If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion

[Andy Baker]

OK, here is an interesting rule change. Changing this rule would give us these positives:

• save over $1 million in team costs
• eliminate the need to build "practice" robots
• eliminate countless spare parts
• increase the level of play in FIRST
• allow software and autonomous development to flourish
• eliminate the need for crates (for 90% of teams)
• give teams more time to work on the robot

However, this rule change would also result in these negative aspects:

• enable teams to create "copycat" designs of winning robots
• provide another disadvantage to teams who live far from regionals
• eliminate the "back to normal" time after the ship date
• give teams more time to work on the robot (yes, it is a negative too)
• robot loading on Thursday morning would need to be coordinated differently

Eliminate the ship date. That would be one HUGE rule change.

Over the years, I have wavered on this issue. However, I strongly feel that the positives outweigh the negatives now. With the added importance of software development and the increase of teams who build a second robot every year, we might as well just keep the robots with us to the events.

Andy B.

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Eliminate the ship date. That would be one HUGE rule change.

I think it would further unbalance things. Some teams have more resources than others, this will never change. The more time teams have for "build period" the more prominantly the gap will show. If I had a year to build something with a full machine shop, I could run circles around the guy with hand tools. If both of us only had one day, however, we'd be closer together. Think of a race. There's no way I could run a 4 minute mile, and would have absolutely no chance of beating someone in a mile race if they could make that time. However, if the race was only 10 feet, I could probably hold my ground against someone who could.

Secondly, it would eliminate my favorite part of build period: the lack of sleep. For six weeks, I eat, breath, and sleep robots. If I had more time, it wouldn't be as hecktic. I would also miss that 2am scramble before it has to be shipped in 15 hours.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

Over the years, I have wavered on this issue. However, I strongly feel that the positives outweigh the negatives now. With the added importance of software development and the increase of teams who build a second robot every year, we might as well just keep the robots with us to the events.

Andy B.

Originally, my thoughts were that I liked this idea. I figured that since the well to do teams already are ahead, giving them extra time is probably giving them a relatively small increased advantage, whereas giving struggling teams more time would probably make them much more competitive.

After further thought, however, I think I was wrong originally. Right now, it's the great teams that are using their time wisely. This is why they do so well. Many of the teams who don't do so well are probably not using their time as efficiently as possible. By giving them more time, I don't think this changes at all. It would just let the elite teams develop more of a gap between the lower teams.

I likened this to a post I made before where I opined that no matter what the FIRST defined weight limit for the robot is, be it 100 lbs, 120 lbs, 130 lbs, 200 lbs, many teams are still going to find ways to not make it inside that weight without drilling/cutting up their bots.

No matter how much time teams are given to complete their robots, teams are still going to show up behind the game. I also think this would put a large strain on teams who barely have the membership and mentor support to put together a robot as is. To ask them to spend 25-50% more time on the robot would be quite a task.

Karthik also brought up a good point during a discussion on the matter--mentor burnout. We all know that mentors are putting in tons of hours to help, on top of having day jobs (or class, in the case of the college mentors). I think giving extra time would just be more time that these people continue to go all out. It's how we are in FIRST. Nobody is going to slow their pace and take it easy since there's an extra 3-4 weeks.

If there was no ship, FIRST becomes a committment that spans over a quarter of class, and nearly a whole semester, counting competition. I think teachers and schools already think that six weeks is enough. a full quarter and a half of unabated robot activity would be unacceptable in many of their eyes.

I think creating something in six weeks is much more impressive, and much more challenging. FIRST teams have come up with some truly magnificent designs in a very short timespan. Given more time, more creative designs would probably appear. I think it's much more impressive and inspiring to view masterpieces that are perfectly suited to play a given game in six weeks, than to see the same robots that have been tweaked a bit more, but took 2.5 months to create. Having these top few to look up to makes everyone want to aspire to greater heights. Seeing a whole horde of them due to having extra time wouldn't impress me nearly as much.

I think there are some clear positives involved. Even though I see the gap widening between the "haves" and "have-nots", overally level of competition would probably go up. Whether or not it would increase enough to make the extra time worth it is debatable. Overall, I'm not entirely sold on some of the major issues as seen above.

[slickguy2007]

To me, it would ruin the whole experience by eliminating the ship date.

Part of the challenge is getting the robot completed on time and getting it to the right weight. I also believe that it becomes less fun that way because instead of those late night'ers in robotics, you'll be going to sleep at a reasonable time due to the increase in build time. Also, the whole "rushed engineering" process starts declining.You will begin to see less participation in the pits due to the fact that robots will be designed better and their won't be much to do on the robot for some teams. Finally, you will see less team enthusiasm and team work because a lot of bonding goes on during those "late night'ers" and by eliminating them, students won't be as emotionally involved leading to FRC events that just won't be the same ever again.

GO 1403!!!

[Beth Sweet]

Adding 1 to the con list:

A lot of teams would have a heck of a time getting their robot to the competition. I mean, it's not like you can tie a 130 lb robot to the luggage rack of a minivan or something. Transporting a robot like that would require some sort of a trailer, and a lot of teams probably don't have those, I know we don't. The purchase would be exceptionally expensive.

[Rich Kressly]

Baker, you certainly are a trouble maker. Great thread here.

My 2 cents:
1. I LOVE eliminating the cost and some of the stress.
2. I like encouraging week 1, 2 for vets and have later weeks for rookies, BUT geography drives many of these decisions, not time. Rookies are likely to go to the close regional because travel is the other big expensive bear in FIRST.
3. I too would be a little wary of widening the gap.

So if I had to vote, I'd vote to keep ship date, unless someone comes up with creative solutions to these other issues.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

A box on wheel with amazing drivers will always beat an overly complex and hard to control robot with inexperienced drivers.

Therefore, I think eliminating the ship date would be benneficial. It would turn the build into a more casual time period, cutting out about 2-3 weeks worth of stress. I also like playing by the honor code, with something to the extent of a "tools down day" This would require the teams to have the same build deadline, as well as give many teams who fill the entire 6 weeks with building some time to program and practice.

Can you say working autonmous modes?!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

A box on wheel with amazing drivers will always beat an overly complex and hard to control robot with inexperienced drivers.

Therefore, I think eliminating the ship date would be benneficial. It would turn the build into a more casual time period, cutting out about 2-3 weeks worth of stress. I also like playing by the honor code, with something to the extent of a "tools down day" This would require the teams to have the same build deadline, as well as give many teams who fill the entire 6 weeks with building some time to program and practice.

Can you say working autonmous modes?!

I think it's wishful thinking to assume that teams would relax. I think this might happen with the teams I mentioned earlier that don't manage time well, but all the well off teams are going to keep at it with the same intensity that they would during a six week build.

I like the idea of having a tools down date, but I doubt that teams will follow it out of the goodness of their hearts. Plenty of teams would keep working.

[RoboMom]

“…It’s like life. You never have enough information. You never have enough time. The kit of materials is what you have in the warehouse. There are always competing things and you must have a strategy. We’ve created a microcosm of the real engineering experience.”

Woodie Flowers, MIT Professor &
FIRST National Advisor

[sanddrag]

I think FIRST will find other ways to boost software development before they let you keep it until the regional.

For me, I could do a six week build two or three times per year but I don't think I could do much more than six weeks in one "sitting."

[Jack Jones]

Why not use both systems. Keep the FedX for teams like our friends in Brazil, or out in the boonies, or without access to an SUV. They could benefit even more by having their bot shipped to a second event from the savings gained by others opting to BYO.

We in the Oakland County, Michigan area have two regionals that are less than one hour away, and four more within a six hours or less. We could save the rest of the country those extra shipping costs by not waisting resources by shipping ours across the street.

As for giving the well to do teams an additional advantage - I just can't buy that. Not when I keep reading here that 'it's not about the robot' & 'it's not about the competition' - so why do the arguments always boil down to leveling the playing field? - as if we could. We have a 50,000 sq. ft. machine shop with three water cutters, eight CNC, 200 ProE seats, etcetera., and etcetera. They could cut the build time in half and we'd make the show. More time means nothing to us. But cash money sure does.

As to the fear of copycats: IMO, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Not only that, it's one heck of a good way to even things out. A good idea is a good idea - and it's often the case that the copy-cat improves on it. What could be wrong with that?

Recent and current events have led me to believe that we cut costs, or else . . ! So, with respect to the parent thread, it's not just one line item we need to examine, but any and all that waste resources.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Why not use both systems. Keep the FedX for teams like our friends in Brazil, or out in the boonies, or without access to an SUV. They could benefit even more by having their bot shipped to a second event from the savings gained by others opting to BYO.

I think you're missing the issue.

If they have to ship the robot three weeks in advance, they get 3 less weeks to work on the robot than everyone else. It would have to be out of their hands 3 weeks before week 1 of regionals. That's as early as ship currently is. If they chose to go to two regionals, or regionals and nats, the robot would be in transit, or the US from the end of feb. through the end of april.

That's a huge competitive disadvantage.

[Sepsis900]

Yeah, I'm not big on the elimination of the ship date myself. Veteran teams can already plow their way through the rookies if they wanted to. Giving them another few weeks would only widen the gap, like everyone said.
However, I'm also not big on paying the cost of shipping 120 pounds of robot and 80 pounds of tools to competition.
My idea is that teams can utilize whatever method they want. If you want to ship the robot by way of UPS, you say so on the registration. If you want to rent a Uhaul truck and move the robot yourself, that can work, too. The only requirement is that the robot has to be at the competition site within, say, 24 hours of the ship date. You'd also have to drop the robot off in its crate and everything, so that it's no different from robots dropped off by UPS (or whatever shipping company you picked).
I think that would eliminate the heavy costs of shipping and the risk of your robot getting damaged along the way by careless people, but keep teams on even ground, since the ship date is virtually the same for every team.

[KenWittlief]

I have to ask about this 'heavy cost of shipping'.

Isnt Fedex offering free shipping to the 1st event this year?

If Fedex is still providing free shipping, I dont think they are going to offer teams $600 in cash instead, if you choose to strap your bot to the roof of someones Geo instead.

[AmyPrib]

I don't know what my opinion really is on this, but a few thoughts:

I think there needs to be an across the board "tools down" date. Whether that remains an actual ship date, or becomes honor code, I don't know.

Regardless if FedEx pays for the first regional shipment, many many teams (majority?) go to a second regional (some a third). The argument could be "they don't have to", which is true, but I would want to compete as much as possible for all the hard work put in. Then there's the shipping to Championships. I am not sure we can rely on FedEx to give free shipping forever, so perhaps at some point the cost will increase due to this.

I also disagree that the gap would be widened. I just don't think it would benefit the "have's" as much as it would the "have-not's". I do not want to see the build season go on too long (for burn-out, time committment reasons), but if there's an honor code "tools down" it should be respected and followed. This isn't a place for cheaters, but I suppose there will always be some. (I don't know any, but just assuming realistically)

It's a lot about cost. Let's say there's a regional 40miles away from me. I have to ship my robot to some place that is 200mi away from me, just so that it can be shipped back close to home. Seems silly doesn't it. Seems like a waste of money. It happens. Our robot has been able to fit an SUV the last few years. Teams without a trailer or SUV, I am not sure what the solution is, but you could spend a couple grand on a trailer that can be used for the next 20yrs, or you could pay $600 twice a year for the next 20yrs. I don't know exact numbers, but it's all relative.

If we can eliminate the need for most crates and shipping, it could reduce the cost and time for unloading and reloading at the event (for teams and FIRST).

As far as having software and autonomous flourish by having more time with it, I'd like to see these systems reused for a couple years so we could master it. Or, provide more information about these systems earlier than kick-off so that teams can try it out. We wouldn't know the game, but we could know "this camera has to find the color green" and there could be some development time in the Fall.

On the note of having veteran teams compete in earlier regionals and rookies in later.... It wouldn't much matter if there's a honor code in place. But, I am not a fan of this idea. Personally I like to compete against a diverse group of teams. I want the competition to be strong, but there are a lot of strong, innovative rookies out there too. I don't want to see all vets vs vets in the first weeks and all rookies vs rookies in later weeks. Some might like that, some might not. Now, this is no mandatory rule, and there would be conflicts of when teams can compete, but in general, if this were to happen, I wouldn't be a fan.

So, like I said, I'm not sure what my opinion is. There will always be pros and cons no matter what we do. There will always be those with and without. What is more beneficial in the long run? I don't think we can just open it up and say "eliminate the ship date and work as long as you like", but some will say "you can't rely on an honor code". I say, why not? In this type of organization, where GP is the key, why would there be people that want to break the honor system? (kinda retorical question but perfectly legit)

I would essentially like to see the time restrictions (for many reasons stated in this thread) stay somewhat in place, but find a way to eliminate "unnecessary" costs. There will be teams that have those costs no matter what, but unfortunately we will never make everyone happy. But, even if time restrictions were opened up a little, perhaps instead of assuming the veteran teams will continue to dominate the rookies, maybe it will give the vets more time to HELP the rookies.