Changing the face of the game..

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by colleen.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Other on team #246, a FIRST-aholic, from John D. O’Byrant High School/BU Academy and Boston University/Wentworth Institute of Technology/MassPEP.

Posted on 11/7/99 12:07 PM MST

Thinking about this no repair time between regional (which i don’t think is totally bad, it’s only far to those in Cali and CT regional and it truly makes the build time a 6-week process)… anyone think this will change the way the game, at least the regional, is played?? Will there be less contact and more of teams just trying to make sure their robot doesn’t break badly?? Personally, i think that would take a lot away from the competition, if teams kind of babied their robots during regionals, but it could also add a lot of twists, turns, and surprises from team at the nationals…

how does everyone think it’ll go?? anyone think they’d tell their drivers to ‘take it easy’ at the regional???

2

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 11/7/99 6:38 PM MST

In Reply to: Changing the face of the game… posted by colleen on 11/7/99 12:07 PM MST:

The recriminations are already starting for us.

At this point, we are committed to 3 regionals (MI, NJ & IL).

But… …should we have saved the money and built a duplicate machine?

I am not there yet, but I have to admit that it wasn’t in the mix in our original pros & cons list.

As to how this new development is this going to affect the behavior at regionals, I think that there will be definite HAVES and HAVE NOTS.

The teams that HAVE good prints or spare parts will go for broke. The teams HAVE NOT good prints or spares will back off, keeping their powder dry for the Big Show @ EPCOT.

How does this change thing? We shall see.

I think that this will push teams to design modular robots as much as possible. Also, the term TANK-LIKE will be used alot! How else can you survive the attack from Truck Town Terror that you know is coming? :wink:

Let’s get it on…

Joe J.

3

Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST

In Reply to: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Joe Johnson on 11/7/99 6:38 PM MST:

In conversation with several teams this past weekend, including Truck Town, this topic was very hot.

Modular design so broken or improved modules may be brought to the next competition, or even repairs to modules removed (broken) and taken back for repairs after replacing with a like units to ship was the thought of the day.

This really stresses the importance of prints and spare parts. Low budget teams are reallllllly at a disadvantage in this area.

I would rather see FIRST allow the 6 weeks build, but you keep your robot until you compete. Yes, the build time is longer but the quality and durability would be greater.

I think the value of the 6 week stress of building is over-rated. There is value to improving your design and making it reliable. Just think of the machines that would be at Epcot… real powerful battles.

What do you think about the 6 week build, is it still worthwile?

My personal opinion only.

4

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 11/7/99 9:08 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

During the FIRST Forum this past summer, the issue of shipping wasn’t discussed, due to other issues dominating the conversations.

I wish now that we would’ve talked about this more, that’s for sure, because I think that the wrong decision was made. My personal opinion is that the shipping rules should be loosened. We should be able to pack up our robots, take them to a competition, and then play with them until the next competition.

With the new rules, we’re going to be spending many hours in March building spare parts. I’d rather be refining and debugging our competition robot further.

I feel that this new rule limits not only the aggressiveness of driving during the regional competitions, but also the risk-taking during the design phase of the competition. In order to be more reliable, teams won’t take some of the design risks that were taken during the previous years. Hopefully this won’t happen, I hope that we will see new, inventive drive bases, more transmissions, and more creative lift mechanisms.

I’m just thinking that we’re all going to be more conservative… not only with how the game is played, but also in design.

What do the rest of you think? Is your team willing to take design risks with this rule intact?

Andy B.

5

Posted by Dan.

Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 11/8/99 4:14 PM MST

In Reply to: I’m with you, Mike. posted by Andy Baker on 11/7/99 9:08 PM MST:

—My personal opinion is that the shipping rules
—should be loosened. We should be able to pack up
—our robots, take them to a competition, and then
—play with them until the next competition.

This would also make it fair for teams entering early competitions. Even though they get less time before the competition to build, they get more time afterwords to repair. I’m all for it.
:-Dan

6

Posted by Andy Grady.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 11/9/99 8:15 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: I’m with you, Mike. posted by Dan on 11/8/99 4:14 PM MST:

In my opinion this rule given by FIRST is totally fair. However one of the things i liked about the past competitions was the fact that if you had a bad outing at a competition due to some small design problem that could be fixed in 3 days you could still have a chance at taking a future competition. It gave a few teams (including my own a few years) hope. Just imagine going from placing 20 out of 40 teams in one competition then finishing in 18 out of 207 teams in the next, all because we could change one fairly small component on our machine. With the new rules its just a one shot chance, if you got the goods you will be able to do well in all, if ya don’t…forget about it, you need to leave your bot alone. The only thing im curious about now is what the rules will be on bringing spare parts to the competition.
Good Luck to all,
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne

7

Posted by Mike Faticanti.

Coach on team #157, AZTECHS, from Assabet Valley R.T.H.S. and Simplex/EMC/Intel-Ma/Neles Controls/Jamesbury Inc.

Posted on 11/8/99 6:32 PM MST

In Reply to: I’m with you, Mike. posted by Andy Baker on 11/7/99 9:08 PM MST:

Andy ,
All FIRST did was take away your Repair and Maintenance time in preparation for the next competition. Nothing more, nothing less, no design time, no redesign time, just what should be maintenance and repair and maybe a little practice. Why is everyone so concerned??? What is the problem??? What rule did they take away???

8

Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Student on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Johnson and Johnson.

Posted on 11/7/99 9:10 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

I myself like the 6 week period for build. It’s brings the team closer and makes them interact with the engineers for long hours which helps get the whole team closer. I think if you use the approach where Build is spread out from January until your first regional or until Florida I think it would take away from some of the team unity but it would put less stress with everyone. I was then thinking that what if you had to ship the robot after 6 weeks and then got to keep it after the regional. But that wouldn’t work cause some teams only go to the nationals and other teams that go to Conn and San Jose would be at a major disadvantage then the teams that go to the Florida or Michigan regionals and would get there robot back with time to work on it. I can see how FIRST wants to make it even by not giving teams those 3 days to tinker with a robot because that would be unfair to the teams that go to San Jose or Conn cause they wouldn’t have the 3 days to work on their robots. I think FIRST did the right thing by doing this but i really hope it doesn’t take away from the level of competition cause I like the rough play we had last year.

Kuli TJ² Team 88

9

Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 11/8/99 5:41 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

I have a hunch that they may allow more than 6.3 weeks for development this year to compensate for this new rule. That may be why the first regional is so much later this year. Last year the Midwest regional started 6.7 weeks after we got the rules. This year the first regional is 8.7 weeks after we get the rules.

Our robot last year was already very modular because we anticipated having to do quick repairs between matches. So, this year that theme will be amplified.

Raul

10

Posted by Susanne Krussell.

Coach on team #349, RoBahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co…

Posted on 11/8/99 6:30 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

The issue of more time comes up every year…and wouldn’t life be so much easier during those six weeks. I’m not convinced it really would be. Frankly, those six weeks are the part I really like the most. But oh, if only FIRST would change their stance on letting us keep the robots, at least for a little while, between regionals.

The issue of fairness is not an issue that is very resolvable. It’s not worth getting upset about. If a team has (relatively) huge resources, then they are most fortunate. If a team doesn’t have as many resources, well, they’re still involved in FIRST, and isn’t that the point? There are no have-nots here. I have found that chasing after the big, high profile winning teams is extremely motivating. And, one of these big teams has been a mentor to my team, assisting and encouraging us in many ways. We get better every year, even running behind the pack. (so far!)

For some teams to have more money and more engineers does NOT diminish the teams that don’t have the same level of support.

I’m with you too Mike. More time between regionals can only be a good thing.

11

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 11/9/99 12:27 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

FIRST could perhaps blunt the impact of the new ‘Saturday Ship’ rule on teams with limited resources by simply allowing broken parts, shattered gearboxes, cracked weldments, etc to be stripped from the machines as they go into the crate and taken home for repair/rebuild. Thursday in the next event’s pits, the new/improved components could be reinstalled in a reasonable time period.

This would allow replacements to be patterned from the broken originals if drawings were not available. Internal catastrophes (F-P gearboxes?) could be diagnosed and effectively beefed. Brittle parts could be heat treated. Etc. The fixes that correct design weaknesses and really improve the robustness of the machines - and support the highest quality and excitement of Tournament play - require more time and resources than are available in the pits.

I suppose what I suggest could be abused in degree, but I think FIRST could clarify a spirit of the rule, and teams could apply their own judgement. Anyone have breakage histories to bounce off this suggestion and test its utility?

For what it’s worth, I would prefer maximizing the Teams’ time with their 'bots.

Dodd

12

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 11/9/99 2:52 PM MST

In Reply to: Spares/Drawings posted by Dodd Stacy on 11/9/99 12:27 PM MST:

We have definitely put broken machines in the box.

It has made for some very hectic Thursdays.

Basically, we have to make the best prints we can and fake it if we can’t.

One time, we broke our robot on our last run before putting it in the box. In a panic, we pulled a part off our robot, placed a clean sheet of paper over it and rubbed the paper with our grimmy hands in order to transfer a hole pattern to the paper. It worked out just fine.

We are going to have to do better than that this year.

Joe J.

13

Posted by Ben.

Student on team #245 from Rochester Adams H.S. and Siemens Automotive.

Posted on 11/16/99 7:05 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/7/99 7:34 PM MST:

well in terms of the benefit of bigger budget, bigger teams is always going to be there until a semi-socialist policy of passing all the money out equally is started. No offense but communism didn’t work in russia and i don’t think it’ll work for FIRST either.

Anyways that said just to throw in the two cents from us first lonies up at Adams High school, we built an absolute 130 lb aluminum beast last year. We did that just because we knew as a small team (15 with a budget in the low 5 figures) we weren’t going to be able to do major welding or major re-design work at/nor after any regional. We went very hap-hazardly to Yipsy and bolted on 2-3 ideas that thursday that we built after the robot shipped… was that technically cheating? maybe but we felt that was the way to even things up between us and the teams that went to multi-regionals. I difinitely see us doing that again now that the extra 3 days is gone. However that is right that now the teams with the CAD know-how and better drafting skills and the team that takes the time to put everything on paper will have an advantage, but i really don’t think this is a luxury only of the high budget teams. Not to support illegal copyright cracking or anything, but pirated copies of software are distributed between a lot of our team members… Any team that can’t offord a copy of autocad or studio maxx or whatever should maybe look into disavowing all knowledge of where the software came from and just get the job done. Or perhaps give autodesk a call and see what they can do for you.
Outside of that I kind of like this new rule, it adds the subject of reliability and durability to any design idea some proposes. It’s more real world like in that sense. Whereas last year we could say ok bolt it on and use it for a couple of matches and throw it out, now we have to think a little more about the different stresses involved.
Ben

14

Posted by Mike King.

Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater Raynham and Johnson & Johnson Professional.

Posted on 12/3/99 5:48 AM MST

In Reply to: changes posted by Ben on 11/16/99 7:05 AM MST:

: well in terms of the benefit of bigger budget, bigger teams is always going to be there until a semi-socialist policy of passing all the money out equally is started. No offense but communism didn’t work in russia and i don’t think it’ll work for FIRST either.

: Anyways that said just to throw in the two cents from us first lonies up at Adams High school, we built an absolute 130 lb aluminum beast last year. We did that just because we knew as a small team (15 with a budget in the low 5 figures) we weren’t going to be able to do major welding or major re-design work at/nor after any regional. We went very hap-hazardly to Yipsy and bolted on 2-3 ideas that thursday that we built after the robot shipped… was that technically cheating? maybe but we felt that was the way to even things up between us and the teams that went to multi-regionals. I difinitely see us doing that again now that the extra 3 days is gone. However that is right that now the teams with the CAD know-how and better drafting skills and the team that takes the time to put everything on paper will have an advantage, but i really don’t think this is a luxury only of the high budget teams. Not to support illegal copyright cracking or anything, but pirated copies of software are distributed between a lot of our team members… Any team that can’t offord a copy of autocad or studio maxx or whatever should maybe look into disavowing all knowledge of where the software came from and just get the job done. Or perhaps give autodesk a call and see what they can do for you.
: Outside of that I kind of like this new rule, it adds the subject of reliability and durability to any design idea some proposes. It’s more real world like in that sense. Whereas last year we could say ok bolt it on and use it for a couple of matches and throw it out, now we have to think a little more about the different stresses involved.
: Ben

I don’t know about this year, but AutoDesk has always provided a free copy of it’s latest, greatest software to each team.

Mike King

15

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 11/10/99 11:57 AM MST

In Reply to: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Joe Johnson on 11/7/99 6:38 PM MST:

One thing that interests me is how this will affect the level of parity between the high budget teams and the low budget teams. My personal opinion is that this might be a compromise in the multi-regional thing. (Then again, maybe not. But hear me out here).

My main example is the host team of this site. I went to the first regional last year (Midwest regional) as an observer. Chief Delphi perfomed okay, but was nowhere near where they wanted to be. I noticed them taking their robot apart between matches as they were not satisfied with performance. A copule regionals later (and hence a couple of 3 day work periods later) they were in the top 8 at the Great Lakes regional.

From a personal standpoint, our team has discussed doing this in the past. We talked about going to multiple regionals as a way to ‘buy some extra work time’. In fact, this was the main reason for us considering extra regionals.

Now that the three day period is eliminated, the extra work time is limited to what you can accomplish in the pits between matches. At most of the regionals last year, that time wasn’t enough to do any real work. Hence, you can’t really buy extra work time any more (at least not much work time).

In my opinion, this new rule significantly reduces the advantage of going to multiple regionals. In fact, if your robot sustains significant damage, multiple regionals may be a disadvantage. When looked at in this manner, I like this new rule. This way the ‘big money’ teams can do all of the travelling they want and it won’t give them a big advantage over the smaller teams that can only attend one or two competitions.

One last thing - don’t take this as me rekindling the old debate. That was beaten to death by now. I just want to give my opinion on why this rule was created.

(As a side note for all conserned, we are most likely doing two regionals this year).

16

Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 11/10/99 5:21 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Chris on 11/10/99 11:57 AM MST:

The so called high budget teams have access to computers that will image and test the ideas ( students participate ) This means that there is still an advantage, even more so, because if a low budget team destroys a component, they most likly have less resources to manufacture repair units from prints whereas if they had the component in their hands for several days they can repair at a much lower cost and not have to build an additional component.

I may be alone on this one but …

I would prefer that there be no restriction on having the robot during the competition. If the season is 12 weeks start( kick-off ) to nationals then we use all our talents to evolve the best robot possible in that time period - unrestricted.

Just think of the awesome robots at the nationals!

If you only went to 1 regional and the national then you have practice and refinement time. If you go to many then… well other than time in competition it is the same for all teams.

My three cents worth ( inflation ).

17

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 11/11/99 10:43 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/10/99 5:21 PM MST:

Good points. I completely agree with letting everyone have the robots full time. I think that would be the best playing field leveler.

: The so called high budget teams have access to computers that will image and test the ideas ( students participate ) This means that there is still an advantage, even more so, because if a low budget team destroys a component, they most likly have less resources to manufacture repair units from prints whereas if they had the component in their hands for several days they can repair at a much lower cost and not have to build an additional component.

: I may be alone on this one but …

: I would prefer that there be no restriction on having the robot during the competition. If the season is 12 weeks start( kick-off ) to nationals then we use all our talents to evolve the best robot possible in that time period - unrestricted.

: Just think of the awesome robots at the nationals!

: If you only went to 1 regional and the national then you have practice and refinement time. If you go to many then… well other than time in competition it is the same for all teams.

: My three cents worth ( inflation ).

18

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 11/11/99 6:28 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Chris on 11/11/99 10:43 AM MST:

I hope we never go longer than six weeks. Six is the limit that my boss and my wife would tolerate. If it goes to a longer time frame FIRST will lose a great many of its current supporters. If you think the burnout factor bears discussing now…just wait!! For this program to be sustainable we must keep people involved long term.

19

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 11/12/99 2:52 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Greg Mills on 11/11/99 6:28 PM MST:

I might argue that the burnout is caused from the intensity of the 6 weeks. If the time was spread out the intensity would drop perhaps causing burnout to be less. However, I can’t prove that; it’s just a theory.

:
: I hope we never go longer than six weeks. Six is the limit that my boss and my wife would tolerate. If it goes to a longer time frame FIRST will lose a great many of its current supporters. If you think the burnout factor bears discussing now…just wait!! For this program to be sustainable we must keep people involved long term.

20

Posted by Dodd Stacy.

Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 11/11/99 1:18 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Imaging a modular tank… posted by Michael Martus on 11/10/99 5:21 PM MST:

Michael,

I’m with you. I’d much rather have a 12 week project. It would seriously upgrade the caliber of the machines and the competition. And it seems most equal.

Dispensing with crating and shipping, at least for the events that teams drive to, could also be a major economy. We didn’t figure out the most economical shipping by any means, but our truck freight bill last year was $800 to Hartford and Orlando from New Hampshire!

I’m not totally convinced though that the resource limited teams are all that disadvantaged in repairing breakage. First, I don’t think it violates the spirit to strip off a broken part for repair/strengthening between events, even with the new shipping rule. Others may disagree. Second, a broken part is probably under designed for the abuse it had to absorb (probably not envisioned at the design stage) and would likely need redesign and fabrication of a stronger part, rather than just repair of the broken original.

My thoughts, one penny.

Dodd