Posted by Austin Martus, Other on team #47 from son of pchs coach.
Posted on 4/27/99 7:35 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Dave on 4/27/99 6:00 PM MST:
as you hear the people from FIRST always saying
is a plywood box with wheels really ‘in the spirit of the game’???
i personally dont think so
just think about that
austin
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 4/30/99 5:00 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:
Folks,
I am just about as strong of an advocate for changing the game each year as Mr. B. is for keeping it the same.
For me and for most of our team, the idea of playing the same game each year is nowhere near as exciting.
Beyond this, there would have to be drastic changes to how the FIRST kit is developed in order to make it work.
Let me give you some examples.
You have probably seen the last Delphi Power Sliding Door Motor manufactured by Bosch. The Tiagene ones cost me about 2/3 and have essentially the same performance.
Also, don’t bet on ITTA seat adjuster motors. ITTA has sold their motor business, the new owners are a brick wall when it comes to requests for donations.
Beyond obsolete stuff, new stuff causes just as many and perhaps more problems. How many teams would willingly give up the new motors from this year alone? What would your machine look like with the 2 drill motors and 4 seat motors that we had 4 years ago?
Changes to the control system really start to get interesting.
How are we going to keep the game the same if the stuff in the kit is constantly changing?
I vote against Mr. B’s proposal.
Joe J.
Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.
Posted on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST
In Reply to: You know my vote… posted by Joe Johnson on 4/30/99 5:00 AM MST:
A Petition To the Robot Nation,
and a quick clarification…There is nothing I like better than a good debate…
And to clear the air here…let me state how much I appreciate and value
JJ’s opinion and friendship…
but…
JJ is putting up blockades to a good Idea…yes of course manufacturers
come and go…but electric motors do not…and who the heck said that
the kits had to be made from donated parts?
And please don’t give me that old saw that the 5K goes to FIRST…yeah it
goes to FIRST to pay people to spend an inordinate amount of time trying
to assemble (Read beg for) kit parts…These same fees and good people could be putting
their time to better use recruiting and supporting new teams.
JJ, If the kit is your only impass we can settle that easy…let’s all use
the McMaster Carr catalog as our ‘Kit of Parts’…and limit power
consumption through mandated batteries, fusing and speed controllers…I don’t think Jeff Gordon
builds his NASCAR from a donated Kit of Parts. What good does it do to give
a gyro chip to a team that can’t utilize it…If that team see’s others
utilizing sophisticated components…they will go out and learn to use them in order
to remain competative…let’s let the the natural market forces work at FIRST too…
Let’s not create false, manipulated worlds…let’s get real…Let’s break out
of this KIT DEPENDENCY…that we’ve been strung out on…and simply regulate by
rules and specifications. And don’t demean peoples’ intelligence by stating they
need kits.
C’mon JJ…All I’m looking for is to find a way to make FIRST a sustainable
program…We are losing top quality volunteers at an alarming rate…
99% of the teams playing FIRST after ONLY 8 YEARS are not original members…
Why…because their lives, their careers and their families have been too severly impacted…THE FOCUS OF FIRST
IS TO INSPIRE RIGHT…Well for gosh sakes…that is a focus shared by many many
organizations…We have no patent on inspiration…and we can inspire better
if we have more teams nation wide…if we have more local events and more
local and regional teams playing with their robots…showing and growing the program.
Look…my wife has actually…after 5 years…asked that I please do something to include my family
during the 18 + weekends we dedicate to FIRST…I think there can be a better way…And let me
say that my wife is just as good as any FIRST widow…and that she is also a professional
career person (which makes things even harder on her) and that she is a full supporter
of my efforts as an educator…And I love her dearly too.
PLAYING WITH THEIR ROBOTS…
Playing with the robots is not easy to do if you have to build new fields
and new robots every year…yes build new games…but darn it…build em every 4-5 years.
…I’m getting frustrated and I am no wimp… other people are getting tired and frustrated too…Our group does
FIRST year round…and we’d like to continue doing FIRST year round…
But FIRST could make some really minor changes that would add alot of growth potential
and sustainability to the program…AND NOT SACRIFICE ANY ‘INSPIRATIONAL
FUNCTIONALITY’…and maybe make the program more educational in the long run…
The efficiency experts at Delphi might look at this issue and ask, How might we
obtain better inspirational bang for the buck…how might we better deploy
our capital and human resources in order to better inspire (and educate)
our youth.
Here comes some heresy frm Mr.b…This program focus belongs mostly,
mainly in the schools…yep in the schools…know why?..cause that’s
where the target audience is…the kids. Keeping the game the same would allow
for some quality time spent analyzing and re-engineering the bot…LEARNING FROM MISTAKES.
Alot of those time consuming but worthwhile things you PE folks at Delphi do…
We will always have plywood boxes in the competitions…always have rookies
at a decided disadvantage…what we won’t always have is talented, hardworking
volunteers to share their lives with kids…
Not unless we adopt a specific profile for FIRST volunteers…umarried, no kids
no pressing job responsibilities and highly proficient in technical design…
And I for one, don’t meet that criteria…
Look…Joe has a point, Woody has a point…Dean has a point…you all
have good reason to keep changing the game…but look around…talk to the old time
people.
How in the heck can you think you have a sustainable program if it depends on the
heroic efforts of one individual like JJ to keep it together…
JJ…ask yourself one question…If you took a job offer at say 500K
to work somewhere else (very very possible at some point in time)…would team 47 survive intact?
If you answer yes…you have sustainability…if not and so many teams, hundreds
actually have not…then you’ve got to make changes that accomodate and resolve
what appears to be the single largest problem to growing this organization…
I respect JJ’s point…and I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE ON MY TEAM OR ON ANY OTHER TEAM…
Only for myself…
I look down the road and see flattened growth and high turnover for FIRST…
and I am screaming for someone to stand up and address this issue with action.
Recruitment is not a problem…it is the attrition rates and the nation wide
fear that people have about ‘Making the commitment’ that needs to be addressed.
Please don’t spend too much time questioning my motives…my position is
documented clearly…and my commitment to students as well…
To the Robot nation I ask…Is everything perfect as it is…or is there
work to be done to improve the sustainability of FIRST ?
FIRST IS GOOD, FIRST IS GREAT, FIRST NEEDS SOME RE ENGINEERING TOO. Just because
mr.b does not seem to be ‘Towing the Line’ does not mean he is not especially
dedicated or concerned with inspiring youth…don’t make that mistake.
Mr. B
Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.
Posted on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: You know my vote… posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:
Mike,
I am not making any claim that FIRST is perfect. In fact, you know that on many issues, I have been among FIRST’s most vocal critics.
But, like you, I am not just throwing rocks in order to break windows. We both believe in the necessity important changes in the direction that our country and culture is headed.
FIRST can play an important role in making those changes.
NOW, on to your particulars.
I agree with you on many issues, perhaps especially the need to get FIRST to a purchaseable kit. My hope is that FIRST will swing a deal with Small Parts Inc to sell the stuff that is not available over the counter.
As to changing the game each year, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
However, I am not an unreasonable man. In my opinion, the risks associated with trying a year of keeping the game the same pales in comparison to risks that FIRST took this year in changing the format as radically as they did.
So, while I am not a big fan of the idea, if there is enough support for it among the teams out there, I would be willing to get behind a 1 year trial of the idea.
There will still be exciting matches. There will still be new robot designs. There are worse games to repeat. It would be a good year.
So…
What do team think? Is it worth a 1 year trial?
Joe J.
P.S. I still have my doubts as to whether or not it will address any of the concerns Mr.B. has, but that is a message for another day. JJ
Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 5/2/99 9:01 PM MST
In Reply to: Let’s try it… posted by Joe Johnson on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST:
>>>So, while I am not a big fan of the idea, if there is enough support for it among the teams out there, I would be willing to get behind a 1 year trial of the idea.
Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.
Posted on 5/3/99 4:19 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: let the trial begin . . . posted by Dan on 5/2/99 9:01 PM MST:
Dan,
The game is being replayed this summer…at about nine locations nationwide.
That’s the whole point…extending the game cycle will allow
more time and opportunities to play…and playing the darn
game is the hook…it’s what we are supposed to be doing…Playing
and learning…these things are closely aligned…inseperable
actually…
And the trial must be for more than one year…we’ve done this for
8…I say we try the next change for 8…1 year proves nothing…
We should go for 2, 4 year cycles…
But this is where negotiation takes place.
Mr.b
Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.
Posted on 5/3/99 5:01 PM MST
In Reply to: Let’s try it… posted by Joe Johnson on 5/2/99 7:46 PM MST:
If we did the same game for one year, I have some predictions based on two scenarios:
I will concede for now that many of the learning benefits that Mr.B stated in the past will come true.
For #1:
This is easy.
For #2:
OK, I may be completely wrong on this but every bone in my body tells me it just doesn’t feel right to keep the game the same.
Maybe, we can have two divisions, one for a new game and another for those that wish to have another crack at perfecting their design. If I ask my son which one he would prefer, I know what he will say.
That’s my 20 cents worth.
Raul
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: You know my vote… posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:
Mr. B,
I think your read on the key issues is dead bang on. FIRST as presently configured is not sustainable as an exponential growth vehicle for getting more kids to pursue scientific, technical, and engineering education. I believe the enterprise is straining as the seams right now, and it’s essential that sustainability receive urgent attention. Some random thoughts on some of your points:
LONGER RUN ON THE SAME GAME. I’ve been here from the beginning, here’s why. I think the key to sustainability is to embed the FIRST program in the school system. That requires that the science, math, industrial arts, computer etc faculty get on board and work the program into the curriculum, and the school administration and the board make a serious commitment to the program. School is where the kids are, dying for something to bite into. Forget TV. I don’t know how representative our team is, but we have one science teacher and a bunch of engineers who blow through the school like a six week hurricane and create a huge ruckus for everyone. The administration tolerates our efforts and gives lip service support, but we are on shakey ground. I believe we would have more success in enlisting teachers if the game were more stable and they could work the robot design process into their classroom material. I know some schools and teams already do this successfully, but I think the chaotic nature of the FIRST program is a barrier to persuading overworked teachers to join in.
BURNOUT. We all understand this intimately, and it is a HUGE damper on exponential growth of the program. I have a running discussion with my son, who is also an engineer on our team, as to whether FIRST is the right vehicle to invest our time and energy in to inspire/mentor/empower bright kids to shoot for the moon. Yes, there are always a couple of obvious successes each year, and perhaps a few sleepers, but the job of building the 'bot can compete with focusing attention on the kids when we’re stretched thin and time is short. Something about alligators and draining the swamp. This also cuts to slowing down the game cycle - more time to devote to the KIDS rather than the 'bot.
KITS. I can only add to your excellent coverage of the points that the cost of purchasing what we need from an expanded industrial supply source like MMC is peanuts compared to the expenses of team travel to the Nationals. Not to mention what a pain it is trying to find spare parts for discontinued models of drills, etc (which I suppose is why a lot of the stuff in the Kit is donated in the first place).
THE GAME. I’d like to see a game that could be played between schools at halftime of their basketball games. Structure the rules to enable playing on the wood court without damaging it, use the existing boundaries, and work in scoring that builds as it goes and is posted on the scoreboard in real time. The particulars I suggest may not be apt, but the concept of piggy backing on the existing school sports program, facilities, and AUDIENCE does all the right things to promote the program goals within the school culture. The game could evolve and refine as the machines were further developed, and I’m sure the teams would figure out how to network the scouting and intelligence gathering end of it to compensate for just meeting one opponent per game nite.
Dodd
Posted by michael bastoni, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison Co.
Posted on 5/3/99 4:13 PM MST
In Reply to: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST:
Dodd,
Thank you so very much…for simply being there…you too are so very right on.
And so much more eloquent…we need to talk.
Mr.b
Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 5/3/99 4:43 PM MST
In Reply to: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 9:02 AM MST:
I’ve found that most of what I learn from FIRST happens in the early stages of our 6 weeks.
Things like how I initially confront the problem, how the team decides on designs, and basically working very hard to make sure my ‘vision’ of the design is realistic are pretty key to FIRST’s success.
If FIRST were to repeat the game and teams were to use the same robot w/ slight additions, then how would you make sure the kids get exposed to these vital steps in the process?
Sure you could make sure everyone knows why the robot is like it is, but that is a lot different then creating a design purely from scratch (ie with no previous designs affecting you). If the repeat-the-game thing is going to happen, this issue needs to be addressed or accepted as one of the downfalls. :-Dan
Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.
Posted on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: Not Alone in the Woods posted by Dan on 5/3/99 4:43 PM MST:
Dan,
The conceptual part of the design process is heady stuff for sure. I’m not sure that repeating the game interferes with this part of the process, at least presuming the teams are ‘allowed’ to come up with a totally new design for the new year. I think it would probably be pretty difficult to draw the line between ‘slight additions’ and new functionality anyway. In any event, I don’t think that a restriction to static robot designs should be necessarily linked to the concept of repeating games.
What I really want to say, though, is that none of the robot designs are created purely from scratch. They all derive from other stimuli and embed details proven to work in other applications - like previous years’ robots. I think someone from Team 177 was saying on this board recently that they’ve used the same basic arm mechanism for the past three years, and it IS a thing of functional beauty. I would even claim that a new game each year and a six week build period DISCOURAGES creativity and innovation in design. Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.
Dodd
Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 5/3/99 9:08 PM MST
In Reply to: Design from Scratch posted by Dodd Stacy on 5/3/99 8:48 PM MST:
I agree that we very rarely design from scratch. Our team investigated the Genie Lifts in our gym and Wildstang’s lift from last year before designing our lift.
But maybe this just comes down to my personal experience it’s a much different process when you have no idea what direction the other teams are going in. I know it’s different because I’ve done both; our first year we pretty much modeled our robot after Beatty’s national champ machine since we didn’t know what we were capable of. But this year we were given a clean slate to work with and I definitely enjoyed it more.
It could be argued that the current format neglects the re-engineering process which could probably be argued to be more important than the ‘design-from-scratch’ since most designs in life are knock-offs of others (or it’s the same product altogether just with a clock on it.)
So what it all comes down to is personal preference, and I prefer design from scratch. I can see the arguements for the other way though. :-Dan
>>>Any team that is really focused on the competitive aspect of the er, um, Competition is crazy to abandon what they had working well (or nearly working) the previous year. None of this precludes the kids being exposed to and being a part of the visionary problem solving process.
Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.
Posted on 5/8/99 7:14 AM MST
In Reply to: Re: You know my vote… posted by michael bastoni on 5/2/99 7:32 AM MST:
(I’m sorry I came into this late - I somehow missed this thread. I hope I’m not too late!)
Mike-
I am in total agreement with you that our single biggest problem is that of sustainability. The great things that happen on all of these teams is because of big efforts from individuals working together, and if we do not have the individuals working, we will not grow into thousands of teams. It applies to teachers, engineers, students, and the entities that allow us to use their facilities (schools, businesses). All of them need to be considered in our sustainability plan. I agree with you that this is what we need to work on as we help to improve FIRST. Lets not lose that even if we disagree on this ‘same game’ issue.
I think your ideas on the kit are good ones. Making the motors, etc. a bought kit instead of a donated kit will make more sense if we have a lot more teams. Availability would still be an issue - perhaps making sure that each team can get one set of parts through a source that packages everything together - one set per team - would take care of that.
On to the disagreement…
I do not see how keeping the game the same helps. Following are three reasons why. I don’t think you have addressed them in your arguments for keeping the game the same. I just don’t see how it makes things better.
I really do not believe it will be less ‘robot work’ because, with a carryover game, teams will then have to work on their robots year round if they want to remain competitive. If they know the game, they will start working on it. You can say, sure, wait until the new school year, but I really doubt thats going to happen. Any competitive student/teacher/engineer will start working on it last week. Burnout will become a BIGGER factor, in my opinion. It will be harder to get people to be on the team. It will be harder to work on non-robot projects like fundraising and community awareness, because there will be one other big thing to do.
It is not as inspiring to keep the game the same. Re-engineering is important and relevant, but it is not as useful for teaching students the lesson that engineers can make something from nothing, and teams of engineers can do the ‘impossible’ in an ‘impossibly’ short time. They won’t be impressed by what technical professionals can do with their minds, because they’ll know that we just copied last years TechnoJuggerKat or SonOfBeattyAces, because thats probably what it will take to win. I put a lot of value on this point, and I don’t think your proposal does.
What are the new students going to be inspired about? The drivers will have been practicing all summer, so the new students won’t get a chance to drive. The design team will have solidified ideas on what the robot should look like, and the new students will be in a catchup mode until when? Until the game changes again or until the ‘players’ graduate? What do we do when we are interviewing new students for the Year2000 team - tell them that they will have an impact on the design? I know I’m not going to lie to them. I want to be able to tell them that their ideas will go onto a brainstorming list that will be used. If they don’t think they will get to ‘play’ will they still want to join the team? The reason I think this is important is that, in my opinion, the earlier we get the students on the team, the better. I think we can impact 9th grade lives more than we can impact 12th grade lives. We get the 9th graders for possibly 4 years (and more if they come from a Lego League school).
I just don’t see the benefits to keeping the game the same. I totally agree with your emphasis on sustainability, though.
Ken
Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.
Posted on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by michael bastoni on 4/27/99 5:27 PM MST:
Some of our adult and student team members have discussed the idea of the same game year over year and we unanimously agreed it is not something we would like to see. Xerox has partnered with Wilson High School in FIRST since 1992 and we have never looked at producing the most competitive robot as our primary objective. Some years we do well, others we don’t, but each year we come home feeling great. We feel that the same game year over year would put too much emphasis on winning.
There are going to be great robots in the finals, I have no doubt about that. If our robot is not among them we are all ok with that - adults and students (even if we think our robot should have been there). Each year we work really hard to make the best robot we can and some years our capabilities are better than others. We state right up front with everyone that if there is a conflict between building a more competitive robot and inspiring kids, inspiration wins out, every time. I know we inspire kids regardless of what the robot does at the competition.
As far as the same game, some of our thoughts about it:
Our team builds half of the excitement into the anticipation waiting for the rules. It is like a party.
We attract adults to the program who are just as excited to see what the new game will be. We have graduated students who come back on kickoff day, just to see the game rules.
The same game reinforces the competition as the most important thing, not the engineering and inspiration of students - over eight years we have found countless ways to inspire students that are not centered on placing #1 or #2 or even #32
With the same game, returning teams would have all year to work on perfecting their designs. Some teams have all new kids each year, so in this case, who is doing the perfecting? The adults? Teams that don’t participate could put their old robots up for sale to new teams (That’s probably a little extreme, but maybe not)
When you start to place the focus on winning, it is too easy to see winning as the objective, then, if you don’t win, you have nothing.
Sorry, but I have to give a thumbs down to this approach.
Elaine
Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.
Posted on 5/2/99 3:48 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: changes to the game each year posted by Elaine Anselm on 4/30/99 12:21 PM MST:
Elaine,
I am not proposing we keep the game the same forever…just for longer periods of time than we currently do.
Imagine that the FIRST year was not 12 months…say it was 36 or 48 months…during which time we would
recruit new teams, partner with new institutions and yes like the
race car folks…sell old robots when we thought we needed to build new ones…
It;s about more choice and flexibility…not about winning…we are not
wrapped up in winning…we do it for the educational benefits…
some teams do it for the inspirational benefits…We actually do FIRST
cause it helps our students get into engineering school…we have that
well documented…
What I am proposing makes that MORE possible…not less…so please maintain your point of view.
Please stand by your attachment to changing the game every year…
But think about what you would say to another person who is MORE into it
than you…what if someone proposed we play twice a year and change that game
twice a year???
So all I’m asking is that we do not hold 12 months sacred…who said
12 months was a inviolate number…why not 6 months?
Or more sanely,why not 36 or 48?
I invite all of you to look outside the box just for a minute…and tell me what you see?
Am I Alone in the woods?
Mr.B
Posted by Frank of team #97, Psychedelics, from CRLS sponsored by MIT.
Posted on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST
In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:
We didn’t have the plywood box, but we had some alliances that
couldn’t do anything but drive. If I remember right, one (possibly 2)
of our partners were ever able to get on the puck. That severely
limited our ability to score. One round we had a robot that could just
drive around.
I think there should be some way of seeding teams based on performance
in regionals. The teams that did well are rewarded by being paired with
another good team. There were many good teams (WildStang, Bomb Squad,
Beatty, and Delphi to name a few) that we all know are some of the best
teams in the competition that seeded well below many other teams. 540s
were rare especially compared to their frequency in Detroit. It seemed
as if all the good teams had really weak pairings.
Everyone should be able to compete in Nationals though. These robots
take a lot of time and effort (not to mention money) to build and teams
should be able to take them to Disney. But for the students to be
truely impressed as Dean wants, they have to see the big boys…those
teams that bring an excellent robot every year. These are the teams
that inspire. Two of my fellow MIT students
never heard of Bomb Squad until they were walking by their pit and took
a look. My friends were really impressed, but #16 didn’t get the big
attention they deserved because they were not in the top of the pack in
seeding.
The competition has never been exactly fair, and it’s always tried to
be hard on teams that lose early on (remember last year’s bracket), but
this year something really seemed amiss with the final seedings. Just my
two cents on the matter.
Great job everyone! See you next year!
Frank
Posted by Mike Kulibaba, Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.
Posted on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: a box with wheels posted by Frank on 4/28/99 2:21 PM MST:
I feel kinda bad for the people that got stuck with a ‘plywood box’ or somebody who could just drive. The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one. Our robot is a good robot but there is no way we are the number one seed if we don’t get allianced with the teams we did( Thanks Wildstang, Woodside high, X-Cats for our 3 highest rounds)but if we get allianced with someone esle I don’t know if we get those scores. That’s why I think the National competition needs to be only the elite teams that go to the regionals and have a good robot. If A plywood box cost my team a chance to make the top 16 or make it into the finals, I would not be a happy camper and also it’s not in the spirit of the game to lose cause the robot at the national competition, which is suppossed to be the best of the best, costs you a match because they don’t work. It is about being there and about having fun but it is about being competitive and having a working robot. I commend the team for trying but I just don’t think that is far to the teams that had to play with them. If My team was just a box of plywood I wouldn’t show up at the nationals, I think it makes a mockery of what this competition is trying to do. It is a competition and when it comes down to it in the end it is about winning. I’m not saying winning is the most important thing because it is not, being there with a working robot and putting in the months and years of working on the robots and fundraising to get there is a tremendous part of it. Plus learning about engineering and making long lasting freindships are the most important part of it. But you can’t me for all the work everyone puts in to this great program that people don’t want to win. I worked harder this year then any other year and if we just sat there for each round or barely moved or what not I’d feel bad that my team cost some other team the chance to win because of our robot. I’m sorry if I offend people by saying that but this is the way I feel. What do people get out of having a plywood box.
Kuli
Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc…
Posted on 4/28/99 6:49 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:
: The reason why we got to be the number one seed is because we got partnered up with great robots in ever round except one.
and the other side of the page…
our team performed consistantly throughout the entire competition, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at our 196 ranking(which is probably why we didn’t get selected, but that’s another thread)…
except for one round, we kept the other team under 100 points, with several rounds being under 30 pts. In 3 of our six rounds, our ally broke during the round, once falling to lose the 3x multiplier that could have won us the round.
i’ve been in favor of this alliance thing from the beginning(to a point), but now i’m starting to have my doubts…
Nate
Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.
Posted on 4/28/99 7:48 PM MST
In Reply to: Re: We just got Lucky, but more importantly posted by Mike Kulibaba on 4/28/99 2:53 PM MST:
What’s the story behind the plywood-box team anyways? I might understand the box if there robot was lost in shipping, but I will never understand why they were allowed to go on field. :-Dan
Posted by Tom Wible, Coach on team #131, chaos, from central high school manchester and osram-sylvania.
Posted on 4/28/99 8:23 PM MST
In Reply to: a box with wheels posted by Joe Johnson on 4/26/99 8:14 PM MST:
I think that the moment this team knew they were in trouble, an announcement should have been made in the pit.
Then all of the teams who had people available, should have come running with spare parts and brainpower to get this team up and running. I’ll bet we could have come up with a working robot pretty quickly.
I think it would be great to have the opportunity to help out a team like the ‘box’ team.
Tom Wible
Team 131