FRC Team Capability Survey

Good survey. Looking forward to the results as well.

With relatively few mentors, all of them handle all aspects, so I put down 1 for each role…

Good survey, thanks.

“Prototype CAD’ed” lmao I wish

Interesting survey. I can see where you are going with this.

I answered the questions for our team relative to the 2018 season. But every season is different. For example, we did a lot less prototyping in 2018 than we did in 2017. So, while the answers reflect what we did during 2018, they would be slightly different from year to year. Those differences are mostly due to the game itself rather than changes in our team practices. I’m not sure how you would account for that in your survey, but I wanted to add that caveat to my responses.

Great survey as most have mentioned.

Notes while filling it out:

Between school and community, our team is sort of both.

For the start of season robot strategy, it’s a team wide decision but using a decision making process that is laid out by a small group.

For off-season training, we use year round training, and another robotics competition (BunnyBots).

I assume “mentor experience” equates to “mentoring experience.” Some of our mentors are alumni.

I’m not sure what “Do you verify as-designed fabrication and assembly?” means.

I put our practice bot down as identical despite some minor differences, including a lack of powder coat.

Basically, after a part is made, do you have a process to double check the part was make correctly. Same with when you assemble parts, once they’re all put together, does someone verify it was assembled correctly.


If you haven’t taken the survey yet, it’s still open. For some of the analysis I’m hoping to do, the more the better.

Survey link:

Note: I haven’t cleaned up the data or removed duplicate responses for a team yet.

Responses: 312
Teams: 265

Type of Team
School 77.8%
Community 22.2%

Year round 67.8%
school year 32.2%

Student Dues (Top 8):
Free 40.7%
<100 16%
100-150 8.8%
151-200 8.1%
201-250 5.9%
251-300 5.5%
301-350 5.2%

Application Process
Everyone until full 86.8%
Selection based upon application 7.7%
Application and tryout/trial 5.5%

Team Size
1-10 7.1%
11-20 22%
21-30 27.2%
31-40 20.7%
41-50 10.7%
50-60 4.9%
61+ 7.4%

Deciding strategy before building robot:
Team 50.1%
Team discussion with small group decision 38.7%
Small group discussion and decision 9.4%
other 1.8%

General strategy.
Select tasks to accomplish 51.5%
Create cycles, with target per match 18.8%
Create cycles, with performance criteria for all actions 24.3%
Other 5.4%

Driveteam Coach
Student 46.6%
Mentor 53.4%

Offseason Training
None 1.8%
During school year 50.5%
Year round 39.6%
other robotics competitions 5.5%
school curriculum 2.2%
other 0.4%

CAD Robot
No 22.7%
Before Fabrication 64.4%
After Fabrication, before assembly 8.1%
After assembly 4.9%

Prototypes CAD’ed
Yes 51.8%
No 48.2%

Majority of robot parts
hand measured and fabricated (chop saw, bandsaw) 50%
fabricated through automation (cnc, water jet) 50%

Number of Robots
1 30.8%
2 64.7%
3+ 4.5%

Strategy talks with other teams
Yes 61.2%
No 38.8%

Design talks with other teams
Yes 44.8%
No 55.2%

Build Days
1 .7%
2 .7%
3 9.7%
4 16.7%
5 29.4%
6 30.4%
7 12.4%

Build Hours per week
<10 1%
10-14 7%
15-19 21.7%
20-24 34.7%
25-29 13.7%
30+ 22%


Added another data point! It took me a bit longer (closer to 15 min) but I also wanted to verify all my answers.

1 Like

I’d be interested in seeing some metric in how competitive each of the teams that responded are. Maybe data from TBA on how deep in elims they got and whether or not they submitted for chairmans

That’s my goal, we’ll see if it proves out. I’m hoping to group teams in to 5 categories based upon performance. Kind of like the Capability Maturity Model from the 90’s. Then see if there are set of behaviors that teams in a bucket do.

I hope regional directors take a good look at this when your done with the 5 categories.

There seems to be a big emphasis on “join FRC” and starting new teams with a lot of teams dropping out shortly after.

I know the rookie grants play a big part in that. The first team I was on was a rookie team and we were barely keeping our head above water trying to figure everything out with fundraising to boot. (that team is still going btw 5th year now)

Figuring out other metrics for successful teams will be good if the regional directors can find ways to use them.

So, this is a graph that shows how many programmers a team has, by experience level.

My theory is rookie programmers can’t help immediately with programming, and either move to build or leave the team since they can’t program the bot.

1 Like

That’s scary how many teams have 0 programmers all together

Just because a team doesn’t have 4th year programmers, doesn’t mean they don’t have any 2nd or 3rd year programmers.

Do you think you could update the results by region? I think that would give a better sense of what the data might look like in different regions. I really like the survey and the results are definitely interesting.

Ohhhh I must’ve misread it. I thought it was 4th year teams. My bad