The Quest for Einstein

[sonichammer7476]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

I think the better goal here is how to move forward to become a consistent high performing robot at the Championship not just a goal of being on Einstein. Let's face it there are many, MANY amazing robots and teams each year who don't make it to Einstein because so many little elements determine where you seed, what alliance you end up on, and who you face.

This is very true. Our team is going on our 5th year, and have made it to Worlds for the past 2 years. Last year, we ended up being ranked 18th (or somewhere close to that) in Curie, and were not selected to advance into the final rounds. To me, we earned that ranking of 18th not through luck, but through a fair amount of skill (this greatly contrasts our first Worlds appearnace, where we were not blessed with a kind schedule). Many of the Top 10 selected teams with robots that they deemed 'expendable', in the sense that they had full intentions of butchering the robot to add elements useful to them, e.g. claws for cans. Sometimes it is not a concern of skill; rather, it is the fact that you are a 'tweener', like us (not Elite yet, but well on our way there).

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by sonichammer7476

This is very true. Our team is going on our 5th year, and have made it to Worlds for the past 2 years. Last year, we ended up being ranked 18th (or somewhere close to that) in Curie, and were not selected to advance into the final rounds. To me, we earned that ranking of 18th not through luck, but through a fair amount of skill (this greatly contrasts our first Worlds appearnace, where we were not blessed with a kind schedule). Many of the Top 10 selected teams with robots that they deemed 'expendable', in the sense that they had full intentions of butchering the robot to add elements useful to them, e.g. claws for cans. Sometimes it is not a concern of skill; rather, it is the fact that you are a 'tweener', like us (not Elite yet, but well on our way there).

I point out that this year was very unusual in what mix of robots worked best on the field. The game was not well designed to use all 3 robots simultaneously in a high performing game. In fact, you could even see it in our alliance. Because we had 1671, we simply ramped back on how many stacks that our other two bots had to put up, down to 2 instead of the 3+ we had been making in the qualifying rounds. There weren't enough cans to make it worthwhile to go for more.

In previous years, the third bot could fit any number of roles. In our 2013 and 2014 alliances, our second choice could have been a first choice on lower alliances (and we were surprised that they were available at 24th pick.)

I'll point out another aspect that is key to the value of the third bot. We call it "value added"--its scoring non-teleop goals (which usually done by the first 2 bots) plus defensive ability. That's scoring in auto and the end game, plus stage points such as the assists in 2014. We always rank our 2nd picks by dropping teleop goal scoring.

The message is work to be in the top dozen and focus on performing supporting tasks that gain value to an alliance. Don't focus on trying to build for the "star attraction" of scoring the final points like goal scoring. Instead think of all of the ways to score points and think of which ways are least likely to interfere with the top alliance captains during teleop (or even auto).

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

The message is work to be in the top dozen and focus on performing supporting tasks that gain value to an alliance. Don't focus on trying to build for the "star attraction" of scoring the final points like goal scoring. Instead think of all of the ways to score points and think of which ways are least likely to interfere with the top alliance captains during teleop (or even auto).

Good advice dor many, but Is that really helping the OP? They are asking what it takes to become an Einstein calibre team, and AFAIK, "Einstein calibre" teams get there reliably by building high-scoring robots, full stop. I guarantee 1678, 1114, 254, 148, 118 etc (to name a few) don't plan to fill a niche for someone else's alliance.

That said, it takes a lot of capacity building to get to the point where you're capable of consistently fielding robots that seed high. Unfortunately I can't offer any advice on how - we're not there yet

[Mastonevich]

My answer is luck.

Really put the work in to do the best you can, stay positive and hope for a little luck to be added in the mix. I think those words work for FIRST and about anything else in life.

[MrJohnston]

We should have all the 'physical' pieces in place:
Multiple long-time mentors
A very healthy budget
Plenty of very dedicated students
A shop which we can access at any time
Support (sometimes better than others) from the school
Time

I'm also thinking in terms of the approach to the season...
For instance, I do believe that it's very important to set the bar very high when looking into design strategies. If you want to go to Einstein, you have to be willing do do more than "push a single tote into the auto-zone" for an autonomous routine. Start with stacking three on your own. Then try to do more.

"That's impossible" cannot be part of the vocabulary of your team. It needs to be replaced with "That would be challenging." Then, imagine a robot that could meet said challenge. If you can imagine it, the robot can be built.

[Jared Russell]

The best way to get to Einstein is to analyze the game, figure out which three robots would make up the ideal Einstein alliance, and then design, build, iterate, and polish the one that best matches your teams' capabilities.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

The best way to get to Einstein is to analyze the game, figure out which three robots would make up the ideal Einstein alliance, and then design, build, iterate, and polish the one that best matches your teams' capabilities.

Yes.... but, your robot also has to be capable of reaching Championship first. In certain games, there are niche designs that are incredibly important at the top levels of play, but might not be all that important at lower levels and end up failing to qualify for Championship.

[cglrcng]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

The best way to get to Einstein is to analyze the game, figure out which three robots would make up the ideal Einstein alliance, and then design, build, iterate, and polish the one that best matches your teams' capabilities.

Never a truer & short, less than 2 line, single sentence statement for such a huge undertaking annually.

Amazing that most people can list 5~8 huge things, taking paragraphs to iterate, that determine what it takes to reach "The Big E" at the FIRST FRC Championships....Yet a leader on 1 of the (IF not THE), most successful teams (Elite as most describe FIRST FRC Team 254, listed the absolute right order, and all that is really necessary...The rest are just the tools you use to reach it in reality.

Our team often qualifies to go to The Championships (and yes, it has been a long time since the last time, but Team 60 has played on that wonderful "Big E Field" in the limelight - long before my time w/ the team), and rarely actually even attends the Championships anymore ~Just 1 time even attending in the last 4 years actually. (Though the plan every year, is to do so, IF we can be in our own minds competitive when there).

Unless that route outlined above by Jared is followed by our team (that can easily only be determined by US and the field of others midseason), IF our robot will be competitive, and that is our ultimate deciding factor...Not whether we can afford it, not how behind us currently the community or our multiple schools are, certainly not by the fabrication machines we have access to or the hrs. or people required to build robots, but, by how well we as a team each year.... Have "ALL Read the RULES," (sorry Jared to steal the rest from what you so eloquently posted prior)....."analyzed the game, figured out which three robots would make up the ideal Einstein alliance, and then designed, built, iterated, and polished the one that best matches our team capabilities."

Last year was the first year in a while we both had a competition robot finished early enough & a decent place to actually practice with it, then we finished building the practice bot after the other 1 was bagged.

Each yr. we have a handful of truly dedicated students building, and each yr. we lose a great many of those dedicated students to colleges nationwide. And we nearly start over again w/ a few veterans. That is a really good thing!

Each year lately, just 1 or more of those elements has been missing from our smaller but long time around community based rural two digit team.

Yes, sometimes building to WIN a Regional, can sometimes make one over build also (or go an overly simplistic route also, and not take enough risks by not attempting things we have seen or felt fail before), and not concentrate on doing just 1 thing extremely well (better than thousands of other bots), and cause one to not be a 2nd., or 3rd. pick. On that I also agree.

Striving to be third best, and in a supporting role, isn't in the cards for many great teams though when designing. Those that do take that chance also succeed at playing there too! (They just don't often receive that Elite Tag!) But, nowhere on that Pretty Blue World Champion or World Finalist Banner does the word "Elite" appear either. How many of those in your collection is important though.

This game (Recycle rush) may just stand all those thoughts right on their heads this year, I can certainly see it in my crystal ball.

It will be interesting, as so many have parsed this game to pcs.....I think tote stack building will be faster & faster as the season weeks progress. Some will be amazed that by week 3, some Alliances will actually run out of game pcs.. I know that isn't anywhere in thoughts (by the majority opinion I've seen so far), in the wisdom here on CD though. Some early previews shows it will be true though. There are at least 16 different specialty bot types so far, not just a few being built this year.

Just a prediction.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

"That's impossible" cannot be part of the vocabulary of your team. It needs to be replaced with "That would be challenging." Then, imagine a robot that could meet said challenge. If you can imagine it, the robot can be built.

I understand the sentiment here (we all need to be careful about being shut down by limits that may not exist), but I highly disagree with the premise within the context of FRC strategic design. Recognizing when something is impossible for your team is absolutely critical to the success of any team. The teams that perform the best are the ones who recognize their own capabilities and design and build within them. Every year on 1114 we rule out certain designs because they're beyond what we can effectively create in a build season with our given level of resources. The focus is always on "how far can we push the envelope, without compromising consistency and effectiveness". I find the biggest mistake FIRST teams make is to try and do too much, and end up being mediocre or poor at the overwhelming attempt. This is definitely much more common than teams who don't push the envelope far enough and end up being over matched.

Getting to Einstein isn't impossible for any team, however building a robot to do every task in the game at an Einstein level very well may be.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I understand the sentiment here (we all need to be careful about being shut down by limits that may not exist), but I highly disagree with the premise within the context of FRC strategic design. Recognizing when something is impossible for your team is absolutely critical to the success of any team. The teams that perform the best are the ones who recognize their own capabilities and design and build within them. Every year on 1114 we rule out certain designs because they're beyond what we can effectively create in a build season with our given level of resources. The focus is always on "how far can we push the envelope, without compromising consistency and effectiveness". I find the biggest mistake FIRST teams make is to try and do too much, and end up being mediocre or poor at the overwhelming attempt. This is definitely much more common than teams who don't push the envelope far enough and end up being over matched.

Getting to Einstein isn't impossible for any team, however building a robot to do every task in the game at an Einstein level very well may be.

I kept my response a little over-simplified. After visualizing a robot that could accomplish a specific task, it is imperative that the team determine whether or not the construction of that robot is within their capabilities. However, that decision cannot be made until some thought has been put into how the task could be accomplished.

It has happened on my team - and others - that a strong strategy is suggested, but that it is rejected without putting any thought into how it might be accomplished... In other words, they would never give themselves the chance to be successful.

[Sperkowsky]

My goal is to make worlds atleast once by the time Im a senior. This year we have a decent robot but not a great one and I know for sure there will be much better bots in our area. Our chairmans award is good but not great also. (We need to do more community outreach)

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

My goal is to make worlds atleast once by the time Im a senior. This year we have a decent robot but not a great one and I know for sure there will be much better bots in our area. Our chairmans award is good but not great also. (We need to do more community outreach)

Don't build a middle of the pack <insert highest scoring game task here> robot. Build the absolute best <insert complimentary scoring task here> robot.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Don't build a middle of the pack <insert highest scoring game task here> robot. Build the absolute best <insert complimentary scoring task here> robot.

...and then pray you don't get selected by the 8th seed alliance.

[Nathan Streeter]

Not viewing the elite teams (or regionally elite teams) as being spoiled, but realizing that they have something special... and that you can replicate it. Maybe it'll take a few years... maybe it'll take more mentors/parents/teachers... maybe it'll take more resources... but those are things you can attain with time and effort.

For example, elite teams have gotten past other teams having more/bigger/better sponsors (resources or financial), and have spent a lot of time over several years getting that level of sponsorship.

The difference between viewing an elite team as an 'out-group' and as a 'reference-group'.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Nothing's impossible, if your team can believe in that, any team can make Einstein.

Do some teams have more factors in their favor (call them "Elite" or "Powerhouse" if you'd like)? Sure but it's not just resources that build you a solid machine, train your drivers and help you at competition.

Nor does size of your team. 100 students is great, but is just having that many students give you that big of an advantage over a team of 10 - 20 committed kids?

It's the amount of resources you have, it's how you manage them.

In the end, Einstein should always be a goal, even if it's not your active one. My team's been around the block a bit (20 - 22 years depending on who you ask ) and we've never been to Einstein but our goal is to build a robot, have fun while doing it and compete at a high level.

With that said, we can't wait to show off what we've built this season in a couple weeks and (fingers crossed) we perform well enough to earn a blue banner.