I note that Karthik also brought up the 10,000 hour myth in his talk on Wed. night. Several authors, including David Epstein in the “Sports Gene” show that Malcom Gladwell was incorrect in developing his anecdotal assessment about needing 10,000 hours to be successful. Experience is very helpful, but there are means of shortcutting it.
Not as subtle as you might think. Nurturing sponsors means that money arrives on a continual basis. Sponsors also can deliver much more than money, including publicity, mentors, community and other support. Never think of your sponsors as “money.” Make them integral to your community.
I think the anectdote makes more sense when you think about an example like someone just practice hitting the ivories on a piano for 10000 hours alone and can become really good at it. Doing FRC for 10000 hours independent of other things can probably still make one person really good at it, but leaning on the processes of other people and getting a relevant education or listening to talks like the strategy discussion can take the hours to mastery count down a lot.
1 Like
The point stands though, whether or not the quantitative metric is correct - if you want to be good at something, you need to spend a lot of time with it. Learning, practicing, improving, talking, teaching, competing. The more you do the more proficient you become.
Practice is indeed how you get to Carnegie Hall.
I don’t dispute it, I was just highlighting shortcuts. There are teams in FRC that are not just powerhouses, they are incubators. A good analogy here is The Daily Show. It takes people with potential, puts them through a proven process, then catapults them to success in a future project. It’s possible Stephen Colbert could have hosted the Late Show without ever working on the Daily Show, but that kind of environment is very beneficial.
I think someone on 1678 said it best that they can’t replicate the great mentors on the team, but they can replicate the processes those mentors work through and educate their students on it.
Epstein’s point actually was that Gladwell misinterpreted the piano proficiency data. In our case, I believe “thinking smart,” which is really Karthik’s message, can overcome hours of work. Yes driver practice is important, but having a talented driver with 3-D spatial awareness is even more so.
I think that’s what it boils down to. You either have the talent, or if you don’t, you just practice. Some people are just naturally good at things, but for those of us who aren’t, best we can do is practice.
Age old quote: practice makes perfect. (For most cases, it’s a bit of both, especially as practice can really bring out and refine the talent.)
Don’t think inside the box. By that I mean, don’t design your robot around the robot crate height to the Champs. I know a lot of teams who did that this year, mine being one. Keep the crate size in mind, but don’t prioritize it.
That’s what we did. Our robot was definitely taller than a crate could hold. The only change we made was to bolt rather than weld the lift frame to the drive frame, so we could take it apart to fit a crate. It did make Saturday night at Bayou a bit of a challenge, as we didn’t want to count on getting special permission to re-bag and we hadn’t drilled the holes necessary to make the robot stable in a “crate configuration” until after finals. We were one of the last teams out of the venue, but we did beat getting the field into the truck. A bunch of our students helped pack up the game elements, so the Bayou folks cut us a bit of slack - and we took home a commemorative used pool noodle and a nice length of slightly used blue carpet as well as a bit of lagniappe.
I saw a few teams with two stage lifts that avoided that problem this year, as well as some whose tops could come off (once during a competition; whoops) in order to fit in the crate.
Not thinking inside the box can work beyond just height limitations. If you’re a low resource team, and you choose to follow what Ri3D teams make, or base your robot off of existing mechanisms (ie a nerf disc gun in 2013), you run the danger of not being able to replicate it. I saw many teams in 2014 with the El Toro style collectors who had more trouble than teams with scoops- some couldn’t even collect with it. if you instead conceptualize your own design, prototyping if possible, then you have tested it to make sure it works. Then you consult things like Ri3D for inspiration as to how to improve your mechanisms. this year especially many teams that are usually not that great came out of nowhere with brilliant designs, things that weren’t even close to what Ri3D made, even some designs I never saw closely replicated anywhere else.
There have been a lot of folks saying great things but I really think that for most teams there are 3 keys to making competitive robots:
-
learning how to design & fab strong, light structures without having access to high end equipment (for #246 you’d be surprised of how much of our robot was made from 1/16" wall angle and 1/16" rectangular tube using only a drill press, a height gauge to scribe parts and a band saw).
-
leaning how to interface COTS parts to those structures (for #246, that largely meant using Versaplanetaries galore, 1/2" hex shaft + hex bearings, and chain, chain, chain & more chain – did I mention that I like chain?)
-
learning how to stay within the capabilities of YOUR TEAM. It doesn’t matter what Cheesy Poofs or Killer Bees or Miss Daisy can do. It only matters what YOUR team can do. Look at every game with benefit of hind sight. Without fail, you can find a simple robot that your team could have made if you had committed to that design, completed it early and gotten your coders and drive team the time they needed to get good.
Dr. Joe J.
This is very important to remember. you don’t need 17 CNC mills and mounds of carbon fiber to build a winning robot. simple is almost always better.