Successful teams in FRC history

[waialua359]

Getting to Einstein takes a lot of luck with respect with being in the
1. right division
2. right schedule
3. right alliance
4. route through elims to get to division finals

in addition to fielding a competitive robust robot.

I'd argue that you have to be either the one of the top 2-3 robots in your division, or ranked somewhere between the 10-15th best robot.

Like small regionals, many good teams never make it on the #1 or #2 seeded alliance, yet are good enough to replace the second pick on the #1 or #2 alliance, always getting stuck somewhere in between.

Not always the case, but happens quite often.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Robot-wise, successful teams have to push for victory. Off-season training of new members, development of engineering practices/methods, a proper grasp of the game's strategy from kickoff weekend, remaining diligent during build season to produce a quality, top-tier robot, and preforming well at competitions are all things I would bet winning teams would agree is crucial. Strong mentors and sponsors help propel many winning teams forward as well, in addition to $$$.

[tindleroot]

Thank you all for the great comments! I really hope others who are reading these posts are as inspired as I am to work hard and try to make it to Einstein.

[XaulZan11]

A couple of people have mentioned the need to accurately analyze the game before prototyping/building. I'm not sure I agree with that being an necessity for all teams. Earlier on GameSense Tom from 254 said they thought the game would be more run and gun opposed to the focus on assists (turns out the traits needed for the 3 ball auto allowed it play the assist game very well!). I believe there was a post from 33 after their first district stating they were surprised by the game play, expecting to use their well-practice solo-cycles more often.

I think the take away should be that the high resource teams can over come a mis-step in strategy but the average or below average teams wanting to compete with those high resource teams need to nail the strategy as their margin for error is much smaller and they cannot waste precious time on functions not directly tied to winning (such as catching in 2014, climb/dump in 2013, suspension in 2010...).

[Abhishek R]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

A couple of people have mentioned the need to accurately analyze the game before prototyping/building. I'm not sure I agree with that being an necessity for all teams. Earlier on GameSense Tom from 254 said they thought the game would be more run and gun opposed to the focus on assists (turns out the traits needed for the 3 ball auto allowed it play the assist game very well!). I believe there was a post from 33 after their first district stating they were surprised by the game play, expecting to use their well-practice solo-cycles far more often.

I think the take away should be that the high resource teams can over come a mis-step in strategy but the average or below average teams wanting to compete with those high resource teams need to nail the strategy as their margin for error is much smaller and they cannot waste precious time on functions not directly tied to winning (such as catching in 2014, climb/dump in 2013, suspension in 2010...).

True, but functionally both 33 and 254 were able to pick up the ball and score it quickly and efficiently. Their robot did not change, though their strategy might have.

I think one of the biggest things to consistently perform well is team organization. Every effort you make needs to be organized so as to minimize the chaos during Kickoff, build season, and through competition. Being open to all kinds of ideas also helps, but know your limits, both as per the robot but also the amount of manpower you can dedicate to a task.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

True, but functionally both 33 and 254 were able to pick up the ball and score it quickly and efficiently. Their robot did not change, though their strategy might have.

True. Can I change my examples to 469 in 2008, 67 and 33 in 2009, and 2337 in 2010?

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Abhishek R

True, but functionally both 33 and 254 were able to pick up the ball and score it quickly and efficiently. Their robot did not change, though their strategy might have.

We were a little bit undecided at first as to what the best way to play the game would be. Our initial attempt at modelling the game (a) severely underestimated how much time it took for balls to be re-entered into play and (b) underestimated the ability of the average robot to acquire an assist, making single robot cycles (with a truss toss) look more appealing. But after about a week into build season it was starting to become clear that assisting was the way to go.

We were able to postpone the conversations about teleop strategy until late in build season because we realized that regardless of your role on the alliance, or whether you are doing 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 point cycles, it really doesn't make a lot of difference in the robot you want to build. You need to be able to acquire balls (from the ground, from a partner, from a human player) and exit them from your robot (to the ground/low goal, to a partner, to a human player) and truss/score high. You need to be able to play defense, and function in the presence of defense, meaning you can't fumble the ball every time you get hit. The only point of contention was whether catching would really be worth it - even then, designing for loading from the top was advantageous for other reasons.

[Brandon_L]

Attention to detail

[M. Lillis]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

Attention to detail

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

I'm going to guess that they mean 1114

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by orangemoore

I'm going to guess that they mean 1114

I think that's a good guess.

1114 has worked hard to get good at developing FRC game strategies. Studying their methods is time well spent.

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by M. Lillis

I can't tell if you are making a joke about "1118" or...

No, no joke. Attention to detail is important. Doing a lot of little things better can help push you over the hump. Overlooking a lot of little things will make you fall backwards.

See:
610 and their Design Book. It's a good read.
254's build blogs
1114's Strategic Deisgn
One of my personal favorites, JVN's 2010 Build Journal

I have no idea who/what '1118' is anyway

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

I have no idea who/what '1118' is anyway

Neither do we

[Duncan Macdonald]

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

I have no idea who/what '1118' is anyway

Now you are going to hurt 4489's feelings...Nerds Inc. -->Cybertribe

Back on point, don't overlook the importance of driver skill and practice time. Watching an offseason event you can see a 99.9 percentile robot drop if a new drive team is behind the glass.

[Peter Matteson]

I just want to put in perspective how difficult winning a division is to remind everyone why so few teams have done it.

Just 106 teams in FRC history have won a division.

That is .02% out of ~5200 teams in FRC history.

There have been 176 slots available for teams to appear on Einstein since divisions were created in 2001, so if each spot was won by a different team it would still be .0338% of all teams that had made it.

Just 34 teams in FRC history account for 59% (104) of the division wins, these are the multiple division winners.

Even more staggering is the 7 members of the "5-Timers Club" account for over 22% (39) of all appearances.

You shouldn't be upset that your team has never broken through.