If I am reading your data correctly, unless a region in general is really weak, then teams often are at max reaching 90% of the highest score in the erc, showing that there is no situation where a team get design by just focusing on notebook. Addiontionally, since the team that wins the design award followed the engineering design process often and documented it well, it show that not only did they develop the best solution (which would preform well ergo you get the top of the skills list teams winning design), but that they documented it, therefore proving that the said solution works. Again, all sorts of things break at competitions. In my state, for ms events, in order design award was given to: tournament finalist and first seed, 3rd in skills, then the tournament champion and 2nd in skills, and then at states it was given to 3rd team in skills, 10th in ranking and tournament quarter finalist, (all diff teams btw). There is realistically no way to make a really good notebook and go through the edp, without having at least a decently working robot, or having the notebook be a bunch of baloney, that the judges will see through during interview
I didn’t make worlds, (I’m V5 so I suppose this is a little different) but I know that the teams that did qualify are better.
The teams that beat us for judged awards had better notebooks, and except for excellence, their performance shouldn’t matter.
Failure is a natural and good part of the design cycle. Competitions are simply the testing part of the design cycle, and tests are not always passed. (When I say failure I’m talking about low skills scores)
The design award recognises a team which clearly uses and documents the design cycle, and since failure is a natural part of that, why should teams be punished for it?
Instead of complaining about these teams, maybe we should be asking what these teams do better than us, and how we can be better ourselves.
Maybe if they had a better notebook, they would deserve to mosey on up to worlds instead of the other teams. I feel like a lot of people complaining in here should just get a better notebook, because in my V5 experience, it is really hard to get design, even in an easy region. You don’t need to insult other teams by asking if they deserve to be at worlds.
Why does RECF host WORLDS?
While it is a competition in a sense, it’s more of an experience. There are regions in the world with 4 teams and they are all Hueys. One of them is going! There was one year that I had an IQ team that was paired with 7 claw bots. It’s more about exploring what is possible, and bringing together people that normally wouldn’t be in the same room
It’s not a “best bot” competition. It’s never been. If they wanted a “best bot” competition the whole thing would be robot skills and there would be no notebook.
RECF is education above competition. That is the principle from which they have build this machine. If you look at it through that lens, it makes a lot more sense.
I used to believe that statement as well, but the data shared in the original thread seems to challenge that assumption. In the last column, where an “X” appears, that championship advanced a team via the design award. Looking at the scores provided, there are instances where teams advanced with skills scores below what would be required to complete a 3-color stack scored in a matching goal (28 points). Anyone who competes in IQ knows that this is a relatively low benchmark. Another column lists the “High Skills Score” to see whether those teams had demonstrated stronger performance at some point during the season and perhaps just had an off run at the championship.
While it may seem unlikely for a team to win the design award without a reasonably functional robot, it does appear theoretically possible because the evaluation is largely based on two primary factors: the engineering notebook and the team interview.
With that in mind, and going back to the original request, an update to the criteria that adds a modest performance benchmark would simply help ensure that, in future championships, the robot design is able to answer the game challenge on the field.
I don’t think this thread is about “sending the best robot.” Rather, it is asking whether the design award could include a modest performance criterion. This kind of request to RECF would not be unprecedented, as the Think Award was updated a few years ago to include a non-zero score requirement.
To add some context, I calculated the average Skills scores using the current data from the World Skills Standings on RobotEvents.com. These numbers may change slightly since championships are still ongoing and teams may continue improving their scores. However, as of today:
• Out of 4,826 MS IQ teams in the U.S., the average Skills score is 69.7.
• Out of 5,174 ES IQ teams in the U.S., the average Skills score is 50.9.
Given those averages, a suggested benchmark such as a score around 30 points or being within the top 75% in skills in the competition would still be quite modest and would simply help demonstrate that the robot can meaningfully address the game challenge.
I think both perspectives here raise good points.
The Design Award is meant to recognize teams that clearly follow and document the engineering design process, which is an important part of what makes VEX an educational program rather than just a robot competition. A team can learn a lot from testing ideas that don’t fully succeed on the field, and that learning process should still be valued.
At the same time, the purpose of the engineering design process is ultimately to create a solution to the game challenge. Because of that, it may be reasonable for there to be some modest performance indicator showing that the robot meaningfully attempts to solve the challenge.
Maybe the goal shouldn’t be a high performance threshold, but simply evidence that the robot can interact with the game in a functional way. That way the award still prioritizes documentation, iteration, and design thinking while also reinforcing that the engineering process is connected to real results.
Ultimately, VEX is strongest when it balances both sides, strong engineering documentation and robots that demonstrate the results of that process.
This could easily be an interview question. Judges could carry round a few scoring objects, and have teams demonstrate how their robot solves the game challenges
The design award is about how well a team is documenting their design process. Nothing is saying the team’s design process has to evaluate to a top performing solution, it is just how well the students show their understanding of the process and how they used it to get to their robot design, in the notebook and in the interview.
I recognize that this is the current criteria of Design Award. The purpose of this discussion is simply to explore whether the criteria could be updated to include a modest performance requirement. The intent is not to diminish the importance of a strong engineering notebook or interview, but to ensure that, in addition to strong documentation and communication, the robot demonstrates a basic ability to address the season’s game challenge.
There is precedent for this type of refinement. For example, the VEX IQ Think Award previously did not require any autonomous performance. However, following community discussion such as the forum thread titled:
Award Confusion: Why Would a Team with 0 Autonomous Win the Think Programming Award?
The criteria were later updated to require a non-zero autonomous score. This adjustment helped ensure that the award continued to recognize both programming documentation and demonstrated autonomous functionality.
The suggestion here is similar in spirit – to introduce a modest performance benchmark that confirms the robot can meaningfully engage with the season’s challenge. In practice, this threshold would likely already be met by the majority of teams that advance to Worlds. The goal is simply to ensure that, going forward, all teams advancing through the Design Award pathway demonstrate the ability to solve the core game challenge.
Think award was about autonomous performance, so it made sense for there to be an autonomous threshold. Design award is about the notebook and interview, why should there be a performance metric? Excellence award is already treated as Design Award + Performance in a lot of places
If you read the link referenced in my previous reply, you’ll see that in 2018 the Think Award did not include any requirement related to autonomous performance. As a result, it was possible for a team with a score of 0 to win the Think Award and advance to Worlds. After community members raised concerns and advocated for a change, the criteria were updated.
A similar point is being raised here regarding the Design Award. While the award currently focuses on the engineering notebook and team interview, the suggestion is to consider adding a modest baseline performance criterion. The intent would be to demonstrate that the robot can successfully address the design challenge presented by the game.
That is certainly an option worth considering. Ultimately, in addition to having a strong engineering notebook and a solid interview, the goal is to ensure that the robot is able to effectively address the game challenge.
The person you replied to explained why the points were not actually similar. The think award is an award for code, so it makes sense that you would want a team whose code actually worked to win it. However, the design award has nothing at all to do with performance. As a result, adding performance criteria would change what the award was about. These two examples are not as similar as you are presenting them as.
As noted in my earlier response, the Think Award was not always tied to code performance. The forum post I shared documents this history, including that in 2018, a team with 0 autonomous points won the Think Award and advanced to Worlds. The criteria were later updated to include a performance requirement — specifically, a non‑zero score beginning with the 2024–2025 season.
The Design Award is clearly understood to focus primarily on the engineering notebook and interview. There is no misunderstanding on that point. In the same way the Think Award operated without a performance baseline in 2018, this post is requesting consideration of a proposal to introduce a modest performance baseline for the Design Award.
I did not say code performance, I said code. The award was always about code. The team in that thread won the award because of their code, even if the code didn’t perform well. The design award has never been related to performance, and therefore it would be antithetical to the award to add a performance criterion. A situation similar to the one described in the Think thread would be if a team somehow won design even though they had a very poor notebook or interview.
The thing is that Design is already hard enough to win. It’s the #1 in interview + notebook. Unless they also perform well, they would get Excellence. The team that wins design is usually #1 and sometimes #2 if #1 had a decent bot.
No one is thinking that the teams that win design don’t deserve the award, even if they don’t run skills. It just doesn’t need to be harder. If they had a bad day for a number of reasons outside of design, they still deserve the award. What if the bot got dropped that morning? Skill is not going to be a priority. It just doesn’t matter. The Design + “good bot” award is already Excellence.
Think is currently the 5th judged award listed in the qualifying criteria. I think it used to be lower. The team that should have won Think probably won Design. And the second team that should have gotten Think got Create. And the third took Excellence. At that point, the teams could be a little thin, so having a non-zero auto is helpful to making sure the award has a little integrity.
I understand that the Design Award is not easy to earn. However, based on what I gathered from this thread, V5 teams don’t face the same situation that IQ teams do. In V5, Design Award winners demonstrate that their robot addresses the game challenge, which isn’t always the case for IQ Design Award winners.
If (and this is a big if) RECF were to add a requirement to demonstrate that the robot answered the game challenge, V5 teams would already be compliant. The impact would primarily be on IQ teams that are currently able to win without clearly demonstrating that their robot met the game challenge.
Key criteria of the Design Award are:
- Be at or near the top of qualitative Engineering Notebook rankings with a Fully Developed Notebook.
- Both the Team Interview and Engineering Notebook demonstrate independent inquiry from the beginning stages of the team’s design process through execution.
- The Engineering Notebook is consistent with the qualities demonstrated in the Team Interview and robot design.
- Team demonstrates effective management of time, personnel, and resources.
- Team Interview demonstrates the students’ ability to explain their robot design and game strategy.
- Team Interview demonstrates effective communication skills, teamwork, and professionalism.
- Engineering Notebook, Team Interview, and conduct at the event demonstrate a student-centered ethos.
Nowhere does it mention performance.
It’s not unfortuinate. That’s not the point of WORLDS.
I just don’t know the problem that you are trying to solve. It doesn’t matter to RECF if every bot at WORLDS is a good bot. I’m sorry your team didn’t make it.