Robot Collaboration

[Karthik]

Wow. I'm in a bit of a state of shock. I've heard rumours that team 60 and team 254 were going to collaborate, but I didn't expect this.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=6123&direction=DESC&sort=date&perrow=4&trows=3&quiet=Verbose

The robots look virtually identical to me. (aside from the fact that one is more complete than the other)

Having two teams of the quality and pedigree of 60 and 254 working together to build the same robot. Wow. All I can say is lookout.

I have so many more questions, but I'll start with how much collaboration was there?

Great job guys. Amazing.

[phrozen solyd]

Wow. I'm in a bit of a state of shock. I've heard rumours that team 60 and team 254 were going to collaborate, but I didn't expect this.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=6123&direction=DESC&sort=date&perrow=4&trows=3&quiet=Verbose

The robots look virtually identical to me. (aside from the fact that one is more complete than the other)

Having two teams of the quality and pedigree of 60 and 254 working together to build the same robot. Wow. All I can say is lookout.

I have so many more questions, but I'll start with how much collaboration was there?

Great job guys. Amazing.

Our team and Team 60 have worked very closely, starting with hours on the phone and numerous emails between the teams during the design phase of this season. Each team built essentially half of the robots, with 60 machining the upper subframe and arm assembly, and 254 handling the lower frame, wheels, and programming.

Therefore, may the "rumor" be confirmed. :D

Also, I'd be happy to answer any other questions about the partnership, our robots, or anything else.

[activemx]

Why same robots? why did you guys design two of the same robots? What is the benifits of that?

[Amanda M]

By doing so, we were able to form an alliance That was never before seen.

We essentially became two teams in one.

And as one team, if either of us becomes successful, we will both feel proud for an accomplishment that we did TOGETHER.

FIRST isn't only about the robots. It's about building relationships, partnerships, and people.


Amanda M
Marketing Director
Team 60

[Dennis Jenks]

Alright, now it’s out. Team 254 and Team 60 collaborated this year to build almost identical robots. Since the questions have already started and I’m sure many are to follow I will attempt to sort everything out now.

Our teams’ friendship started back in the 2000 season when Kingman (team 60) earned the number one seed at the Silicon Valley Regional and they picked us as their ally. Our alliance went on to win the regional and over the next few years we wound up winning several events together. Sometimes they seeded and picked us, other times we picked them. As a result of our teams’ successes as well as the time spent together, our respect for each other and our friendship has grown over the years to say the least.

I guess the official collaboration thing really began back in 2001 when, during the first few weeks of the build cycle, we basically shared nothing more than our opinions regarding how we felt the game would play out that year. Our two teams went on to win the Silicon Valley regional together for the second straight year, and we (254) ended up finishing second at Nationals while Kingman finished third, both of us being knocked out by team 71, Beatty (Awesome robot).

When the 2002 game was announced it was readily apparent that traction was of a huge concern that year and we once again discussed strategy with Kingman who helped us out by giving us a lead on some incredible tread for our wheels. We went on to win a third straight regional together and this time it was Kingman’s turn to place second at Nationals while we were knocked out during the divisional playoffs.

OK, so now it’s 2003 and we have gotten to be pretty good friends. This year we shared not only our strategy, but our entire design. We would point out flaws in their design and they would point out the flaws in ours (Any one notice that we both had feet to grip the mesh last year?). Again we both had success in the regionals and each other to thank.

Well anyway after the 2003 season we decided to collaborate on building a new drive train (inspired by team 25) which we entered in the Cal Games under the name “Bionic Poofs” (Bionic Bulldogs + Cheesy Poofs) it was wicked fast and we found that working with a team from another state wasn’t as hard as it sounds. We shipped the robot back and forth and emailed the programming with no problems whatsoever.

Since we had designed it together we began this season with the intension of sharing the production load and building our drive trains together. Once again we began talking about the “how would I beat you, how would you beat me” thing and realized that neither one of us knew how this game would pan out. Eventually (actually were still refining things) we came up with what we felt was a very adaptable design which could be competitive regardless of how the game pans out and we ran with it.

Cut to the chase and basically what you will see this year from teams 254 and 60 is a design that is compilation of the ideas that were put forth by the students and engineers from both of our teams. In “the real world” when companies are faced with large tasks they seldom act alone, they work together alongside other companies which compliment their own attributes. This year our two teams felt that we could build a better product together than either one of us could have built alone, so that is exactly what we did.

Will we continue to work together in the future?
Of course, we are friends and we like and respect each other.

Will we work together on a level of this magnitude?
Who knows, this is uncharted territory for FIRST (at least as far as I know). What I do know is that the kids involved with both teams have had a chance to see what it’s like to work on a project in a real world setting. We both had different strategies coming into this and we have both had to compromise along the way in order to accommodate the needs of the other team.

To quote Amanda M (Team 60) “FIRST isn't only about the robots. It's about building relationships, partnerships, and people.” Amanda if you came up with that on your own you are intelligent beyond your years, because that is exactly what FIRST is about and I believe that that goal is much easier accomplished together than it is alone.

The steps we have taken towards building a unified team (and isn’t that what FIRST should really be considered?) will hopefully be followed by others, this type of sharing of information can only serve to enlighten everyone.

Who knows what the future will bring, right now we have the Cheesy Poofs and the Bionic Bulldogs working in unison. Will the world of FIRST one day see the Bionic Poofs? I hear there have been sightings on the West coast, who knows what’s to follow.

[Lord Nerdlinger]

somehow... it seems like cheating to me

i guess it's for the best

but honestly the first thing i thought was "that's cheap..."

*EDIT

your workroom is really really neat /jealous

[activemx]

awesome!

That was a great detailed answer to my small question. Well i perosnally i have seen both poofs and kingman work together and alone in the competition. Their Bionic Poofd robot at calgames was great this last year. I think 254 and 60 should have a great success story for current and future teams in FIRST. I like how the teams are flushing their ideas back and forth and relating which is the optimal strategy for the game. also pouring in the ideas and also feedback on each others design to create a well balanced preforming robot. I cannot wait to see them preform this year. and who knows they might work as partners this year. that will create history!
this is crazy and i am already loveing it:)

Akshay Dodeja
115

[Ken Leung]

I want to congratulate not just on your fine work on this year's robot, but also your courage to leap to a newer level not many people in FIRST have thought of. It is easy to talk about an idea, I've done it many times, including the idea of 2 teams working together to create a pair of robots that compliment each other in the competition of alliances. But to implement the idea, to make it happen, against all possible opposition from people who might consider this unfair or even "cheating", that takes true courage, and dedication to the purpose of your program.

Those who know these two team will agree with me, they are 2 of the most successful teams in FIRST who did very well at competition, and most important of all, made a difference on their students. This collaboration effort only tells me they want to be more successful than ever, and in my opinion, did exactly that. The message I see from this isn't "look at us, we are better than you". Instead, I see "we understand that we can learn from each other and put both teams' experience to create a better program for our students." Just look at what Amanda M said in her message. I would not believe the same thing would've been said from a student few years ago.

I still remember a time when FIRST was about "you or me". Students on my old team used to look down on rivalry teams and vice-versa. We used to have really bad attitudes against others who were successful in the competition. But things changed when alliance first got introduced, then even more so at 2001 with the game of 4 teams on an alliance, and finally when organizations like WRRF, SCRRF, IndianaFIRST got started. Now its about "you and me", and the idea that effort of a group benefit each team much more than efforts of individuals fighting against each other, with the ultimate purpose of inspiring and educating the students about science and technology.

This collaboration effort is a perfect example of how much FIRST have grown. Instead of doing the same thing all the time, these two teams always strive to better themselves every yeah, and break new grounds for others to follow. That is truly inspiring. I cannot wait to see how this is going to turn out. If anything, this got me thinking about a FIRST I never imagined could be possible.

Great job! Hats off to Team 60 and 254 for something new to this program. Like most new things, there will be criticisms as well as agreements. But it only means you are getting people to start doing their own thinking.

[ngreen]

I think the collaboration thing is cool...But I don't like that you made identical robots and shared the work between the two teams...One of that robot scares me and you guys have just doubled my nightmares.

[Jason Kixmiller]

I agree that FIRST is intended to help spread and increase engineering knowledge, but the idea of two established teams sharing an identical design seems to have skewed the concept. I feel personally that FIRST should be about each individual team sharing the work load and the joys and the pains that come along with engineering and manufacturing its own unique design. While the idea of developing partnerships and friendships among colleagues and potential opponents is novel and advantageous, I feel that the fabrication, design, and communication that occurs as a single team creates and competes with its own robot cannot and should not be replaced.

[Greg Needel]

I agree that FIRST is intended to help spread and increase engineering knowledge, but the idea of two established teams sharing an identical design seems to have skewed the concept. I feel personally that FIRST should be about each individual team sharing the work load and the joys and the pains that come along with engineering and manufacturing its own unique design. While the idea of developing partnerships and friendships among colleagues and potential opponents is novel and advantageous, I feel that the fabrication, design, and communication that occurs as a single team creates and competes with its own robot cannot and should not be replaced.


I some what disagree but then again it is all about perspective...if you are a single team and work with a few mentors to build a robot that is considered a fine course of action in FIRST, and when I see this great partnership between two teams I think of it as they are mentoring each other. About building components for each other I also think this is fine. Knowing that at most of the regional I have been to at some point I am working on a robot that isn't mine, and if you team has ever gotten things machined or welded at another company, I believe that all of these examples follow what these two teams are doing. I think that this is a wonderful collaboration of minds and look forward to what they will produce in the future.

[ShadowKnight]

the idea of collaborating in order to design a build a robot together in my oppinion goes along with exactly what the FIRST competition is all about. FIRSt isn't about making a robot over 6 weeks, it's not about competing against other teams, though the aredaline is awesome and the comradere built is even better, but a major component about FIRST is gracious professionalism. In my oppinion, this kind of allianceship is a wonderful thing towards fullfilling the ideals of FIRST. Kudos to Teams 60 and 254

[Solace]

is it different? yes. but is it cheating? no, I think its perfectly acceptable. If the friendship between two teams allows them to build a better robot through a partnership that lets everyone play to their strengths, then that is exactly the kind of interaction that FIRST should encourage. the two teams are still building the parts for two robots, just in a more specialized way. as has been said, this IS the way that things happen in real life, and I don't think that it should be disallowed out of some antiquated need to preserve competition. My team has a long-standing friendship with Rage (173), and although we don't go to the extent of building the robot together, I understand the benefits of a close friendship between teams and believe that under no circumstances should it be discouraged.

[Karthik]

Congratulations on pioneering an amazing new way of approaching our competition. I have a feeling that a few years from now your two teams will be the answer to a FIRST trivia question. "Which two teams were the first to build the same robot?" Next year I'm sure many other teams will follow suit.

[Joel Glidden]

5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the
material processed further. Team member processing labor is not included. Example: A team
purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that donates its 2
hours of expended labor. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were
paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00. Exception Examples: If the team members
themselves did the actual machining, there would be no associated labor cost. If the machine shop
were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply.
Does this rule mean that the two teams have to charge each other standard hourly machining rates for the parts each made for the other? What about accounting for non-team member design, programming, assembly time? If I'm reading the rules correctly, that's the case.

Thoughts?

[Joe Johnson]

I am still thinking it over, but my first impression is that generally I don't like it. I know there are some "real world" parallels, but I don't think they really are that close of a comparison.

I know that Team Ford has made some steps toward collaboration and coordination of chassis. I suppose other have done similar things to one extent or another.

Here is the nub of my concern: What would people think of all 16 Delphi teams having the machine that the Chief Delphi Team is making this year (or the Delphi Knights, or the TechnoKats, or whatever)?

CEO's love to have winning teams. We all (including CEO's) know that there is a huge luck factor in winning the Championship. Having 16 chances to win is better than having just one.

I worry that the pressure to win may increase if this type of collaboration becomes more common -- up to this point, we have always been able to say that TOO close of coordination was out of the bounds of fairness... ...but perhaps not.

Beyond this, I am not sure that it is good for FIRST to have 16 Chief Delphi robots out in the wild ;-)

It could be a strange new world we are entering.

Joe J.

[Scott Ritchie]

Boy this is a rough one. On one hand I love the working together and the camaraderie that has been formed here. I like the sharing of ideas and the fact that not only one team agreed on an idea but two, Wow.

On the other hand I like the fact that we made something that is unique to our team and when we are looked at by our friends and foes we try to make them say "I would have never thought of that". I don't see where this adds to the challenge of developing a concept except in a communication type of way. Part of our teams mission is to uninvent the cookie cutter and I think your teams have made a better cookie cutter. Is that good or bad I have no idea.

This type of thing is what I think makes FIRST an incredible competition field. Since I haven't checked could you build a robot from the white papers on this forum? If you could then what’s the problem of two teams going together. I think this idea will spark the most criticism from us Midwesterners since we are the more competition driven group. This whole debate has a very funny Republican / Democrat tone to it if you read it with a slight slant.

[ngreen]

I agree that FIRST is intended to help spread and increase engineering knowledge, but the idea of two established teams sharing an identical design seems to have skewed the concept. I feel personally that FIRST should be about each individual team sharing the work load and the joys and the pains that come along with engineering and manufacturing its own unique design. While the idea of developing partnerships and friendships among colleagues and potential opponents is novel and advantageous, I feel that the fabrication, design, and communication that occurs as a single team creates and competes with its own robot cannot and should not be replaced.

This is partially my reasoning on it.

Giving each other design tips is great. Designing two identical robots where on team produces double of one part and the other team build the other is part is where it crosses the line for me.

I love to see the innovation that each team has separately.

I could see this happening nationwide in order to make everyone more efficient and competitve. Can you imagine going to a regional where there are 50 teams but only 25 robots, just doubled? Especially since FIRST has been trying to get more media coverage to bring more people in. Can you imagine what someone might think watching this event where they watch identical robots competing with identical strategies? I would think it was dull and unimaginative.

I've already touched on this subject of sort when talking about with holding secrets, not that secrets should be withheld but in that FIRST is awesome because the robots are unique.

We should make one plan for every robot and everyone can make the same robot that does everything and is in the limit of the rules and this would give rookies a level playing field. The whole competition could be based on the best strategy.

I think collaboration is great, mass production goes against what FIRST is about. I urge other teams not to repeat this in the coming years. Build partnerships but don't build each other robot. My econ teacher has went over how trading is good for everyone, but in this case I think it hurts FIRST.

Next year I would urge both 60 and 254 to use each other as sounding boards for design ideas and use each other for machining capabilities. But don't split the workload on one robot design and then just double it. But that is only my opinion. I'd like to hear what everyone think about this one.

Yeah Scott, I can see that one. We are competition-driven in Kansas.

And Joe, Please don't let any collaboration of this nature happen with delphi teams. I'm already starting to get scared. Many teams won't have the resources to compete effectively if team with resources enough begin to collaborate and double their resources. I could see some pretty powerful hard to beat collaboration happening.

As a future note, may I ask that any future collaborators only collaborate with teams that go to a different regional. <edit out>You could build complimenting robots that you make a deal that if one make the top eight the other makes the alliance and they work perfectly together. Hey, I should do that. </edit out>

[ChrisH]

Congratulations on pioneering an amazing new way of approaching our competition. I have a feeling that a few years from now your two teams will be the answer to a FIRST trivia question. "Which two teams were the first to build the same robot?" Next year I'm sure many other teams will follow suit.

Too late. The answer is 254 and I think 253, the Bay City Bombers (who no longer exist) in 1999 at the first Sillicon Valley Regional. So this is not new territory for the Cheesy Poofs, just the distance has changed. BTW it should be noted that 60 and 254 won't be at the same competition until Nationals.

[Travis Covington]

Too late. The answer is 254 and I think 253, the Bay City Bombers (who no longer exist) in 1999 at the first Sillicon Valley Regional. So this is not new territory for the Cheesy Poofs, just the distance has changed. BTW it should be noted that 60 and 254 won't be at the same competition until Nationals.

I believe it was team 252. But yes, that year their robots were almost identical and placed first and second overall at the regional competition. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Phil_Lutz]

Collaboration is Great!
Kudos to you.
I "real" life, several teams need to interact and share for the betterment of the business as a whole.

Well done.

[Jessica Boucher]

That's a pretty scary but brilliant idea, in my personal opinion. So which one of you gets the credit for it?

Call me jaded, but FIRSTers are driven by awards and recognition. It's in our blood (though we don't like to admit it). What happens when both of you go after the same angle on your Chairman's application? Unless the rules change, only one of you can get the credit for it.

True, if any team was to break the glass ceiling of "no teams beyond 200 have ever won the Chairmans Award", it would be 254...they definitely mirror the resources and support of a pre-200 team. But if one of you wins with it, the other team needs to find another angle to take next year, because that idea is now "old hat" to the judges. And knowing FIRST teams (for the most part), once an idea is recognized, all development on it ceases - because it has served its purpose.

I think inter-team partnerships are great...I used to do it myself. But just as in those old movies with the business partner running off with all the money, things like that happen today, and a team who you thought you knew may not be one who you knew at all. And no, I'm not saying that against either of you in particular, you both are outstanding teams, I'm saying it because you just need to be sure you trust the team you're collaborating with.

As for the collaboration aspect, I honestly would be terrified if all 16 Delphi teams had the same game design (or any multiple of teams, for that matter...I'm not just picking on Delphi ;) ). Especially with their game experience, if everyone did this, it would stifle the rookie retention rate. I can absolutley see it turning into leagues of teams that "acquire" younger teams into their pipeline or shutting out teams that they didn't like. And I honestly don't want to see Dean take up an SEC role.

Please don't get all upset about my viewpoint - it is only a viewpoint, and its not an angry one, just something from an old FIRSTer who's been through the trials and tribulations of collaboration and who cares about both of your teams.

[Amanda M]

There are a few points here that need to be clarified.

First -- Yes, we did collaborate, and make the same robot. However, it is NOT the exact same robot. Each of our teams made small adjustments that the other did not. The robot is wired differently, and we will have different programs. We can't wait to see the Poofs at Nats and see what it comes down to. Who will win? Only strategy and driver skill will seperate us.

Second -- I cannot think of a team that we could trust any more than the Cheesy Poofs. When they submit their Chairman's Award entry, I hope that they include our alliance. And we will do the same. I think that people are missing the point that we are acting as one team. If the Cheesy Poofs win an award for design, or for performance, or any other award, we can feel that we share it. We each worked on the other's robots, and we are each equally part of the alliance.


On team 60, we're so close that we've become family. (Advisors, Machinists, Students, and Parents included) We've done so much together, that it is practically impossible not to be so close.
We wanted to work with 254, who we consider an extended group of our family to show everyone what kind of collaboration is possible, when you're NOT worrying about "yourself" and "your own team's awards". Now we're working together to worry about "us" and "our team's achievements".

Amanda M

[Jessica Boucher]

But you're not the same team. If you want to be considered as one team, then merge and register under the same number. I personally think that would be an innovative idea....teams working from different states to produce one robot...it seems to be more of what you both are going after. But until you merge, you are still in the competition's eyes as two separate teams, walking a fine line hand in hand.

Sometimes things may start out good, but then something happens that compromises that relationship. I've seen it happen too many times to think it won't happen this time, no matter how good you say your relationship is....and that's what I'm worried about...and it's something you both need to think about.

[Greg Perkins]

im split on the idea...


i do like the idea that teams are forming together, and cooperating.


however...

i dont think its right to do what 60 and 254 did. i mean its kinda cheap. yuo have one team design half the robot, and the other team do the other half. there are teams who are running themselves ragged trying to accomplish a goal. the whole concept of FIRST is to have unique designs. and gauranteed, its a good way to promote first's unity. its bad that the two teams only have to do half the work. its kinda unfair, but what can you do, disqualify them? no because they broke no rule. however, i think it a kick to the chest for some teams. just my 2cents worth.

[badbugs]

Well done Team 60 & 254! I think what you have done is great. Having worked on projects that require input, collaboration, agreement and shared work from different locations on the map, I can honestly say this is no easy feat! Anyone that thinks of this as a "shortcut" is missing the entire picture. You have added a layer of complexity to an already complex, stress-filled project. The end results.... I'm sure 2 awesome robots, but more importantly, students that may tackle future projects/problems with a better understanding of cooperation and working towards a common goal. And in my opinion we can't get enough of those students in the work force fast enough!

[Dorsk65]

Thanks for working with another team, I really support this. Our team was planning on either working with another team or having their students become a part of ours, but the plans fell through for one reason or another. Doing this is really displaying the spirit of FIRST, so keep up the good work.

And now for the rest of the message: That is one sweet robot. I can't wait to see it work (Could we get some video?). So here's to you Team 254 and Team 60, that is a very nice job. I just want to know how the big arm thingy works, cause all I can see right now just shows that it's probably very crazy.

PS:Nice shop, I wish our team would, dare I say it, organize...

[Shawn60]

Time spent making parts for each team - 6 weeks
Cost for materials to make parts for each team - doubled
Time spent redesigning the robot so each team is satified - 2 weeks
Buidling better peopel and creating stonger realationships -PRICELESS

As to all of the questions that have arrisen - GREAT!!! YEs!!!

As I tell my students

"There are no easy answers... only complicated and never ending questions."

Shawn

[Collin Fultz]

if this collaboration is the greatest thing since sliced bread then why even have the robot COMPETITION at all? shouldn't we all just get together and try to come up with one really great robot idea that is simply awesome? wouldn't that just be the greatest? no. competition makes America what it is. competition between teams, companies, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives...without competition nothing ever really gets better. without competition healthcare doesn't get faster and cheaper, cars don't get better gas mileage, and things progress much more slowly than before. I hope...no, I PRAY...that Cyber Blue never, never, never NEVER goes to this idea. Cooperation is one thing, so is helping a team at a competition, or mentoring them, or posting a white paper, or showing pictures, or this or that... but the bottom line is building two identicle robots is not the same as these things and therefore should not be compared to them...come on :(

[Matt Adams]

Could someone please address how rule 5.3.2.2 would apply to this situation? Joel brought up this concern earlier... I haven't seen a response from either team. I'm just curious about the billing rate that's appropriate.

461 has always used $50 / hr for any CNC work we've had done, but I don't know a fair rate for a typical machinist.

I'm just curious how this will all pan out... it'll be interesting to say the least. I'm not nearly as concerned about having two identical designs as I am about the whole idea of, "I'll build two of this and you build two of that, and we'll switch." It's much faster to build 2 of 1 part than 1 of 2 parts.

I know at Purdue, discussions over homework assignments is encouraged. However, writting out problem #1 twice, and having a friend write out problem #2 twice, followed by a switch of assignements doesn't fully teach either party the material in the problem they didn't do. In my mind, this homework example parallels this collaboration somewhat close.

However, I'm a little divided to be honest. It seems like this is taking something a bit too far. What that "something" is... I can't place my finger on... so apon the fence I sit, watching it unravel.

Good luck to everybody!

Matt

[Joel Glidden]

It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.

[Glenn]

Here is the nub of my concern: What would people think of all 16 Delphi teams having the machine that the Chief Delphi Team is making this year (or the Delphi Knights, or the TechnoKats, or whatever)?

CEO's love to have winning teams. We all (including CEO's) know that there is a huge luck factor in winning the Championship. Having 16 chances to win is better than having just one.

I worry that the pressure to win may increase if this type of collaboration becomes more common -- up to this point, we have always been able to say that TOO close of coordination was out of the bounds of fairness... ...but perhaps not.

Beyond this, I am not sure that it is good for FIRST to have 16 Chief Delphi robots out in the wild ;-)

It could be a strange new world we are entering.

Joe J.


1. Do you think you could build 16 identical robots with 16 teams?

2. This collaboration has everything to do with winning. We will have won before the first regional begins by learning how to work together in a long distance partnership by paving the way for teams to think out side the box, sharing information to help everyone.

Winning a Regional or the National Championship is nice but it doesn’t compare to working as a team to develop a new process to build a better product.

How many teams are willing to share all of there current years ideas to include drawings pictures discussion anything? Team 60 and 254 will and do.

3. Do you think it is easier for two teams to build the same robot or each building their own? The answer is it is much harder to build identical robots.

You have to take your ego and put it on the shelf. You have to listen more than you talk. You must be willing to compromise, only if you use the best of everyone’s ideas will the project be a success. In our case we had to deal with shipping and a lag in getting the parts you needed. There are many other obstacles to over come as well.

Will we have a better product in the end? We hope so.

Have our teams learned some valuable real life lessons? Absolutely!

[Venkatesh]

Teams 60 and 254 collaborating? Amazing idea, whoever thought up that idea deserves much kudos.

Seriously, if I happen to be at a regional where either (or both) teams 60 and 254 are, I will give everybody on those team one cookie. (or a prize of equal value)

This is an excellent idea, and if FIRST indicates it is happy with partnerships like this, I hope to see more of these in the future. The idea that two teams, who compete with each other, are willing to help each other not only with little bits of ideas and advice, but by forming a full-fledged alliance, is excellent. This should be plastered somewhere in an introduction video.

So anyway, what do you guys on 60 and 254 think of Oreos?

[Jon Anderson]

I can't say that I am total against or for this idea. It's just another way for people to build/think. If this how teams really want their robot to be made then by all means go for it.

However, I won't be surprised if there is some type of restriction or ban on this for later years.

[NateBot16]

I have mixed feelings about this. I see how it builds relationships and everything, but you already had a great relationship. This is taking it to a whole new level.

However, I feel that this is unfair to a lot of teams. Splitting up the work between two teams who do not have any trouble with resources is just not right. My team would kill to have the resources your teams have. I think this is just limiting creativity and making FIRST a little more sterile.

[D.J. Fluck]

Awesome work!!! I’m thrilled to see this actually happen. In the real world companies will in fact work together on projects to make something bigger and better. I’m sure this experience inspired your students and hopefully everyone in FIRST will be inspired too. There is nothing ungracious or there is no cheating here. The only thing that is unprofessional and ungracious that I've seen while reading this thread is the people that go and bash these two quality and great teams as cheaters and ungracious. What they did might have been a little unpractical and surprising, but it's not cheating. Remember Galileo's ideas were bashed by the public when they were first released, but they are now widely accepted for the most part. Nobody is stopping any of you from trying this, so why don't you go and try it yourself before you judge. It could be a good learning experience. Congrats to 254 and 60 on their nice work and I hope to compete along side or against you in Atlanta.

-D.J.

[Matt Adams]

My one and only qualm is about how this will work with the $3,500 limit.

1. There has obviously been some machining done by other teams.

2. This machining needs to be billed out at a reasonable cost.

I don't see how it can be honestly billed out at a reasonable rate to both teams, and stay within the $3,500 limit.


If it can be done within the rules, I'm all for it.

However, simple algebra says that any reasonable amount of outside machining time at a reasonable (or even very generous) rate will add up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly.

I don't see how it can be done, but I sincerely hope that I'll be proved wrong. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to need an official ruling on this from FIRST. I'd assume that someone from one of the teams has already asked FIRST about it before venturing too far.

What ruling did they give you?

If you haven't asked... I propose this goes up on the Q&A in section 5.3

Good luck everyone!

Matt

[Joe Matt]

You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.

[phrozen solyd]

Maybe I was unclear when i described the work done by each team in my previous post. Although Team 60 and 254 each machined half of the robot, both teams worked together in forming a single design that satisfied everyone, not "we make one part, you make the other, then we'll stick em together". It took us over 1/3 of the build season to finally come up with the design that united the interests of both teams.

Collaboration may make some facets of the program easier, but it brings out unique challenges as well.

This type of collaboration does not decrease competition at all. It is highly unlikely that both 60 and 254 will be in the same division at Nats (though we would enjoy working with them), so wouldn't a match between our teams become extremely competitive, coming down to driver skill and strategy? There are so many other factors other than robot design that can come into play.

Locking this thread would deprive everyone from finding more about our partnership, and both Team 60 and 254 are happy to keep providing information.

[Ken Leung]

You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.

If this forum is as amazing as I think it is, I think it can handle some intelligent discussion about a new idea that's never been done before at this level.

Putting aside all the messages that's saying "this is cheating and unfair", I think there are some important points from both side. It is VERY IMPORTANT that at this point on none of you get emotional about this topic, IF you want to have a constructive discussion about this. Do NOT let your emotion take control of you. Think for 15 mins before you post.

Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.


There are probably more important points, so remind us of your points if you wish to address your concern further.

Now, let's build a good discussion on top of those sides. I ask that everyone read the entire thread before they post. I will be watching out for messages that claim "I didn't have time to read the message but I feel like posting anyway".

I will be truly disappointed if you guys can't handle a constructive discussion in the most intense time of the build period.

[Matt D]

My one and only qualm is about how this will work with the $3,500 limit.

1. There has obviously been some machining done by other teams.

2. This machining needs to be billed out at a reasonable cost.

I don't see how it can be honestly billed out at a reasonable rate to both teams, and stay within the $3,500 limit.


If it can be done within the rules, I'm all for it.

However, simple algebra says that any reasonable amount of outside machining time at a reasonable (or even very generous) rate will add up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly.

I don't see how it can be done, but I sincerely hope that I'll be proved wrong. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to need an official ruling on this from FIRST. I'd assume that someone from one of the teams has already asked FIRST about it before venturing too far.

What ruling did they give you?

If you haven't asked... I propose this goes up on the Q&A in section 5.3

Good luck everyone!

Matt

5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
"If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply."


Laron Engineering, the machine shop that sponsors Kingman, is also part of our team.


"Shipping costs of Non-Kit items are not counted."

Our shipping costs between the two teams are not counted.

[Jessica Boucher]

I think this is a valid discussion, so just keep it calm :)

[OneAngryDaisy]

At first sight I became rather angry, because hey, it just didnt seem fair. Two elite teams combining. Most teams didn't even make a robot that could stay with their previous bots, and here they are sharing their expertise. It's just plain unfair..

Then when i tried to derive all of the reasons why this is uncool I suddenly hit a rut- there are none, other than the point that they're already 2 elite teams colloborating. And it's not like they live next door to eachother, its pretty far away.. How did you guys do it? video conferences? I'm dying to know.

I bet FIRST bans this kind of interaction soon in the future, or at least limits it. Why? I can just see several powerhouses building undefeatable robots, and then the finals at the Championship Event yielding several look-alikes. This is not what FIRST is about. A single function, maybe, but not an entire robot. (yea, i know there are several differences, but basically the two bots are twins)



It also dissapoints me somewhat. I always look forward to seeing what the oldest teams have made. But now there's one less robot to look forward to.

[Joe Ross]

5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
"If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply."

Laron Engineering, the machine shop that sponsors Kingman, is also part of our team.


Matt,

Sometimes it's hard to determine who is a sponsor and who is not, especially as far as this rule goes. However, Laron Engineering is not listed as a sponsor for your team, currently. Your sponsors, according to FIRST, are NASA Ames Research Center, Unity Care Group, and Line-X. Your website isn't working right now, but before it went down, it didn't have any mention of Laron Engineering either. Thus, I think that you would have a hard time proving that Laron is a sponsor.

Needless to say, I'm quite excited about the opportunities that this afforded the two teams.

[Venkatesh]

Once again, hats off to 60 and 254 for an excellent idea.

I have seen people find objections to having cooperation of this kind between teams. People were talking about how unfair FIRST would be if there were alliances of great teams, creating robots which would be unbeatable. People have also mentioned the fact that both teams will have done only "half the work".

I will speak now from experience. Building a robot is child's play compared to creating a consensus between people. Especially smart people who know how to create things, know what they are capable of. It has been said that invention is a human art, compromise a divine one. Pride in ideas is a very remarkable factor, as are logistics. If 60 and 254 were able to make sure nobody was silenced during the creation of this alliance, then all power to them. Especially to those who were directly behind this idea - does becoming a diplomat sound like a good career?

There is no such thing as an unbeatable robot. Teams with experience and resources will seem invincible to those who don't have the same resources. It has been said that FIRST isn't fair. I think that statement itself is unnecessary. If FIRST was a competetion of equals, where would the motivation to build an incredibly slick robot come from? I wasn't at many competetions last year, but 25's robot (at J&J) sticks out in my mind as having been very well done. If all the robots present were of equal calibre, strategy and teams would be unnecessary. And just look at 25 at PARC. They were not invincible, just very good.

I know that sometimes alliances between competetors can create improper situations. However I have enough trust in all of the students, mentors, etc. participating in FIRST to recognize such problems and ward them off. After all, bitterness takes all the fun out of wiring.

[Crop-Circles]

How often do we talk about how FIRST is about people and not robots?

It's true that a certain amount of balance must exist among teams, but collaborations such as this one are not overpowered. If you're concerned with teams having an unfair advantage, you should be worried about teams that can have engineers build robots for them. If teams wanted only to win, there are better and easier ways to do that. We have to trust that teams will focus on the true goals of FIRST.

It may be possible for 16 teams to all build the same robot, but will that actually happen? I doubt it. Personnaly, I trust 60 and 254, and all other teams for that matter, to stay focused on what truly matters.

[Madison]

Teams 60 and 254 are each viewed as powerhouse programs in FIRST -- due largely to that about them which we all see; their well designed robots, their excellent performance, and the testimony of their students. What challenges they may face are not apparent to those who observe their teams.

It seems to me that this collaboration comes as the result of boredom with and stagnation within their programs. Perhaps it's precisely that their respective lack of adversity -- in finding sponsorship, technical guidance, or in resolving conflict -- has caused them to seek out additional challenges. They maintain that this collaboration is more challenging than we might expect. In fact, it may simply be that they're unfamiliar with the challenges that many other teams face and can't understand that their collaboration is no more difficult than things we've all had to face.

If this is the last frontier remaining for teams 60 and 254 to explore, it may be worthwhile. If they must create new challenges for themselves so that their programs remain relevant to FIRST, I commend them for having the initiative to take that step. I am hopeful that this effort has proven worthwhile in inspiring their students to take similar initiative in their own lives, as it does very little to inspire me. I know that these teams are each, on their own, capable of creating amazing robots -- designed and fabricated with thought and care. Instead of seeing two such inspiring robots this season, I am left to look at one. Instead of looking to these teams as beacons of hope when I'm sitting at my computer designing another part; or sitting in the shop waiting to have a part made, I only see that they had someone there to share the workload. Where I struggle to have access to our single CNC mill, I see that they have twice as many as before.

I'm not against such collaboration, really. But, that being said, I do not understand why each of these teams did not choose to work so closely with teams that are less fortunate than they are. Instead of partnering with a rookie team and showing them what FIRST is and can be, they've partnered with a team that knows exactly what FIRST is -- just like they do.

I can understand that they see this collaboration as having been a challenge to both teams. I do not see it as being any more a challenge than myriad things other teams must overcome, nor do I think that it was worthwhile or useful to either team or the larger FIRST community.

Logistically speaking, I'm interested in the response to both Matt and Joel's points regarding the robot's cost limitation and how this shared labor is going to be billed out. Until they share one team number, they are not one team, regardless of anyone's feelings regarding "extended family."

[Joe Johnson]

It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.The difference is that the rules don't specifically call out requirement for accounting for engineering or design done by non-team members while they DO specifically require that non-team labor in making parts be counted against the $3500 limit.

The way I read the rules, there is no way that $3500 limit does not apply. BUT... ...is this the spirit of the rule? I don't think the rules were intended to prevent this type of labor sharing among teams.

As a practical matter, there is zero chance that FIRST is going to disqualify either team 60 or team 254... ...so for 2004 at least this practice is going to be allowed.

I think that FIRST is going to get an earful in the off season about this, especially if Kingman and Cheesy Poofs keep up that habit they have of winning regionals and placing high at the Championships.

Deciding what the rules should be next year is going to put Dean's statements about FIRST being for engineers not lawyers to the test...


Joe J.

[Krystine T.]

I would just like to bring up one point...the build load did not decrease.

Yes it is true that we only made 1/2 of the robot ...but we made 4 robots... After school, work, and homeowrk, team 60 and 254 put in alot of very long nights. Every part that was made took quadruple the amount of time. Often it took hours or even days for that matter to finish a certan part...and several times we had to go back to the drawing board and re-design new mechanisms.
I hope that everyone realizes that there is more then one way to go about building robots. The students on team 60 and 254 have learned 4 times over the difficulties and challenges that robotics teams face.
I have realized the importance of communication. The students on our teams will walk away with a new lesson in life. They will walk away knowing that they will face challenges greater then themsleves, and they will know that working on a team will bring up new challenges and new ideas, and give them knowledge that they never thought possible

[Jessica Boucher]

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?

[crazykid234]

I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!

[Dan Richardson]

I've been involved in FIRST for a short few years. Over these years I've come ucostum to as soon as I get to nationals ( which is all 4 years ) I've run over to team 60 and 254 ( and a few others ) robots to check out how they individually solved each problem. What unique devices they may be using, and why they may have chosen to go with a certain solution. Each robot has been unique in its own way. Whether it be a little vast differences or very small all have been different. I've found one of the biggest learning experiences for me ( and funnest to say the least ) is when I get a break from the buzz of competion to just walk around and look at the other bots. To talk to those teams and see why they went a certain way, or put this nut here or this nut there. TO really figure out how things work. Now I have have 1 less team to visit and figure out how they did it.

You see the learning experience doesn't stop during construction. It goes on to competition or to everyone who looks at a picture on delphi, who studies the bot and says I like how they did this or I woulda changed this a bit. So in a way I feel a bit cheated. My learning experience may have been curved because of something like this. The very fact that now 2 power houses of teams have joined up somewhat dissapoints me, that FIRST now gets 1 for the price of 2. It is not that I'm upset with 60 or 254, I am just concerned. I do believe that now that they have done it, they have crossed that rubicon, if something is not done to stop it, what is to say that all 950 teams collaborate with each other where we only produce 425 robots.. what if it goes beyond there.. 3 or 4 or 5 teams start joining together and making things simpler. You see you drastically curve everything you create a blan game with no creativity. If FIRST wanted identical robots, if they had inteded this, they would have sent us parts that snap together and said here use this.. but only use this.. use nothing else.

I can understand what you mean about collaborating for a real world experience, however I'm somewhat confused where that example would fit. I'm not well aquainted with any situation where 2 companies involved in heavy competition would work together to create identical products. Thats like a Microsoft and Apple joining together to create 1 os and only selling that 1 os. This infact is called Collusion and is illegal in the United States because in all examples it reduces competition.

I'm not really upset with these teams. I don't believe they had bad intentions. I don't believe they believed it would give them a competitive edge because if won't. Infact if their bots are good they may even have to compete against each other in the finals.

Now I still don't believe it was right, the time and energy spent here could have been more justifiably been given to 2 different rookie teams without the resources of 254 and 60. Four teams would have been effected for the better.. wrather than 2 teams.

I'm dissapointed, but not angry. I think it was the right idea, just gone to far. It is my belief helping each other is great, but building half of each others robot for each other is not the way to go. Sharring drive trains designs and one or the other team perfecting them in different ways, good. Building the others for them, not good.

Not everyone will view this as good or bad. It is surely a new undiscovered avenue. I still await whether or not FIRST will release a statement. But it is my ernhest hope that the rest of FIRST does not venture down this avenue.

Dan

/edit sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes was in a hurry

[BionicAlumni]

Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.


I found out about the alliance between 254 and 60 about 3 weeks ago. When I first heard about it I was skeptical to say the least. My first question was the same as Matt Adams. How would this be accounted far as the 3500 dollars that can be spent? This was answer by the fact that Laron is sponsoring the cheesy poofs. If this is valid answer, I am not sure, but it is an answer to the question none the less. I guess you just have to read between the lines of each and every rule.

Now my next question is exactly the one that Joe J. proposed. What keeps companies and teams like Delphi, Ford, NASA, and GM from sending the same robot on the field with 16 different team numbers? Right now I would say it isn't possible for 16 teams to come together and design 1 robot to suit the needs of all 16 teams, but last year I would have said it wasn't even possible for 2 teams to do it. Especially teams as far away as 60 and 254. So where does that leave the future of FIRST? A regional comp with 64 teams entered but only 10 different robots? That isn't something I personally would like to see happen.

I know for a fact that both team 60 and team 254 have nothing but the best intentions for the students on the team and for this partnership. I think that for these teams it’s a great idea, but the idea can be taken to a different extreme and that is the scenario I don't want to see.

I guess all I can say is congratulations to both teams taking first to a different level weather it be a better or worse place.

[Joe Johnson]

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?
Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots -- one to ship and one to program autonomous mode with while you wait to compete at the regionals and championships. This is a serious problem for FIRST in the long run (more serious than the topic of this thread, imho), but it is off topic for this already overheated thread.

So, they had to build 4 of each so that both Team 60 and Team 254 can have an extra autonomy robot (for who among us reading this deeply into this thread can seriously doubt that both teams are serious about maximizing their chances of placing well in the robot competition -- whether they "put their ego's aside" or not... -- sorry Glenn, it was too easy).

Joe J.

[Jessica Boucher]

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

I know, I was more-so asking because "we had to build 4 robots" to me isn't a valid excuse.

[Eric Bareiss]

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?

One practice bot and one competition bot per team.

[Joe Johnson]

I would just like to bring up one point...the build load did not decrease.

Yes it is true that we only made 1/2 of the robot ...but we made 4 robots... After school, work, and homeowrk, team 60 and 254 put in alot of very long nights. Every part that was made took quadruple the amount of time. Often it took hours or even days for that matter to finish a certan part...and several times we had to go back to the drawing board and re-design new mechanisms.
I hope that everyone realizes that there is more then one way to go about building robots. The students on team 60 and 254 have learned 4 times over the difficulties and challenges that robotics teams face.
I have realized the importance of communication. The students on our teams will walk away with a new lesson in life. They will walk away knowing that they will face challenges greater then themsleves, and they will know that working on a team will bring up new challenges and new ideas, and give them knowledge that they never thought possibleI cannot disagree more with your statements. If I KNOW I am going to make 4 of something, I can think about it as I design it and as I make it. For example, it may not be worth making a jig if I am going to make 1 but if I am going to make 4 -- it probably will be, possibly saving me huge amounts of time per part.

In short, I suppose that on average you can make 4 of something in 2-3 times the time it takes to make 1. Even if we take the high number of 3, then assuming each team shares the load equally, then each team only had to do 87.5% of the work they would have had to do had they made the parts themselves.

12.5% may not seem like much of a savings but that is almost another week of time saved during the 6 week build cycle.

Joe J.

[Krystine T.]

I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!


Both Team 60 and 254 are helping rookie teams. And both teams are more then willing to help anyone who asks. I am a student on team 60 and our team loves good competition, we also love to "raise the bar". We didnt build identical robots to beat down other teams or garuante ourselves a win...there is no point in that. We did not expect everyone to like this idea of collaberation but we did expect everyone to think about FIRST in a different perspective. Our goal was to learn more...by putting in our ideas and adding ideas from other teams.

[KenWittlief]

Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.

[Krystine T.]

Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.
both teams worked together to design the bot, both teams shared the work load

[Karthik]

Right now there are lots of questions about the legality of this collaboration, especially in terms of the cost accounting. A question for teams 60 & 254; Did any representative from either of your teams ask FIRST about whether your partnership was allowed? I'm sure you guys realized that this was a gray area, so I am assuming you took care of this.

I'm curious as to what FIRST must have said.

Every season needs a couple of controversies, I guess this is the first one.

[KenWittlief]

both teams worked together to design the bot, both teams shared the work load

thats not what members from both teams are saying on page one of this thread - the 2nd post on the 1st page says each team built half the bot.

The only way I can see to get out of this would be for the two teams to combine as one. If you are going to separate regionals that are not on the same weekend, you could both be team 60

and if you make it to the championship, you would have to be one team or the other, but not both.

And only play with one of the two teams robots.

[Eric Bareiss]

There a few issues that are being addressed here that I think some people are taking in the wrong direction.

Sharing the build load: Both teams are still going to spend all six weeks building, it's not like they finished early. They spent just as much time building as everyone else.

What if they both win both of their regionals: Well they probably would have done it anyway, not like it hasn't happened before.

This is not something that we can all just dismiss as wrong because we didn't think of it. I think everyone needs to kick-back relax and really think before you bad mouth these teams. Put yourself in their position. What if another team apporoached you to do this, what would you say?

Before you can say that they didn't work as hard or they cheated, I say try it, walk a mile in their shoes. Maybe you'll change your mind. I know I'm looking forward to trying this next year.

[KenWittlief]

What if another team apporoached you to do this, what would you say?

No. Due to the intent of the rules of the game as I posted above.

and besides, building the whole machine with your own team is half the fun.

[Ken Leung]

The difference is that the rules don't specifically call out requirement for accounting for engineering or design done by non-team members while they DO specifically require that non-team labor in making parts be counted against the $3500 limit.

The way I read the rules, there is no way that $3500 limit does not apply. BUT... ...is this the spirit of the rule? I don't think the rules were intended to prevent this type of labor sharing among teams.

Joe J.

Just as a reference, I found this part in the rule book:

Under section 5.3.2.2

The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the material processed further. Team member processing labor is not included. Example: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that donates its 2 hours of expended labor. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00. Exception Examples: If the team members themselves did the actual machining, there would be no associated labor cost. If the machine shop
were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply.


Under this rule, I would say that any parts made by team 60 on the 254 robot should not count as "if the team members themselves did the actual machining", unless they are now considered one team.

[OneAngryDaisy]

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots -- one to ship and one to program autonomous mode with while you wait to compete at the regionals and championships. This is a serious problem for FIRST in the long run (more serious than the topic of this thread, imho), but it is off topic for this already overheated thread.

So, they had to build 4 of each so that both Team 60 and Team 254 can have an extra autonomy robot (for who among us reading this deeply into this thread can seriously doubt that both teams are serious about maximizing their chances of placing well in the robot competition -- whether they "put their ego's aside" or not... -- sorry Glenn, it was too easy).

Joe J.

I really have to disagree with the bolded segment- we are serious about doing well in this competition, but there is no way we could build 2 robots. First of all, we would not be able to afford two of every part, considering we are using almost every motor. Buying an additional OI, a bunch of spikes and victors, and all the other parts for our robot is just simply not possible. But hey, we still showed up all day on friday, saturday, sunday, and monday, 50+ hours in total over the weekend.

Keep in mind we are a veteran team with access to a full machine shop (tech center alliance), chances are if we can't make a second robot then the majority of other teams can't as well..


I can tell you we would LOVE to have a second daisy to practice autonomous with. The fact is, we can't do that. Last year we seeded 4th in Galileo and won it all even after only having one robot, thanks to our programmer spending hours on perfecting his gyro. I applaud all of the teams that can achieve this, but we're thrilled to just finish our one robot.

[Amanda Morrison]

I think one of the most important things to remember in this thread is that these teams did not collaborate to gyp everyone else out of a competition, they didn't conspire against teams, etc. A lot of the negative comments seem to think this is so.

The best way to describe this is change. Some people like change, they think it's a great idea, and they can't wait to integrate it into their lives. But there's always someone who doesn't like the idea, no matter what way it affects them.

Of course we all have differing ideas about this: 'These two teams are cheating!' 'They're undermining the program!' and 'What a great idea!' 'I hope we see more of this in FIRST!' But it comes down to inspiring students, recognizing that we NEED to keep science, engineering, and technology readily available to students, and knowing that all of us - engineer, parents, peer, or otherwise - can make a difference.

I'm not going to take a side, because like I'm sure most people see, there are good and bad aspects to this. But these teams are going into uncharted territory and trying to do something for the betterment of FIRST teams, and that alone should be recognized and applauded.

[Joe3]

Sharing the build load: Both teams are still going to spend all six weeks building, it's not like they finished early. They spent just as much time building as everyone else.
Before you can say that they didn't work as hard or they cheated, I say try it, walk a mile in their shoes. Maybe you'll change your mind. I know I'm looking forward to trying this next year.

I have thought about this topic all day and gone back and forth on it. But in the end, my gut tells me that collaboration to this extent is bad.

This first statement is the one thing that I dislike about this collaboration. I think that strategy discussion, and sharing of discussion between teams is a great thing, especially between a veteran and a younger team. But the fact is, that these two teams each had about 4 weeks to design and build 1/2 of a robot. If you had 4 weeks to build just a drivetrain, or just an arm, and could focus all of your resources on that, imagine what many teams could accomplish. That would be a tremendous advantage. Collaboration is good, and does build communication skills, and an appreciation for a corporate atmosphere, but to this extent, I think it is against what we are trying to do.

[David Kelly]

I really dont know what all this hype is all about. What is FIRST? FIRST is: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. The way I'm INSPIRED may not be the way you are INSPIRED. Does that mean that if a team decides to build their robot in a different way than you build yours make it wrong? No way! I saw a post above that said that it isnt nearly as fun for the teams when they build this way. How do you know that? Your team hasnt tried building your robot like this so you dont know. I keep reading this over and over and all the other topics in the hundreds of other threads saying how "if you dont make your robot like ours, then you are wrong". Everyone is INSPIRED differently. At one time I had the same argumements as a bunch of you folk, but I have since changed my mind to not worry about how other teams decide to run thier teams and build their robots. Different is not wrong, different is.... different.

I know i keep saying it but FIRST is all about INSPIRATION.




After I posted this, I saw what Amanda Morrison posted. I agree with you Amanda all the way.

[JVN]

I'm going to refrain from posting my opinion until I think about this more.
I urge others to do the same.

As to the legality of this:
We'll have to wait and see. I'm sure, given the discussion, some "official" ruling will be made. Although... I ask: would anyone WANT to deny these 2 beloved and respected teams entry into this game?

My interpretation(s):
-Yes there is enough grey area that 254 and 60 should OF COURSE be allowed to compete this year, as shown.
-Yes Laron can be 254's sponsor, even if they have never been listed thus far. Therefore: All parts made by 60 are allowable on 254's robot.
-Heck... Team 60 can be sponsored by "Team 254" and Team 254 can be sponsored by "Team 60"...

This may change for 2005, it may not.
There is enough grey here that this seems legal for 2004.


Obviously both teams benefitted from this.
The students on these teams benefitted from this.
The FIRST community will likely benefit from this... it will definitely be the start of something.

These are just my interpretations on the "legality" of this.
Nothing official here.
Keep that in mind.

Opinions to come later,
JVN

[rourke]

This one should be easy to sort out. This predicament has been foreshadowed cryptically by FIRST in Team Update #10 as follows:

“FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce the 2004 rules as written. Team’s excellent and creative work that may not align / be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed.” This statement is no longer cryptic. It describes the collusion that has occurred between these two teams. I hope this is nipped quickly to stop the impending slide into mega-alliances that will eliminate the growth of FIRST.

The collaboration is indeed excellent and creative. But currently it is NOT in agreement with the rules. The robot was not designed and built by members of your team. Each team contracted a significant portion of robot manufacturing to non-team members (just because it was another FIRST Team doesn't make it okay). The manufacturing costs associated with this excellent and creative work MUST be valued per the rules. Or, I suppose that each team could REMANUFACTURE the offending subsystem with their team members prior to the deadline…..Otherwise, I don’t see how either team should be allowed to complete - unless it is under a single team number!

There are also some other basic flaws with the approach that are not aligned / in agreement with FIRST philosophy, as I see them:

1. It dilutes student involvement and creativity in the design and build concept of the ENTIRE robot.
2. It inspires students to collude in completing high school and college assignments. Doing somebody else’s work crosses the line. It isn’t the same as tutoring or coaching.
3. If this becomes the norm, it will gradually discourage rookie teams from forming unless they can find a mega-alliance to partner with. Established teams will start to drop out as the stakes increase each year and it stops being fun because they can’t compete on the same level.

Arguments that this is a unique strategy that benefits the students are way off base. Claiming this teaches students to “think outside the box” is a feeble attempt at rationalization. The FIRST competition gives you many opportunities to “think outside the box” without the need to “think outside the team”. You are robbing the students of some valuable learning experiences within your own teams. Who actually spent “hours on the phone and numerous emails between the teams”? Was it the students, or was it the engineers?

[Ken Leung]

-Heck... Team 60 can be sponsored by "Team 254" and Team 254 can be sponsored by "Team 60"...



I never thought about that from this angle. Thanks John.

And on that note, I think we can all take a break on this topic and absorb the material in this thread. I think many good points have been made. This is a rather constructive discussion, if a little unfocused from time to time, but I think that's ok.

I tried using the thread view only to look at this thread, but found it is impossible to seperate sub topic from sub topics. So, my recommendation is everyone please remember to quote the post you are replying to so we can maintain the train of thoughts. Try not to reply to all sub topics in one post, and instead reply to individual posts.

Thanks.

[KenWittlief]

this is the section of the rulebook that is going to be the problem for these two teams, and I dont see anything grey about it:

5.2.5 Design and Build Rules
<R09> Teams must fabricate and/or assemble all custom parts and assembled mechanisms on the robot by the
2004 team after the start of the Kick-off. Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used,
however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost
of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.

I hope these two teams work out some sort of agreement with FIRST, so they can compete - but I also home FIRST makes it clear that collaboration on this level is not in the spirit of FIRST.

[Solace]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't seem to remember anything in the rules that says it is not possible for two different teams to be made up of the same people. if a team wants to pay the registration fee twice and recieve two kits of parts, then I think (emphasis on think) that they are, or at least should be, able to enter two robots. for all intents and purposes, 60 and 254 have aligned to form one team. since they are the same team, all the sponsors of one count as all the sponsors of the other. the only thing different about this new team is that they have decided to pay double the registration fee in order to enter two robots instead of one.

The argument that the alignment allows the concentration of too many resources is not quite logical. after a certain point, more money does not get you anything. for example, if a team has a $30k a year budget, there is pretty much nothing that is out of their price range. if they merged with a really big team, and as a result of that now have $500k to work with, they haven't really gained anything robot wise - they can still only put $3500 into the robot. all that extra money and resources goes into travel and food and marching bands and stuff like that.

Everyone is saying that these two teams have cut corners and decreased their workloads by corroborating. has anyone taken into account the sheer size of the problems involved in coordinating two groups of people in the building of a single integrated robot? Our team's subgroups have enough of a hard time coordinating amongst themselves to get things to fit right, i can't imagine how difficult it would be to coordinate with a team in another state!

As a last request, i would ask that we PLEASE refrain from bringing up the subject of student built vs. engineer built. there is no evidence either way for that argument, and so it is foolish to make that accusation. that topic has been beaten into the ground many many many times, and is not what is being discussed here.

[Crop-Circles]

Arguments that this is a unique strategy that benefits the students are way off base. Claiming this teaches students to ?think outside the box? is a feeble attempt at rationalization. The FIRST competition gives you many opportunities to ?think outside the box? without the need to ?think outside the team?. You are robbing the students of some valuable learning experiences within your own teams. Who actually spent ?hours on the phone and numerous emails between the teams?? Was it the students, or was it the engineers?

If you have never tried a similiar approach, how do you know if it doesn't work? You may have speculations, but on what grounds are you able to tell another team how they should and should not be run? There is no right way to run a team and even if it didn't work out well, at least they tried something new.

[Joe Johnson]

I never thought about that from this angle. Thanks John.

And on that note, I think we can all take a break on this topic and absorb the material in this thread. I think many good points have been made. This is a rather constructive discussion, if a little unfocused from time to time, but I think that's ok.

I tried using the thread view only to look at this thread, but found it is impossible to seperate sub topic from sub topics. So, my recommendation is everyone please remember to quote the post you are replying to so we can maintain the train of thoughts. Try not to reply to all sub topics in one post, and instead reply to individual posts.

Thanks.
Ken and John,

I don't think that sponsorship can be just made up as we go or else the $3,500 rule is just so much non-sense.

My particular part of Delphi has no shop to make a single part for our robot. If I want to get something made I have to apply the $3,500 limits or my team has to make it. If I can just call anyone who does work for me a sponsor or team member, then the rule has no teeth, especially, if I can barter for the goods and services.

Remember Dean's statement that words mean what they mean? Well, the rules discuss even donated labor having to be accounted for.

If all I have to do is call one my donator one of my team sponsors why even discuss such a thing as donated labor?

I am back where I started on this one. I don't think I like this.

Let's do a thought experiement... ...suppose that this was done by ChiefDelphi and another Delphi team or two.

Based on the heat that Chief Delphi has taken over the years for pushing the limits of (what I feel at least) were more grey rules, I am sure that the calls for our heads would have been as loud as they were relentless.

If you'd be upset if Chief Delphi did this, what is different about these two teams doing it?

Joe J.

[Redhead Jokes]

I want to congratulate not just on your fine work on this year's robot, but also your courage to leap to a newer level not many people in FIRST have thought of. "we understand that we can learn from each other and put both teams' experience to create a better program for our students."

Ditto.

And thanks to 60 for warmly and generously sharing their plans from a past robot arm with us this year. There were new members on our team that didn't believe 60 would say yes to our request. My husband and I, of course, were confident they would. They did with bells on. It helped open some team members' eyes about the possilibities of coopetition between teams.

[Aignam]

While the FIRST experience is based on Gracious Professionalism and inspiration, and I have no doubt that each and every member of teams 60 and 254 have been somehow enlightened or otherwise inspired by their building experience, much like every other FIRST team, I believe that other aspects are key, chief among those being team-building. The members of an individual FIRST team, who go through all of the ups and downs of build alongside each other, will perhaps benefit in ways that the members of collaborating teams wouldn't. But then again, I am neither a member of team 60 nor team 254, so my opinion is relatively inconsequential. Just a slight comparison, though: Corporate outsourcing.

[Greg Perkins]

DJ, Jeff, you guys definatly took my post in the wrong direction...

i was in no way "team bashing" as i was accused of. i was simply stating a fact that some teams arent so lucky to get a decent team, much less two. all i was trying to say is people arent too happy about the pairting, and i was just stating that. no need to give me negative rep points for stating a fact.

[JAH]

I really do not know what to take of all this. It technically seems as if FIRST rules don't rule this out but it also seems a bit unfair. If you're going to pair up, why don't one of you take a rookie team under your wing and show them the ropes? Why take two, experienced veteran teams and make one robot essentially, just copied. FIRST is about gracious profesionalism, but it also is a competition...FIRST Robotics Competition, as the title says right here. (http://www.usfirst.org/robotics/)

Competition- A test of skill or ability; a contest.

How is having something done for you a test of skill? Why compete if you're perfectly matched? I understand working together, assisting and all, but building whole components for each other...seems a bit unfair. Wouldn't everyone learn more in the end if you made your own robot? Ok, one team may be experts in drive trains, the other in appendages. Well, how are the teams supposed to grow and learn and advance their knowledge if they have others do it all for them? It, overall, is a very unique idea but still shakey in my book. Just...wow.

[Dima]

i would suggest that instead of arguing over this right now, you should go and build your robot.

what is done is done! PERIOD!

I personally dont want this turning into what happened to truck town thunder (when they posted a teaser, people complained and FIRST decided to change to rules)

[Karthik]

I personally dont want this turning into what happened to truck town thunder (when they posted a teaser, people complained and FIRST decided to change to rules)

It may be too late for that at this point. Numerous questions about this venture have been brought up, and need to be addressed in a official manner. Expect some sort of ruling from FIRST in the near future. Although, I highly doubt that either team would be barred from competition.

On the other hand, there is still that cryptic comment on the first page of Team Update #10. It's already been addressed earlier in this thread, but it warrants consideration. FIRST was hinting that they had seen something that was creative, deserving of recognition, yet illegal. This may have been what they were talking about.

The next few days should be interesting, to say the least. Then again, isn't that always true about the last week of build season?

[Krystine T.]

i have a question for everyone...

Would anyone care if 2 rookie teams pared up to help each other...?

What if 60 and 254 werent well known teams and pared up to improve themselves...would so many people be avidly against "coopertition" then?

[Amanda M]

this is the section of the rulebook that is going to be the problem for these two teams, and I dont see anything grey about it:

5.2.5 Design and Build Rules
<R09> Teams must fabricate and/or assemble all custom parts and assembled mechanisms on the robot by the
2004 team after the start of the Kick-off. Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used,
however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost
of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.


I hope these two teams work out some sort of agreement with FIRST, so they can compete - but I also home FIRST makes it clear that collaboration on this level is not in the spirit of FIRST.


Ken, will you exlpain to me how this is going to be an issue... I am in need of a little clafirication.


And I would like to say the following. Please don't hold any of it against, me I'm not trying to be rude.

As a member of Team 60, I am used to the constant whiplash of the design of our robot. If we are not knocked down at least once a year for our design, it is a very rare occurrence. I do not hold any grudges, because I also realize that some of our alumni have acted in an undignified and very ungracious manner.
Teams had every right to be upset.
Now, however, we have done a lot to improve both our reputation and the spirit of FIRST. We are mentoring two teams in Arizona, eight LEGO league teams, we help out whenever we are asked. Gladly.

This alliance is the next step. Our CAD drawings for this year's robot, any past robot, strategies (from game strategy to marketing strategy to team organization) have been available fully and completely to those that ask.

We did NOT create this alliance to push down any other team. The parts were student machined. All labor was donated. When we were designing, we were desingning together. When we were building, we did as much, if not more than other teams.

And it IS a real life solution to the problem. If an engineering company has to team up with another company to produce a product, they both put in man hours and they both put in the effort. I've seen it happen in REAL LIFE. At Laron, no less.

As I said before, do not think less of me. This is my third year on this team, and I have been educated this year, far more than the last two combined.

PS Dima, darling, we love you, but I don't think this will end without much of a fight.

[Fat Alex]

i have a question for everyone...

Would anyone care if 2 rookie teams pared up to help each other...?

What if 60 and 254 werent well known teams and pared up to improve themselves...would so many people be avidly against "coopertition" then?
Though I support our team and team 254, I don't really think that is important actually I agree with dima, what more is there to say?

[robomania]

Just to correct a much much earlier statement. Our robots are the same exactly except the wiring. that is to say the same wires go to the same places they are just arranged differently. both teams will be able to use programs from the other team. all parts and programs are interchangeable

on another note, interchangeable parts revolutionized the world and that pretty much compares to this.

[Amanda M]

Though I support our team and team 254, I don't really think that is important actually I agree with dima, what more is there to say?


Solex. That's completely your personality. haha! Through all of this I never thought ONE OF OUR OWN would say such a thing!

It makes me laugh! :D

[Madison]

on another note, interchangeable parts revolutionized the world and that pretty much compares to this.

We built a microwave. You built a toaster.

I cannot use the parts from my microwave in my toaster. I don't think the comparison is remotely valid.

In response to a later reply:
While it may be true that certain components are shared between toasters and microwaves, the parts from one cannot be used in the other in any practical sense. The resistors capacitors, nuts, bolt and screws that you'll find in both the toaster and the microwave are analogous to our speed controllers, robot controller and pneumatic systems -- our kit of parts.

The heating coils from my toaster serve no purpose in a microwave oven. Likewise, the microwave's timer isn't too useful on a toaster. These are unique systems that were designed to best suit their products; though each product is designed to accomplish the same goal -- to prepare food.

FIRST robots are kitchen appliances. In the end, they all score points just as all appliances help to feed us. Through your collaboration, however, I now have two toasters and no microwave. The students on teams 60 and 254 are now highly efficient at making toast, but did anyone learn how to use the microwave?

[robomania]

We built a microwave. You built a toaster.

I cannot use the parts from my microwave in my toaster. I don't think the comparison is remotely valid.

actually you most likely could. you would need more parts but you could still use some.

[Amanda M]

We built a microwave. You built a toaster.

I cannot use the parts from my microwave in my toaster. I don't think the comparison is remotely valid.

In response to a later reply:
While it may be true that certain components are shared between toasters and microwaves, the parts from one cannot be used in the other in any practical sense. The resistors capacitors, nuts, bolt and screws that you'll find in both the toaster and the microwave are analogous to our speed controllers, robot controller and pneumatic systems -- our kit of parts.

The heating coils from my toaster serve no purpose in a microwave oven. Likewise, the microwave's timer isn't too useful on a toaster. These are unique systems that were designed to best suit their products; though each product is designed to accomplish the same goal -- to prepare food.

FIRST robots are kitchen appliances. In the end, they all score points just as all appliances help to feed us. Through your collaboration, however, I now have two toasters and no microwave. The students on teams 60 and 254 are now highly efficient at making toast, but did anyone learn how to use the microwave?

Okay, so you've got two toasters... from what? This analogy doesn't completely make sense (although I like where you went with it).

If your goal is to make a toaster, make a toaster. We set out to make the SAME thing. It's not like we went out to change our robot into something completely different. We weren't trying to transform "toasters into microwaves" we just wanted to work together.

[robomania]

*this is my opinion and does not represent team 60 as a whole*

I was a driver last year for team 60 and also our alliance team stratagist. I heard alot about our team both negative and positive because of this. I understand that this may seem unfair to alot of people but our intention was never to try to gain any sort of unfair advantage. Yes we are looking for an advantage but so is every other team and this did not seem unfair to us. I am not saying that we are the almighty judges of what is right or wrong but if we felt it was wrong we wouldn't have done it. I agree that FIRST does need to make a ruling that is more clear, not because i think we are wrong but becasue this is way to much drama to have. I have heard from other teams that we constantly try to twist the rules and make them what we want but that is not true. We may go into grey areas but challenging something is the only way to make it better. We do not go out each year trying to think of ways to piss off other teams as i have also heard. To the best of my knowledge we have never turned down a request for help( i may be wrong because this is only my second year). As mentioned earlier we are mentoring 2 robotics teams as well as 8 lego leauge teams and have given away drawings to teams and any other way we can help. Personally i think if we can make every team as good as we try to be then that makes the competition all that much more fun and competitive. As far as maching issues I can guarantee that all parts were made by students becasue we have to make schedules becasue so many of us want to build as much as possible.

i don't know if this made any sense to many people but these are just random thoughts i was having about this topic. sorry for the spelling but i am really bad at it. math is more of my strong point.

[robomania]

something else i saw in another post although i don't think may people saw it.
what if you had divisions for FIRST like you do in High School Sports (5A, 4A and so on) the only problems i see with this is that i don't think there are enough teams to split it up much plus it might break down relationships with other teams since they might be in a different division. It would also lead to teams thinking they are better or worse then others.

the point of this post in this thread is that it would solve the rookie part of this argument

[phrozen solyd]

Collaboration does not necessarily deny competition. Say we wanted to go to Mars. We could compete with kingman, each of us trying to get there first. Sure, at least one of us would get there. But what if we teamed up, to achieve our common goal even faster? This is all our relationship is. Two teams, one goal - creation of not only a good robot, but maybe more importantly, life lessons in teamwork and communication.

[Ken Leung]

this is the section of the rulebook that is going to be the problem for these two teams, and I dont see anything grey about it:

5.2.5 Design and Build Rules



Ken, will you exlpain to me how this is going to be an issue... I am in need of a little clafirication.

And I would like to say the following. Please don't hold any of it against, me I'm not trying to be rude.

...

As I said before, do not think less of me. This is my third year on this team, and I have been educated this year, far more than the last two combined.


Putting all other issues aside, I think KenW is just trying to address the issue of the letter of the rule, and that is, the robot can only use parts build by your own team, and parts that isn't built by your own team is limited by the $3500 rule. So, it is OK if you use parts not build by your own team, as long as they are within the $3500 limit. Otherwise it is against the rules.

I have a feeling that it would've been ok if your two team designed the robot together, but manufactured it separately. After all, people use other's designs all the time. It is a part of engineering. Just look at so many teams benefiting from technokat's transmission design. But when another team is building some part of your robot for you, then it is not your work. What's made by Bellarmine is Bellarmine's work, and what's made by Kingman is Kingman's work. No matter how strong the partnership is, you are still 2 teams entering the competition under two names. But FIRST didn't say that's not allowed, they addressed this with the $3500 rule. It is ok to use parts made by others as long as you count the cost of making it. But I think that's FIRST's call. I have a feeling they haven’t considered this when they wrote the rule.

I have been there all the years when Kingman's robot designs were challenged every year. And from time to time, your team suffer not because a decision was made on the issue, but the fact that FIRST change their ruling from events to events. That is something I do not wish to see happening this year. Your team deserves a fair review and a fair decision. And you deserve that decision at ALL events. In fact, I would recommend your team talk to FIRST about this, ask them to make a decision, and make sure ALL the FIRST staffs running the regionals you are going to KNOW that decision. And make sure you get a FINAL decision from FIRST so they won’t change it.


And Amanda, I think no one who has read this thread will think less of you, or hold anything against you. You have done a tremendous job representing your team and its image. You were very well spoken in your post, and because of that, the posts I've seen in this thread is much more level-headed and thought through than most I've seen in the past. Keep up the good work. It is under these stressful times when you should keep a leveled head at all time. Be profoundly understanding of other’s point of view, but stand your ground if you believe it’s a right one. Good luck with the challenges ahead of you and your team.

[Stephen Kowski]

I hate to be an i told you so but it is apparent to me it has occurred once again that hopefully it won't turn out for the worse as in truck town thunder's case.....someone asked why do you or do you not share your design during the build season?.....this thread case & point....

as far as the design sharing goes i like it, identical robot production im not completely for....frankly im not interested in the communication aspect of it....i communicate fine with heatwave and other teams in florida bouncing ideas off them and vice versa....i don't go and outsource my work to heatwave or anyone else. I don't believe anyone on either of the two teams was thinking of the 3500 limit in the manner described on this thread because that rule operates in such a grey area, but i also do not believe they were trying to subvert any of the rules....one or two subsystem collaboration i see as ok, but the robots are twins (and please don't hand me that story about programming and minor modification you contradict yourself by saying if one wins a design award the other team takes pride in it...they are either seperate designs or the same, in this situation you can't have it both ways or you are just lying to yourself)

great idea, but maybe taken a bit too far....hopefully this can be allowed in this one particular case (so that these teams that did put a good # of hours of work into this can compete), but FIRST should wiegh in on it (on either side) for future situations....you want to ask yourself should a sponsor be allowed to dump super machining time into their robots & make 16 chief delphis therefore increasing their overall chances of winning? i don't think so, but that is up to FIRST to decide

basically i sum it all up this way: this year let this go, but it should be addressed for the future situations and make a more clear defintion of sponsor so there is no confusion (do the have to be in the name? do they have to be on the shirt? are they a sponsor if they give you a huge discount on their stuff?)

[Dima]

I wish people would stop picking on "celebrety" teams

I KNOW for a fact that if i wanted to i could go out and find something on most of the teams, no matter how little this thing would be, and start a thread just like this one on it! But I dont because it dont want to HURT other teams. People who bash 60 and 254 in this tread (or any other team for that matter) WANT to HURT those teams. I dont think thats graciously profecional.


P.S. if you guys want other teams to post teasers (or anything else about thier bots) in the future, you should seriously re think what you are doing here. Remember some thing CAN NOT be undone!

[Fat Alex]

"All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Matt Adams]

There's one thing that has really irked me about this whole concept.

We don't know what official stance FIRST will take, because nobody from either team took a few minutes to ask some simple questions on the FIRST Q&A at the start of the season.

There's been controversey on rulings in the past, but since this situation involves finances, sponsorship, and some important definitions (NOT game strategy) it's a completely different ball game from what we've seen before.

Team members openly admitted that they knew that there would be critics... so I ask, why wouldn't you have a long list of Q&A's ready to fire back, showing what you did was completely within the rules?

Instead, FIRST is a really tough bind, and these teams need to potentially ask for forgiveness instead of ask for permission.

[edit /irresponsibility]

FIRST doesn't like to make rulings specifically because people ventured into a grey area without asking. This is why the Q&A system was set up, so that prompt answers could be read by all teams to both common and obscure, "grey area" questions.

This is OBVIOUSLY a grey area.

I hope I'm wrong, and a team leader will post a written ruling tomorrow from FIRST (dated 4 weeks ago) giving you the thumbs up to do this. If so, I sincerely have no qualms.

However, if some team leaders have risked the entire season for not one but two teams on this collaboration without asking FIRST the appropriate questions, I give my deepest sympathy to all of the students that may end up with a ruined season. I hope it won't come to that. It looks like a lot of people have worked long and hard, and it would be a shame if FIRST, out of fairness to all teams, had to make a ruling that was unexpected.

However, this situation should be ruled as though this question was asked before the season started. The idea of bending the rules and definitions because something has "already been done" is fundamentally unfair to all other FIRST teams.

Just my two cents,

Matt

[phrozen solyd]

For the most part, we've stayed out of this discussion for a couple reasons:

1. Because while others make assumptions - we know what we we've done, we know how hard we work and how much we contribute to the FIRST community
2. Because all we are "guilty" of is hiding nothing, sharing our partnership, and sharing our resources with as many FIRST teams as we can


Many are making assumptions without any factual understanding to back up their claims. So let us try to provide some background info (our apologies for the length, as this may be long because it’s a combination of thoughts many of our team members share, and we don't want to make any personal attacks or offend anyone)

Our team (254) was the smallest team in the country in 1999, had no funds, no facility to build, and no power tools. I wasn't on the team then (this is my third year), but I have learned our history and am proud of it. It has taken our team 6 very hard years to secure the facility and resources we have. Each year we have gotten a little bigger, a little more experience, and secured some more resources. We currently have just one engineer on our team (that's right - one), two college students (who are alumni and have been on our team for 4 years), two teachers who help organize the team but have basically no robot knowledge (Sorry Mr. Urhausen and Mr. Gonzalez), and one machinist who volunteers to help us, and our engineers wife who gives a lot of time to help us. No adult on our team can program, no adult helps our animation team, our website team is entirely students, and our students work endlessly to build our robot.

Kingman (60) has no engineers. They have two machinists (Glenn and George), one teacher, a sheriff, and I think one other mentor with I think a Business degree if I remember correctly. They have 15-20 students who work with their mentors to build and program the robot each year. What's Kingman guilty of? Powder Coating their robot and making it look great each year - that's all. And because they do, some teams like to assume they have 5-10 engineers and that Ford builds their robot. When in reality, that team works hard each year, their students are as involved as most students on any FIRST team, their students learn a tremendous amount from just a couple dedicated mentors, and worst of all - does anyone reading this think that any team who has criticized Kingman over the years would themselves turn down a sponsor who offered to powder coat their robot once they built it? Of course not, we'd all love to do it - and Kingman inspired us to go out and find a local company to help us powder coat our robot this year.

How many of you can name well known "powerhouse" teams who have 10-20 mentors and engineers? How many of you can name many "powerhouse" teams who have professional programmers who do all or most of their programming? How many of you can name "powerhouse" teams who have much more experience than 60 or 254, and until the last couple years always had slicker looking robots than either of them? Even working together, the resources of 60 and 254 don't even come close to the resources of many other teams in FIRST. You've never seen us criticize those teams - instead we look at them as model teams - we're happy for them that they have so much support and hope they inspire other teams to continue to build their programs stronger. We're proud of the fact that we started at the "bottom" (I've heard stories about how intimidated and overwhelmed our team, with $6k and no tools, was when they saw the teams from Delphi, Motorola, and GM in 1999 and 2000 - how they were convinced there was no way they could ever compete with those teams. Thankfully they didn't whine about it, give up, quit, or stop working hard - or myself and my friends might not have a team to participate on right now). And we're proud that we've proven teams can build each year, get stronger each year, and compete with low or high resource teams no matter where they may fall in the spectrum.

Everyone is acting like this is some kind of guarantee that a better robot is going to be built. Deep inside, I think everyone knows that no unbeatable robot can be built this year – that the winning teams are going to need great strategy, great driving, good human players, great alliance partners, and a little or a lot of luck – as always. Sometimes a collaboration of teams may help each other do better, sometimes they may not – it’s not like there’s any guarantee. Normally no one knows for sure which ideas will be the best, and it’s very possible (if not probable – like every year) that we will realize a month from now that one of the ideas our team had but discarded might have been better.

Some talk about how teams shouldn't venture into that 'grey area'. But isn't that how progress is gained? By venturing into uncharted territory and pushing the envelope? We know that something like this has never been done, and we expected this to be an innovative test which many would be curious to see how it worked out. However, we are confident that FIRST will agree that this type of collaboration is in line with the ideals of the organization. Our leaders have done nothing, and never would, put our season or our team at any "risk" - and our teams are in no "danger" as you put it. There's no rule against it, it's that simple. How many times have Dean and Woody encouraged teams to work together and share ideas?

Our team has been very blessed to do well every year – our team has won at least one Regional all five years we’ve been in FIRST and has made the Championship playoffs each year, and done well. Kingman has done pretty much just as well.
For this kind of success, a number of things have to happen – the teams have to be good, have to build good robots, have to work well with other teams, need to have good partners, and need to have a little luck. Some years our team had good robots – but in every event we enter we know that the “odds” are that we won’t win and that all those things have to happen for us even to have a chance. The “odds” are that neither of our teams will win an event this year – but even if we do, is anyone really going to claim it was because we worked together? In the best possible world, all we could hope for it to do “as well” as we have done totally alone not working together – we don’t have any “need” to work together, we decided we wanted to. Why can’t people get that? So if/when we lose events this year, please give credit to those teams who beat us – they would have beat us with or without our partnership with Kingman, and they deserve the credit. And if our team wins an event, we will be proud that our drivers and strategists performed so well, and if 60 wins we’ll cheer for them because we’re happy for them and because they are good people. If anyone thinks Kingman couldn’t or wouldn’t have won without us, or the other way around, then they need to look at the past 5 years to be proven wrong.

Like Dave Lavery has said, please stop being lawyers and start building robots. Our teams decided this partnership months ago. We made no attempts to hide it – one of our students and a 60 mentor even traveled all the way to LA in September to show off the drive system we jointly designed and built over the summer – showing over 30 teams and 300 FIRST people everything (transmissions, gears, plans). We tested the robot at the Cal Games in October and even named the team “Bionic Poofs” so everyone knew our teams were working together. Was Laron a 254 sponsor last year or NASA Ames a 60 sponsor last year? No. But we both agreed to sponsor the other team months ago, and have had three common sponsors this entire year. Their info is on our website (going up this week – been totally redesigned by our web students) and Laron was already listed as a sponsor our t-shirts already being printed. So if anyone thinks either of our teams didn’t make our intentions, plans, and sponsorships crystal clear and totally within the FIRST rules way before this sad thread started, please know that any such accusation or hint is quite untrue.

Our team has mentored rookie teams 4 of the past 6 years. We have provided workshops at the WRRF sessions for hundreds of participants. We helped start the Cal Games and help support it each year. We open our facility up to ANY teams in the area who wish to come use it. We have provided the majority of the volunteers for two FLL tournaments in San Jose and Northern California the past few years. We hold a pre ship scrimmage on our field each year and spend the weekend helping any local team in need to get their robot running. Last year, our team found out that the Sacramento Regional would not have a machine shop. We decided not to attend a third regional (Arizona) and decided to spend our funds to build a mobile shop in a trailer – which we didn’t build until the week AFTER we had shipped our robot. We took that trailer to Sacramento, San Jose, and the Championship (when FIRST said they needed more machine shop help) and made almost 300 repairs on robots – including the 3 that beat us in Sacramento. And we’re going to do it again this year instead of going to a third regional. Do we have to help all the teams we do? No. Do we have to spend a big portion of our budget supporting and helping other teams in FIRST who aren’t as fortunate as us? No. We do it because we want to. We do it because our team knows how hard it’s been for us to get those resources and we want to share them. We do it because other teams have set great examples and showed us how special it is when teams help each other and work together. We do it because our mentors have probably been brainwashed by Dean and Woody and have convinced us that we should feel good about helping others have a good experience, even though we know we could have built better robots if we put all our resources into just our own team.

From what I know, Glenn on Kingman goes to LA to give workshops to all the Southern California teams each year. Kingman created an incredible fundraising support packet which they made available to allFIRST teams on their website and also gave workshops to Arizona teams. Kingman provides the entire machine shop for the Arizona Regional for free – and they’re over two hours away – they drive the machines there at Laron’s cost and not the Regionals. And some people have implied that our team or Kingman should share some of their resources with other teams?

What’s the result of some of these posts – veteran teams should only help other teams “a little”, but not enough to help keep compete at the same level? We should just give little pieces of info and assistance to teams, but always hold back key thoughts and knowledge so that we are guaranteed to be better? Sorry, we don’t feel that way, that’s just our opinion. Our engineer has mentioned how impressed he was that Team 45 shared their innovative transmission with other teams and even offered to give/make the transmissions for some teams – we were impressed they would share ideas with everyone and help others get better. We were impressed that some of the “swerve” teams helped some teams create a “swerve” bot last year, even though they wouldn’t make much of the information available to everyone. At least they helped some teams – better than none.
Is anyone criticizing those teams who go to four or five events, when they could be spending some of those extra funds to help teams in need? Anyone criticizing the teams who have 10-20 engineers and professional programmers doing a majority of their work when they could be spreading the support out to a number of local teams or they could be helping to recruit and start rookie teams so more students could experience FIRST?

We don’t criticize any of those teams, because it doesn’t matter – they do what’s best for their team. If we decide to help others, that’s our choice. Our few mentors have taught us that we can only control what our team decides to do, that worrying/whining about what other teams do and if they have more money or engineers than us doesn’t change our situation or make our robot get build any quicker. We try our best each year, and at the same time have decided that we should do whatever we can to make our team successful, share our resources with other teams, and help as many other teams as we can – basically, we look at FIRST as constantly “raising the bar” on us, and we try to accept the challenge do the best we can to help us and other teams.

It is disappointing that both teams have had to defend ourselves so much. If every so called “powerhouse” team in FIRST shared their ideas, their resources, or their experience as much as our teams do – there would be few, if any, struggling teams in FIRST. We don’t go around posting all we do for other teams – until know we’ve always let our actions speak for ourselves. What’s really sad, is that it sounds like many teams will actually be rooting for our teams to “lose” just because we work together, share ideas and resources, and built a mutual respect and friendship.

For what it’s worth – all we do is try our best, and when we get beat we congratulate the other team and are happy for them, as we know how much work everyone puts into their team. We don’t (and won’t) root against any other team, regardless of it you criticize us or not. If we did, then we wouldn’t have learned a thing from being in FIRST. No matter what, remember this…you can always bring your robot to our mobile shops any time, and we will always work our butts off to repair your bots, assist your teams, or donate spare parts. If you would never help our team if we needed it and your team ever needs help, whether you like us or not, come by our pit area, and we’ll help your team in any way we can. And even though we shouldn’t speak for them, we’re sure Kingman feels the same way and would help your team also.

We wish you all the best with your robots and hope you all have a great season.

[Ken Leung]

OK people. Let's just settle this with a classic Drinks on me on Friday night. I will buy each of you in this thread a drink when I see you at competition.

Oh wait, I forgot poor college students cannot afford drinks for 200 people. ^^; I guess I just won't show up to any this year then.

All jokes aside, I want to thank all of you for your thoughts in the posts (especially the last one by phrozen solyd, even I have to bow down to the length of that post).

I have been chating with another moderator about this, and we are both concerned that this will turn into another flaming war like many other threads in the past. Originally I keep this open hopping people can have an intelligent, open discussion about this touchy issue. So far 90% of the posts are doing that, which is good. But we DO NOT want to see any more negative attitudes show up in this thread.

We've allowed a chance for both side to state their points. We ask that you maintain this level of quality in your future message if you want to discuss the issue further. Accusations and claims without evidences are not welcomed to this forum. Any point you are going to make please back it up with justification.

A big part of this discussion exist in the form of a debate. But that doesn't mean you should try to break each other's defense and tear their argument apart. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

Let us keep our cool, and enjoy this program as much as possible. I have faith that all of you will make it all right again.

Also, it would be nice if off topic chats are kept in the form of PMs or e-mails. It's nice to talk about microwave and toasters, but I think we can do without them. Thanks :-).

[Cory]

I hope these two teams work out some sort of agreement with FIRST, so they can compete - but I also home FIRST makes it clear that collaboration on this level is not in the spirit of FIRST.

Who are you to say what the spirit of FIRST is?

Why is everyone always out to undermine everyone else's hard work.

For everyone's information, last year at the Sacramento Regional, I remember seeing two robots that were darn near, if not exactly identical. NO ONE EVER SAID A WORD ABOUT THEM! Hmmm now why could this be? Oh yeah, now I remember, they were rookie teams (or second year, I don't remember) now why do people care about Kingman and Bellarmine? I think I know the answer to that too. Because they win, quite a bit, because they have lots of resources.

Many people view these two teams, and other teams like them as having TONS of money, and being totally engineer designed and built. Many people become jealous of what they think is happening, and instead of trying to get to the same point, just getting bitter and spiteful. I know for sure that that is not in the spirit of FIRST. Just because certain teams consistantly make good looking and good performing robots doesnt mean that theyre terrible people.

I know a few years ago I used to be jealous of teams like 60 and 254. Guess what. A few years ago I didn't know much at all, and I certainly wasn't aware of the true meaning of FIRST, afterall, it was just a robot, and theirs was way better than mine, right? I didnt know anyone on these teams either, and from my skewed perspective, they seemed as if they were the exact opposite of what they truly were.

Now, I know people on these teams, and what their teams truly are like, and it's nothing like I thought it was, or many of you may think it is. Looking back, I can't say Im proud of how I felt, and I wonder how I could have ever even felt that way.

So many people are unaware of anything a FIRST team does besides compete. Particularly in the case of "winning" teams, the winning tends to overshadow everything else that a team may do. I wont even cite the numerous different things that these two teams in particular do for the FIRST community. If anyone hasnt been convinced that their impressions are wrong, this certainly wont change that.

Dont you people have better things to do with your time in the middle of week six than sit here posting this crap about how this and that are illegal and not in the spirit of FIRST and blah blah blah. It seems like nowadays everyone looks for something to criticize before they look for a positive point. Stop being so jealous and strive to attain what you envy.

Stop picking on 60 and 254 because they win a lot. They dont pick on you now do they?

Cory

[Aignam]

Because both 254 and 60 are small, but do manage to accomplish what they accomplish, shouldn't they be sharing this gift with struggling rookies who may be not-so-successful but in a similar situation?

Mentorship is key.

[Jessica Boucher]

Now I think it's time to close this thread. What more can be honestly said about this that is a new perspective?

Like it or not, all we can do now is wait and watch.

[Joe Matt]

After much thinking, I've changed my position on this about 20 times. Litterally. If there is one thing I'm positive about, it's that I'm scared. I'm frightened. This is the first time in FIRST this has happened. I'm worried. A judgeing by FIRST can either be the beginning of something new, or the failure of FIRST. It can go either way.

Once I think more about it, I still don't like the so called 'colaboration', but I find out what ticks me off the most about it. It's not the teams building the robot together, but what this could do to future seasons, along with the fact they didn't even see if it was ok with FIRST. There's a difference, biased, yes, but still well founded, that it's dangerous for big businesses or teams join, it leads to big problems. I remeber a small Mac based software company, that started with nothing, but then grew very big. Yeah, it's Microsoft. They partnered with many big companies to screw over the little guy. While 254 and 60 might not be doing the last sentence, if this passes as ok, we might see this in future seasons. No longer could alliances be based on whos the best, but who you picked before the season to be a complement to your robot, which could even go to have a big influence of coroporations. Wouldn't it be a really good PR move to have all the Corporation X teams on one alliance!*

If you really wanted a challange, why didn't you give lots of your resources to rookie teams, and then build your robot whith just minimal money, tools, and time?

Overall, I hope we see something from FIRST about this, although I doubt the Update #10 thing-ie was relased because of this.

*sarcasm

[Chris Fultz]

I commend Teams 60 and 254 for their work and for stepping outside the norm. I like that in a team and think it pushes the envelope. That is how we can drive change. Undoubtedly, Team 60 and 254 have learned a great deal about working together with diversity. Great value in that.

Sharing Intellectual Property (drawings, ideas, white papers, comments, critiques, strategy, etc.) improves the game for everyone as it continues to raise the level of play and challenges all teams to kick it up a notch to compete. That type of sharing and helping of other teams -to me, that is FIRST.

Helping at a competition, making a replacement part, showing someone how to program, offering advise and working on someone else's machine so that they can stay in the game - to me, that is FIRST.

I only disagree with the fact that 60 & 254 then made systems for each other. That did give an advantage because it is easier and quicker to make 2 of something than 1 of two different things. There are also the cost questions to be addressed. Sharing a machined part is different than sharing an idea or a drawing.

And so, 60 & 254 - good job at working together, good job at pushing the envelope, great bravery for making it all public knowledge.

Time will tell if you have created a Mustang or an Edsel.

[pras870]

Does anyone else think that this thread has run it's course, or is it just me?

[Ken Loyd]

Enough!

I first met Team 254 in a hanger at Moffet Field many years ago. I met Team 60 that same year at Nationals. Over the years I have enjoyed working with and playing against both teams.

I look forward to seeing if their idea works or not.

Ken Loyd
Team 64

PS Both of you had better watch out. We have a pretty good robot sitting out here in the desert.

[Greg Perkins]

Enough!

I first met Team 254 in a hanger at Moffet Field many years ago. I met Team 60 that same year at Nationals. Over the years I have enjoyed working with and playing against both teams.

I look forward to seeing if their idea works or not.

Ken Loyd
Team 64

PS Both of you had better watch out. We have a pretty good robot sitting out here in the desert.



I know i have lots of respect for the teams. 254 was paired w/ us at nationals in 2002 when i was on 151. and team 60 is awesome in my book. although someone mentioned, why team up with another "veteran" team, instead of helping out an underfunded team? heck you could've gotten chairmans if you both did that.

I just think that FIRST should step in and make a judgement about it, and clear up some tattered edges. just put in perspective all of the BAE SYSTEMS teams up here in the northeast, you would have 8 teams exactly the same. and then if that happened other teams would have a hissy fit about it. so dont bash me for what i believe in, but when i first read it, i was like...um ok, so now we have 2 identical robots...when did this become fair.

[KenWittlief]

first off, its clear to me that these two teams dont think they have broken the rules, or done anything wrong, or they would never have gone down this path. they have put several months (apparently) into this collaboration idea, coming up with the idea before the kickoff meeting, when there was no Q&A forum to ask - the danger there is the longer you go nurturing your idea without getting an official judgement, the more you convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with it

and I suspect by the time of the kickoff they had already convinced themselves what they were doing was ok, so they did not trouble FIRST with the question.

Nobody here is accusing these two teams of deliberately setting out to cheat or bend the rules - you can believe what you are doing is good and right, but still be wrong. I think that is the case here.

Putting all other issues aside, I think KenW is just trying to address the issue of the letter of the rule, and that is, the robot can only use parts build by your own team, and parts that isn't built by your own team is limited by the $3500 rule. So, it is OK if you use parts not build by your own team, as long as they are within the $3500 limit. Otherwise it is against the rules.


this is NOT the problem I see with the rules - this is not a issue of who machined the parts or how much they cost.

The issue is that the rule I quoted several pages back clearly states that teams must fabricate and assemble ALL of their custom parts and assemblys after the kickoff meeting

Clearly each team must fabricate their OWN robot. Clearly you cant hire a professional design consulting team to come in and design and fabricate your subassemblies for you, then only bill you for the machining costs.

One team here designed and fabricated the drive trains, the other designed and fabricated the arm, and they bartered (traded) one for the other. That is a form of payment - not only for the machine shop time, but for the custom design of a subsystem intended specifically to play this years game.

The extreem extention of this, if it is allowed to stand: you will end up with small teams who have no resources signing up for 'design and fabricate' alliances in which several other teams design one subsystem each, then build 10 or 20 of them, and the smaller teams end up doing nothing but making buttons or tee shirts for the other 20 teams they allied with, or checking every teams kit of parts for missing components, or whatever trivial task they feel they can do because they have no engineers, money, machine shop or resources.

FIRST is hard. FIRST is suppose to be hard. If you dont have the mentors or resources to build a full custom robot then you have to make design tradeoff decisions and use some of the stuff FIRST gave you, the default transmissions, the default code, the default wheels.... That is a part of engineering - that is what has made this program so successful: it IS hard - it IS challenging - its the most difficult 6 weeks most students have ever experienced in their lives - and thats why they come back next year - they have been challenged to their maximum capacity and they LIKE what they found in themselves.

One last thing - I keep hearing people say how generous with their previous designs they are - everything is posted in white papers and they share all their designs. That is excellent, its great to raise the bar and then make your work public domain.

But please stop and consider that there are a lot of us out here who do not copy everything you do, who are not following in your wake saying thankyouthankyouthankyou we could not do this without you.

Some of us LIKE to brainstorm our own ideas, to come up with our own designs, to look at each year as a new challenge, and to put the students right smack in front of it. Sure we look at what other teams have posted in white papers and such, but if you could build your whole machine from other teams previous designs, then what is the point. Personally I dont think FIRST is intended to be program to train and inspire future machinist and welders.

The design is the thing.

I hope 60 and 254 can take a step back and see this, and understand why others are not only upset, but genuinely offended.

[Greg Perkins]

...I hope 60 and 254 can take a step back and see this, and understand why others are not only upset, but genuinely offended.



*stands up and agrees with Ken* Great Job Ken nice way in general to post about the whole situation, and not to offend anyone!

[ejSabathia]

Clearly each team must fabricate their OWN robot. Clearly you cant hire a professional design consulting team to come in and design and fabricate your subassemblies for you, then only bill you for the machining costs.

One team here designed and fabricated the drive trains, the other designed and fabricated the arm, and they bartered (traded) one for the other. That is a form of payment - not only for the machine shop time, but for the custom design of a subsystem intended specifically to play this years game.



i wanted to clear up something that seems to have lost (but was clearly stated in the beginning of this thread) each team had a hand in the design of every part of the robot...the drive train was not designed by 254, built to 254 and shipped to 60. we spent the time designing together, and then distributed the load of fabrication. so there was no..."hey i'll trade you my drive train for your arm"

and as for us fabricating our "own" robot...yea we did...we spent the time to design...and then split up the work load among our team members.
~ej

[Collin Fultz]

if this collaboration is the greatest thing since sliced bread then why even have the robot COMPETITION at all? shouldn't we all just get together and try to come up with one really great robot idea that is simply awesome? wouldn't that just be the greatest? no. competition makes America what it is. competition between teams, companies, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives...without competition nothing ever really gets better. without competition healthcare doesn't get faster and cheaper, cars don't get better gas mileage, and things progress much more slowly than before. I hope...no, I PRAY...that Cyber Blue never, never, never NEVER goes to this idea. Cooperation is one thing, so is helping a team at a competition, or mentoring them, or posting a white paper, or showing pictures, or this or that... but the bottom line is building two identicle robots is not the same as these things and therefore should not be compared to them...come on :(

i had an epiphany and i'd like to take a minute to appologize for some of the things i said in my post. i won't delete that post because i don't believe that re-writing the past is the answer...i'll just add to it. i was where i'm sure we all were last night...done with school, just got off work, tired, hungry and i had a headache. this isn't an excuse (ok i guess it kind of is) i just want to explain myself. anyways...here i go.

i appologize for my seeming priggishism (sorry, just learned that word and wanted to use it and saw golden opportunity). this isn't black and white...at all. i'm sorry i saw it that way. there is a lot of grey.

i do think that helping other teams is good, very good, and i guess if i look at this from a different angle i can see the fact that you all are helping each other. that's good.

you may ask if i agree with the fabrication...no...but the principles i do agree with.

i won't go into the "real world" because everyone's "real world" is different...i'll stick with my version of FIRST. FIRST (this is all FIRST to me) is as David Kelly said all about the I. without Inspiration this becomes a science fair (and we all know how Dean feels about that). i've been inspired in different ways along my journey in FIRST. without that "I" i wouldn't have a desk at Rolls-Royce and the opportunity of a lifetime as a high schooler. for me...a lot of that Inspiration comes because of the competition. for others...it must not.

a note to teams 60 and 254-i personally look forward to seeing you at competitions (60 in AZ) not because of the robot but because of the idea and how it could possibly pertain to the FIRST International Partners (FIPs) idea. i think (with a little tweaking) it could work. of course, we would need an official word from FIRST and we'd have to keep it legal...but i think there are possibilities.

as i said before...it's all about the I. and as long as the kids on teams 60 and 254 were "I"'d...congratulations.

again...kingman...come see me in Phoenix...i'll be looking for you guys to get more details.

p.s. thanks amanda. :)

[KenWittlief]

i wanted to clear up something that seems to have lost (but was clearly stated in the beginning of this thread) each team had a hand in the design of every part of the robot...the drive train was not designed by 254, built to 254 and shipped to 60. we spent the time designing together, and then distributed the load of fabrication. so there was no..."hey i'll trade you my drive train for your arm"

I dont see any problem with two teams deciding to join forces, esp if they are short on resources and mentors this year, to form one team and build one robot, and compete as one team.

but I dont want to be on the opposite side of the field against a robot that was designed by two teams (or more) against the bot we designed on our own. and I certainly dont want to be on the field opposite TWO robots in the elimination rounds that were designed together to BE a multi-team effort.

Surely you can see that pitting two againts one is not good sportsmanship - go back and read what Dennis posted on the 1st page of this thread - he said you guys decided you could build a better product working together than either team could by themselves

yes, exactly! which is not fair to the teams that build their bots by themselves. try to see this from the viewpoint of other teams, smaller teams, rookie teams who are going to end up getting trampled by your machines.

if you did not have the resources to create a drivetrain and an acquistion system this year, you could have used the default drivetrain that FIRST provided, like MANY other teams are doing this year - and if you did not have the resources to design a super acquision system this year you could have designed a simple ball pushing device like MANY other teams will be using this year.

[Stephen Kowski]

and as for us fabricating our "own" robot...yea we did...we spent the time to design...and then split up the work load among our team members. ~ej

no it is not your "own" robot, it is yours and Kingman's robot....the fact that you have 2 or 4 makes no difference....you said it yourself you both had a hand in designing these robots....there are some serious double standards going on here.....

you have your own robot, but you didn't design it just yourselves.....you split the design and the workload up between two teams, by my calculations this makes this robot 1/2 yours

you all make minor adjustments and then claim they are different robots, but if one wins a design award the other team gets to feel as if they are a part of it.....

i don't want to seem mean or cruel, but from my viewpoint there are a lot of differing opinions within the teams....colleges, companies, and other organization work together to find things out (just like you did with the drive train over the summer) but you won't see two companies with the same knowledge and experience bring two identical products to market....sry just the way i feel....

[Yan Wang]

FIRST is hard. FIRST is suppose to be hard. If you dont have the mentors or resources to build a full custom robot then you have to make design tradeoff decisions and use some of the stuff FIRST gave you, the default transmissions, the default code, the default wheels.... That is a part of engineering - that is what has made this program so successful: it IS hard - it IS challenging - its the most difficult 6 weeks most students have ever experienced in their lives - and thats why they come back next year - they have been challenged to their maximum capacity and they LIKE what they found in themselves.

I don't want to delve into the legality of the issue because that is under FIRST's jurisdiction. It makes me extremely curious as to what's being discussed right now.

However, I do want to agree with what Ken said above... FIRST is hard and one of the things I enjoy and get out of the program is a sense of pride from being unique. Last year, I was especially proud that my team decided to take on the task of stacking/protecting bins, an area of the game which was underrepresented. I won't give my opinion about collaboration, but I will say that I can't imagine having the identical robot as another team. That would ruin a lot of the fun for me. Being unique is awesome - that's why individual teams get rewarded through design and innovation awards.

[Ryan Albright]

WEll i am just going to keep my thoughts to myself i would just like to say a few things

i agree with ken he has hit the points that i think

One thing i would liek everyone to look at
We see this going on and i mean shure they built the same robot and it does mostly the same thing. But next year i mean what if teams join uop see the task and make two robots cover all the aspects of the game
example
Say next year my team 710 and like 108 team up to make two different robots that work together. we both go to the same regionals., maybe we wont be paired together in qualfication matches but what stops us from picking each other in elminations so if we seeded like 1st or 2nd we could pick 108 and wouldnt we be unstoppable cause our robots were made to work together.

I thought it was great that they worked on designs together but i think they crossed the line makin each others parts. IF my team only had to think about one thing (arm or drivetrain) would it make it alot easier. I mean that is like using only half your brain

Both these teams are looked up to in the FIRST community and i still look up to them i just wish they would of thought a little more about there descion to work together and how it would effect the rest of us

[Joel J]

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise. I have to wonder, though, if everyone uses gracious professionalism and what is in the "Spirit of FIRST" as a crutch for their arguments, then do they not see that they are defeating themselves? I mean, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the partnerships between 60 and 254 (I still have mixed feelings), but don't do so in a way that makes you look narrow-minded, because then yelling begins, and then all things after are unusable.

I've have seen discussions in the past that attempted to girdle a "controversial" topic, but failed miserably. After such failure, some well-known poster would submit a lengthy post stating why we should interact better as a community, and how we should allow discussions to grow. Many of the participants in the discussion would apologize to each other and the thread would be closed. One would think after such episodes that no more will happen, but thats often far from the truth. A few weeks later another controversy, or conflict of interest would arise and the cycle would repeat itself.

This thread has an interesting topic, one that should be discussed to a great extent. I would hate to see the mods have to close it because they start having flashbacks to other threads that ended with individuals having changed opinions about each other, and with teams hating each other. This thread is not there yet, so lets keep it that way.

I'd take this post as a quick and dirty history lesson on chiefdelphi discussions gone bad. The moral: think privately, then share openly your refined opinion. Readers should see the best of what you have to say, not just the first thing that comes to your mind.

[Ryan Albright]

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise. I have to wonder, though, if everyone uses gracious professionalism and what is in the "Spirit of FIRST" as a crutch for their arguments, then do they not see that they are defeating themselves? I mean, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the partnerships between 60 and 254 (I still have mixed feelings), but don't do so in a way that makes you look narrow-minded, because then yelling begins, and then all things after are unusable.

I've have seen discussions in the past that attempted to girdle a "controversial" topic, but failed miserably. After such failure, some well-known poster would submit a lengthy post stating why we should interact better as a community, and how we should allow discussions to grow. Many of the participants in the discussion would apologize to each other and the thread would be closed. One would think after such episodes that no more will happen, but thats often far from the truth. A few weeks later another controversy, or conflict of interest would arise and the cycle would repeat itself.

This thread has an interesting topic, one that should be discussed to a great extent. I would hate to see the mods have to close it because they start having flashbacks to other threads that ended with individuals having changed opinions about each other, and with teams hating each other. This thread is not there yet, so lets keep it that way.

I'd take this post as a quick and dirty history lesson on chiefdelphi discussions gone bad. The moral: think privately, then share openly your refined opinion. Readers should see the best of what you have to say, not just the first thing that comes to your mind.
I agree totally wiht you thats what i did cause if i posted right when they said they were workign together i would had bad reputation. Please everyone think about what youpost before you post cause i would liek this thread to stay open to see were this goes

My thoughts up above our toned way down from what iw as thinking intitally

[Collin Fultz]

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise.


while i agree with the rest of your post i have to show an opposite side to this. because Kingman and the Cheeseypoofs broght this up in such a dramatic fashion...i don't see it not becoming a national FIRST issue. to me, your argument is like saying steroids are bad because they make people better athletes. and if the people weren't better...we would't care. that isn't true. if the athletes weren't better kids wouldn't take them with such disregard for the future that they do...but steroids would still be incredibly harmfull. successful or not, 60 and 254 are hitting uncharted (good? bad? who knows?) territory in FIRST that will almost have to be addressed. i do, however, wish both teams the best of luck this season. it would be kind of interesting to see them against each other at nationals. it kind of (emphasize "kind of") reminds me of when 45 (another well recognized team) donated their 'toy'-robot (sorry...didn't have another word to use) to another team for use at a competition and wound up losing to it in a match. it'll be interesting.

[Matt D]

I finally decided to chime in on this issue. Since I am part of this "conspiricy to undermine the values of FIRST" [/sarcasm], I decided to tell a few details that people not involved in this would not know. This is not an attack on people or their arguements, but an attempt to straighten out a few facts.

The arm did not arrive in the mail at our lab pre-built. The pieces that needed to be machined/welded were done, but we assembled it and fixed it. Some people may say that this trains us to be factory assembly line workers. However, we helped design it, know how it works, and could put it together without instructions. Secondly, It did not work right after we assembled it. For example, We sheared the bolts holding the drive sprocket to the lower part of the arm, so we engineered a solution. "We" means the people in team 254's lab at that moment (about 8 students, 1 engineer and 2 college students. We then called Kingman and informed them of the problem, not the solution. That is just one example.

Some people have said that we (the students) are not as invloved in the design process. However, we had numerous hours of meetings discussing the design of the robot (for example, of the extensions for ball herding). We met on Monday and spent two hours discussing different solutions to the problem that we saw. We then compared our results with Kingman's results. Then on Tuesday, we spent another two hours deciding which design (of our two favorites from Monday) we liked best. Then, we called Kingman and it happened that we both agreed about the best solution to the problem (that we had room/weight/resources for). Again, this is but one example.

Another thing people are saying is that we should do this with a rookie team. We decided to collaborate with Kingman (and they with us) because we both felt that we had experiences to bring to the table. We do mentor rookie teams, and I am not saying that we do not learn from them. However, we feel that our strengths complement each other.

Thank you for all your feedback to our experiment. Please try not to attack something you do not know all the details about. However, continue to give your input, especially if you have something new to bring to the table.

Sorry for the long post. This is a complicated subject. :ahh:

[Tom Bottiglieri]

im not particuarly for or against this topic. This is new territory in FIRST, and should be treated that way: a new and developing idea that has not had enough time yet to prove its effectiveness/diseffectiveness. It could turn out these 2 teams rule the game this year. Or, it could turn out neither do good because of a design flaw, and arent picked for finals by other teams just for the fact that they worked together (therefore cutting the work in half?) This is probably a unlikely situtation, but just for the record (this has nothing to do with this thread):

If you are in the position to pick teams for finals, pick them by who will bring the most to the table in your alliance, not their teams repuatation of being good or how much they tried selling themselves to you.

[Yan Wang]

We do mentor rookie teams, and I am not saying that we do not learn from them. However, we feel that our strengths complement each other.

I think that's where people see a problem/the controversy, Matt. The collaboration seems to have been made to increase the overall strength of both teams - teams that are already very strong and able, with a plethora of awards in their cabinets. That seems very different to me from mentoring a rookie team and providing them the necessary knowledge to make it through the build season and competition season. Based on what you said above, one scenario is to 'combine powers' (for lack of a better phrase) while the other is to teach.

[pras870]

Not to sound critical or mean or insulting, but 123 posts in 2 days? Am I the only one that sees this as beating a dead horse? I think possibly every scenario has been covered, and no offense to anyone, but I personally don't think there's anything that needs to be said on this topic.

[Collin Fultz]

Not to sound critical or mean or insulting, but 123 posts in 2 days? Am I the only one that sees this as beating a dead horse? I think possibly every scenario has been covered, and no offense to anyone, but I personally don't think there's anything that needs to be said on this topic.

maybe the 124th post will be the one that sheds light on the topic...i feel as if the discussion is going great. if you don't like it...stop reading the thread. don't take this as "insulting" it's very simple. there are some people who could discuss this till the cows come home and i'm perfectly willing to let them. besides: some of the FIRST/CD heavyweights haven't put their input in yet (whether they will or not i don't know) but i'd like to see where they stand. final thought: FINALLY a thread where we can have real non-bashing discussion. it's kind of exciting. :)

[KenWittlief]

who was the guy in the patent office that wanted to close it down, something like a hundred years ago, because he thought all the possible new inventions had already been thought of?

there are over 900 teams this year, with a total of how many people? 20,000? 30,000?

This is a real difficult subject here - a real can of worms. Its going to be hard for all the teams to figure out how they feel about this - and I can understand people wanting to close the door here and end the discussion.

But that will only push the confusion and hurt feelings off the forum, where people wont be able to talk openly about them, and then they will fester until the regionals start.

[pras870]

I apoligize for what I said earlier. I'm just a person that feels a topic can be discussed so many times before it starts to lose meaning. Many people on here may disagree with me about that, and they're welcome to, it's there opinions. I just want to apoligize if I offended anyone on my thread. I am sincerely sorry.

Also, this year, there is a total of 1497 teams registered. That means that given a team has 15-20 members (rough estimate), that gives us 22,455 to 29,940 give or take opinions.

[crazykid234]

this is way off the subject, but who has asked first about this situation, I've searched the q+a section multiple times, but I can't find the question. can anyone conferm that the question has actually been asked? or are we all waiting for FIRST to take the initiative?

[Matt D]

As far as I know, neither team 254 nor team 60 has asked FIRST about the legality of our collaboration. Since I would probably be the one to do that for my team, I know we have not done so. If another team has asked, I have not heard about it.

We obviously think that we have not violated any rules in letter or spirit. Some people disagree with us. We'll see what FIRST officially says.

[Glenn]

Kingman has not asked the question we also do not believe it needed to be asked. This subject has obviously never come up before so I'm sure no one has asked the question.

If someone feels it necessary to ask the question, ask FIRST the question.

90% of the work done by Kingman on the (4) robots was done by students and the mentors. Laron only helped on a small portion of the welding no machining. We also had two other machine shops in Kingman (Brackett Aircraft and I-Corp Arizona) make some parts both companies donated the time and materials and work directly with our students to help inspire them. I-Corp is a direct competitor to Laron (how is that for cooperation).

If anyone feels we are breaking the rules then ask what ever question you want neither Kingman nor the Cheesy Poofs have anything to hide. We would like to show you exactly how we did it. Even if you don't agree you may learn something, and in the process I know we can learn from you.

[Greg Perkins]

i just wonder why it had to be two profound teams collaberting... its like kicking a man when he's down. it wouldnt be so bad if you helped an under-resourced team, but another established team? cmon, a little biased eh?

[Matt D]

One thing I really enjoy about this discussion is how it has really brought our two teams closer together. a unique bond is formed when a large number of people challenging us. Thanks! Thanks also to those who have supported our effort to expand the meaning of FIRST's coopertition. We appreciate your support.

[badbugs]

After reading this thread I can honestly say I'm more concerned with the unprofessinal comments coming from mentors and engineers that the actual subject matter of this discussion....You know who you are...comments like "But please stop and consider that there are a lot of us out here who do not copy everything you do, who are not following in your wake saying thankyouthankyouthankyou we could not do this without you"
Just what was this sarcastic comment trying to acheive? No one is forcing anything on any team. Run your team as you choose. Teams 254 and 60 have. I certainly hope you have not "inspired" your students to follow with this attitude.

The comment about this collaboration resulting on students cheating on HS and college assignments.. Please, I think its an insult to FIRST students to imply they don't know difference between cheating on your homework or exams and collaborating on a project. I thought 'teamwork" is one if the building blocks of FIRST.
The comment regarding FIRST not being about making machinists and welders... Do you think these are somehow "bad" professions? Think before you post.

As for companies in the real world working together on the same product/project etc..
They do it all time. Check out www.unitedspacealliance.com. Two biggies who have obviously figured out the working together yields better results than working alone.

As for companies "going to market with the same product" and diminishing the "competitive nature". Again, think before you post. There is a whole market out there that is just this, its called generics. Generic drugs, foods, etc... And trust me, this market prompts alot of competition. But you know,this really doesn apply to this thread. The point I am tyring to make is that before you go off and say the "sky is falling" please do so in a rational, thought out manner with at least some evidence to justify yourself.
Please remember your posts here reflect on your entire team, like it or not.So think first , think again and then post.

[KenWittlief]

Please remember your posts here reflect on your entire team, like it or not.So think first , think again and then post.

Too many teams try to rationalize what they do by tossing up things like "we post all our designs after the season, publish white papers..." as if that somehow makes the other things they are doing ok.

FIRST teams did not invent multi speed transmissions, multi motor drive systems, or shift on the fly drivetrains - I had a shift on the fly multispeed bicycle back in 1967

The POINT I was trying to make is that, just because your team has done very well in the past, or has raised the bar, or published white papers on all the neat stuff you have used, that doesnt make it ok for you to bend the rules, or to come up with clever ways that give you an unfair advantage over other teams this year.

[Joel Glidden]

90% of the work done by Kingman on the (4) robots was done by students and the mentors. Laron only helped on a small portion of the welding no machining. We also had two other machine shops in Kingman (Brackett Aircraft and I-Corp Arizona) make some parts both companies donated the time and materials

This is exactly the issue of concern. I am not concerned with how much either team contributes to the community. I am not concerned with the motivation behind the formation of the 'Bionic Poofs' manufacturing alliance. I am not concerned with the impact that said alliance has had on the students on these teams. I am not concerned with the challenges associated with multi-team design and build.

I am concerned with the rules of the competition that relate directly and unambiguously to the situation described by Glenn in the quote above and in the previous posts by team 60 and team 254 members.

The rules clearly state that work done on the robot by non-team members must be billed against the $3500 limit, whether that work was donated, bought, or bartered. The situation at hand is that roughly half of team 60's robot was built by people who are not members of team 60, and roughly half of team 254's robot was built by people who are not members of team 254.

If both teams have billed every thing according to the rules, and both teams' robots are not in violation of the $3500 rule (and the $400 rule), then there is no problem with what they've done. In fact, if that is the case they've made an amazing accomplishment.

On the other hand, if they are not billing non-team labor against their $3500 budget, or if they are billing it and exceed $3500 / $400 for the robot / individual part, then they are clearly in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the rules. I believe that their alliance affords both teams a significant competitive advangage vs. every other team that designed and built their whole robot with only the resources that their team had secured. I believe the $3500 rule is in place to limit exactly this kind of imbalance.

The only grey area that exists with respect to the rules is the notion of one or more persons having dual team affiliation. To my knowledge there is no provision for such dual team membership in any official FIRST document. Likewise, I know of no official FIRST document which forbids dual team membership. This is something that I believe should have been cleared up before kickoff, or ASAP thereafter.

[Aignam]

One thing I really enjoy about this discussion is how it has really brought our two teams closer together. a unique bond is formed when a large number of people attack us. Thanks! Thanks also to those who have supported our effort to expand the meaning of FIRST's coopertition. We appreciate your support.I haven't seen any posts 'attacking' either of your teams, persay. In fact, I think the posts have been, for the most part, good-natured. You shouldn't label a post as an 'attack' because it may express an opposing viewpoint. You should embrace the criticism. And to all of the people complaining that this thread should be closed: If every controversial thread were closed, this forum would be downright boring. Until there's a blatant insult towards either of the teams involved, or any other team, for that matter, I see no reason to shut this one down.

[Glenn]

I think you look at this as though it was easy, it wasn’t it was difficult. If we were to do this again next year we have several “lessons learn” to improve our process.

Our hope is that we can show what we did and how we did it to any team that is interested. If other team uses some of our methods they will improve the process and more people that get involved the better we will all are at competing in this game.

I can’t see it working for more than two to three teams in a group given the obstacles to over come. Most teams will not be able to make a process like this work at all and will be more successful on their own. Others may improve there program by new innovative systems such as this.

When I say game I don’t just mean Regionals or Nationals I mean the whole process. We are learning about Free Enterprise. We have to market ourselves to gain sponsorship and raise money, we have to share our wealth with other team to inspire them to grow there business. We have to find designers, machinists, welders, and painters, truckers, and so on to help us complete or task.

No matter what each year each team should do everything it can to make there program stronger and every year we will all be a little better than the year before. Most of the rookie teams are starting off better than we did when we were a rookie because we can give them more tools to work with than there we just a few years ago.

How do we finance, design, manufacture, and ship this product in six weeks? How do we make ourselves as competitive as we can be? We innovate and we learn new ways of doing business. FIRST students have the advantage of learning this years before there time. Some people never learn this in a lifetime and others only years after they are out of school.

This years game is tough, and the game will be won by the best alliance not the best robot. In my opinion the robot design only equates to 25% of the winning alliance. The other 75% rests with the alliances themselves, strategy, and luck.

We are talking about two teams with nearly identical robots out of 900 plus teams do you really think this is going to turn the FIRST world upside down? Do you think this really gives us an unfair advantage?

[Joel Glidden]

We are talking about two teams with nearly identical robots out of 900 plus teams do you really think this is going to turn the FIRST world upside down?
This year? No. Future years? Absolutely. If this practice is allowed to continue unrestricted, the FIRST Robotics Competition could change dramatically (for the worse, IMHO).

Do you think this really gives us an unfair advantage?
Yes, if it has allowed circumvention of the $3500/$400 limit, I do.

[Dennis Jenks]

I just wanted to chime in on this subject one last time.

I suppose the thing that upsets me most about this thread is not the fact that people disagree or even disapprove of what our two teams have accomplished this season, but more so having to once again witness the obvious double standards that exist not only in the world of FIRST, but in the world in general.

It seems we are allowed to help teams that we know we can beat or that pose no threat to the other “powerhouse teams”. I have seen this time and again, teams are willing to help out the rookies or even other veteran teams that seem to be struggling. But very few are willing to extend help to another team of equal “powerhouse” caliber. I’m not saying that none will (in fact both 25 and 79 have helped us with quite a bit with our drive train research), but it certainly isn’t given as freely as it is to those that struggle. Mind you, I’m not saying that we should stop helping rookies and start building monsters, what I mean to say is that there are plenty of opportunities to help everyone.

I have seen numerous posts chastising our two teams because we could have used our resources to help out some rookie teams rather than each other. I would like to again point out the fact that both of our teams do mentor rookie teams. In fact our team has helped to start FIRST programs in several states in which FIRST did not even exist.

Additionally, between the two of us we provided 100% of the machine shop support at 3-4 regionals last year (not sure if Kingman did one or two) and provided additional support at Nationals (Texas is a long way to drag a trailer from California!). When you consider this, bare in mind that at that time we were in no way obligated to share our resources. FIRST has recently changed the rules (perhaps because we lead the way in that respect as well) so that now if a team wants to bring their own mobile machine shop they have to support other teams. I think this is a wonderful rule, and I’m sure you will see many teams doing just that this year. However we did it because we wanted to, not because we had to. In fact this year we will be providing machine shop support not only at the two regionals we will be attending, but also for at least one regional at which we are not even registered.

I would also like to point out that we are not teams of unlimited resources! Our team came from very humble beginnings (please feel free to research it it’s a great story!), and presently we have only one actual engineer and two engineering students (I list my team role as engineer because it best describes what I do for our team, although I won’t receive my degree until this May). Kingman has zero engineers and a couple of machinists (albeit darn good ones). As such our combined resources are much less than those of many of the teams we compete with, but we still find a way to help literally hundreds of teams.

During this past year our two teams tried something new. Our initial intent was not to build identical robots, that just kind of happened. Our intent was simply to build the best robots we could, to give our kids the best experience we could along the way, and hopefully to blaze a trail into a new and undiscovered world of FIRST where everyone helps everyone. If you find some flaws in our first attempt please don’t hold that against us, our intensions were as noble as could be.

I still feel that collaboration is a good thing; the sharing of ideas and resources is always a good thing. I am also sure that our teams will continue to work together in the future and I hope others do the same. We’ve already been down the road where the veteran teams help the new teams all the while guarding their best secrets to maintain an edge. Let’s turn the corner and see what lies down this new road where there are no secrets. Where everyone shares everything willingly and gives aid to others without bias. We are trying to turn that corner and yes there may be a few bumps, but never the less we still want to find out where the road goes.

And to those of you who find fault with this, you have every right to question our actions, but please don’t question our motives.

I have to go now we have a robot to build.

Good luck to all,


Dennis Jenks

[Crop-Circles]

I would just like to point out that few posts have said anything negative about 254 or 60. We do not question your teams' contribution towards FIRST. However, this concept of collaboration is new to us. You guys have had a much longer time to think this through. We are only questioning the idea, not your team's integrity. Please don't mistake an attack on the idea as an attack on your team. Besides, few of us are concerned with what you did. We're concerned with what other teams may do with the idea you have presented. Personally, I'm glad you opened this "can of worms." That doesn't mean I fully agree with what it may lead to.

[rourke]

I find it amusing that team members from 60 and 254 continue to skirt the main flaw in the collaboration.

I applaud your community spirit, your outreach effort, your philanthropic endeavours, your hard work, and I appreciate the learning journey that each team experienced. But I think you're changing the subject because you're uncomfortable with confronting the reality of the rules.

C'mon now.....Give us a straight answer. The rules require that the robot must be designed AND BUILT by members of your team. Otherwise, the contracted work MUST be valued per the rules and be within the $3,500 limit.

How are you going to address this graciously and professionally???

[Ryan Albright]

I find it amusing that team members from 60 and 254 continue to skirt the main flaw in the collaboration.

I applaud your community spirit, your outreach effort, your philanthropic endeavours, your hard work, and I appreciate the learning journey that each team experienced. But I think you're changing the subject because you're uncomfortable with confronting the reality of the rules.

C'mon now.....Give us a straight answer. The rules require that the robot must be designed AND BUILT by members of your team. Otherwise, the contracted work MUST be valued per the rules and be within the $3,500 limit.

How are you going to address this graciously and professionally???
i totally agree . you guys have already made the robots now its time to stop beatin around the bush and get down into seeing if this is legal

I personally think they will allow it htis year but next year be very clear in the rules about teams and calboration

[Matt Adams]

Rule 5.3.2.2 make it clear:
Build your own robot and robot parts. If you're not going to build your own, or are unable to, and none of your sponsors is going to build them, you need to have that maching cost go on the bill of materials.

It's been said that 90% of these parts were made by students or engineers, not the mutual machining sponsor.

The way it's written, (and assuming equal distribution), 45% of the parts on each robot need to be billed out.

Last year, we had Truck Town Thunder generously volunteer to fabricate two large pieces on our robot that took 6 or 7 hours to machine each. They didn't charge us, but we billed out each of those pieces at $50 an hour, for a total of $700 against our $3,500. It's the way the cookies crumbled.

Glen and Dennis and many other team members have mentioned time and time again all of the sincerely wonderful services these teams provide for ALL teams in FIRST. You speak of the noble intentions you had with this new idea. They said that students have learned a lot more than they would otherwise. This is wonderful and greatly appreciated. Honestly. I, for one, have NO doubts about your good intentions.

But intentions are mutually exclusive to the rules of the game.

This is OBVIOUSLY a grey area. Pick the shade of grey you like, but this is something that's revolutionary and pushing the envelope. It's not written in the rules. There will be a ruling by FIRST on this.

If you're trying to convince everyone on this board that the rules are 100% clear on this sort of colaboration and that a special ruling won't be needed, you're just kidding yourself.

Someone should have asked FIRST for clarity before this was done (not after) and I don't think it's fair to the individuals in FIRST to put them in this sort of a bind.

However, the situation is already at hand. If we want to keep this discussion worthwhile, let's put the facts (rules) before us about it. Personal attacks, sincerity of intentions, and the fact that the manufacturing has already occured should have no bearing on the rules.

There's a few issues at hand:
1. Can one student be a member of two or more teams?
2. How should this billing situation (if needed) be resolved?
3. What's the defintion a sponsor?

Let's keep to those and other related topics.

Good luck everybody,

Matt

[Joel Glidden]

Well, at least the question has been submitted to FIRST. I didn't post it, but kudos to whoever did.

Section: 5.3.2.2
Status: Unanswered
Date Posted: 2/17/2004
Q: If high school students on my team make parts for another team, does the team receiving the parts need to bill out our high school students at a typical labor rate as part of the $3,500 limit?

[Aignam]

Have the teams kept accurate logs of labor hours should these hours be included?

[Shawn60]

I found this also. What does it really mean??? I'll let the debate continue.
I personlly think this is a very important discussion to have. The outcome will forever change the face of FIRST (IMHO).


5.3.2.2 Status: Answered Date Answered: 1/15/2004
Q: What constitutes a "Team Member"? Your example in the 4th bullet states"...If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply."

A: A team member is one that is afforded all of the rights and priveleges of all team members, including being listed in your literature and on your tee shirts (we encourage teams with large memberships).


Shawn
Teacher
Team 60

[Jeff Waegelin]

Just in case you haven't seen it stickied to the top, you might all want to read this (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25464). I was a little dismayed at the direction this thread was going a few pages back. Fortunately, things seem to be on the upswing again, and for that I thank the people who have been reasonable and rational, no matter which position they take in this discussion. To those that have not, just know that we're watching. It would be a shame to end a discussion of such gravity simply because a few people can't refrain from speaking without thinking first.

[JVN]

Okay.

Time to step back, and take a break.

This thread was originally very constructive, but it is rapidly turning into a mob with pitchforks.

Brandon -- I am locking this thread for a few hours. To be reopened at your discretion.

Everyone needs to cool down, on both sides.

I won't stand by and see these 2 teams who are "pillars of FIRST" that I happen to know and greatly respect be torn apart... regardless of whether their actions are right or wrong (I'm not passing judgement), we need to keep in mind that these teams are definitely the "right stuff" and have had great positive impacts on FIRST itself, and certainly on thier students.

We may decide their actions are wrong. We may hear from FIRST that this is illegal. We may condemn them for their actions... but... we won't attack these two teams, and their members.

Chew on that for a while... then try for some more rational discussion.

JVN
Proud friend of the cheesypoofs

[Brandon Martus]

I'll re-open this thread later tonight.

Until then, read the thread over... this thread is huge.
Gather your thoughts. Type them out. Read them over.
Re-read the thread. Re-read your post over.
By then, the thread should be open and you can post what you have come up with.

Please don't start any other threads. This one will re-open tonight. Check back around 11pm EST.

Moderators: close them, if you see new/similar threads pop up.

Thanks.

[sfield]

First off let me say I am not an active member of Team 60 still, so I don’t know every detail, nor will I pretend that I know everything about this year’s robot or team. At first glance it seems that there are a lot of angry people in the FIRST community, but then upon a second reflection I realized these people are not angry… just ignorant, ignorance is a person’s worst enemy. Those of you who are part of the large wave of antipathy in disagreement over the innovative ideas of Teams 60 and 254 need to again realize what FIRST is… a GAME. I believe you are all loosing site on what this competition is all about. Many of you incorrectly believe that FIRST is a competition where students MUST be the sole contributors to building the robots. If you are one of these people I am sorry that you haven’t yet grasped the full meaning of FIRST and let me quote the FIRST web site as I did 2 years ago when this same topic was brought up. “The FIRST Robotics Competition is an exciting, multinational competition that teams professionals and young people to solve an engineering design problem in an intense and competitive way.”

Secondly, it was very clear what Glenn posted as to what the ratio of student machined parts to professionally machined parts was…I believe 9-1. Or as he stated 90% of all the parts were fabricated by the team. Now I can tell you from past years experience that a group of students are not capable of doing every task on a piece of machinery such as a robot. They should not be expected to experiment with welding or other similar tasks. That would be careless and dangerous. So I fully believe that 10% of the work was done outside of the team, as it should have been.

Again quoting the FIRST web page, “Involved engineers experience again many of the reasons they chose engineering as a profession, and the companies they work for contribute to the community while they prepare and create their future workforce.” Now, that is what FIRST has written as to what the competition is. That being said I would like to know what engineers or any business professional work alone in their respective fields? Why then are people criticizing these two remarkable teams on cooperating? Doesn’t that qualify as preparing the future work force?

Lastly these two teams did NOT have to post anything about their robots or release pictures to anyone. I bet many of you posting negative comments have not let any information out about what your robots are like or what they do. Teams 60 and 254 have become known in the past few years for graciously posting pictures and information about their robots, and many around FIRST look forward to seeing the production pics of these robots. The simple gesture of posting these pictures on the internet shows that these two teams are ALL about cooperation and inspiring the FIRST community. I encourage all of you to not degrade these teams for their willingness to share their ideas. I know that this will not impact many of you who believe this will “reck” FIRST. I’m not sure how some of you call yourselves true FIRST participants if you honestly believe that teamwork and cooperation will ruin FIRST. This all goes back to my first point, that ignorance is one’s worst enemy. People oppose change because they are ignorant to the future. I challenge all of you to learn more about these two landmark FIRST teams before you rudely call for their demise.

My hats off to 60 and 254 for again adding new innovation to the FIRST community. And on a side note despite all this criticism I would like to say thank you to perhaps two of the most under appreciated men in FIRST, Glenn and George for everything they taught me over my duration in FIRST. These two gentlemen taught me things that I will be able to use for the rest of my life, and for that I will be forever grateful. So thank you for inspiring me to continually come up with new and innovative ideas.

Stephen Field

[Matt Adams]

I spouted something sort of arrogant in a post a while back along the lines of, "If you do the algebra, you'll see that the total cost of the robot after billing out fabrication at a reasonable hourly rate will add up to several thousand dollars."

I guess I never really did any.

I suppose nobody else did either, or they would have called me on it.

Let's assume 30 unique parts for a major component, of varying complexity, averaging 2 hours each. Since they're making them in batches (at least groups of 4)... these hours could be minimized further. I assume that the average high school student entering a metalworkers union wouldn't be earning much past $20 an hour.

The algebra says that's only $1,200 folks. I wouldn't have gripes if they billed out high school kids at $15 an hour either.

Do we seriously not want these guys to compete with us this year?

If they can keep the total cost of the rest of their robot under $2300... it's fine by me. It's probably in their best interest to document their hours in some way so that it's clear.

But if they estimate their hours... are you seriously going to breathe down their necks?

Compassion has been lacking on my part, and I'll openly apologize if I've offended anyone. I was reminded of a quote.

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them. And if you love people, you have no desire to judge them. Besides, there may come a time when we, too, will find ourselves more in need of love than judgment." - Mother Teresa

Back to work...

Matt

[Katie Reynolds]

At first glance it seems that there are a lot of angry people in the FIRST community, but then upon a second reflection I realized these people are not angry… just ignorant, ignorance is a person’s worst enemy. Those of you who are part of the large wave of antipathy in disagreement over the innovative ideas of Teams 60 and 254 need to again realize what FIRST is… a GAME From what I've seen there are, in fact, some angry people. Just because a person is angry, does not make them ignorant and it is unfair to say such. No one has the right to tell people how they should or should not feel about something. You can disagree with them all you want, but no one has any right to tell someone not to be upset or angry about something.

Now I can tell you from past years experience that a group of students are not capable of doing every task on a piece of machinery such as a robot. They should not be expected to experiment with welding or other similar tasks. That would be careless and dangerous. So I fully believe that 10% of the work was done outside of the team, as it should have been. I know quite a few groups of students that are fully capable of "doing every task" on a robot and then some. It is not a requirement that a robot be welded, or that a student should be asked to weld anything. This whole thread is about experimenting with something new and different, correct?

I’m not sure how some of you call yourselves true FIRST participants if you honestly believe that teamwork and cooperation will ruin FIRST. This all goes back to my first point, that ignorance is one’s worst enemy. People oppose change because they are ignorant to the future. I challenge all of you to learn more about these two landmark FIRST teams before you rudely call for their demise. I don't think anyone has said that teamwork and cooperation will ruin FIRST. I think what people have been saying is, with this advanced level of cooperation, what stops the 1,000 teams in FIRST from building 1,000 identical robots? Why not just ship a set of instructions with the kit of parts each year? I have not seen anyone call for the demise of either of these teams. Some people are simply not happy with what they are doing.

If someone is unhappy, they're unhappy. What's done is done, and the situation isn't going to change. *shrug* What can you do?

"Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts." - Arnold Bennett

[Greg Perkins]

just because Kingman is sponsored by FORD, i had to post this...


Imagine, if FORD and CHEVY collaborated to produce a car...now ford and chevy would have a great product, and succeed...

but then you would have tons and tons of FORD and CHEVY fans knocking at the CEO's door in the morning to dispute the decision to join the dark and light side(sorry, im a diehard FORD fan), and we would'nt have a fun little rivalry ;)...


just a humorous little analogy i thought that pertains to the subject at hand

[Dan Richardson]

Many on this forum have expressed concern for what has taken place this robotics season. A reason for this might be that is a previously unexplored avenue. Not that it is previously un thought of, just really never been explored to this extent before. Team 60 and team 254 are to outstanding teams in the FIRST community. As a rookie team 60 was my first encounter with a superb robot. ( 2001 ) They were one of the best built robots I had seen my life ( I saw this because they knocked us out in the quarterfinals of our division at nationals ). Team 60 has been one of the few robots I’ve looked forward to seeing every year. Our team has personally become stronger because of team 60. 1) because of their brilliance in performance making us desire to compete at their level, and 2) because of their outreach efforts to aid teams with things like their Marketing and promotional package and guidelines. 254 I have become more knowledgeable of during the past year or so. Hearing and watching them succeed and propel themselves into the national spotlight of FIRST has been an exciting process. They are among one of the teams I respect most for their effort to bring awareness of FIRST, science and technology.

I believe, like many others, that we all have great respect for what 60 and 254 have done for the FIRST community. We all greatly appreciate your efforts in this strive. I personally want to thank you for this.

I believe your thoughts and intentions in your special team development, bonding, and real life experience where pure and good. Call me blindly optimistic but I also believe that no one in this discussion believes that you did not work hard, or did not put forth good effort to create a superb robot.

No one is questioning your ethics, your desire to learn, your desire to teach, your desire to help, your desire to work, or your desire to share. We all understand that you would not have been elevated to the status that both your teams are at by not working hard.

It is the opinion of many however that the path taken to the extent it was taken is a bit shocking and a bit upsetting to some. There are certain rules and provisions made by FIRST and what you have done is touched on a grey area, and what seems to me has been somewhat of an unspoken boundary, a road that has not been traveled. It is easy to see how this may effect FIRST in the long run, does this kind of partnership continue to happen, or does it not.. If it were to continue, where might it end? Again blind optimism has it that it is my belief these questions do not arise because people want you out of competition, but more in questions of fairness within guidelines of the rules.

Even in FIRST’s statement there can be great things accomplished where it is still illegal. In years of old it may have been illegal to proclaim the catholic church wrong, punishable by death, but it didn’t stop those old famous guys to say “ Hey maybe Earth goes around the sun “ or “ Maybe the earth isn’t flat but rounded. “ So what I’m saying is it might end up being an ok thing, however we still must be careful.

To those who have stated “ If this were 2 rookie teams would anyone have looked twice upon it, “ I say maybe, most likely they would have been talked to by older veteran teams but it would not have received the hipe. However with as much respect as your teams command comes great responsibility and scrutiny. You will always be in the spotlight as long as you are on top. You may not have asked to be put there, but when you do things as amazing as your teams, you automatically get put their like it or not. Its just the nature of things, with great Status comes great responsibility. When you make any stance on a grey area you’ll find those who support your stance and those who do not. Especially if some of the members feel “ shafted, “ or “ cheated. “

I still feel some questions are unanswered, but I do not feel it necessary to post them again. I also believe most all questions will be answered if and when FIRST releases a statement.

I want to close by thanking Team 60 and Team 254 for all they have done for the FIRST community, and the noticeable amount of work that they put forth this year in trying to elevate their level of competition. Tho I still might disagree with the way they went about this style of collaboration, I still do not believe that they had the wrong intentions. It is still my hope that FIRST does not all together venture down this path, but I will stand behind FIRST’s decision and adjust accordingly, even if I might disagree.

Thank you again 60 and 254 for all you’ve done and continue to do.

Dan

[SteveK254]

Team 254 wishes to thank everyone for their comments in regards to our collaboration with Team 60. Even though we made this venture with the best intensions in mind (our students), it seems that some have issue with our choices. We have open minds and have noted each and every recommendation/concern.

Our teams (60 and 254) encourage, and are interested in, all thoughts about the “concept” of collaboration, and felt it would be a great concept for FIRST teams to analyze more this season. Most have given respectful, open minded, and well thought out opinions on both sides of the discussion – some love how we are working together, some are troubled by it and fear “possible” ramifications down the road, and many are somewhere in between. We have planned all along to document our experiment, to share the positive aspects and difficult aspects with the entire FIRST community at the conclusion of the season, and look forward to continued input from our many friends in the FIRST community.

When looking at some posts of those assigned the “con” side of the proposed “debate” – we realize that many statements have been for neither discussion nor debate, rather they have been statements of assumption, attack and accusation that unfairly slander our teams. As all our actions and intentions have been within the exiting FIRST rules, it troubles us that these people have used words like “cheat”, “broken rules”, and have implied our teams have “not been straight” about our goals. This is not only hurtful to us mentors, but more importantly to our students. Statements like these show very little knowledge of our teams, are unfounded, unfair, and ungracious – and clearly show us that continuing a “debate” would mean we would either need to lower ourselves to that level or defend ourselves against baseless and incorrect claims. As we have already lost valuable time this week, and there is only one week left before the ship date, we feel it’s in the best interest of all to dedicate their time and effort to their team members and the challenges in front of them. As FIRST will have the final word on this, I don't see any advantage of participating in this debate. We look forward to FIRST's guidance and will comply with their ruling.

What makes this thread even more intriguing, is that all of it is speculation at this point, as neither of our robots have even worked or competed yet. We would hope people and teams would reserve judgment until they see what may or may not result from our collaboration. It appears that FIRST may have provided all of us with one of the best games yet, and the upcoming season should be fun and exciting for all. As usual, we look forward to seeing and working with all of you at any events we attend. Best of luck to every team in the 2004 season – we wish you all a great experience.