Do you think a practice robot is needed to compete?

[techhelpbb]

So this has come up in several topics as of late. So I'd like to post a poll for it and see what kind of response we get. Do you think you need to build a practice robot. These are used: after the bag day when you normally would loose access to your robot and before your first competition appearance.

[RoboChair]

One reason we build more that one robot is because we have so many students and building more lets you engage the students more during build. With the big influx of members this year we have decided to build three robots. At the end of it our students will have more hands on experience and a higher level of involvement.

[MrForbes]

5. We're tired of building robots by the middle of February

[Trevor1523]

We started building practice robots for the 2014 season, and I can say that it helps a lot. Especially this year. Every day we would have our driver practice stacking, and it's one of the reasons we made the improvement that we did from week 1 to week 3. Only modification we made to the robot was a cardboard box with a slanted top for a ramp, but the practice bot helped a lot with driver practice. It was actually so dead from all the usage that at off season events it couldn't make stacks of more than 2 or 3 totes without the lift trolley coming off the guides .

I don't necessarily think it is necessary to compete, but it would be necessary to be really competitive.

[Ty Tremblay]

6. We have the resources and the drive, so we build it. We're always working to improve.

[Jared Russell]

Of course you don't need one to compete. There are Regional Winners, Einstein teams, and (in many seasons) even World Champions that don't build them.

What a practice bot buys you is (a) extra practice time for your drivers and programmers, (b) the ability to test out and develop improved versions of mechanisms to swap onto your comp bot, and (c) some measure of insurance on your season if after 6 weeks the robot isn't done due to unanticipated design issues, weather, sponsor delays, work travel, etc.

If you design the right robot for the game and for your team's abilities, are able to finish it on time to practice and tune it, and don't encounter any performance issues that you can't fix at an event, you might not need a second robot.

But most (I'd argue all) teams are not good/lucky enough to ensure that all of that happens season after season. For this reason, building a practice robot is one of the first pieces of advice I give to a team that is looking to increase the effectiveness of their robot. It can rescue your season from early mistakes, and even if you nailed it on initial design, your drivers will only get better.

[cadandcookies]

7: It depends on the team's geography.

I don't think they're necessary at all to be competitive at Minnesota events, but I'm pretty sure there are regions where that might not be the case.

[Bryce2471]

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

6. We have the resources and the drive, so we build it. We're always working to improve.

+1

[angelah]

#1

The last week of build season, we decided to go ahead and build one this year for the first time. A materials sponsor came through for us by doubling their donation, so we could make it happen. We built an exact duplicate, minus outer coverings and a roboRIO (they shared to save money) in two days. It made a huge difference in our competitiveness, and we were much more successful than in previous years. It wasn't the only factor, more like one of three or four changes we made, but enough that we will definitely continue.

[JPBlacksmiths]

If you have the money, then go for it, but honestly I think the money and materials could be much better spent. We never use practice bots and we fare fine with out them.

[waialua359]

Practice robots? What's that?

[gblake]

Nothing more than a (single) toaster on wheels (or whatever a kitbot-plus-nothing-else is called in your neck of the woods) is needed to "compete".

In this thread and the parallel one, folks keep talking past each other by using different definitions of "compete" and of "competitive".

Using the word "competitive" when you mean "performs well", "performs very well", or "good chance of winning a banner"; is a mistake because the people you are trying to communicate with are unlikely to define that word the same way you do.

The term "compete", and its cousin, "competitive", are far too imprecise in discussions like this one. They are words that looks good on a PowerPoint slide, but that don't help you much when you try to get down to brass tacks.

Blake
[EDIT]To be more precise, any (immobile) lump the inspectors will let you put on the field for a match "will enable you to participate in an FRC competition". In other words, "will enable you to compete".[/EDIT]

[jman4747]

You don't need it. But if you can afford it than it will only help you improve.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by gblake

In this thread and the parallel one, folks keep talking past each other by using different definitions of "compete" and of "competitive".

For all possible definitions of "compete" and "competitive", a practice bot is not a strict requirement.

For all possible definitions of "compete" and "competitive", a practice bot is likely to have a high ROI.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

For all possible definitions of "compete" and "competitive", a practice bot is likely to have a high ROI.

Just beware that the Investment might be a big step up from not having a practice bot. Not so much in money, but in time, and mostly in management. Having two robots that are different can be a detriment....it seems to take some teams a few seasons to really be able to take advantage of a practice bot.