Team organization issues and Build Season Schedule

Competition Team Organization
1

Hello all

I’m trying to revamp my team after 2 years of poor performance on the standards of our former mentors and our partner teams, and would like to have some help in determining the build season schedule and organization of our team for this upcoming season

While I’m not the one who has the final say in fixing our schedule, being a leader in our FRC program, I do have say, and I am sitting down with our leader on monday to discuss my points on modifying our schedule

Our team meets on Monday-Friday from 3:454 to about 7:30 or 8, and on Saturday from 10 to 4. Currently, the leader has called for 3 hours on monday after kickoff to determine the game plan for our team. I want to spend at least 2 full days on this, to make sure we have a set game plan that follows the rules and is legal. We can’t have a well designed robot without a clear game plan.

After the first day, we create a design matrix with weighted objecives (no designs yet). I wanted this to be done on the third day, since we need to spend 2 days on the game in my opinion. After this, we split into small sub groups and come up with manipulator designs and chassis. We present the ideas the following day, and we use the design matrix to narrow it down to 2 or 3 designs after that.

This is where my main issue is. All Ideas should be prototyped or have a small moving model to see. Some ideas that could be brilliant and simple be easily eliminated if they aren’t presented properly or if only drawings exist. I would like to give 2 days of prototyping (or physical conceptualization) with Legos and VEX parts. once the models are done, we can come back together and narrow it down to one design. One major concern with this approach is that the ideas can’t be mingled together, and from concept to reality, would be separate. This can be changed by presenting the ideas before hand to the team, and prototyping them after to see the most effective using the design matrix. The remaining leaders on the team do not agree to this approach, and want to eliminate ideas before even seeing a physical model of the idea.

Another issue I have with the team is professionally fabricated parts vs student done. My take is that since we are engineers, we do the design and simulation, and we want our parts to be done professionally outside or with our own CNC router. The others want to use our bandsaw and Mill and hand tools to create most of the parts, and only send out the ones that take too long to be done in our CNC router or outside. They want to “Teach people how to use tools”. My opinion is that teaching tool use is for the pre-season, and we should all focus on an amazing final product that we as students design and assemble. A part that is cut by an inexperienced student will not be able to align properly unless properly cut, leaving holes when placing the parts together. I would like to see what others think on this issue before placing my arguments

Finally, there has been constant resistance to building another robot. We are lacking in funding due to our treasurer being stolen by Marching Band, but we have plenty of wood, and even if we build a robot out of wood, it gives us that much more practice for driving and developing strategy. I don’t know why the others oppose it, but I read on here that the top 10% of teams build a second robot during and ship the second, and the top 40% build a second robot just for practice. I don’t think there are any other arguments for it other than the ones I have laid out, but some personal testimonies would be nice.

I’m sorry if this came off more as a rant, but from spending countless hours browsing Chief Delphi, and WPI Think Tank, I wanted to propose some major changes to our operation as a team, but they were not taken into serious consideration, and I would like to see if there are any other arguments to make when I meet with the overall lead on Monday.

True Inspiration comes when students follow the engineering design process correctly, completely, and obtain a final product that allows them to be competitive and celebrate their hard work.

2

I won’t personally comment on everything you said, I’ll let others help with that, but I’ll try to give some advice from my experience.

I very much agree with spending a good long time on clarifying the game plan (you said you wanted more than 3 hours). I have a question and a suggestion for this later on, but here’s some other advice first. The rest of your team might not understand the importance of the design process, or they may think it’s important but just doesn’t need as much time as you think it does. Which is it?
That is helpful to know when you’re trying to counter their opinions. In fact, learning more about what they think can help you better understand the topic in general, since you include all viewpoints, allowing you to see what really is the best. It also helps keep you from seeing their views too negatively.

Now, what is your/your team’s definition of a “game plan”? I ask because I want to warn you not to finalize such an idea too early on. I’ve seen that picking the overall strategy for the team/robot is very closely related to the specific robot designs that accomplish that strategy. You need to think about both almost at the same time to be able to judge which strategy is the best. For example, if you lock down a strategy in the beginning, but then later realize that it is simply to impractical to build robots to match that strategy, you need to change your overall focus. And that’s hard to come back, start over, or do on the fly. I would suggest being open to all ideas and strategies for a day or two, and then when you understand the possibilities of the different strategies, you can better finalize one.

Also, it’s great that you’re going to discuss things with your leader to improve things, but expect that things still might not end up the way you want it. In big groups like this people will always disagree with you, and if it’s a majority or a person of leadership above you, it might be best to just let it go. Your team still might not crash and burn and you can still have a good time. Furthermore, if you disagree and fight too much, it can make the issue worse and waste time. So be careful how you approach this, and for what personal reasons you may be doing it for.

3

Sounds good, improvement is the way forward.

Our team meets on Monday-Friday from 3:454 to about 7:30 or 8, and on Saturday from 10 to 4. Currently, the leader has called for 3 hours on monday after kickoff to determine the game plan for our team. I want to spend at least 2 full days on this, to make sure we have a set game plan that follows the rules and is legal. We can’t have a well designed robot without a clear game plan.

Setting up a strategy is wise; it’s done by many top teams. Remember that physics is your friend and that every part of the game is important until actual experience tells you otherwise. Do some math and plan a super optimal strategy.

After the first day, we create a design matrix with weighted objecives (no designs yet). I wanted this to be done on the third day, since we need to spend 2 days on the game in my opinion. After this, we split into small sub groups and come up with manipulator designs and chassis. We present the ideas the following day, and we use the design matrix to narrow it down to 2 or 3 designs after that.

This is where my main issue is. All Ideas should be prototyped or have a small moving model to see. Some ideas that could be brilliant and simple be easily eliminated if they aren’t presented properly or if only drawings exist. I would like to give 2 days of prototyping (or physical conceptualization) with Legos and VEX parts. once the models are done, we can come back together and narrow it down to one design. One major concern with this approach is that the ideas can’t be mingled together, and from concept to reality, would be separate. This can be changed by presenting the ideas before hand to the team, and prototyping them after to see the most effective using the design matrix. The remaining leaders on the team do not agree to this approach, and want to eliminate ideas before even seeing a physical model of the idea.

First off, prototyping is not the same as proof of concept. LEGO and VEX are proof of concept materials. They are an easy and quick way to show that an idea is sound and will probably work in reality. Prototyping goes beyond that by requiring careful work and allowing you to optimize dimensions and prove functionality in the real environment.

Second, you can sometimes eliminate ideas without building anything. Some ideas are clearly too expensive/complex/inane, and oftentimes logic and physics (or a proof of concept) will prove that only a handful are viable.

Another issue I have with the team is professionally fabricated parts vs student done. My take is that since we are engineers, we do the design and simulation, and we want our parts to be done professionally outside or with our own CNC router. The others want to use our bandsaw and Mill and hand tools to create most of the parts, and only send out the ones that take too long to be done in our CNC router or outside. They want to “Teach people how to use tools”. My opinion is that teaching tool use is for the pre-season, and we should all focus on an amazing final product that we as students design and assemble. A part that is cut by an inexperienced student will not be able to align properly unless properly cut, leaving holes when placing the parts together. I would like to see what others think on this issue before placing my arguments

Decide what your team is here for - building an amazing robot or changing lives? What will be better for that goal - outsourcing or engaging?

Finally, there has been constant resistance to building another robot. We are lacking in funding due to our treasurer being stolen by Marching Band, but we have plenty of wood, and even if we build a robot out of wood, it gives us that much more practice for driving and developing strategy. I don’t know why the others oppose it, but I read on here that the top 10% of teams build a second robot during and ship the second, and the top 40% build a second robot just for practice. I don’t think there are any other arguments for it other than the ones I have laid out, but some personal testimonies would be nice.

If you can’t pay for a second robot, you can’t pay for custom machining. Also, you shouldn’t make your second robot if it’s not the same as the first. Even little nuances will drastically affect code, driving and strategy. Even though the practice is nice, it will feel like a waste of time and material as everyone adjusts from practice bot to competition bot.

True Inspiration comes when students follow the engineering design process correctly, completely, and obtain a final product that allows them to be competitive and celebrate their hard work.

Wrong. True inspiration is when students choose to be good engineers because of the example of mentors and peers. It doesn’t come out of good engineering, it leads to it.

As a last note: I’ve often felt the same way you do, which is that the team is nose-diving into a dump. Encourage these changes, but also act upon them yourself first. Crabbiness doesn’t solve problems; leadership by example does. You personally can demonstrate the value of following a good engineering thought process, and others will follow when they see the advantages. Try not to overstep your bounds, however, and remember that you’re doing this for the team, not for winning. Good luck with your efforts!

4

I think my team is more underestimating the amount of time it takes to create a definite strategy, and i don’t know if they understand that the design criteria do come straight from it.

I’m going to use Logomotion in my example of a game plan. I would first read the rules of the game, then make a chart that shows what makes you gain and lose points. From that chart, i would discuss the best way to gain points. THen we would look at how that would work on a model of the field. So for instance, with last year’s game, We list the penalties and scoring ways. Then we talk about scoring on the top being the most productive, and then we look at having human players toss tubes vs handing them off to us. From there, we have a game plan of

  • Pick up logos
  • score on the highest pegs
  • be able to pick up from the ground
  • be able to pick up from feeder station

And based on that, we can start to say the robot has to be fast to get the tubes, Has to be able to pick tubes from the ground and carry them to the top pegs, Be accurate with the placement of the tube, Be simple, fast, and accurate in its execution, etc. In my opinion, all of this takes longer than 3 hours to do, especially if we make sure we all know the rules and do the chart for scoring and weigh the pros and cons of different ways of scoring. This also leads directly into the design, where we come up with criteria based on our model field and simulating the running of this strategy, which leads to robot concepts, and prototyping.

5

quoted for truth.

6

Prototyping is a good idea in some cases. However, being extremely prescriptive in rule setting (i.e. - things MUST be prototyped) is not a good idea.

Some ideas don’t need to be prototyped, and some frankly can’t be accurately and quickly prototyped. Don’t get so hung up on the “MUST prototype” theme that you throw out good ideas. That is where your engineers and experienced members should step in. Rely on experience. Prototype where necessary due to inexperience.

Sometimes people’s feelings get hurt during this process because they have what they think is a good idea, but it gets shot down. Part of the engineering process is learning to move on to the ideas that were accepted and try to make them better. That’s the point of a weighted objective table: to try to take the feelings out of it. Accepting someone else’s idea as your own is hard, but it’s also a key part of being an engineer.

Let’s face it, in a perfect world we would prototype and test each idea in full scale and prove which is better. In FIRST we don’t have that luxury, so we rely on experience.

“A part that is cut by an inexperienced student will not be able to align properly unless properly cut, leaving holes when placing the parts together.”

Did poorly cut and assembled parts affect your result last year? I know many teams who are incredibly successful and rely on hand building robots without fancy CNC machines (or even mills and lathes, for that matter). It comes down to a question of robust strategy and robust design. And if a hand-cut part doesn’t fit, it only take a few minutes to have that student do it again… and learn from it. You would probably shudder to see a lot of the robots on Einstein up close.

Building another robot is an incredible undertaking, and has very little value if it isn’t functionally identical to the first. Using different materials will result in a robot that acts differently. That’s a bad thing when working on programming and practicing driving. If you’re stretching your budget already, I’d recommend heartily against it.

Every team has a different view of what FIRST offers. If your team as a group disagrees with you, then pushing them all to go in a different direction probably isn’t going to work out very well. See if you can’t focus on one aspect and improve that, then change something else next year. Judging from your complaints, I’d say that your team would definitely benefit from lengthening your strategy sessions and spending a bit more time on design selection (weighted objective tables).

7

I sometimes refer to proof of concept as prototyping, but you are correct. I think a proof of concept would be nice before we eliminate any ideas. of course, an idea of 25 wheels would probably be shot down if we were playing logo motion, or building two arms.

Our team’s goal is kind of mixed. most of the students who join robotics are already part of the magnet program here at our high school. We have multiple competition teams that they go into. Our biggest goal as a robotics team would be to take these talented kids, and allow them to go through the engineering design process and engineer an amazing creation that provides an effective solution to the problem. In order to be effective, we have to be competitive. In 2010, our entire robot was made by manually milling parts with an inexperienced first year robotics student milling the kicker and the base was made of 1010 cut by an old slave and tapped by some students. By championships, the base was tilting at a 30 degree angle and would’ve completely been destroyed in another few matches.

I first got into robotics as a freshmen because I wanted to build a robot. I participated in the BEST competition, which does that. However, when I worked with FRC in 2009 (my rookie year), I was amazed at the clean cuts and CNC cut parts that were on our robot, and how it went from concept, prototype, CAD and finally to the robot. I didn’t make many things other than prototype a battery mounting system that year, but i did not have any less feeling of satisfaction of creating something from when I fabricated all of the parts in the BEST robotics competition to getting everything fabricated by CNC or waterjetted by a sponsor.

I don’t know how well a compromise would work on this, but I see people wanting to fabricate parts of the robot. For complex pieces, we could use the CNC or get it cut outside by one of our sponsors, but for putting the base together or creating an end effector, we could have students fabricate parts for that.

With the 2nd robot, i’ve heard that you will never have an exact copy of the robot, but if the drivetrain and simulated weight is similar, you can still use it to drive around the field, or if you are using an arm, you make one out of wood that goes the same speed as the one made before. For the past 2 years, we’ve only been putting out two drivers, me and another person (who is a senior this year). We’ve only been chosen because of our Rules knowledge and natural talent. natural talent only took us so far. In 2010, we had a good scoring robot. But because of a lack of practice, we couldn’t go over the bump, and we couldn’t score as effectively, because we didn’t have aligning with the ball down to an art. We may not have had much experience still with getting over the bump with an inexact copy of the robot, but we could still practice lining up with the ball and running scenarios of other teams playing defense. Also, practice builds the relationship among our drivers. I personally don’t have a good relationship with our other driver, but if we were to practice, form new strategies, and run plays, we can think alike and we don’t have to disagree on how to approach the game piece

I don’t want to cause internal strife within our club, but I also want to make sure the overall leader understands my arguments and why I think they are beneficial to the team as a whole and to ourselves.

Also, I agree with your modification of my inspiration definition. What was I thinking before? :smiley: :yikes:

8

From the replies in this thread and talking to some of my mentors, I’ve gathered that

-Spending more time on the game plan will be beneficial
-Proof of concept for ideas not explored before would be great to aid in the presentation
-do the math and physics calculations behind the design for the presentation
-Prototype once a design is chosen. Determine correct gear ratios, the exact way the system will be powered

I’ve decided to promote the idea that with large laborious parts, we can use our sponsors to machine. For precise slots and holes, we can use the CNC. For cutting pieces of 1010, and creating a housing for electronics, panels, and housing for end effectors, we can have students precisely cut and assemble the parts. Measure Twice, cut once! This allows the students to experience both professional engineering, and allows them to experience the fabrication process.

Also, with the 2nd robot, I’ll try to ask our sponsors for any spare materials they may have, but if we do not have much, We’ll try to use the kitbot frame (We have spares lying around), and we’ll recreate our drive train and add weight and if we can, build our manipulator out of wood. This will not be for heavy practice, but for the drive team to work on strategies and grow the trust in eachother. The drive team has to be a single entity.

Are there any comments on these?

9

In 2010, our entire robot was made by manually milling parts with an inexperienced first year robotics student milling the kicker and the base was made of 1010 cut by an old slave and tapped by some students. By championships, the base was tilting at a 30 degree angle and would’ve completely been destroyed in another few matches.

We use a vertical bandsaw, not an old slave. Because slavery is illegal, and immoral. :rolleyes:

But seriously, these are good points and a good direction to head towards for the upcoming season.

10

I have to agree that sending out parts to some companies, and making some less complicated parts (or easy to machine) yourself, would be very beneficial. This will also help them understand how much time/effort you have to put into making a single part (or an assembly).

Being “gentle” about bringing these ideas up is a HUGE factor. It is hard not to offend people sometime’s, even if you don’t try to. People may think that you didn’t like how they ran the team or how they machined parts if you are outsourcing them.

Though i have never built a second robot I believe it is a really good idea. As being a driver i understand how long it takes to get use to the controls of the robot. Usually it takes about 1 competition and lots of nights of thinking you are driving to understand the controls as if it was natural. But if i had a second robot i wouldn’t need that 1 competition, i would already know the controls almost perfectly, I might need the practice day to fully get use to the field though.

Regarding your Communication between you and your fellow driver, it needs to be almost perfect. Me and my fellow driver are good friends now, and we know exactly what the other person’s next move is, without even talking usually. There are a few times that we had conflict of decisions, but that may be because we developed slightly different strategies. Ex. in last 30 seconds last year i wanted to raise the elevator for top row and put circle on triangle spot, he wanted to put the circle on middle where circle goes. In the end we purposely dropped the tube to go deploy the minibot. Either way nothing would have changed, just another judgement call.

My team is also in the same boat you are. I have tried to push the designing for 2 years now and i think i finally got them to notice how important it is. What i did was design a full chassis, present it to them, and built it, proving that Design is VERY beneficial to the team.

Good luck this year and hope this helps :smiley:

11