FIRST is missing out

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Joe at 04/26/2001 1:25 AM EST

Engineer on team #125, NU-TRONS, from Northeastern University and NU and Textron.

I have been on a FIRST team for the last 6 years. I watched TLC’s Robotica tonight and I am very disillusioned (sp?). For all the hard work in 6 weeks and we (FIRST) gets up stagged by a TV show??? Well if your upset about your effort going un noticed except for a few weekends a year (and when you say you build robots people say Battle Bots). Then write to FIRST and let them know your upset by being upstaged by people who have “limit less” time and limit less resouces to build thier bumber bots. FIRST is the way to go it is much harder to do. Let FIRST know that WE (FIRST TEAMS) need that kind of media and recognition.

Sincerly
Joe

2

Posted by Carolyn Duncan at 04/26/2001 7:48 AM EST

Student on team #495, The Pack, from Jamestown High School and VBEP/Raytheon/Saic.

In Reply to: FIRST is missing out
Posted by Joe on 04/26/2001 1:25 AM EST:

Good call. I totally agree with that. It was hard to be a rookie team this year for that reason. We were the nerd club at my school. No one cared about our team because we didn’t make battle bots. I think everyone should write to FIRST and tell them what they think. (Wow! that was a very ambiguous sentence.)
C-ya,
Carolyn

3

Posted by Ryan Patridge at 04/26/2001 10:08 AM EST

Engineer on team #111, WildStang, from Rolling Meadows / Wheeling HS and Motorola.

In Reply to: FIRST is missing out
Posted by Joe on 04/26/2001 1:25 AM EST:

“Robotica” is not recognition. It is a TV show (and a bad one). FIRST is not a competition put together to make money nor to garner recognition, it is a volunteer organization meant to introduce kids to engineering and other career options. If you’re looking to see yourself on TV, go build a Battlebot.

Recognition is like power. Those who deserve it should get it, those who crave it should not.

4

Posted by Erin at 04/26/2001 10:42 AM EST

College Student on team #65, Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

In Reply to: True too
Posted by Ryan Patridge on 04/26/2001 10:08 AM EST:

I don’t think we need to be telling FIRST that we need more recognition, because they are trying. It’s the media that doesn’t want us.

Watch the evening news tonight and give me the ratio of positive vs. negative stories aired. It might give you a clue.

Erin

5

Posted by Joe at 04/26/2001 11:37 AM EST

Engineer on team #125, NU-TRONS, from Northeastern University and NU and Textron.

In Reply to: FIRST tries.
Posted by Erin on 04/26/2001 10:42 AM EST:

The point of my message was not that FIRST does not try. The point is that they need to find a different means. (what ever it is) People like battel bots because it is competition and there is a “season” of competition. If FIRST does not start to conform to the “puplics desire for robotics” even if it is “agressive” by changing the way we play the game to competition and a real season rather than a few regionals. There is a good chance more and more people will form battle bot teams.

Joe

PS The goal of FIRST is to educate high school students to the wonders of science and technology while encourageing carrers in engineering. Currently battle bots do the same thing but on a larger scale??? Post your thoughts.

6

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/26/2001 12:34 PM EST

College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.

In Reply to: Re: FIRST tries. But Is it enough and do Battle Bots =FIRST
Posted by Joe on 04/26/2001 11:37 AM EST:

We constantly seem to be saying that we need to do
this and this to appeal to the general public and the
media. And the question that I keep thinking of is,
why? Why do we need to appeal to the media? We’re
here to do our competition. Not one that’s hand
tailored for the media. Not one that will appeal to
the general publics desire for violence. There’s a
reason that we’re not Battlebots. We don’t want to
be! FIRST has done fine without very much media
attention for the past ten years. And I have a
feeling that we’ll do fine without much media
attention for the next ten. I understand that media
attention is good but I don’t think that we should
change anything to pander to the media (this includes
putting media platforms at the main stage blocking
everyone else’s view, but that’s another rant). We
don’t need to change the game so that the media will
be more interested. We don’t need to make the game
less complicated for them. We are what we are and
changing for the media will destroy who we are.

Matt who feels that spending time pandering to the
media is wasted

7

Posted by Ryan Patridge at 04/26/2001 1:35 PM EST

Engineer on team #111, WildStang, from Rolling Meadows / Wheeling HS and Motorola.

In Reply to: Why do we need the media?
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/26/2001 12:34 PM EST:

Excellent attitude, Matt, though I disagree about not catering to public entertainment. So far, I’ve only heard a lot of complaining from people who think they deserve more attention from the media. It’s like they don’t understand how TV broadcasting works.

Though I think national, semi-regular coverage (a la ESPN, TLC, or whatever) would be excellent for FIRST, I agree with Matt that it’s not worth it if it means sacrificing the spirit of the competition.

I hope they are able to make next year’s game more relevant to reality and less difficult to understand, without sacrificing its intelligent qualities. I think the arbitrary, childish aspect of doing things like putting balls in goals and balancing goals on bridges is the main reason the media has been uninterested in broadcasting the competitions. Maybe I’m just a bit disaffected, but I got pretty bored seeing the same, uninteresting things happen over and over again. Then again, that’s how most sports are, which is why I don’t like watching them either.

8

Posted by Brian Cholerton at 04/26/2001 2:50 PM EST

Engineer on team #311, Red Jammers, from East Islip High School and KeySpan Energy, Multiline Corp., Computer Assoc…

In Reply to: Why do we need the media?
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/26/2001 12:34 PM EST:

Media interest does play a big part in many things in our lives, FIRST included. If we all want FIRST to continue to grow so that it’s will become available to anyone who wishes to participate then, like it or not media coverage is something we need.

In order to keep FIRST growing we need to get many more companies and businesses involved with FIRST. Sure, you say a business gets a lot out of sponsoring a team. Look at how they get students interested in working with their engineers. But this is just a part of the BIG picture. It takes MONEY to make FIRST operate and grow and positive media coverage is what businesses CRAVE. Put the two together and you have the foundation required to continue to grow FIRST so that many more students and engineers can participate.

This may sound cold but the reality is that large businesses look to budget their resources so they can get value for their dollar. Having their engineers work with students is mutually beneficial for them because it gives them a better presence in their community and allows students to become more familiar with the “real world”. But the caveat here is that they (the company) are still looking for a return on their investment. That return may be in the form of a new feeder system for future engineers but it still boils down to getting something for the time and money you have invested.

NOW throw in some good press coverage and then you can work on getting even MORE companies involved that you never thought of before. Media coverage will allow teams in the future to be sponsored by companies whose core business isn’t based on mechanical or electrical products, but rather on other consumer and general products and services. (I don’t think I would want to be the Roto-Rooter team…though there would be some interesting nicknames)

Media coverage is the tool we all need to use to change the general publics mind as to what robotics is all about. Just because the general public THINKS something is good doesn’t mean it really is.

Don’t be a sheep and follow the flock…be a leader and show others what it’s all about.

To put it in perspective: I like to watch Formula 1 racing. But I don’t mind watching the occasional Demo-derby at the local fair…just for fun!

Everything has it’s place.

9

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/26/2001 4:49 PM EST

College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.

In Reply to: Why do we need the media?
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/26/2001 12:34 PM EST:

I agree to everything matt says (I think we had this same conversation in the chat room before)

Patrick

: We constantly seem to be saying that we need to do
: this and this to appeal to the general public and the
: media. And the question that I keep thinking of is,
: why? Why do we need to appeal to the media? We’re
: here to do our competition. Not one that’s hand
: tailored for the media. Not one that will appeal to
: the general publics desire for violence. There’s a
: reason that we’re not Battlebots. We don’t want to
: be! FIRST has done fine without very much media
: attention for the past ten years. And I have a
: feeling that we’ll do fine without much media
: attention for the next ten. I understand that media
: attention is good but I don’t think that we should
: change anything to pander to the media (this includes
: putting media platforms at the main stage blocking
: everyone else’s view, but that’s another rant). We
: don’t need to change the game so that the media will
: be more interested. We don’t need to make the game
: less complicated for them. We are what we are and
: changing for the media will destroy who we are.

: Matt who feels that spending time pandering to the
: media is wasted

10

Posted by ChrisH at 04/26/2001 6:45 PM EST

Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.

In Reply to: Why do we need the media?
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/26/2001 12:34 PM EST:

I don’t feel we need to pander to the media, but they sure do help get the word out. They also increase the awareness of potential sponsors.

Here’s my paraphrase of a conversation I had a few years ago.

Vendor: So what’s new?
Me: I’m going to be working with a high school robotics team next year. (the game that became Ladder Logic)
Vendor: You mean like I saw on TV (ESPN2) at the golf club last weekend? (Torrid Terror)
Me: Yah, I think somebody said it was going to be on TV, I don’t have cable so I couldn’t watch it.
Sponsor: (notice subtle shift in title) How can I get involved with something like that?

This sponsor has now been with us for four years and continues to be of great support. It is a small machine shop and donates probably far more machine and operator time than they can afford to help us build our 'Bots. Their technical expertise in terms of figuring out how to build what we come up with is no less important.

But that conversation might never have happened if not for that TV spot at the right time.

By the way that sponsor’s name is J & F Machine (714) 527-3499. If anybody out there is in the LA area and has some paying machine work they need done please consider them for the job. They do good work on things they do for my “real” job and are reasonably priced too.

Can’t have good sponsors going broke on us now can we?

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach’Bots
Who is not particularly sorry for the shameless plug as it is well deserved and the least I can do.

11

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/26/2001 12:53 PM EST

Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.

In Reply to: Re: FIRST tries. But Is it enough and do Battle Bots =FIRST
Posted by Joe on 04/26/2001 11:37 AM EST:

My reply to those who do battle bots instead of FIRST - Let them.
Adults who do battle bots are doing it for themselves, not for kids. they are doing it as an adult destruction derby. It is a hobby, and a self interest activity which has NOTHING to do with helping or teaching kids. There is nothing wrong with that - just a different goal. Let’s not fool anyone - battle bots has NOTHING to do with educating kids or helping prepare them for college: it is a televsion show based on ratings, money, dumbed down WWF mindless violence, and moronic commentary.

And if kids participate in battle bots “INSTEAD” of FIRST, the losers are the kids in that situation, not FIRST. Those kids will be losing out on all the value & benefit of going through FIRST. Trading that to get 5 minutes of airtime on a ridiculously dumbed down TV show is a bad trade - but it is their choice to make.

If someone offered you the choice between endless exquisite, well balanced, 5 course dinners at a gourmet restaurant or a bottomless bag of powdered doughnuts - which would you choose? Very similar to the choice between FIRST & battle bots, if some actually see it as a “choice”. I like powdered doughnuts - but that certainly isn’t the diet I would want myself or my students to rely on for nutrition and growth.
That’s my 2 cents.

: If FIRST does not start to conform to the “puplics desire for robotics” even if it is “agressive” by changing the way we play the game to competition and a real season rather than a few regionals. There is a good chance more and more people will form battle bot teams.
: Joe
: PS The goal of FIRST is to educate high school students to the wonders of science and technology while encourageing carrers in engineering. Currently battle bots do the same thing but on a larger scale??? Post your thoughts.

12

Posted by Jason Iannuzzi at 04/26/2001 3:48 PM EST

Engineer on team #11, Marauders, from Mt. Olive HS. and BASF, Rame Hart, CCM.

In Reply to: I see it MUCH differently
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/26/2001 12:53 PM EST:

>And if kids participate in battle bots “INSTEAD” of FIRST, the losers are the kids in that situation, not FIRST. Those kids will be losing out on all the value & benefit of going through FIRST. Trading that to get 5 minutes of airtime on a ridiculously dumbed down TV show is a bad trade - but it is their choice to make.

13

Posted by mike oleary at 04/26/2001 4:41 PM EST

Student on team #419, rambots, from bc high and sponsors are overrated…go pocket-change robots!!!.

In Reply to: I see it MUCH differently
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/26/2001 12:53 PM EST:

:It is a hobby, and a self interest activity which has NOTHING to do with helping or teaching kids. There is nothing wrong with that - just a different goal. Let’s not fool anyone - battle bots has NOTHING to do with educating kids or helping prepare them for college: it is a televsion show based on ratings, money, dumbed down WWF mindless violence, and moronic commentary.

first of all, battle bots may or may not have a stated goal to educate kids, etc. but the fact is that if kids partipate in battle bots, build a robot and all that, it DOES prepare educate them. while it is a tv show whos main focus is generally ratings and all that the end result of FIRST and battle bots is mostly the same except that FIRST has standards regarding gracious proffessionalism and all of that stuff whereas battle bots does not. also FIRST is more rigorous id say (granted ive never participated in battle bots - yet, since me and some friends are considering it now) because there are stricter regulations: time, illegal materials, weight limits, size restrictions, etc.

also battle bots is creating a high school competition…i found this on battlebots.com:

                                                BATTLEBOTS IQ - THE HIGH SCHOOL CHALLENGE
                                                BattleBots Inc. is looking into the possibility of holding a High School BattleBots competition in the late Summer. This event would kick off BattleBots IQ -- a combination curriculum/competition where students, accompanied by a qualified instructor, build and battle robots.

wow that was a really long post…kudos to anyone who managed to read all the way to here
mike whos gonna cut back on the lengths of his posts cuz it takes way too long to type out a long post

14

Posted by Dan at 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST

Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.

In Reply to: I see it MUCH differently
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/26/2001 12:53 PM EST:

BattleBots is not a show, it’s a competition. It, and similar competitions, have existed well before the TV exposure. BattleBots does not have a mission statement per se, like FIRST, everyone does it for different reasons–also just like FIRST.
I love FIRST and I love BattleBots (not the show, the competition.) That being said I think they both have a lot to learn from each other. The biggest advantage to BattleBots overall has nothing to do with the media or popularity; BattleBots has more freedom. No more squabbling over absolutely ridiculous rules about kit parts, kit modifications, when you bought something, where you bought it from, etc. BattleBots lets you concentrate on making a robot to do whatever you want. And for those who say FIRST is “harder,” I beg to differ. What the FIRST kit does is narrow your options which is implicitly easier to engineer.
And personally, I know that BattleBots has been a HUGE factor in my education. FIRST is not even about education though, right? It’s about inspiration and it accomplished that. But BattleBots is the reason that I have 60 lbs. of engineering catalogs–all you need for FIRST and all you need to know for FIRST is what is in the kit.
If none of that convinces you, then I think we should look to super-former-FIRST-coach and Woodie Flowers Award Winner Micheal Bastoni. He has some of his kids working on BattleBots “instead” of FIRST and it’s apparently going great (I hope he chimes in sometime.) By doing BattleBots he can build and teach his kids at his own pace. What I’ve seen is that it simply is not possible to teach students and build a robot in 6 weeks. This is why BattleBots’ freedom is so valuable, you can really do what you want with it.
Jason…I respect you a lot, but I really disagree with you on this one. BattleBots is not FIRST’s evil arch nemesis. They’re really both great.
Dan

15

Posted by Mike Corliss at 04/26/2001 11:55 PM EST

Student on team #419, Rambots, from BC High and :(.

In Reply to: Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
Posted by Dan on 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST:

It’s probably true that you learn similar things
regarding engineering and the like, but it’s the ideals
of FIRST that elivate it above the mindless
robotic-slaughter that is BattleBots. in our violent
society, of course something based in violence is gonna
have a larger audience than FIRST. Maybe in a world
where school shootings weren’t becoming cliche, FIRST’s
peaceful and inspirational message would be more
apreciated by the media and the masses. And maybe it
works both ways, so eliminating or reducing the support
for such slaughter would decrease societal violence as
well. i dunno…

Mike

16

Posted by Dan at 04/27/2001 12:07 AM EST

Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.

In Reply to: There’s more to learn than engineering.
Posted by Mike Corliss on 04/26/2001 11:55 PM EST:

I think this is where the line is drawn. I don’t see BattleBots as being violent; at least not in a meaningful sense of the word. To even try to draw a line between it and school shootings or any sort of acts against living beings doesn’t click with me.
I do think it’s competitive and aggressive, unlike FIRST (at least this year) but I don’t think these are the qualities that makes it popular. I think what makes it popular is the simplicity and novelty of it. When someone tunes in they can immediately start making judgements about various robot designs, what they would do, etc. I think this is pretty common in any sport really.
Dan

17

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 2:25 AM EST

College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.

In Reply to: Re: It Ain’t Violent
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 12:07 AM EST:

Whether or not it is violent isn’t really the issue.
It’s more the fact that it’s destructive. And guess
what? Destroying is easy. It’s real easy to break
something. It’s a lot harder to create. And that’s
where the basic different in philosphies between
Battlebots and FIRST are. And frankly, the
philosophy is the most important part of FIRST to me.
FIRST is about creating. About making the world a
better place. Battlebots is about two robots
trying to destroy each other (and I say trying as
they tend to do a very bad job at it). I’m not
trying to link Battlebots to school shootings or any
other ill of society. But I seriously doubt that
changing the American mindset from one of destruction
to creation will cause an increase in such societal
ills.

Matt who thinks that we should just ignore Battlebots
and continue operating like we have for the past 10
years

18

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/27/2001 12:22 PM EST

College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.

In Reply to: It may not be violent but it is Destructive
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/27/2001 2:25 AM EST:

Battlebots have bots?
Bots they certainly are not
compared to FIRST bots

Patrick, who is very bored in between classes.

: Whether or not it is violent isn’t really the issue.
: It’s more the fact that it’s destructive. And guess
: what? Destroying is easy. It’s real easy to break
: something. It’s a lot harder to create. And that’s
: where the basic different in philosphies between
: Battlebots and FIRST are. And frankly, the
: philosophy is the most important part of FIRST to me.
: FIRST is about creating. About making the world a
: better place. Battlebots is about two robots
: trying to destroy each other (and I say trying as
: they tend to do a very bad job at it). I’m not
: trying to link Battlebots to school shootings or any
: other ill of society. But I seriously doubt that
: changing the American mindset from one of destruction
: to creation will cause an increase in such societal
: ills.

: Matt who thinks that we should just ignore Battlebots
: and continue operating like we have for the past 10
: years

19

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/27/2001 3:07 AM EST

Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.

In Reply to: Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
Posted by Dan on 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST:

: Jason…I respect you a lot, but I really disagree with you on this one. BattleBots is not FIRST’s evil arch nemesis. They’re really both great.
: Dan

Dan,

I absolutely respect the views of those who defend battle bots - but please don’t put words in my mouth. If you read my post again, NEVER did I in any way refer to Battle Bots as “FIRST’s evil arch nemesis.” My quote was “there is nothing wrong with Battle Bots, it just has different goals & values than FIRST”
Battle Bots is no more a threat to FIRST as destruction derbys (which is essentially what Battle Bots is). And FIRST is no threat to Battle Bots - in fact Battle Bots owes much of their growth to FIRST -as shown by their copying of the FIRST control system in an attempt to improve their machines and endless attempts of Battle Bots producers to recruit FIRST teams (at FIRST regionals) into their destruction derby.

I know people involved with Battle Bots, and they are good people who I respect. They are doing it solely for fun and as an engineering challenge (but they will all admit it has NOTHING to do with inspiring or teaching kids - it is just a chance for them to build a machine themselves and test it in “combat”, as they have said, against others. And they will all admit it is violent & destructive)

Is Battle Bots an engineering challange? I guess. With the simplicity of strategy, the unlimited resources allowed, and the quality of the robots I have seen - I know that the top FIRST teams in the country would build bots that would dominate battle bots. If they tried - I shudder to think of what Delphi, Wildstang, Beatty, Kingman, and GRT robots would do to battle bots - it would surely be “quick, complete, and violent” destruction of all battle bots. :slight_smile:

Our team and our engineers discussed it, but Battle Bots just doesn’t present a challange to us. If it contained a sports like strategy and complexity, instead of just building a “destruction derby car” AND - big AND - if the program was based on redeeming social values instead of violence, destruction, and ridiculous marketing - we would be happy to make it a summer project for our team. It would be fun - and certainly much less stressful, time consuming, and difficult as the FIRST experience - just without the intrinsic rewards.

Again - nothing against Battle Bots. They are two TOTALLY different programs with TOTALLY different objectives - so why is so much time being spent trying to “justify & defend” battle bots, and/or compare it to FIRST. I know FIRST will continue to grow & thrive, and I would not be surprised if Battle Bots does also.

20

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/27/2001 11:31 AM EST

College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.

In Reply to: Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
Posted by Dan on 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST:

Sorry, but as an engineering student, I’d like to find out if what I’m being taught actually applies…
According to my professors, engineering is all about buildng the best thing you can, given certain material, budgetary, etc. constraints. Real word engineers don’t always have an unlimited budget and the pick of whatever materials they want to build something. Ergo, FIRST’s materials restraints make it more like real engineering. Also, they make engineering and building a good bot harder. Do you really think building a good robot is harder when you can pick motors that are designed specifically for the tasks you set them to? The only thing harder about engineering a BattleBot is picking a part to use, as evidenced by your 60 lbs of catalogs.