, first the garrage thing: code orange has built out of a garrage up till this year and they are a powerhouse in there area.

2nd: the practice bot does a lot of things. It alows students to get 2x the machining experience, 2x the drivers and 2x the troubleshooting. We have never built a practice robot before this year and it was our most organized and ontime build season ever.

I never said anything about if you're building out of a garage, you aren't a powerhouse. I did say, however, that there are many teams who start out building in a garage and by that, I imply that, like most garages, they don't have access to the machines that many others do (I don't know many garages with a Bridgeport mill or a lathe), and therefore is MUCH more difficult to reproduce nearly identical parts that are exchangable. I say this coming from a team who did build two robots this year. Two robots that have had some of the most machining and CNC waterjet parts of any robot I've ever helped make. The bottom line is that it's just really expensive to do and we'd rather spend money elsewhere (tools? machines? more outreach?). So yes, students get 2x the machining experience, but, to quote one of my favorite movies: "...[W]hy build one when you can have two at twice the price?"

[waialua359]

The only issue we have with bagging our robot, this year especially, is trying to anticipate what position to leave it in OR what pieces to take off when bagging.
Our robot gets shipped to every competition, and without actually packing the rest of the stuff in our 1000 lb crate before we ship makes it tough.

[zinthorne]

My team has built out of a garage for its entire existence, last year was our first year with a second robot. We do not have access to a water jet cutting machine or cnc machine, yet we still made a second bot and a very good one too. It only took us an extra few days to finish the second robot.This was made possible by planning ahead and getting the parts for the second robot during the 6 weeks when parts on the final bot were finalized. Granted our second robot was not perfectly identical, but it was very close. Bagging the robot should be used, because it simulates real world deadlines. Yes, it is an honor system, but all teams should be trustworthy enough to bag their robot.

[pilum40]

We built our robot in a portable classroom that is used for school materials storage, girl's gym changing area and former elementary classroom without a bathroom that worked.

We have the sum total of: 1 drill press, 1 chop saw, 1 90 degree drill, 1 battery operated small rotary saw, 1 Dremel tool and accessories. The rest of our tools are classic hand tools like...wait for it....screwdrivers, hack saws and the like.

I think we had a great build season. I much rather would walk into a regional knowing my STUDENTS designed, built with sweat equity and actually knew how and why their robot does what it does than outsource all the parts just to keep up with the big spenders. Sometimes we do forget what this is all about. It's about having fun, learning some tech, learning how to operate in work teams, dealing with obstinate mentors (like me), and buying into knowing our robot may not be very "pretty" but it works, works well and does the following consistently: score, catch, pick up and can play "D" if necessary. Our mentors are wood working guys, and our robot looks it. My students walked out of the bag/tag on Tuesday with smiles on their faces knowing they'll be able to compete quite hard in March. We have the funds for 2 robots but neither the technical/mechanical/student numbers to do the second machine. We'll settle for our second/demo CRio and dummy electrical system to fine tune code.

You won't hear any whining from 3355. We learned a long time ago the old Darrell Royal adage: "You dance with who you brung to the prom". Buck up y'all. See ya' at the Dallas Regionals!

Steve Miller
Coach 3355
Purple Vipers

[DjScribbles]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Of course I don't expect everyone to build out of a garage. I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built. I'm sure there are some rookie teams like the ones you mention, but the reality is that those teams are very few and far between.

^This

This year, one of our sponsors was awesome enough to (laser?) cut and bend our sheet metal chassis (we simply supplied the materials) within a few days of our design being completed. We've had various other sponsors help us here in the past, but typically not completely free, and not on such a quick time table.

Is it right for us to ask them to build another frame for a practice bot?
Sure, some sponsors are happy to do this, but to me it seems inconsiderate to waste their time on a copy of the entire frame.

Expanding on that, is it right to use your sponsors donations to build something that is only necessary because of archaic rules?
Sure, many are willingly giving the money, but couldn't that money be put to better use elsewhere in the community (FIRST or otherwise), rather than being spent on a bunch of materials, electronics, etc.

Waste is waste, and practice bots are largely that. I understand that teams work hard to raise the funds, and put in the effort to build a practice bot to make themselves more competitive; but that is a lot of good-will you are receiving, and it just seems wrong to accept it for the sole purpose of exercising a commonly used loophole in an archaic rule.

[fox46]

As someone who works in the manufacturing industry; how much sheet is in your chassis? a 4x8 sheet? So for say an extra $150 in material you could have had a second chassis. I am sure your sponsor would not have minded at all had you asked them to run two of each part. They had the machine time scheduled, the material mounted and running- for them to have made two more of each part likely would have only cost them less than an hour or so of run time. Instead though, if you were to ask them now they would have to schedule the production time, tool the machine to accept your material, install the material and then run the parts. The setup on something like this is often just as costly or even more so than the actual cutting of the parts which is why many companies have a "minimum setup charge". This is why it is far cheaper per unit to make 100 of something instead of 1. When I run production at work we always make more than we need so that we can keep the extras in stock. Down the road if we need extra parts, we have them on the shelf. This results in massive cost and time savings since we don't have to set up a machine to run one or two components. Something to keep in mind for next year. I am sure your sponsor would oblige.

[Foster]

OK, repeat after me "FIRST is not about the robot".

They are trying to give the experience that most engineers and technology people face on a regular basis. "Design it, build it, ship it, compete in the marketplace with it". People do not pay for products that they can't get (spare me the pre-order games, iThings, etc. nonsense) and walk away with.

Ship product. I do it. GM does it. We all do it. You do it too. All said and done it goes out the door, warts and "well we could have" and "well just 10 more days it will do ..."

And "pfft" to the entire "we are new, we are poor, we want pity". Look to all the rookie all stars. There are teams with three digit team numbers that would be happy to have rookie all star years.

You are getting an amazing life lesson in 17 weeks. 6 weeks to design and ship a product to the marketplace. 11 weeks of the marketplace responding to your ideas and you get chances to tweek. PROFIT!

I'm glossing over the "well we only compete in one week, etc." Sorry. Your life lesson this year is shorter, next year it will be longer.

Repeat after me "FIRST is not about the robot". It's never been about the robot.

(Oh and this: "What I took away was, Jim Zondag is very smart, listen to him." +1, Jim is a very smart guy, you should be happy he's doing this" )

(Oh and JForbes writes "I like the end of the build season...today I get to spend relaxing in my garage, working on my car. No robot stuff. " +314156!)

[Dave McLaughlin]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Clearly our definitions of "fair" differ. Surely you can't think that a rookie team building out of a parent's garage is expected to be able to afford and build two identical robots in the same manner as teams with access to CNC waterjet, milling, lathe, etc. All that stuff doesn't appear over their first year just by "working hard". There's a clear analogy to socioeconomics we have today, but I'll refrain from going there.

I guess I would argue that there is no good way that I can see to make this competition "fair" for rookies. But I would also argue that that is okay. FIRST, For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, not Fair yet Inspiring for Rookies and Second year Teams. If your team can inspire your kids by building and bagging one robot that is fantastic. If not bagging your robot so that you can keep working on it inspires your kids that is also fantastic. On my team we build two robots and I hope that we are inspiring our kids, and I hope that you think that is fantastic as well.

I can tell you this from personal experience. Team 1983 started in 2007 when I was a sophomore and the robot that we produced in Coach Steele's portable was no mechanical work of art. We could drive, and... well... that was about it. The idea of making a practice robot was something we had never thought of, nor would it have been something we could have completed. We crated our robot just like everyone else did on ship day and we waited to compete. When we got to competition our robot was nothing special, and we didn't win many matches, but we were very proud of the robot that we built. We were fortunate enough to compete at the Las Vegas Regional during our rookie year, which afforded us the opportunity to sit on the carpet with some of the great teams in first. We played with the Poofs, and we played against Pink and the High Rollers, and those teams inspired US to strive to be better.

To this day I am still inspired every year when I see the machines that teams produce. I am also a bit taken aback by your statement that teams are wasting money on a practice bot.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

I'm saying teams waste thousands of dollars every year to build a second robot that doesn't need to be built.

Our team thinks that it is worth it to spend the extra money and time to reap the benefits that building a practice bot can bring. I don't think it is a waste for our team in the slightest. However, if you prefer not to build two robots, don't! From reading this thread it seems 610 was able to win a world championship without a practice robot, bagging on stop build date just like everyone else.