You’ve struck a cord with this one!
This has actually been one of the items I’ve been looking at, and you’re definitely right that there is a surprising amount of nuance surrounding these!
IDK the final answer yet either, but definitely looking to improve here, already!
For me the hard part as a coach is that I have to be checked off. I’ve had a dozen teams at a tournament, sometimes being inspected in different locations, and I can’t be everywhere at once.
Perhaps the coach signature could be moved from the inspection sheet to team check-in, and could allow coaches to sign off on multiple teams in their organization at once? I would think it would be more convenient for coaches to sign as they walk into an event as opposed to having to continually return to an inspection table.
Appreciate your replies throughout this thread and your good faithed effort to take our friend’s true heart in to consideration over his internet tone.
I would like to compliment GDC on this year’s V5 game. The number of ways to score and the spacing on the field is a vast improvement over last year’s bonus corners that saw many teams at the local and state level simply racing to fill one mobile goal and park in the corner for half (or more) of the match. Additionally the plowing rule last year was too sensitive.
This year’s game is very balanced and the only area where contention comes up a little is goalkeeping, which was a good change to prevent similar camping as last year. More games with these features please.
I recently served as head ref for a large regional IQ competition for both ES and MS. I have several thoughts but will limit myself to inspection only for now, as I was heavily involved with this serving as the final arbiter in all inspection issues that were not easily resolved by the volunteer inspection personnel.
By not totally clear, this usually revolved around sizing issues. For instance, a robot might be in spec with one mechanism moving, while out of spec if two mechanisms were to move in a certain way at some point in the match - this was an issue for many 180 bots, especially those with the preload “cage” on the front of the bot. I ended up having a pin on hand to preload the mechanism to determine true starting length, etc. Then have the beam pincer/arm combo move, etc, etc. Lots of entries in my notebook about teams to be aware of during a match to assure they didn’t have a certain combination of mechanism movements that could go out of spec, etc. This was very difficult to keep track of with 200 qualifying matches each day at a 1:40 turnover over three different fields, but we did our best and maintained consistency. Surprisingly the MS teams had a lot more sizing issues, and many teams told me this was the first time they had been told they were out of spec (assuming the robot hadn’t been modified from prior comps) and that they always cleared inspection prior. Again, our event was a large, regional event and qualification to the event is not particularly easy. I have many thoughts why this ES/MS discrepancy occurred, largely having to do with how much coach or parent involvment may have been involved between ES and MS… but that is another topic for another time.
Regarding someone above mentioning coaches/parents - they were not allowed to be in line with the teams at our event. Nor were the teams allowed to go to them for advice during inspection. If the team felt coach advice necessary, they needed to leave the line to confer with coaches and re-enter again at the beginning. I strongly desired all teams pass inspection and the kids able to compete after achieving regional-level status, so was happy to meet a coach if the kids truly expressed confusion and didn’t seem able to understand what the inspection issue was with their bot. So…
Don’t allow coaches and/or parents in line. Having the parent/coach assure there would always be a responsible adult in attendance during initial check-in and signing off at that time is a great idea. It will eliminate the need for coaches to be anywhere near inspection. Again, not surprisingly, this was more an issue with ES than MS. But frankly, if an ES team is not able to get through inspection on their own by regionals than they have they have been disserviced at prior events. By regionals they should be completely independent. There is no reason a coach should be anywhere near inspection.
License plates were an issue. We foresaw this and one of the assistant referees (bless his soul and smarts) had pre-printed card-stock weight plates from the template that we could hand out to teams not in compliance. I had only the foresight and lesser intelligence to have flimsy, standard-weight paper ones on hand. Regardless, we used ALL the card-stock weight, and quite a few of the flimsy ones too. I was surprised at the number of teams who stated they had no idea about the plates and why not smooth 2x8 ,etc. And a few coaches too.
I will only bring up G2/G4 because it was clear during inspection there were some “clone” bots. I understand there is a “meta” that develops by the time regionals occur, but I would ask REC what, if any, role inspection has in calling out these bots? I’m not talking “180” bots. I’m talking exact same central structure of pneumatic components and brain, with identical matched distance sensor to control the claws, same claw and beam pincer geometry, etc. Granted, this particular bot build was very good and seeing these bots in action was a wonderful sight to behold, as they clearly were the true “meta”, at least at our event when driven well. So…
As an aside, I am a parent volunteer and the opinions and statements above are mine and mine only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Event Partner for which I volunteered, nor did I discuss any of this with them prior to writing it this evening.
I apologize for my tone and the poor choice of words that I used. You are correct I am frustrated, I’ve spent 20 years as part of the Vex Robotics Competitions. But that is no reason to write harshly worded messages on a forum full of roboteers that I’m trying to inspire.
Story sticks have been around since the dawn of construction. Simply it’s a small straight stick that has markings on it at important dimensions. Think of it as a yard stick with highlighted distances.
Electrician example: receptacles and switches on the wall are at the same height. You mark the stick with the distance to the bottom level of each type of box. Walk up, put the story stick on the stud, mark it, walk to the next one. It’s faster than pulling a tape measure.
Woodworking example: If you need to make a number of pieces the same size/shape, the story stick can capture those dimensions. You can mark the distances for shelves, trim dimensions, etc. If you are a wood turner you can mark the different parts of the turning so they all become the same. Woodworkers may keep story sticks for years so they can build the same piece again. Boatwrights call theirs tick sticks.
Robot example: take 2x20 beams, connect them together end to end with a 2x8. You can then put pins or standoffs at the 11", 15" and 20" marks and do size checks. It’s easy to have them for each team, they can do constant measurements on size before events.
I have teams that one team works on the base, one works on the handler. The theory is that the two of them will come together to make the robot. To manage that process, they make a story stick that is the overall height limit to the robot. They then put pins in that mark the estimated finish height of the base. Flipped one way it’s the base, flipped the other way it’s the handler.
At the last event, there was a robot that had the claw up, it was thought to be over height, the referee flagged it. A quick run out with the story stick they were able to decide that it was fine.
Metal tape measures bend and add distance across the bend. They are hard to use when measuring things in the air (like the top of the robot) VEX Metal / Plastic beams are pretty stiff and have an amazing accuracy to them.
If you are not going to build a sizing box, at least build a story stick, but stop using tape measures.
Cool, so license plates are a functional part of the robot, functional parts are VEX made. So RECF should be sending blank plates out with each robot’s welcome kit. That solves my problem in teams getting license plates. Just as an FYI, the plates are $5.19 for two VEX IQ plates and $25.52 for FedEx ground shipping to 19803.
My thought was:
There already are rules about not stopping when time is called. It’s super easy to build a task that just sits and waits for xxx seconds and then sets the speed of all the motors to zero.
Teams already do timed routines for skills. This is just putting xxx seconds. And teams for a long time understand not having or needing a control system.
I will reply / endorse Fosters sentiment, the balance between simple, fun educational and rules which effect all to address some bad apples ratio has gone fully out of wack. The original IQ field size was a perfect size to hail around and for classrooms and living rooms. Bigger is certainly not better, game elements not build from 99% reusable IQ parts suck.
I do not think Fosters tone was harsh but more the truth and reflective of many who have been around since IQ was an experimental game - remember the grey and dark read gears… and seen it mutate away to am not sure what.
No Foster nor I nor others are not to old to change but may I venture more realistic….
That’s it enough said - over and out
I do agree that the current VEX IQ tournaments, not the game itself, is organized at the expense of the ES teams.
In my observations over the last 3 years involved with VIQRC, one of the main reasons that the ES teams regularly outscore MS teams is that ES teams are influenced much more by the adults(coaches, mentos, parents, etc). MS teams are more independent and compliant with the “student centered policy” and their robots actually do reflect their “skills level”.
ES teams that build robots reflecting their skills level got squashed way early in the cycle and many stopped doing VEX IQ after 1 or 2 seasons.
Last year’s game was very ES unfriendly. Our youngest and shortest loaders had a very hard time to load the balls correctly.
In the 4 years that the middle school where I’m the IQ teacher/coach, the games have been great and attainable for my students. One thing to remember about MS IQ is that there are LOTS of school teams that IQ is the entry point for because it can be done with some success within the confines of a school-day schedule and space in the school. The option of school-based events was a GREAT option for so many school teams. While I realize not every region/state has the middle school number of teams ours in SE Texas has, IQ in middle school is big (almost 100 MS teams). There still needs to be some vetting to get truly school-based teams sorted from those that are school teams in name only (a whole other issue not for discussion here). My point being that adding another level of complexity such as autonomous at the beginning of a MS game would be a tough challenge for school-based, often beginner teams. I also think MS numbers will increase a fair amount over the next few years with the big changes coming to FLL. V5 is a big monetary, space, and time investment the many middle schools in the US can’t afford, even with Title funds for STEM or CTE. IQ also offers so many developmentally appropriate curricular resources that makes it a fit with the standards required to be taught, which has allowed many schools to have IQ competition programs as well. While I haven’t been a robotics coach but 9 of my 39 years teaching science/STEM, I will tell you that the reason my school switched to VRX IQ is because of the reasons I’ve mentioned, plus the opportunities for success students with limited exposure to robotics can have in IQ as it is now. I know of an entire school district on our region that has been able to implement IQ into their middle schools classes district-wide thanks to the support and encouragement of university engineering students…it wouldn’t work for them, and many other schools, if the IQ program were to have dramatic changes. While no game is going to be perfect and there are likely to be hiccups along the way, I have found IQ format and games to be a fantastic fit for MS school-based teams.
I like the idea of having an auton period, without adding any type of field control. However, pausing the match to count the auton score will increase the match cycle time. Resulting in fewer matches per team or longer events.
What if there were no pause in the match, and no auton bonus added to the score? The autonomous period would simply be extra time. Running an auton would give the team a head start.
That would be really interesting.
As a head ref for a large regional event including ES and MS teams, I concur with your statements regarding ES vs MS teams. I wrote about this in my post above as well. I have seen others make similar comments.
I also am biased by having a team of four really bright and interested 5th graders. Our robotic’s program league has a strict “student-centered” policy and the competing robots and scores obtained throughout our league’s season represent this well, I believe. So I have a somewhat experienced-based opinion of what a lot of motivated ES kids are capable of when they operate independently.
We had to buy so many rope kits to get the two ropes to build Huey bots this year (yes, I know you could use different sized ropes, but the brand new students didn’t- maybe a section on common adaptations if missing some key parts?). We now have a graveyard of other ropes we don’t need. Some parts survive across years better than others, so would love separate SKUs.
Also, there were a lot of new orgs that were sad when they saw all our colorful bots and all they had were grey beams. I definitely understand there are costs involved with this, but some amount of participants would definitely pay. And it would appeal to a broader range of kids for sure.
Oh, my ES kids, and those from other ES teams, are so drawn to those colorful parts and we try every opportunity to buy used ones whenever possible.
+1 for coach(es) at check-in but not inspection.
And to ensure the “student centered policy”, adults should also not be allowed to near the official practice field, just like the skills line and TW line.
More than once, parents/coaches can’t keep themselves out of the strategy discussion among the kids of 2 alliance teams. At our ES regional a few weeks ago, at one time more than one parents of a “powerhouse” team were trying to convince my students to try the strategy that “just let us do both beams” after the first practice run. Luckily a volunteer intervened “please let the kids decide!”.
And yes, that scenes are very common at ES events or among ES teams. When I was judges a few years ago, we went to the pit and practice field to look for teams to interview. I always enjoyed watching the teams’ behavior in those area. Now, judges sit at one spot and never know what actually happened outside of the judging room.
I’ve seen teams like that, but my team and the other teams at my school apart from the all girls team(they only have one boy) like grey professional robots more than colorful rainbow robots.