FRC Blogged-Frank Answers Fridays: August 16,2013

FIRST General Forum
1

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-frank-answers-fridays-08162013

Today’s good question comes from Carl Springli, from Team 20, in Clifton Park, NY:

Question:

*Dear Frank,

Based on research performed by Jim Zondag and presented here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1273768&postcount=204

It seems as though the 45 day (6.5 week) build season and robot access period rules that are currently in place in FRC are an archaic hold over from previous years’ rules. The robot build/access period rules came about for practical and logistical reasons. However, they continue despite the fact that the circumstances which seemingly gave rise to these rules no longer apply.

This leaves FRC in a situation where teams with enough resources to build a second practice robot and a full size practice field (my own team included) have a sort of arbitrary and, in my opinion, unfair advantage over teams with limited robot access. It seems as though this presents FRC with an opportunity to increase the quality of competition by raising the floor rather than lowering the ceiling through increasing robot build/access time for all teams.

There is already plenty of discussion happening here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116658

But it is mostly speculative in nature and has little to do with what FIRST may actually be considering regarding the future of FRC. The fact that there are over 400 posts in this ChiefDelphi thread is evidence of how important this particular matter is for our community.

Why does FRC continue to have a 45 day build season, and is FRC giving any consideration to alternative robot build/access period rules?

Thank you for your consideration,
Carl Springli
College Student Mentor
Team 20: The Rocketeers
Clifton Park, NY USA*

Answer:

Carl, thanks for the question. This certainly is an important matter for the community.

I wasn’t part of FIRST when the build season rules were created, so I can’t speak directly to the reasons why they were put in place at that time. Regardless of what the reasons were back then, I can tell you what I believe to be the main reasons we have it in place now: to give students on teams a successful experience with a challenging, short-term, high pressure, deadline-driven engineering project, and to reduce the chance of mentor burnout.

Even if these were not the original reasons for putting the build season rules in place, I think most people would recognize these are worthy of consideration. Caring, knowledgeable, thoughtful individuals may disagree about how valuable these reasons are, but I don’t think they can be dismissed without giving them a good think. I believe the number of posts on ChiefDelphi about this topic speaks to this – from my quick check, it didn’t seem like all 400 of those posts were in agreement on what the build season rules should be!

Still, the short build season does have it’s downsides, and you raise a good candidate: the issue of second practice robots. Teams with good resources – good resources in every sense of the term, mentors, students, build space, equipment, sponsors, etc. – who decide to build and use one do have a competitive advantage over teams that must put their one and only robot in the bag by midnight on Stop Build Day. Some would argue that this, too, is a real-world experience. When FRC alumni graduate from college with their technical degrees, they may end up working for a two person start-up with $1.52 in the bank, or for a multi-billion dollar company that’s been around for decades. Others would argue that well-resourced teams probably work very hard to make sure they are in a position every season to build and use that second practice robot. This, in my mind, is another aspect of this issue upon which caring, knowledgeable, thoughtful individuals may disagree.

This topic has been on my mind lately, and to answer the second part of your question, FRC is carefully exploring it and our alternatives. We are constantly looking for ways to improve all aspects of our program. I don’t want to get everyone excited, though, no change is imminent, and any significant change to this aspect of the program, which represents a core part of what it means to be FRC, would need to go to the very top for approval.

Frank

Good to see Frank being Frank and addressing a question that is one of the most debated topics in FRC

2

By golly, Frank is a Public Relations master. There hasn’t been a question thus far that he hasn’t been able to tactfully answer and manage to hit both sides with his answer and appease everyone. #frankforlife

3

Well, he didn’t really address it, he just gave a quick summary of the main arguments of that thread and said they were looking at it. Not saying he should have or could have said any more, but…

4

I think he gave us more than we could have expected-- an organization as large as FIRST doesn’t change direction on a whim, and for them to be considering it (and at this point, I trust that it’s actually being looked into seriously, because it’s Frank) is a pretty good start.

Outside of that, I think I can be counted among those who have been consistently impressed by Frank’s continued and frank (sorry, had to) interactions with CD and the greater FIRST community.

5

He did say that any significant change would have to go to the very top for approval–in other words, while he and his staff are free to look around and see what alternatives are out there or what changes can be made, he may not be able to act on it–and he’s the Director of FRC.

That, in and of itself, speaks to how tough of a topic this is for anybody to address.

6

As the person who asked the question, this is really the best answer I could have hoped for. The fact that they are aware of the topic and that they are willing to explore alternatives is pretty darn cool. I also like that Frank is frank about the feasibility/timeline of any changes to the way things are done. He doesn’t promise us anything unrealistic, but he also makes sure to inform us of whether or not this is something that would even be considered. Thanks Frank!

7

I had been quiet on this topic for some time. For those of you who followed the 400+ posts about mentor burnout and robot access, IKE (Isaac) and I have submitted our letter to FIRST with our proposal. It was sent to Frank through the Frank Answers Fridays email and to a number of others at FIRST. My daughter Kristen, a 2013 Dean’s List winner, fully embraces the proposal from a student’s perspective and is an advocate for it. She presented the proposal to Woodie at the 2013 Dean’s List Summit at Mancester and is in email correspondence with him.

This may be one of the reasons why it has been on Frank’s mind lately. I have heard through the grapevine that Frank and others at FIRST is indeed discussing this. While I acknowledge that not all 400+ posts all agree which way to go, I thought there was a good consensus from both sides that what Isaac and I proposed was one possible good compromise. I hope Frank and others will be able to read through the 400+ posts before concluding that there is no consensus.

Since I came back from New Hampshire, I have been quiet on this issue. I think Frank and others at FIRST are already aware of this issue and that many in the FRC Community are very passionate about this topic. I decided to step back and give them room to fully explore it. They may come up with an even better solution. I have confidence in Frank and others at FIRST to do the right thing and come up with something that will help improve this great program even more.

8

Would you mind linking to your proposal?

9

Seconded.

  • Sunny G.
10

Third-ed

11

I believe this is the heart of it

12

Yes, that is pretty much it. Isaac and I changed the number of hours a week from 9 and 6 to 8 hours whether there is a competition event or not to make it easier for robot inspectors to check the Lockup Form. We also incorporated some things that others wanted to add to our proposal from that CD thread.
As far as posting the letter, we have decided against it. I hate the tone of an open letter to FIRST. I think it is disrespectful. However as I said before, we sent it to Frank Answers Fridays. So if Frank feels he is ready to answer it, you will see the letter since I think he said he always publishes the whole letter.

13

The discussion got so involved and varied last time we did this that I think I lost track of it and missed the whole proposal. Overall, I can agree with it, but I still have one question:

Will some teams (even my own included) still opt to build a practice robot to put in 40-hour weeks instead of 8 hour weeks with their one competition robot? I could see this happening unless FIRST explicitly told teams not to build practice robots (which I’m not saying is the right thing to do either). Is there less of an advantage compared to now? Absolutely. Is there still an advantage? Most certainly. Is it enough of an advantage to make team still want to build a practice robot? I don’t know.

Would I be a real fan of all robot-related work being limited to 8 hours per week after the deadline? Most certainly. Is it enforceable? Most definitely not, but I’d say most team mentors are rather trustworthy folks.

14

Here’s where I stand on this…it is in reply to no one specific:
It is based on my experience as I have been doing this on and off for 17 years.

I am a mentor because:

  1. I want students to have the experience of really building things.
    An experience I know they will barely taste in 4 years of college.
    An experience untainted by negative feedback common in real business.
    On the scale of FRC it requires more resources than most folks have alone.
    I am an FLL Judge it is more about the next 2 points.
  2. I want students to be included in their community.
    School is fine but I do not agree that it develops all the skills and
    experience to be successful.
  3. I want to contribute to my community.
    I never ask more of anyone that I am willing to do myself.

Specifically with regards to FRC:
The way the competition is structured currently is a challenge.

  1. It is more practical when you start months before the 6 weeks start.
  2. It is more practical when you have resources that take years to acquire.
  3. It is more practical when your schools teach programming.
  4. It is more practical when your students know programming.
  5. It has what I consider an uneasy and confused relationship with
    electronics (I am not talking about wiring here I mean electronics).
  6. Teams that can build practice bots have an advantage in part because
    of item 5 above.
  7. FIRST funding is a perpetual issue unlimited by the build season but
    focused on a goal that is limited by build season.

As a mentor the timing of those 6 weeks is a problem:

  1. Tax season ends April 15th and the season sits directly on top of the
    entire period in which I get the documents I require to file taxes:
    My taxes are way more complicated than most peoples’.
    I own and operate several business.
    I have many commitments in the high finance community.
    I have physical issues that impact my ability to work when exhausted.
  2. It entirely ignores differences in local weather.
  3. I rarely think people are really honest with themselves about the real
    build season which effectively for me and others on Team 11 is year round.

For me I would like to see:

  1. Real test fields provided in regions by FIRST. So that people can see the
    actual robot work on the actual field.
  2. I would like to see those fields remain available until the next competition.
  3. I would like to see more development of systems that make the advantage
    of the practice bot to training drivers less.
  4. I would like to see more emphasis on electronics in general.
  5. I would like to see more consideration of mid-April in planning.
  6. I would like to see more planning and scouting of solutions by FIRST.
  7. I would like to see FIRST make it clear that this is in no way a 6 week
    project openly and directly encourage year round commitment.
  8. I would like to see a recruiting website that teams can attach a portfolio
    in public where new people can see what each team is all about and so
    that we can contribute a sense of scale to the new people. Team websites
    are fine but I would like to see more metrics than most provide.
  9. I would like to see more solidarity in regions.
  10. I would like to see pictures taken of robot designs between competitions.
    So that massive changes in design are noted as I feel it’s a metric of how
    the 6 week build fits the resources of the people doing it.
  11. I would like to see more recognition in the build season duration as to the
    particular challenges some obstacles create. Teach people to pick
    low-hanging fruit for the foundation and then build higher on that.
15

The problem with some of these proposals is that they remove things that teams can grow in. If you make it so every rookie team can be as good as the team that hasn’t lost a regional yet…I would say that is a problem. One of the major aspects of FIRST is that you get out of it what you put into it. So, if you are willing to put more into it, you should have an advantage over those who don’t. If you get more sponsors, work on CAD training, do ‘moni build seasons’, and other pre-build season prep, you should be better off than a team that doesn’t.

My 2 cents.

16

Excellent - Frank went after one of the big questions in this installment. It’s nice to hear that some people are having real discussions about this issue at FIRST. I’ll be very curious to hear what else they have to say about this in the next year or two.

17

I’m impressed that people submitted some pretty direct hard-ball questions and Frank has answered them. I’m pretty jaded by the talking heads with puffballs (Senator, do you eat your corn around or across the ear) and getting lame answers ("Why thanks Wolf, really I like all vegetables).

Nice job Frank. Keep pulling from the top of the pile.

18

In my opinion I’m fine exactly how it is… The teams that don’t have the resources to build two robots learn how to imprevise Indifferent ways to accomplish that same task whether its building the robot in 4 weeks so that you have 2 week to practice (like us) or converting an older robot into a similar robots.( also like us) so I don’t think it has to change as the overall purpose of first is to interests kids In science and technology and prepare them And I believe since the real world isn’t all ways the fairest place it’s important to teach each of us that. yes the competitive advantage is there and will always be there in some way even when we are looking for careers it what we do to lessen the advantage that I feel is a more important lesson.

19

Then there’s the other part of the FIRST mission about changing culture to celebrate science and technology. This is where my argument takes place. More robots moving, scoring points, or otherwise doing cool things = more inspiration, celebration, and opportunities to get others hooked, inciting a cultural change. Why have teams keep their robot in a bag when they could otherwise be working to make it work in competition? An expensive, glorified paperweight is far less inspirational than a point-scoring robot.

20

I disagree with the notion that only teams with a lot of resources can make a practice bot. My team made a second bot this year, and we were hugely successful. We were only permitted a single, simple waterjetted part and we aren’t allowed to weld. We have more resources than many teams, but we don’t have a ‘huge’ amount of resources.