I am trying to get my school which already has an FTC team to support me in starting an FRC team. There’s no way they would let an FRC team replace our FTC team but I need to convince the administrators at my school and the people who control funding that FRC is a necessary addition to our school’s robotics program. Is there anybody who is on an FRC team that has things to say about ways that FRC is an “upgrade” or better than FTC in regards to student experience? I’m not trying to trigger any FTCers, I’m one myself, but I really think that FRC would be an amazing opportunity to have at my school and I need some proof.
As a mentor, I have no interest in FTC robots. But I really love working with students to build a big FRC robot every year, this is our 15th, and every year is a blast.
Perhaps go from this angle, that FRC attracts more engineering mentors?
One of the major differences between FRC and FTC is the real-world skills gained. From a software standpoint, FRC teaches students real languages such as Java and C++. From a mechanical standpoint, students learn to machine parts, learning skills that are directly applicable to the real world. While being more expensive, FRC give students business and fundraising skills.
The way I approach this is I consider FRC the varsity sport of robotics. It’s the most competitive high school robotics league. In this case I think you could view FTC as junior varsity.
Remember the costs and time investment are much higher for FRC. Make sure the people who matter are very aware of what they’re getting into.
We started in the other direction; from an FRC team we launched three FTC teams for younger students (mostly 7th & 8th grade). Our FRC team remains our flagship program.
Why?
FRC robots are more complex. They also have a lot more power available (through much more powerful motors). The high power, together with more mass and a larger playing field means that they are fast and can have a lot of momentum. Physics and mechanics which can be safely ignored with FTC robots become critical for FRC.
FRC teams are typically bigger than FTC (which are limited to 15 students). With more complex robots, work organization becomes organized into sub-teams, each with their own objectives. Running the sub-teams and organizing their efforts opens up multiple leadership opportunities for students: Team leaders, Coordinators, Subject-Matter Specialists, etc.). So, not just more students on an FRC team, but more student leaders (or at least the opportunity for them).
Regarding mentors, FRC teams generally have more mentors and these mentors are generally recruited for their work-based subject-matter expertise (programming, machining, welding, Project Management, etc.). Having subject-matter specialists for mentors provides more effective teaching in these areas. These mentors are sharing and teaching their work skills to students.
FRC is as close to participating in a real engineering projects as you can get to in high school.
I coach an FTC team in my home shop for 7th and 8th grade and have mentored FRC for many years and now am the coach. Both programs have opportunity for advanced programming and machine design. Both teams fabricate all of our structure from scratch. Both teams program in Java. Both do vision processing and use similar sensors . The programs can be run the same from an engineering and outreach perspective. Bigger motors and higher speeds of FRC are fun but both programs can be run similarly. FRC because of it’s significantly higher cost does necessitate more focus on business outreach to fund the program. Business outreach is a very valuable experience for the team members separate from the donations you may receive.
I’m not sure if I agree with many of the sentiments. Let’s start from…a really reductionist point of view. Take FRC, your season starts in January, you typically need a huge support background, and registration fees for all your events typically costs somewhere up to $9000.
Then take FTC, which starts in September, can effectively run in a basement with relatively little mentor backing, and can run a whole season on a fraction of the registration costs for FRC. I do often question why FRC is the “crown program of FIRST” and is typically what is pushed when it is so resource intensive and expensive to push in places FIRST really wants to grow, such as internationally and in places where the school districts aren’t rich.
I do think FIRST cares way more about FRC (even if idk if they should), so that might be a factor.
I do think there are many examples of FTC teams I’d hold as better programs than many FRC teams, although these often go overlooked. You can definitely get very similar levels of hardware and code in both. I’d argue FTC is sometimes a harder challenge due to the constraints.
You do know the FTC stack uses Java primarily, correct?
You…can machine robots in FTC too. There are some very pretty machined bots out there. It’s only recently I’ve been finding FRC people picking up on them. Here’s one.
I have seen plenty of people do this in FTC too. Except they can make sponsorship grants go a lot farther than “half of a regional’s registration fee.”
This is an absurd post. FTC has a Java option too, and a huge chunk of teams machine or 3D print their own parts, and I know far more FTC teams that do a reasonable amount of CAD than FRC teams.
FTC also encourages teams to complete an engineering notebook, and many teams complete this at a very high level.
FRC often has a poor understanding of FTC as a program and what high-performing FTC teams put into their programs.
Disclaimer: I have a deep love for both programs, and have mentored Championship-quality teams in both.
Some of the comments in this post are extremely disappointing to be honest, and really echoes how stereotypes of what people think FTC is has made people dislike it. FRC really isn’t that much better, or different than FTC. As someone who has done both with an extensive amount of time, I honestly have a hard time saying which one is better.
As an initial disclaimer, @guineawheek, @cadandcookies, and myself are not your average FTC participants. we’ve all competed at very high levels, and want to clear the air on the myths of FTC.
For me, as well as many FTC people, FTC has one very big learning advantage over FRC: team size. most FTC teams are a lot smaller, so students on these FTC teams have a lot more of a say in what happens on the team, and can get a lot more involved. like others in this thread have mentioned, you can get the same amount of experience robot wise in FTC as you do in FRC. Additionally, doing FTC is cheaper, so there are a lot of teams that run out of garages because their school won’t support robotics, or they want to run things more on their own terms (in fact, many of the top FTC teams are community teams ran out of garages).
In principal, I’d agree. you can definitely get away with more in FTC than FRC, but that doesn’t necessarily mean doing the math won’t help you. My team, as well as many other teams have used FEA, the JVN calculator, etc. for FTC (the JVN calculator especially)
a large number of teams in FTC program in android studio, which is very similar, if not the same as java (some parts of the code can be used on both bots)
My team, and many others, have ran fully cadded, custom robots for years now. the amount of CAD and machining I do for the FTC bot is very comparable to my teams FRC bot
Yes and no.
Time wise, FTC teams, especially the more successful ones, are often on the smaller side, and often put in more hours than their FRC counterparts just because of that. Additionally, FTC season is a lot longer, and therefore requires a lot longer commitment.
Completely agree. often the hardest constraint is size in FTC, and CAD-ing an FTC bot can be a lot harder than an FRC bot. FTC robots often need to extend to 4,5,6 times their height or length, making packaging a lot harder than FRC. additionally, motors and wheels used are proportionally bigger than the ones used in FRC, making them take up a lot more space. you know why a lot of FTC robots are cubes? they need all of the space they can get.
Yes and no. FTC can get very competitive, especially at the upper levels. But would I still consider FRC the varsity? yes.
To @EAL160,
I don’t know how involved or funded your FTC team is, or where you are from, but I’d try to angle the mechanical and programming complexity if you want to start an FRC team. But in all honesty you should really consider whether or not FRC is really better. Instead of getting them to invest into FRC, you could try to convince your school to invest more into FTC: getting more or better equipment, starting another team if you have too many people, etc. by doing so, you might be able to learn a lot more. many of the top FTC teams run on a budget of a low budget FRC team.
FRC is definitely treated by FIRST as the varsity program, although I have been questioning a lot nowadays whether if in its current form, it really should be that.
The model of FRC in 1992 was centric on teams being largely backed by universities and corporations, in no part because they didn’t have the support system and COTS ecosystem we expect today. If FIRST really wants to give robotics to every highschool student, is FRC really the play anymore? I don’t see a compelling reason why some flashy benefits should come before the raw accessibility of the program. Maybe this warrants a separate thread, but it’s something I do wish to ask the community.
Sorry, but as a FRC mentor I get involved with the implementation of FTC in my country.
I really think you should take a better look in the program. All the skills you mentioned (real languages coding, machining parts, business and fundraising) are explored and totally possible to be worked with FTC. The teams are evaluated by what they developed in almost the same areas we do in FRC (design, innovation, control, outreach, entrepeneurship, creative ways to spread FIRST, etc).
I do believe that FRC is the richest experience a student can get, but I know too that at some realities FTC can be a great, great alternative.
To be quite frank, I think I got far more out of my FTC experience than I ever got out of being in FRC. While yes, the experiences of top end or even decently well off teams may be better, I’m not sure if its representative of the many who may struggle to even get their seasons funded.
You may struggle with recruiting students for FRC if your school is so excited about FTC. While FRC can support more students, which is one of the upsides, if you don’t have minimum 10 students who are willing to go every day and put in the time and have/will learn the skills FRC is going to be a struggle.
Personally, I do feel that FRC is a better experience for the students. My FRC team also had a FTC team at the school and I was on FTC in middle school, so I know how it works. FRC allows students to really dig into the mechanical, manufacturing, and programming far more than FTC. Don’t even get me started on electrical; FRC is much vaster in this area. And it can be easier to recruit mentors for FRC, meaning the students get guidance from actual engineers. From experience, the kids who graduate from FRC are often much more motivated to go into engineering than graduating FTC students.
If your school tries to do both FTC and FRC without good support from the school you are going to run into issues. Either everyone is going to abandon FTC when the FRC build starts, or no one is going to jump to FRC and the team will not get further than building the kit bot. To make both teams coexist you need to have your school and coaches prepared to make both programs happen, without letting one fall to the wayside.
not to discredit your experiences, but this is not the experience of many ftc programs, especially ones that are independent of frc teams. I’ve noticed that many that are strapped to frc programs are generally treated as secondary programs done as whatever, which makes it a bit unfar of a comparison
FRC is obviously superior to FTC because the robots are bigger. Why build robots that look like they are from the 90’s when you could have a 120in frame perimeter?
I mean, who wants to think about motor/servo allocations when you can just slap another 775 or Falcon 500 on it, right?
Real talk, while I do think the more optimal program would probably involve bots sized such that you couldn’t just have a single person designing and building the entire thing (as is often the case in FTC and Vex), I do often wonder if FRC sized is just a bit too big for the cost and number of students. There’s a saying that the square root of the team size is what contributes the vast majority of the effort, and it makes me wonder if FRC’s emphasis on larger team sizes instead of the comparative FTC and Vex emphasis on smaller but more numerous teams is actually less efficient.
Small teams can be good, such as 7179 and 330 last year. Even my own team, which I consider to be one of the better PNW teams in the last few years, has never had more than ~18 students.
again that sounds largely like the exception, not the norm, and it doesn’t even address the whole $7000-$9000 registration fee thing. even the upper end of ftc spending typically doesn’t go past $13k, including champs
