View Full Version : A bit unfair...
There is something my team and I are struggling to understand.
We are in no way calling first bad, or unfair, we just think adjustments can be made for next year. Why is it that teams can take a plan into a professional shop, and have their gearboxes made ? You can't buy stuff already made, but you can pay for someone to make it ? Does this not give the rich teams the advantage ? My team built our robot for nearly $150 Canadian.
And to tell you the truth I think it was alot more fun, and a wayyy better learning experience. Having to search the school for smaller casters, ripping gym mats apart for bumpers...I don't think that having parts of the robot professionally made is fair.
Nor is that in any way promoting learning and thinking.
:confused:
Matt Reiland
19-02-2002, 10:23
It is going to be tough to decide where the boundry is for professionally made? What if you sponser has a CNC in house or milling and lathe all in house and someone on your team knows how to run it. The result is the same and it dodn't cost the team any more money. We have 6 gearboxes on the robot all made by the engineers on the tools in the labs at work but the final product is no different than if we had one of the machine shop vendors do it. I agree a big budget helps this project, but a small budget and alot of available resources that you can use is just as important. There will be no way first can limit making parts for the robot and at that point there is no way to differentiate between in house and bought. Some of our prototype labs have unbelievable equipment that can make almost anything. Welding is just as big of an issue, correctly welding aluminum (especially thin stock) is an ART. For all of the teams out there who have a person on the team that can do aluminum welding, go pat them on the back. For teams that don't you again are possibly at a disadvantage. To save weight this year we took off fasteners and started welding but you can't do it if you don't have a welder.
My opinion is this event is about as fair as what you can expect in real world engineering. Some jobs are low budget some have unlimited budgets. Sometimes they have to compete with each other. The trick is to do the best with what you have, money can't always buy the best design
The amount of engineering and manufaction support depends on your team objectives and resoureces. Our team objective is to have the students do as much as possible, including the design and manufacturing. Partly because we have limited engineering and financial resources, but primarily because we want to get students involved and learn about engineering.
We may not have the most competitive machine but over the last five years we have come a long way. Our first year we didn't know what a lathe or mill were and only had access to the High School shop which was limited to drill press and band saw. However, through the competitions and seeing what the other teams did we learned what was necessary to be successfull. Over the last couple of years we got the local university, CSU, to be one of the sponsors. The high school students enrolled in the CSU ME shop course and were certified to use the CSU machine shop. They learned how to weld, use the lathes and mills. Last year we won one of the design awards and this year, the high school students did most all the machining for the robot.
You should to keep in mind that the goal of FIRST from the very beginning has always been to 'inspire' students...not necessarily teach them. Of course, in the course of designing and building your robot, whether you do it, or the engineers do it and you watch, you WILL learn...but the goal that Dean Kamen had in mind from the beginning was to inspire you to want to do what the engineers do and become what they are.
And if watching them engineer and build parts for the robot creates inspiration in you...then FIRST has done its job. Would it be ideal to have ALL students have SOME hands on experience with their robot? Of course...but that's not a requirement with FIRST.
Some teams do have financial advantages over others...but so do some businesses in this world. FIRST is a smaller version of a real life company. Learn from what you're doing. Be inspired to be more, think more and accomplish more.
And good luck to you (all) this season!!!!!
-Lori- :)
Oh I totally agree with you, for the past 6 weeks i have been saying how unfair the competetion, yes i may just be on a rookie team and not know anything, but i have heard and seen many teams (chief delphi teams especially) that have amazing robots that can do some crazy stuff. The problem isnt that they have awesome robots, its that the kids didnt build them, there are teams with like 2 less mentors than kids, and these shops that are bigger than my school. Also, theres lots of pictures ive seen of these cool robots where there are no kids standing next to it, its all adults. My team is doin it the real way in my opinion. We have 3 mentors that know about building that refuse to give us answers cuz they want us to learn (which is very fustrating because sometimes they give us the wrong answer) we have 3 supervisors that are learning about robotics with the kids, a mill, a drill press, a lathe and a bandsaw, AND we made a pretty good robot i think. I just dont think that it's fair that we have to compete against teams of engineers that tell students what to do and get to work in a huge shop. I dont know if im just a rookie and dont know anything of if im also gettin the attention of other lower teams like us, but either way, thats my opinion.
Andrew Dahl
19-02-2002, 13:05
I can see the way that this thread is going---
its boiling down to a us (no money/machine shop) vs them (they have everything)competition
that is not the way to go-
I have been the leader on a team that has had it both ways
1st year no engineers- just me the students and hacksaws and grinders
result- fourth place alliance
2nd year- engineers acess to a great machine shop
and tons of help with structural stuff
result- third place alliance
the following is not meant as a personal attack by any means just a statement of opinion-
use or discard as you see fit
/rant on
the people who make these arguments seem to be really not having a good time building the robot-
that can stem from two things-
a: not being invloved in the whole process and the B***ing about how no one ever listened to their designing ideas
b: bad student/adult leadership
and guess what- welcome to real life
no matter what you do there will always be people better equipped and people less equipped than you
its all about taking advatage of what is offees to you or in your realm of attainibility
/rant off
sorry- but I was getting really fed up with the us vs them and who builds the robot crap
dahl
I've said it before. The best way to handle the resource inequity issue is to break FIRST up into divisions and let the teams choose which division they want to compete in. This way you can choose to compete against the big budget division or you can compete in the lesser budget/experience division.
Actually we probably need 3 divisions: Expert/Pro, Amatuer and Novice divisions.
Raul
I was a member of team #157 through my years in high school and the students for the most part built everything in house. The team had members in every shop.
So what you are saying is that FIRST should not allow vocational schools to be part of this competition???? The whole basis is to inspire students to explore the world of engineering and to pursue a career in the field.
comments, questions????
check out there website
assabettech.com (http://www.assabettech.com)
Andrew Dahl
19-02-2002, 13:49
i think breaking the competition into expert/amature/novice
is possible the worst way that FIRST can go-
who decides who goes where-
it will increase the problems that already (and evidently) exist between those who have access to better stuff thatn other teams
would those who have "limited resources" not be allowed to compete in the upper levels
as i said once before- welcome to real life-
would one be for banning teams that have a vocational center because that system offers one
or how about banning certain teachers from helping because they were at one time a enigneer-
or how about a machine shop that donates time and training would they be not allowed
someone else metioned that this is a microcosm of what the real businees world is like (and real life)
those who dont have what every body else has does one of two things-
whine and compalin about how rought is is on the off chance that some one will commiserate with them
or adapt and over come (like I have seen many teams do at the VCU venue)
Matt Reiland
19-02-2002, 13:51
I still don't know how you could police divisions of resources. I would choose to be in amatuer or the mid-level. Last thing I heard from Chief Delphi was that the students had to be part of a semester program, if someone from the team could chime in and tell us it would be cool.
For our team the students leave at 6:00 P.M. most don't come in for weekends so if we want the robot to get finished on time the engineers (some call us the magic machinists since overnight the parts just magically appear finished) stay later and come in to make sure it gets done. Maybe the students on some of these teams are waaay more motivated but our team could never get it done at 2-3 hours on weekdays only.
The first year I did this project I felt a little like Martin but instead of being mad that other teams had brought a better machine to the table, I was impressed that some of the machines could be designed and built in only 6 weeks. I now feel like Andrew, I regularly take students with me to get pictures and learn about how some of the ingenious mechanisms work on the robots. As an engineer I feel worse about letting the students build a design I know in my heart isn't right for this event, especially if it is a core element (like the drivetrain) I would rather work with them to get a better design built that will be at least competitive.
I think a fair solution to the money problem is to allow more teams to purchase pre-made parts. These are cheaper than machined parts and would help the under funded teams. Machined parts are still better because they are custom made for each robot but this would help the problem. I also feel there should be less restrictions on composite materials like fiberglass and carbon fiber.
Does anyone remember the team "Central High School" in Manchester, NH (sry dont remember the #) 2 years ago they built a machine that stole the balls out of the goal and they were very successful. Their robot was not made out of special materials or anything special. They came up with a great idea and followed through so stop complaining and get over it. I am also on a more "veteran team" and we dont have the money of other teams but we stopped complaining on day two and built a robot that we (the kids) built, enjoyed, and competed with against the more financed teams and held our own. Basiclly get over it and go to the comp with your head held high!
mnkysp6353
19-02-2002, 18:36
How is it fair you ask?
Well, using a CNC does take a certain bit of engineering knowledge. Take for example team 22. They have an in house CNC which they have students train on.
You really cant say just because you dont have a cnc or other professional tools that its unfair.
in response do andrew, i dont think i fall under either categories of situations that you are describing, i had a spectactular time building the robot, it was one of the greatest experiences of my life, i am really dissappointed that it has ended because im a senior and this is a rookie team at our school. Im just saying, i think its a great idea that we are all trying to promote inspiration in of science and technology and all that, its wonderful, but if we are going to make a competition out of it, and hopefully make it fair, then we cant have some teams that have teams of engineers come in over night that build the robot and some teams like mine where im in the auto shop 25 hours a week. I dont know how to fix it, and i dont know if there is a solution. So really i dont know what im getting at. i just have a hard time with looking at other robots that it is totally obvious that the students did not build it and i have to go to the competition and get my butt whooped by this killer robot, it just kind of destroys our hopes before we even get there. ALTHOUGH i have never been to a competiton so i might be speaking total crap, but from what i have observed lately thats what looks like is going to happen. watever i'll be quiet now.
If anybody cares, our robot actually made weight at 1100 last night! wohoo, we lost 20 pounds in 12 hours! check it out at http://art.cim3.org/ART_at_work/Pictures_18-Feb-2002_b/1_1_Dsc00040.htm
Robb Gerber
19-02-2002, 20:32
We've debated this issue around over the past six weeks.
Before the kickoff we did have a "high tech" metal fab sponsor/mentor but they kept us on hold. Two weeks into the build we find out that our only sponsor/mentor went bankrupt.
Without a machine shop we basically built our bot in 4 weeks using the mills and lathes at East York C.I. (Martin's School)
We did it all our selves. Had we still had our Metal Fab Mentor we wouldn't have learned nearly as much. As a Teacher I don't believe in kids watching the engineers do their thing. This is the lowest level of learning "awareness" (1 step up above ignorance).
We (like others) can take pride in the fact that we're driving our robot and not the ACME Bot.
now let me get some sleep ;)
As another member of team 840, I'd kind of like to agree with Turbo although I have a different twist on the whole thing. I know a lot of people make a big deal about the competition, and I guess that's where some of the inspiration comes into it and all (I havn't been to one yet), but if you ask me, it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, or get beat by some beautifully engineered powerhouse robot. What matters is that less than a year ago our High School had no robotics team, and coming out of these 6 weeks, at least most of us are addicted to building and already coming up with designs for our next robot. It really is amazing. That's where I think the inspiration is, and you just can't get that unless you know you can build the whole robot yourself without (and no offense intended Matt) the "magic machinists" coming in and getting you out of a bind.
However, something else to realize is that our team has a particularly unique situation. 1) We are actually pretty equipped as far as a rookie team is concerned, having found an incredibly generous mentor that bought a mill for us, etc. 2) We have an amazing group of top-notch seniors that wanted to see this happen. We more or less came inspired and we were willing to do whatever it took to make this robot work. Our key students have been putting in time from 3:00 -> 8:00 every weekday for the past 6 weeks, and probably around another 20 hours on the weekends. Heck, we put in 17 going from monday to tuesday morning. 3) None of our mentors ever having been involved in a FIRST competition before, so there wasn't an opportunity for them to say: "oh yeah, just do that like this," because as far as the particulars of what we had to work with were concerned, they knew just as little as the students.
The result? We have a nice, 104% student built robot (we had some adults help us in terms of man power when punching out about 5 lbs of the holes at the end, which counts as negative work, giving us a total student contribution over 100% ;) ), and a bunch of inspired students. Sadly, I don't see this happening in the years to come. I don't think our current junior class has the kind of student-base to draw upon to pull it off. In addition, a couple of this years seniors will likely be coming back to help for at least a couple weeks of the competition, at which point the tendency will be to take over and show people how stuff is done. I can't imagine being there and not wanting to get my hands dirty. However, we're going to try our hardest to recruit and train so that next year another team of all students can pull it off.
As much as I'd like to say that all students is the only way to go, I don't know if it's possible. Our team this year may very well have been a fluke. Only time will tell. But just so everyone knows, it can be done, so why don't all of you engineers wait a little bit and see what the students can do before you jump in there and make stuff for 'em, you might be surprised.
Mike Martus
19-02-2002, 21:10
Many refer to Chief Delphi as a bench mark, and example. Sometimes portrayed as great, often as a big money team and many times as a style they do not like, often as rich kids.
Some basic team facts:
Many of our students(most) are economically disadvantaged by even the lowest of standards.
Our high school ( I know I will hear about this ) is not the strongest in academics. Lack of experienced teachers is a reality.
In fact I say we have a almost non-existant physics and math program. Our general student body has no regard for learning. They exist to disrupt. They wander the halls. Our drop out rate is sad.
Our team members are special. They have a dream. We found them because of FIRST.
We have a mandatory FIRST Class. We teach communication skills, math skills (reading a ruler) and give most their first experience at holding and using a tool.
We focus on inspiration!
We have 4 students this year accepted and will be attending Kettering (GMI) and ALL seniors are accepted in college programs in a variety of subjects, many engineering as a result of our exposure and FIRST. We work hard at this.
The coaches (teachers), the engineers are role models for many students that need that special HARD push to climb out of where they are.
We are brutal, we are demanding, we are loving, we are what they need at this point in their life. Too often we are their parents.
I am the "shop" teacher. I have a drill press, a band saw. The engineers brought in many tools I only dream of having on a small budget. We are blessed to be sponsored by Delphi.
Yes we have parts made for us. The students learn about outsourcing. They watch, they learn, they participate to the safe level they can in any way they can. Yes this way is expensive, we have no choice.
Why am I saying this.... well after many,hard days of build we are exhausted. Was it worth it. Yes. If only for that 1 student that gained a new spark in their eye. I know it is more than 1.
FIRST remains the BEST thing that has happened to our school in decades of the decay of our community and student body.
Please take the time to just say hi. Show them you are a caring person. We all need that.
Jason_384
19-02-2002, 21:16
Am I the only one who see's that this is the exact same argument that surrounds baseball and its lack of a salery cap?? I think before we start complaining about how first is structered or how it is "unfair" we should look at the faults of other competitive activites that have the same issues. Do any of the people who post here really want to divide first into 3 divisions just because some people do not have the sponsorship of companies with hi tech machine shops? Wouldn't that deteriorate from first as a sport? From what i have seen in my first year being part of this sport the respect for each other team reguardless of how pretty there robot looks like is tremendous. If FIRST was split into divisions that respect would deteriorate right?? Not that much at first but then over time you would get people who would be concetied because they were in the expert division or w/e.
Well these are just my thought and please before we instigate any huge moral/ethical debates lets get through the season and then lets discuss this stuff cause this is an isusse that shold wait its not goin to get changed anytime soon so lets concentrate on the rest of this season and then lets get a disscussion goin bout this. Well this is all I gota say.
Jason
Team 384's friendly neigborhood programmer
I'm an engineer on team 47, I will at least try and attempt to respond to the questions at hand.
1) Is it fair that small student built robots compete with "big money, engineer designed and/or built robots"?
2) Someone (Matt) wanted to know how or what our philosophy or approach to FIRST was?
The answer to #1) the question wasn't really clarified till later in the thread when Turbo stated "I just have a hard time with looking at other robots that it is totally obvious that the students did not build it and I have to go to the competition and get my butt whooped by this killer robot, it just kind of destroys our hopes before we even get there."
My response is - see Lori's post in this thread - she get's it - she worked for Dean and was obviously listening. But, let me add this - the FIRST experience CANNOT be, no - SHOULD NOT BE - judged as FAIR or UNFAIR, based on the financial commitment of a company, but more importantly, the level of dedication that the people have contributed to the program. Measure it in hours of the amount of time interfacing with the students, explaining, teaching, and cooperatively developing the design and the strategy that they will utilize, or in developing and producing the Chairman's award, Animation, or in developing the Competitive Assessment, or in Marketing their team, or in Fund raising - Doesn't matter to me HOW you want to slice it - MONEY isn't what differentiates a Great Team, Great Time, and Great FIRST experience. I'm sorry if you feel bad about "getting whooped by a killer robot that the students didn't build" BUT, that is NOT a problem that FIRST has created - it's something that is a by-product of living in an "unfair world" - It's also very clear that FIRST doesn't exist to promote "student designed, built, and completely funded robotic programs. But, on the other hand, FIRST is smart enough to know that, if that's the only way to get a foot in the door, or to inspire a single student - it still could be an awesome experience. So. let's just end the "Engineer built or bought vs Student only built" arguement as it is meaningless in FIRST's eyes - although I'm sure it makes you feel better to get that off your chest. By the way, if success is measured using inspiration aas the metric - I would think that every school could rejoice in knowing that this program helped shape the direction of many of the students that were lucky enough to enjoy the FIRST experience - I can vouch for many, many students that I have had the pleasure of mentoring at PCHS.
As to the 2nd question - (Matt) Our program is set up such that the FIRST team members, do take a half semester of FIRST Robotics - they have a class during the day and lesson plans are developed relative to the FIRST robotics experience. Mr. Martus and the rest of the Education Coaches do a fantastic job. This program is a year round program, with alot of hard work and committment needed and provided by many Engineers and Teachers. I'm very proud of what we have accomplished in the past 7 years - I know it has made a difference - and that's all that matters.
I am not sure how to deal with the inequities that are inherently part of any event of this magnitude - I suppose 3 classes or groups may allow some folks to "feel good" about competing with an equitable opponent - but, it seems like alot more work, and more room for teams to exploit others. I must admit I just don't know what the solution is - I liken it to the Westminister Dog Show - so many classes and groups of dogs competing to determine the champion of the breed, then all the champions get together to determine the BEST in SHOW. Doesn't matter what the size, shape, weight, group, or class - or how much the dog costs, how much it was trained - one of those dogs emerge as champion (the rest of the dogs are not envious, but maybe their human trainers, owners, fans, etc. might be). My advice is this - Nothing can make the FIRST experience FAIR, and that is NOT what should be the focus - instead, try as hard as possible to "Celebrate the things that are relavent" - Your team accepted a challenge (by the way, winning matches and being crowned champion wasn't that challenge) - you (hopefully) successfully designed and built a robot that meets all the technical requirements including size and weight, and also it may even function the way it was intended to (yeah). Along the way, I hope you were succussful in mentoring the students and helping them recognize the benefits and advantages associated with the vast number of opportunities in the fields of Science and Technology. If you were even remotely successful (one student), you have succeeded.
Good luck to all this season - Stay focused on the students, not the outcome of the game.
Rick Gibbs
19-02-2002, 22:06
I used to agree with you, but I have a different opinion now. When our team (T-Rx, 145) started six years ago, we had practically no machining or welding experience, I was the only engineer on the team (and I'm Chemical, not Mechanical), no access to a professional machine shop, no CAD experience, and struggled to put a running robot together. It was frustrating, but it was a blast - as fun as any other year we've had. Bottom line - I can completely understand where you are right now - I was there. AND the great part is that we all learned more by trying to be creative with what we had.
Since then, the program has improved each year. We've added a couple mechanical engineers. We have CAD and Inventor 'experts'. We've added an aluminum welder who teaches the students how to weld. We have the support of a machine shop with a CNC mill. We have volunteers from 5 local companies.
It's not about where you are, it's about where you can go. Enjoy where you are now - you never be there again. Strive for continuous improvement year after year.
tenthirtythree
19-02-2002, 22:12
We had some of the parts for our bot professionally machined, too. I think it's appropriate for me to throw out a big thank you to our machining sponsor, Apex Tool & Die, for all your help!
We're in the same boat, we don't have a major corporate sponsor, and we're without a great deal of financial backing. We don't have many engineers on our team either, only one if I'm counting right.
I consider that an advantage. Everyone is involved. That's important. At some point this season, every member of our team has spoken up, taken initiative, and been intuitive. That atmosphere takes the driver's seat to winning.
Here's my suggestion for the remainder of this season, and 2003 as well: have fun. And don't let anyone sit around, that's not good. If someone's standing around, put a tool in their hand. People open up when they're told they can do something.
There's not a single person on our team that's not constantly involved with something. Whether it's lettering a crate, writing an award submission, communicating information, designing, developing...you get the idea...there's a lot of team spirit here!
Good luck everyone!
Damian "Chip" Eveland
#171 - Platteville, Wisconsin
Wow, I was sad to read this post. It showed me a side of FIRST I did not expect to see. Talk about GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM what happened to that. I have enjoyed reading the Chief Delphi Forum since September when I became interested in starting a Robotics Club at our high school. I am in awe of their commitment to us all.
When I decided to commit our school and the students to this endeavor I did not think for one minute we would win a competition. I did hope that I would get the students involved in working together toward a common goal and inspire them to be better students. I had 53 students sign up for the club and 20 staff members. We had fundraisers, spoke at different civic clubs, made a connection with the University of New Haven, and knocked on a lot of doors to get the word out about what we were doing. We did finish our robot today and I am very proud of our students for that accomplishment. Paradox is not an awesome robot but it is the best our students could build given our parameters. They are very happy that they are going to Richmond to compete in a regional. If nothing else I expect that they will be Gracious Professionals and enjoy and learn from this new experience. Thank You NASA for sponsoring us.
I keep thinking about this (and not doing my hw). I know a lot of you still don't think the whole competition aspect is fair, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I hear people throwing around terms like different levels of competition. BAH! Maybe it's just my competetive nature, but I would never sink to the level of voluntarily competing in a lower division than anyone else. I don't care if I'm disadvantaged, I'll drive my robot around right up there with the big guys. The way I see it, I'm just a really bad engineer, and I'm darn proud of it.
You guys make it seem like engineers aren't people or something. If a robot is really awesome, it doesn't matter who made it - there was still a lot of hard work and time that went into making it, and anybody that had any involvement in building their own robot will be able to appreciate what either some student or some engineer did. I'm personally going to congratulate every cool robot I see regardless of who made it just because somebody put some hours into it and made something that I can look at and admire, and maybe even aspire to.
If you think you're being "deprived" and "disadvantaged" that much, don't complain about it. Work your butt off next year, and compete and give all the other engineers a run for their money. If you're motivated enough you can do it. If you're going onto college, etc., your access to cool tools and such will increase. Get a job at a machine shop and become one of those engineers and find some team you think is disadvantaged and help them. But remember that you've been on the other side and keep your teams appearance in mind. Don't get a reputation of doing all the work for them, let the students do it for themselves. All it takes is time. This competition is what you make of it. It's an opportunity to get students involved and inspire them. If getting your butt whooped by an engineer makes you want to go out and become one, I think that Dean is accomplishing exactly what he wants.
Remember, in the long run, we're all on the same team. We have bigger things to worrry about like colonizing mars, extending the human lifespan or preventing the eventual energy death of the universe.
Matt Reiland
20-02-2002, 08:55
As a final note from me on this subject since I seem to look bad ,because I say that the engineers on my team did most if not all of the machining though the students have assembled it all. There are more reasons than just: The engineers took over the project and didn't let the students touch anything because we didn't want them to learn. One of the biggest reasons that students can't do much of the machining work is simply because of the rules of the GM shop that we work in, I am making no joke about the liability that larger companies take on by having 30-50 people, mostly students, unfamiliar with the facility and machining in general. People get hurt all of the time in a company this big and I have voice mails of peoples fingers and arms being seriously injured by machine tools. All of the teams that do the work at the schools have a much different situation than at a large company. (we are even more of a special case because many things also need to be done by the UAW trades on site because of more rules) Pretty much the most students can use in our facility are hand tools and a drill press, and even the drill press have a history of injuries when fixtured parts come loose or people with loose clothes and jewlery get into it. Just 1 serious accident will be all that is required to shut this program down here. So in this case it isn't right to rip on people because they build a different robot than your because certainly every team in this wonderful event has a different situation than yours, and different resources available than yours.
Andrew Dahl
20-02-2002, 09:39
let me address dtool41 remarks-on gracious professionalism
this discussion is part of gracious professionalism- not once have i seen anyone in here "dump" on another team or their remarks
except for your arguments that we have not exhibited gracious professionalsim and shown as you termed "another side of FIRST'
(i am not insinuating that you are but it seems that you are unhappy that people feel this way and have expressed it here)
this has been posibbly one of the best discourses over that past three years that i have been involved with this program dealing with how
people work with what they have (or dont have) (sponsers, money/ no money)
(big rant on)
it either fish or cut bait time--------
heck I even gave up my stipend to fund the team this year because one of our sponser did not give us the $ as they had said they would (but they gave $$ to sponsor the regional so that OK in my book)
we have risen to a fine moment- even and open discourse on what we percieve as inequities in the system (bad schools, bad sponsers, no euipment vs the exact opposite)
and everybody has done great with their bots
as for engineer built to students built
that is entirely a in-team situation
i think a mix of both doing the work is better that 100 percent either way-
my kids (MY TEAMMATES) have learned alot form the enigneers and have taken over some of the more basic operations of desinging the robot- they have only stepped in where we were at a total loss or were missing something obvious that we did not take into accout
(big rant off)
this argument comes up every year!!!!
and they have been nasty (very nasty at times) with very invective emails being sent diparaging ones birth right and circumstances of ones birth
will is ever change - most like not (and probably for the best)
SharkBite
20-02-2002, 20:50
While I do agree that a lot of the rules are a little partial towards the high budget teams, they still have to come up with a design just like everyone else, and that design can have flaws. Sure they may get a little more publicity, have more resources and be more photogenic, but and underdog team can win. Trust me, my team has done it time and time again with robots made of random metal and plywood. Don't let the fat budgets of some of the other teams get to you, because success is that much sweeter when your robot beats them and they spent more on one of thier wheels then you did on your entire robot.
I will comment on this.
I'm not sure where out team falls into the grand spectrum of money things.
I know our kids individually fund raise 250 dollars each. I know we fund raise thru the team over 7 or 8 thousands dollars ontop of that. (Via car washes, Candy Sales, sponsered dances, pizza nights. First is a Year round program for us)
Our students have always had a large contribution of our bot design.
Most of our grabber (Watch for it, it's amazing) was milled and machined by one of our female student team members. The design was worked out on paper by 4 or 5 students and one engineer.
Our drive train was designed by an alumni member (non engineering student).
I'm a phone and data network adminsitrator, and I even came up with the obvious answer to a design problem that stumped us for a few hours.
And this is only this years robot. Our team (Team #88 TJ²) has always been one of the more well known teams, always doing well. (Ok, so last year we stunk, but the other 6 years we've always finished in the top 5, even had Highest seed in Florida once)
We never had expensive robots. We just had good idea's. We've won awards for pickup designs.
I liken it to Delphi. Our team and theres have always had huge mutual respect for each other. We consider them a real "Class Act". The've never had really "expensive" designs, just really innovative idea's that work well. Crab drive (I'm surprised they haven't trademarked that name) , the pickup mechanism from 2 years ago, stuff like that.
As for the comment at the beginning that how is it fair for teams that have worked out tranmissions in advance, I would like to say ..... Malarky!!!
The Chipawah's are new this year. Yet eveyone that has an elaborate transmission is using them.
We've got a three speed transmission this year, and we 've always been direct drive in the past. Yet we've never seen a Chipawah before in our lives.
Well, this message got longer than I thought, but that makes it fit into this thread, which has mostly all long messages.
money isnt really the issue, i dont really see how money can buy u a robot in this competition, theres only a limited amout of things you can buy. Its the fact that this is trying to be a competition between *high schoolers* to see who can build the best robot. If we wanted to see what a school could come up with it should be an expo or something, but its the idea that a winner is declared and everything. Everybody on my team, especially the mentors believe that mentors should not be allowed to touch the robot at all. yes i know that in this everybodys a winner because something extraordinary is going on and everybody is learning, but even at this age people dont like being bullied by the elders (robots built by engineer fairies that come in at nite and build robots, or teams that only let the kids watch). Also, some teams were saying how their students arent capable of building a robot so they have to watch the engineers build it. Well #1, how is it fair that my team is capable of building a robot all by ourself, only students touching it, and then get beat by a school with students that arent able to build one so engineers built it for them. and #2, why dont you just let the kids build the robot to see what they are capable of, at our school this is the first year and our teachers told us a million times how hard building a robot would be and all of a sudden we totally suprised our selves when everything started working, so give the kids a shot, you'll never know what they are capable of untill you let them try it.
I know i should quit ranting on this subject but i cant let it go, oh well
For better or worse, here are my thoughts.
My team (116), as I think about it, is fairly well off. We have a farily compleate shop with a used mill and lathe, two drill presses and a table saw. We have 7 or so wonderful engineers and Dave. 35 or so students. As this topic has come up I have givin it thought and come to realize that once the ideas start coming, I don't see most of the engineers as any diffrent than the students. They tend to be right in there, and the students are there too. It seems, to me at least, that they treat the students as equals for the most part. When some things get outlandish as deadlines aprach, they will speak up and focus the students.
Most of the physical machining is done by the students. I know thats what I enjoy the most, the machining. Making something that fits the dimensions given me makes me happy.
Our students are there as long, or longer than our engineers who have familys and jobs and kids. But they still come, even when we spend 40 hours the last weekend, and stay til 3:30 on Tuesday morning, the adults are still there working along side the students.
As to which is right or wrong, I don't think there is a clear answer to that question. I remember MOE not because of their bot, but because of their hideous green shirts and their enthusiasm. And the Gila Monsters and the Gila, Glia, GliaGliaGlia dance. While winning on the field is great, and is very exciting, there is more. The enthusiasm of the students participating is to me what makes a succesful team.
We just seem to have the prefect mesh of engineers and students. Our head engineer is an electrical engineer and fully admits we have more mechanical ability than he does (and it also doesn't hurt he's a 3 year old in a balding mans body) We also have machinists that work for the university that supports us and they are wonderful, after all we are only high school kids and its great to see them help us make our crazy ideas work (even if they just end up hung on the wall :)) We aren't a "well to do" team in any sort of the phrase. We are primarily student built but I feel a lot is "learned" just in dealing with the adult type persons, and because of all this our team is a family. Its great when everyone goes to the grocery store and they ask if were all related, that's just our team dynamic. And I being the only girl, I love having 11 brothers :)
Paul Copioli
21-02-2002, 12:56
O.K., I have read every one of the posts in this thread and have to say a few words. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Detroit Metro Area, let me let you in on a little secret: Many teams from our area (Mostly Northern Oakland and Macomb Counties) come from middle to upper middle class homes with one or both of the parents in a professional type career, however, Chief Delphi (Pontiac Central High School) is NOT one of these teams. As Mike Martus explained in an earlier post, Pontiac Central's student body contains mostly low income (very low) students from underprivilidged homes. Delphi's number one goal is to inspire as many of these students as possible. They do it in a manner which they see as most effective.
Too many times in this forum I have seen teams bashing Chief Delphi and the Big Money Schools and seing these teams as huge powerhouses. Maybe the engineers on Delphi do most of the design, who cares? The students on Chief Delphi are the most inspired students in the FIRST community and ask any one of them how inspired they are and they will talk your ear off.
In addition to inspiring their own students, people like Mike Martus and Joe Johnson have inspired entire corporations. My team (Team 217) got Ford as a sponsor because Mike Martus and Joe Johnson did a presentation for us to Ford. Ford Motor Company has taken Chief Delphi's model and sponsored several underpriviledged schools in Detroit in hopes that Ford can be 1/2 as effective as Delphi has in inspiring troubled youth.
We should not look to Chief Delphi as a Technical Powerhouse, but an Inspirational Powerhouse that we should all strive to become. Someone may choose to inspire differently than Delphi, fine. I won't criticize your method if it is different than ours, because we should be here for the same focus: Inspiration & Recognition.
Mike, Joe, and all the other Delphi mentors & engineers: I applaud your efforts and am proud to be associated with people like you.
-Paul
Hear hear.........excellent response Paul!
Mike M, Mike A, Joe and all the other mentors on the Chief Delphi team should be applauded for the inspiration they have been to other teams, companies and other mentors as well.
My experience with team #47 has always been a positive one. They have heart, soul, passion (have you seen this team's cheer led by Joe???) and compassion. They are always willing to help other teams...I have seen it SO MANY times in the pit area...their engineers will work with another team as long as it takes to get their machine in running condition. I've seen them work with another team for the entire 3 days of competition...working until the pit closes to help another team!
They have always followed the rules to the 'enth' degree and have always been willing to help FIRST employees and volunteers at any moment.
They have inspired the students in their school to better things, they have inspired Ford to sponsor more teams, and they have inspired me!
Keep up the awesome work!
-Lori- :)
Mike Norton
21-02-2002, 16:49
We been around for 8 years and we are a trade school so we have all the tools needed to build a great robot. We have place in the top 3 % in the last 4 years.
If it wasn't for teams like delphi how would our students ever try to go beyond there own minds.
I say everyone has the chance to make a robot good our bad. and if it is bad look around at other teams and go back and try better the next year.
The only thing I did not like about this year was back in Sept when they told us that we would have to get point to be able to go to the national.
If we had alot of money that would not be a problem. but to make all the last second planning would of cost us to much money.
I did not want this thread to lead to us vs them, but what i simply meant is that by allowing a school professionally manufacture parts seems unfair...if you have engeneers thats fine, but i get the feeling that we are all being fooled by the big man; Dean.
The kits cost $5000 and are worth a fraction of that, all the stuff can be bought only from them....If a school dosen't have a good shop, you share, for instance, my school has a nice shop : 3 lathes, 3 mills, welding and casting facilities. But since we have all this, we had about 5 other schools in our shop on a regular basis. Its not hard to share.......
but that was not my point, all im saying is that FIRST is supposed to be about " motivating young people to pursue opportunities in science, technology and engineering. " (quote from www.usfirst.org) and i don't think that is what happens when a machine shop makes half your robot and the other half is made by engeneers.
Matt Reiland
21-02-2002, 20:57
Man you win the award for bringing up the subject that gets so heated every year. I probably should stop posting to this thread since after evey post I get ripped on by more students the latest being a 'fairy machinist' which I think is totally inappropriate but ohh well. Truth is all of the engineers on my team are electrical and most of us have little or no machining in our backround, ESPECIALLY in our daily jobs. I have to believe there are many many engineers out there the same. Machining this thing in my mind doesn't teach a whole lot about engineering. Students and Engineers can both machine out a crappy design to perfection I am sure. I am not qualified to teach anyone machining, if you want to know how to program a framing assembly line of a bodyshop that build Chevy Trailblazers and Envoys then I can help you (We also play with robots that can wreck anything including ANY battlebot that ever existed, cars, walls you name it). The true 'engineering' of this project comes in the design. If you want to be a professional machinist than you have every right to be upset that some engineers are taking your future job. The only reason I help machine on this thing is to learn how to run the machines from the 'master' machinists in the lab (who actually do this kind of thing for their real jobs but leave at 3:00 before the students even get there?!) so that I can build a sweet battlebot for next year (not for FIRST). So I totally agree that learning machining is really cool, but for only SOME people. Many people don't want to stand in front of a mill and crank a handle for 6 hours or sit in front of a lathe and get cutting fluid all over their clothes. Trust me I know alot of them. For the record, our robot was built completely on a regular Bridgeport (non-CNC) mill (shared by three teams) that it sounds like most schools/teams have access to, so we have No advantage over your team.
The biggest problem with this thread and many of the members out there that have this us vs. them mentality is that you appear to be highly motivated, skilled hands on type individuals. Keep in mind that not all of your peers share the exact same traits. Some don't like hands on, some may not be as motivated or want to dedicate as much time, some may have realized that they don't even want to be in engineering.
Go Martin!
I'm on Martin's team, We did all the physics and designing of the robot. Our teachers are lazy!! They wouldn't do anything for us. "I DON'T WANNA FIGHT THE ISSUE, IT'S A STUDENT COMPETITION", quote from Mr. H. Luckily our schools had mills and lathes and some of us were proficient at using them. The only things our teachers would do is buy us nuts and bolts, and say if our ideas were possible within the lawa of physics. We got free extruded aluminum, and were sponsored by a our School Board.
I learned alot! Mostly mechanics, i'm a coder at heart. I'd like to congradulate every member of my team on a job well done. We have a xyz robot! I would also like congradulate all other students who worked hard.
Just a thought, perhaps there should be a "Engineers competition" and a "Student competition"?
Just another spin :D
I think comparing your team to other teams is not a good way to judge how you fared in the competition.
The team I'm on now has been around for a long time, but we struggle every year with making parts. A lot of our effort goes into keeping things simple. Last year, our robot couldn't place any balls, couldn't go over the rail, and couldn't go under the rail. We could grab 2 goals and consistently balanced. We ended up 19th after the seeding rounds at the Nationals. We didn't get picked, but we were still happy because we had overachieved for a team of our size and sponsorship.
Don't look at Delphi/etc and think "they are better than us", look at your own team and think "we did pretty %%%% good for what we have".
D.J. Fluck
22-02-2002, 15:48
I just thought this was real appropriate to bring up in this thread....
Bill Whitley, former member of team 70 said "I was never on a winning team, yet I got just as much out of nationals, maybe more, than a student that was on the winning team. While my team did not win, I have the pride in saying that I designed, machined, or built nearly every component of my robot in my 3 years on a team. We did not have a first rate, or even a second rate machine shop, and we did not have quality support from anywhere. However, does this lack in final result mean that I put in any less effort?"
Think about it
Shafi...Our teachers were lazy ???
they stayed with us after scool, that itself says something :)
Our teachers were the best and no matter who says what, there was only 2, the third guy came in once and was putting us into "planning group seminars" dumbo...:)
well finally its all over, and quite frankly i have no idea what to do with my free time...
well our team had a get together....was grat, tons of multiplayer gaming in the computer lab and wicked (shafi made) food :)
Bye all, c you at the cometitions...
and in the finals...:)
Martin
907
Martin,
I'm guessing that you are a rookie team that has a very strong student run organization (minimal yet essential support of 2 to 3 teachers)
I think you are confused about the idea of "inspiration" as related to what FIRST is about. Please don't try and bring "Fairness" into this conversation as it is NOT relavent. Inspiration has nothing to do with what's "Fair" when it comes to designing or manufacturing parts that go on the robot. Those 2 issues are mutually exclusive.
FIRST is NOT a SCIENCE FAIR. FIRST loves teachers, but teaching is NOT what it is focused on.
FIRST expects that through this experience and ALL of the associated activities, the TOTAL experience will INSPIRE - not just the building of a remote controlled robot. Each team and each student - must decide "How" or sadly "If" that is going to happen.
Our team strives not only to inspire OUR students, but also any student that wants to use us as their inpiration. That's why we have successfully done 6 CDI competitions (You are welcome to join us next year, if you want to)
We will assist anyone that asks and have done so many times - in hopes of not only assisting them fix a problem, but maybe INSPIRING them as well.
Inspiration can come from many places, and in many ways. Our students are inspired by other teams that we have grown to know, admire and respect.
We also recognize that being connected with a large company, can also bring with it alot of negative criticism - and thats okay we accept it. But, the core of the team are people just like everyone else - we put in our personal time because we believe that the overall concept that FIRST has introduced to us has merit. I suppose that is why we are so passionate about our involvement. We love our kids, our teachers, and the fact that our company believes in FIRST too.
So what it comes down to is this - IT DOESN"T MATTER WHO MADE THE PARTS if you are talking about INSPIRATION for Science and technology. IT may matter if you are trying to compare your student created robot with other robots. But, I have never understood, in all 7 years that we have been involved with FIRST, HOW does building parts,WHO built them, and INSPIRATION even get in the same sentence?
Good Luck this year - I hope by our providing a webpage and a place to share common concerns, and exchange ideas, complaints, stories, rumors, and meeting Great new people - continues to INSPIRE the FIRST community at large.
junkyarddawg
23-02-2002, 11:11
Martin:
I'm sure by now you have received plenty of feedback on this subject, so I'm responding to the subject in general. This is no more than my heart felt opinion.
This is my 7th year participating in this amazing program and I have worked hard to keep the teams that I work with on the original path for this program. The concept of USFIRST was to create a made for TV technical sport to market education in science and math in much the same way that pro sports on TV markets a career in pro sports. So, the group of young people that this is aimed at, is the noninvolved young people that currently have no interest in science and math and herald pro sports and rock'n'roll stars as their "wanna be just likem when I grow up" idols.
Therefore, one of the most important aspects of FIRST is what the noninvolved spectators see of FIRST. If they see highly competitive machines backed by highly spirited teams, not only do they think "I could do that", but "Iwanna do that" . This is why Dean Kaman once said at a kickoff several years ago, "I don't care who builds the machine, as long as you show up with a competitive team". And, he specifically mentioned complaints about teams sending their challenge out to be professionally built.
Another important aspect of FIRST is what the members of the team get out of it.
1. Everyone gets a chance to exercise genius; no individual is a genius, but all individuals can exercise genius. Oppenhiemer of Los Alamos fame was never a genius prior to that project and was never a genius again after that famous challenge in WW2. Genius is something that happens to individuals when placed in an extraordinary situation with real challenges and a short amount of time and they are forced with all of their heart and mind to focus on a challenge. If you arise to the occasion, you have exercised your genius. For that reason, YOU MAY HAVE GOT MORE OUT OF YOUR EXPERIENCE than another team that were not involved in the design and build of the robot. On some teams, the students primarily spend their time on the animation, community involvement, fund raising, newsletters, website development, chairman’s award and a myriad of other activities and they are left with a rich experience, although not one involved with the design and build of the robot. And in most cases they exercised genius in developing solutions to those challenges that they took on.
2. Everyone gets to improve their teamwork and collaboration skills; another factor in famous exercises of genius, is collaboration. Without which, you would not see the amazing results that you see in almost all FIRST teams. "If one can set a thousand to flight, than two can set 10,000 to flight". This paraphrased saying implies there is an order of magnitude with each person you add to a collaboration." and three can set a hundred thousand to flight".
3. Everyone gets to improve their social skills; most technical people are thought of as being "geeky". This is usually something that results from spending a disproportionate amount of time alone with technical challenges and ignoring the interpersonal challenges of which if you fail at, your not going to enjoy life to it’s fullest. The one skill I personally value the most, is the degree to which a technical person can explain their technology to a non-technical audience. Richard P. Feynman, acknowledged as the “Master of clear explanations”, is probably one of the most famous technical individuals with that skill, as well as Issac Asimov. The value of your knowledge is only to the extent that you can sell it to other people. As a result, people who have a sound technical background as well as exceptional people skills have the marketplace totally at their mercy. People gravitate to individuals or groups that express themselves in away that almost everyone can comprehend. Your idea is only as valuable as your ability to convince other individuals of its value and thereby recruit your team members, and, this takes social skills.
4. Everyone is presented with an opportunity to grow in the most intellectually and socially fertile environment available today; and FIRST will probably be heralded as the inflection point of the next industrial revolution. And this will happen because FIRST provides a High gain/Low risk opportunity for people to open up and share with a group of like minded people and it has a growing support from Corporate America.
5. Everyone gets to receive approval for, and the satisfaction of, being involved in a program that bears good fruit; I can think of no other program that has produced the results and has grown at a steady rate as FIRST the Competition. However, this satisfaction is proportional to your reason for, and your level of commitment to, being involved in this program.
6. Everyone gets to experience “Gracious Professionalism’; Grace can be defined as “showing undeserved favor”, or you could say it is “doing something good for somebody that did not do something good for you first”. That is a dichotomy (something with seemingly contradictory qualities) to the nature of our present (what did you do for me) society. Professionalism is defined as “the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person”. Put those two together and you got some mighty powerful stuff that you cannot get with money, but you can get with love.
The robot and how it gets built, is only one aspect of what FIRST is all about.
I leave you with this: in my third year, we finished roughly 16th out of approximately 170 teams at Epcot and although we did not win it all, we went away with the thrill of having experienced our best effort. As I sat in the closing ceremonies, I could not have been any more satisfied if I had gone up to receive the recognition given the national champion. I had experienced a level of collaboration and teamwork that I hope I can experience at least once a year.
"If you don't go, it will never have happened"
Junkyarddawg, good post. I agree with just about everything you said.
Having been one of the founders (all of whom were students), on my team, I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the intention of Inspiration vs. the desire to just win some competition. When I started our robotics team, I honestly couldn't have imagined that our robot could possibly have come out as well as it did. I just wanted to start a new program at my school that would give students the opportunities to learn about and apply engineering skills while having fun at the same time. I wanted all the people that I knew who were smart but didn't have anything to apply themselves to, to maybe find their nitch in making things - that's what engineering is all about, isn't it?
Personally, I think that if the only way for a team to inspire their students is with the help of engineers in building the robot, that there is no problem with that. In fact, there are some things that can only be gained by watching other engineers at work that my team (being completely student run and built) missed out on. And to me, these very cool robots capable of incredible things that will be competing with us are an inspiration to us in terms of a demonstration of the amazing things in general that humans can accomplish.
However, the "unfair vibe" I keep getting off of a number of the all-student people doesn't involve inspiration in the least. And anyone that tries to respond to the issue by saying "this competition is about inspiration and not about winning" is missing the point completely and just making these students more frustrated. I gurantee you that these students are among the most inspired you will come across. They know all about inspiration and are hooked on building more so than a lot of the engineers out there. What I believe most of them feel like they're missing out on is the recogition of being the ones that built the robot. The teams that do well do tend to be the teams that are engineer built, and these teams are rewarded and recognized, in spite of the fact that what they did might not have been any more challenging for them than a typical day of work for their engineers. The students on these teams do come off looking as more competant than the students on other teams and when someone who might not have touched a robot in their life says "My Team won at the FIRST national robotics competition" colleges ARE going to look at these students in a better light than those who say "My team came in dead last but we built the whole robot ourselves." (Granted, I would hope that students could turn this into an awesome application essay, but sadly those of us that are good at building are often not the best writers - but that is a problem with the college application process and is neither here nor there.) What is sad is that some of these students may not be good at anything else and thought "well at least I can show people I'm good at making robots." And now that they are realizing they have been beaten by a bunch of people completely out of their league are wondering what the point was. If you honestly sit down and think about it there is no way you can tell me that a group of students that spent 6 weeks building the robot by themselves, is going to, upon being beaten by a team of engineers, just say "Oh, but the students on the other team were so inspired - they deserve to look better than us." Human nature simply does not work that way. And, the fact of the matter is that the students who build the robot on their own are the most inspired of anyone. Yet what seems to end up happening is that their robot inevitably loses, they get no recognition, and the people that don't take the time to go up and talk to them (because there is nothing exteriorly spectacular about their them) don't even realize that it's a 100% student built team and just assume their engineers weren't quite as good, so the students don't even get credit for what they did do.
Any 100% student team should be an inspiration to everyone. They show us that you don't need an engineering degree, or super fancy tools to succeed - all you need is the desire to build something. These students, if you ask me, are the real superstars. They are not watching engineers and aspiring to be just like them. They have already become engineers and know what they are capable of doing. They have already done what some students are merely being inspired to do in the future. And when these students say that things "aren't fair" give them some recognition, because it's never going to be fair until they get credit for what they've accomplished.
mnkysp6353
23-02-2002, 17:03
You complain that your team doesnt have a great sponsor like delphi or ford? The reason teams have sponsors like this is because they went out to find them.
There are plenty of sponsors out there that would be exstatic to help you.
You say you dont have enough money or resources?
There are thousands of companies out there with tons of money. If you say oh there are no major companies around us, well there are your just not looking hard enough.
I know that the first conlcusion to draw from seeing beautiful bots like 45, 47 and 60 is oh that it is 100% engineer built. Thats not true engineers may help but it is unfair to say oh because they have a great bot its not built by students. Talk to the students from those teams and you will see its not true.
We have brilliant students in this orginization and its unfair to them to draw conclusions.
Anthony S.
24-02-2002, 00:05
This is a looooong thread and took me forever to read it, now I can post my $0.02. There are many comments about high budget teams and stuff. Well, my opinion is that we don't know what goes on in every team! There may be some high money teams with a crappy robot or a low budget team with a terrific robot. Its not all about money. and its not the teams fault for having a lot of money, I'm sure they worked hard to get that money, saying that I mean you have to work hard for you money, if you want to become one of those high budget teams, get some money. If I were on a team with a lot of money(which I am not) I wouldn't decline lots of money because its 'unfair to other teams', I would take advantage of it, wouldn't anybody else??
And in reply to the person that suggested that FIRST be divided up into divisions based on ability, that idea is ludicrous. For one, what would the crieria be?? Who would judge and how would they know how a particular robot is going to perform? They definitely can't judge by previous years. Now that in my opinion would be unfair, because I would love to work with a variety of teams, even if it means getting my butt whooped I would want to work with the really good teams.
Well thats my $0.02, (maybe $0.05 but who cares;) )
Anthony Steele II
Tom Fairchild
24-02-2002, 02:01
Ah, discussion of what the true meaning of FIRST is. I have been through this many times, at robot demonstrations, competitions, and general chat among FIRSTers. Basically, as said many times before, it all depends on how you want to be Inspired. Yes, I come from a "NASA Team." I find it incredibly unfortunate that "NASA Teams" have that label attached to them. Just like Delphi, we get grouped together into one lump and are sometimes sneered at because we have funding.
Next year I will be attending Georgia Tech and getting a major in Mechanical Engineering. The only reason I decided to do Mech. E was because of FIRST. Plain and simple. Lessons that I have learned while building robots on my team could fill a library. Many of these lessons that I have learned where a direct result of being a "NASA Team." One of our mentors is an absolute God at machining and works in the Advanced Machining Labratory at NASA Langley Research Center. Seeing their 5 axis milling machines etc. was incredible! Afterwords he showed me how to use a simple lathe, which I then used to trim down sprokets for our bot.
Another disappointing aspect is that I get the impression that other teams seem to think that teams with higher budgets (and no, ours is not all that much above average) have robots that are built by the adults and given to the kids. On this year's bot, I did all of the wiring and electronics placement. Another student did the programming and control aspect. A third designed a toe-touch mechanism that would have been perfectly legal but had to have been scrapped for weight. Treads were tested by students. Baskets designed and made. Chasis modifications were designed and done by students. Most of the actual fabrication itself was done by students. Anywhere work needed to be done, a student was there, either with or without a mentor by their side. While this doesn't have to be true in order to inspire, its something that I have been wanting to clear up.
In all (other than this post has grown to be WAY to large ;)), ya do what ya like. If you can't do what you like, do what you can and then try to find a way to do what you like next time. Big team, small team, high budget, low budget, student, or mentor, we all love to build robots. Isn't that what this is all about?
~Tom Fairchild~, who appoligizes for out living his welcome and will post smaller next time. ;)
l1jmx,
Sorry, I thought this was about INSPIRATION and what is fair! If the student built robots want recognition that is a different story. It should have it's own thread for people to comment on. I didn't know that the R in FIRST meant recognition of whom built the best robot, I thought it was meant to RECOGNIZE all the wonderful things that the fields of Science and Technology had to offer. I for one have always been amazed and inspired by the 100% student built machines - for the most part they have made me feel good about the students involvement and dedication to completing the FIRST experience.
If RECOGNITION is what you desire, maybe Raul is correct about divisions. At least that way the student built teams can compete against each other, and everyone else could continue the way FIRST was intended to be set up.
At least that way, the student built teams would have the focused attention and maybe the recognition that they think goes along with the FIRST experience.
Thanks for clearing up (at least in my mind) what the thread was about - I agree that fairness and recognition do not necessarily go hand in hand, but like I said earlier - I don't think thats the RECOGNITION that FIRST had in mind.
Many of you have put me down, which is your right.
But FIRST is supposedley about the learning experience.
AND you don't learn much when engeneers do your planning and a shop does your machining...what does that teach ???
Working together and helping eachother out is how our robot came to be, and that is the best way.
Oh and please stop using things like "since you are a rookie team"
That only means we don't have FIRST experience, it does not mean we are stupid.
Martin
907
Originally posted by Martin
Many of you have put me down, which is your right.
But FIRST is supposedley about the learning experience.
AND you don't learn much when engeneers do your planning and a shop does your machining...what does that teach ???
Working together and helping eachother out is how our robot came to be, and that is the best way.
Oh and please stop using things like "since you are a rookie team"
That only means we don't have FIRST experience, it does not mean we are stupid.
Martin
907
Straight from www.usfirst.org (http://www.usfirst.org) "FIRST Has an Imperative, Singular Focus: to excite more young people about the accessibility, fun, and importance of science and engineering."
Sorry, but I don't see learning there, but excitment is what FIRST is looking for. They intend (I think) to get a wider varity of students interested in enginnering, and encourage them to pursure that field of study in college.
"The FIRST Robotics Competition is not just about the design and building of sophisticated robots. These students also develop maturity, professionalism, teamwork and mentoring skills that enrich their lives." ~ Dean Kamen
Martin,
Being a rookie doesn't mean that you are stupid, never meant it that way. Many teams start out on this adventure thinking that FIRST is about learning and teaching - sorry, again IT IS NOT. As Wetzel pointed out. That may very well be a by-product of the experience though, and that is a very good thing. That's all I got to say - Good Luck and Have Fun at the events this year.
The way I see it;
How can i be excited aobut some stupid hunk of metal i had no part in ? what will make me think about getting into engeneering or techincal sciences ?? call me stupid, call me rookie, say all you want...but there is no way in the world, someone will get INSPIRED by a product made by engeneers and mechanical shops.
All im saying is that some teams should let students take a greater part in this event, perhaps sacrificing some robot skill, but LEARNING AND SOLVING PROBLEMS WHICH IN TURN LEADS TO WHAT FIRST IS ABOUT, BEING INSPIRED !!!
Martin
907
ok so fine, because the words learning and teaching arent in the letters of FIRST, that means that its not supposed to be involved in the first experience...thats a boatload of xxxx. If watching people machine is all u think is involved in inspiration, then go home and watch the learning channel or something. but i'd have to agree with martin, "LEARNING AND SOLVING PROBLEMS WHICH IN TURN LEADS TO WHAT FIRST IS ABOUT, BEING INSPIRED." Also, having the students build and learn about robotics without the engineers is just better for the students overall, so fine it isnt required in FIRST that the students build the robots, but think about it, make it the best for the students (what this competition is focused on) and have and/or make the students build and design the robot. Take the FIRST experience at your school to another level, even if that means sacrificing some fuctionality in the robot, it will just be better for the students.
Also i'd have to agree with l1jmx, "And anyone that tries to respond to the issue by saying 'this competition is about inspiration and not about winning' is missing the point completely..." What this issue is about is the idea of this being a competition, if this was not a competition, all would be well, but because we're bringing up the word 'fair' and 'competition', having robots built by only engineers and robots built only by students competing against eachother just doesn't make sense. Yes, yes, i know that Kamen doesn't want the whole winning vs. losing thing to be there, its there anyway because of the fact that its a competition. And it just isnt fair having kids who learn about robotics during the FIRST competition competing against people who can build a robot with their eyes closed. I dunno, maybe it's just me.
So maybe instead of us discussing what FIRST is, maybe we should be discussing what FIRST SHOULD be. Now we all know that there are 100% student teams and that students can do it, so lets all bring it to the next level maybe and make this competition a student only competition. Then students would be getting inspired and learning at the same time (oh my gosh! thats impossible!), and they can be making something that they can call their own, something the students can be proud of etc. this list could go on forever.
So ya, maybe im missing the point myself, but thats what im thinking.
I'm impressed and inspired by Aibo, or whatever Honda calls their walking robot. You'll have to trust me on this next point for a coupple of weeks, and then give your opinion. When I see what other teams have done that is really cool, I want to take thoses ideas and used them, or mix and match, or even take it and improve onit. Its like reading the Whats New section of PopSci, its just cool stuff. This year I have a digi camera and plan on taking a LOT of pictures of parts of robots. Such as some CVTY (continualsy variable transmissions) I have been hearing about. Some diffrent drive systems (a la 401). Some of the things I can never hope to make on in our own shop, but hey, it dosn't make it any less cool.
Mike Soukup
24-02-2002, 17:38
There is a huge disconnect between the various posters here. Some people are discussing the point & goal of FIRST and others are offering their opinions masked as point & goal of FIRST.
Not much gets me more upset than people who state a point as fact and do not back it up with any sources. If anyone states a goal of FIRST, back it up with a quote from a FIRST publication or a quote from Dean. If the source is missing, the statement can be taken as no more than a single individual's opinion. If someone wishes to offer changes for FIRST, clearly state it.
The best source I found for the goal of FIRST is http://www.usfirst.org/about/FIRSTBriefing.pdf.
Some food for thought: "The goal isn't simply to build a robot; the robot is a vehicle for learning much more. The real goal is building a collaborative team, a supportive community, and a solid strategy for problem solving during the competition." "The process inspires students students to learn more about science, math and technology and to develop an enthusiasm for further studies in engineering, the sciences, and design."
I think all rookies should read up on the goals of FIRST so they don't make assumptions, as I've seen many in this thread do.
If I have time I'll post my opinions later.
Mike
FIRST:
"FIRST Robotics Competition challenges teams of students and their mentors to solve a common problem" (www.usfirst.org)
I must hear the explanation to this, 'challenges teams of students' wow its a great challenge for students to have engeneers plan and a shop build a robot. From what I see, alot of teams don't have too much of a student imput in them.
And rookie or not, students are the base for this cometition.
"concepts of science, math, engineering, and invention are exciting and interesting" (www.usfirst.org)
I cannot understand how one can be inspired without any hands on activity. If people don't try things themselves, and are just told...they will not be inspired, instead they will not enjoy the experience, they will feel like the back up goaltender in a hockey win or an outsider who dosen't get the chance to do anything.
Im not quite sure weather any of this makes sense, but an awful lot of you seem to be backing up the way FIRST is now, which is fine, but in my opinion students should be more involved then they are, because after all this whole event is based on the students.
Tom Fairchild
24-02-2002, 23:32
Simply put, if you think that students on teams with higher budgets and/or strong engineers do not get as inspired or learn as much as students without such resources, you are wrong. That's all I have to say.
~Tom Fairchild~
Andy Baker
25-02-2002, 01:21
Originally posted by Martin
FIRST:
From what I see, alot of teams don't have too much of a student imput in them.
Martin,
Firstly, your passion is admirable and your opinion is welcome.
But.. you gotta understand that every single team in FIRST is different. There are teams where students don't hardly touch the robot, and there are teams where adults don't touch the robot. Both are not illegal.
However, both are not the best situation, in my opinion. Ideally, the best situation is where students are empowered to do as much as they can do while still being inspired by their mentors. This situation happens frequently on many, many teams nationwide.
You say that alot of teams don't have much student input...
If what you have been seeing are teams at competitions with only the engineers doing any of the work... then I agree with you, partly. Students should be doing the work, but right along the side of a mentor (if the student needs the help). If you say that students don't have much input by simply looking at robot pictures (which is about all we all can do up to this point), then you are very wrong. Many teams who have high levels of student involvement can make a robot look very professionally built. Some teams work very hard at making a machine which looks like a pro built it. You will be suprised.
The team I'm on has been doing this FIRST thing for 11 years. For the first 2-3 years, the robot was built entirely by adults. Over the years, this has turned a 180. Our robot is built by students and adults (engineers, parents, teachers) who work side by side. Some years, our team's robot has higher levels of student involvement in the design and fabrication of parts and subassemblies, depending on the skill level and experience of the students.
My advice to you at this time would be this: Don't assume that a robot wasn't built by students. Also, don't dig yourself a hole by bashing a team which has different theories of how their team works... you may want them as an alliance partner.
Sincerely,
Andy B.
ColleenShaver
25-02-2002, 01:53
I admittedly have not read all 50+ posts in this thread.. but I've read enough to hear the points, and I agree with Andy, and whomever elses' points he may have backed up...
No offense to anyone, but I remember a day when I was in high school (i've been in this for 7 years now), and everyone used to 'complain' about Delphi, our great hosts of this board. They used to say how Delphi 'sent their robot out to be made' , 'the kids don't do anything!', etc etc.. every team that lost to Delphi especially had something to say about WHO built their robot.
For a while I believed them.. and I thought "Who would want to be on a team like that?!"
And then I looked at their team.. I looked what Delphi did for their school... for all those kids...
<b>if that isn't inspiration, I don't know what is.</b>
And the truth is, not everything you hear is the truth.. and not the way everyone does something may be the way you would like to have it done, but that doesn't mean goals aren't being accomplished. Delphi is an amazing team of which the kids play a major part.
Basically, I once thought to that the only way to do it was with the kids doing as much work as possible, and I thought I had it made when I was in high school, I thought my team had all the answers about how it was done.. and then I moved to another team as mentor and saw that the same policy couldn't be applied, but the way my new team was was no less right than my original.. now I'm on yet another team as a mentor.. with still another style, and it is still just as right as any other way.
Students are being INSPIRED to LEARN more... and if you are on a team in which students do tons of building, and that is inspiring you to learn.. great! if someone else is on a team where the students do less building and more homework.. and FIRST is inspiring them to learn... great!
If those teams didn't get the message across, they wouldn't exist because students wouldn't be on them!! they are getting something from those teams.. something no one has the right to take away or lessen the value of...
I believe Dean or Woodie even said it at kickoff this year... it doesn't matter how you do it.. as long as it is getting done.. students around the world, on all different style teams are being inspired. We are all doing a great job, no matter how it is we do it!
Great job- and good luck to EVERYONE!
Ken Leung
25-02-2002, 05:28
FIRST have many many meanings to people. Some think it means staying up all night to finish the robot... some believe it’s giving lectures about motors and gear ratio... Others might consider it a great opportunity to get their hands greasy, while yet another group of people use FIRST to get kids interested in college... FIRST have many many meanings to people...
That is why FIRST is so popular, because it allow lots and lots of people across the country to participate in the same competition, yet they don't have to do the same thing as each other, say... SAT's for example.
And different places have different people, which is why there are so many different things teams do. Some just want to build a robot; others might start a class like a normal high school course. Some want to help spread the words around, while others just want to experience the competition to meet other people. And that’s ok. People should do whatever they are interested and believe in. This is what make the competition so special, teams participate in the same competition, yet each and everyone of them are so different in their own way.
“What do you think FIRST is really about?” someone asked… To that question, I can only answer: It’s really about a combination of lots things... You can get a feeling of it by mixing tons of fun, the satisfactory of fully understand how motors work, and the excitement when talking to a random person from across the country in a cool discussion… but that’s as close as I can get with limited English capability.
Talking to people... That's a really big part of my FIRST experience. Getting to met people I never would’ve met by was really important. Realizing I don’t know a lot was really important. Learning to learn from others was really important. Learning to have a good attitude about things is really important. Learning to have fun and share with other people is really important.
And there are more detailed stuff, like using a hand drill... or working really hard toward an impossible deadline... Sometimes it's reading engineers’ posts or flipping through text to learn about drive train, other times it's going around looking at robots and meeting people… but there are only so much I can tell you before you experience them yourself.
You see, there is no real answer anyone can tell you, because you have got to look for them yourself. We show you the door; you walk through it and see what kind of world it is. Quoting the policy of FIRST can’t show you what it really looks like; neither can this forum fully describe the whole experience.
Someone said it is unfair that teams have engineers and lots of resources to build the robot for them. Well, why such an attitude and angle? When I look at those super cool looking robots, I knew there is no way I can build a robot as cool as theirs, but nothing is stopping me from trying. Here is what I think: For every bit of knowledge those engineers know more than I do, I know I can learn it by asking more questions… For every cool parts they machined for their robot, I know I can reverse engineer that technology and adapt to my robot, or attack the problem at a different angle and build a device within my own resources, and still be as effective in the game… For ever dollar those teams have more, I know I can try harder to get companies and people interested to help support us… So, I don’t really see this as unfairness, but rather, a higher bar out there for me to reach. There is nothing stopping me, and there is nothing stopping you to improve yourself in every ways those teams are superior in. And get this: with that kind of believe, you already have a spirit as much as theirs, maybe even more.
I know teams without engineers and resources who are just as competitive. I know engineers teams with students as brilliant and inspired as any other teams. Why not learn from both of them? Why spend the time staring at robots and say “that’s not right of them”, instead of working hard to show them that you too can be as competitive? This is why FIRST is a competition. You challenge yourself with goals and compete against others, so you can get better and better. The only thing this competition isn’t about is beating and defeating other teams.
Those “engineers’ teams” are inspirations to students and other teams around them. By raising the bar higher and higher, they challenges teams around them to be more and more competitive and build a robot better and better. Mean while, these teams are the ones walk the difficult road ahead of us, do testing on different new ideas and technology… They are the ones who can teach us how things really work, and how to develop new technologies on your robot. Look around you. In case you haven’t noticed. They are the ones teaching others about motors and programming, and show blue prints of gear shifter and explaining the theory of Continuous Variable Transmission…
FIRST wouldn’t be the same without those teams, that’s a sure thing I can tell you. They are the ones who spend time organizing local competitions, and go to team forums to help FIRST improve the competition. Someone told me, “Their robot is built by engineers, so I am not going to respect them.” Well, in my opinion, as long as they are in the competition, they will continue to help the competition and FIRST grow, and continue to be teachers for us all… I have great respects for them because of that.
Sure, their robot have higher chances of winning awards… But without them, other teams would never push themselves as far AND as hard as they have today. As long as these robots are as cool as they look, teams around them will try to better themselves and catch up (or at least I hope so).
I used to think winning is really important. After a while, I looked back at the times I work so hard to win, and saw how much I gained, even though none of them are awards. Now, I am in for the competition, and the challenges, and all those other good stuff that come along… As for awards... it’s nice to show off with one of them, but I have just as much fun cheering at other teams for winning awards they well deserve, and I can’t stress enough how true that is to many others. Why emphasis so much about awards and titles while you can gain so much more by doing other things at the competition?
People are entitled to their own opinion, so I am going to leave it up to you to decide how you like to think of those teams. If you don’t respect them for their robots and knowledge/experience, at least acknowledge things that they did to the FIRST community…
Either way, I wish you all a fun time at competition, and enjoy as much as possible. Why worry and stress yourself while you can have a great time after all the hard work you did on the robot? Enjoy yourself, and keep an open mind.
J/K plz don't!
For all of you out there: Why you got to hate?! This thread is CLOSED from now on because it is pointless to argue. You can't tell what kind of situation other people are in. I can understand the point of view of "both sides". Stop arguing!
Sit back relax, look at your robot (or pictures of it), think great things coming up like the Regional.
This is life and YOU can only change it so much or so little its up to YOU to deside how much!
chris pike
25-02-2002, 12:43
hi I was a member of team 60 and we allmost folded
with the same line of thought.WE now are a strong team.You need to look to what resources you can develope.Get local machine shops on your side show this years bot and get them thinking.If you have a local big company show, we got a local power plant
to help with $ and got more from ford,Oh yes our first bot was plywood.Good luck ask the veterns
on advice.For example many ford teams sell coffee
before school,We have put on dinners beforeSchool
plays got local restrants donated food.but over
all enjoy.Chris
Andy Baker:
You've put all my opinions down in one message, :)
Im aware that all teams function differently, but all I wanto say is that this experience should be a co-operative effort between teachers, students and engeneers.
If thats how your team works, then thats great, if not then, I think you should consider the benifits of this.
Martin
907
junkyarddawg
26-02-2002, 07:48
Martin;
In my previous post I shared some of the other facets of FIRST that I've seen over the seven years that I have been participating in this competition. What I forgot to mention, was, that I along with alot of others have had the same or similar feelings our first year in the competition as you have so genuinely expressed. I detected more of a concern than a complaint in your original post. Our first year I think was Hexagon Havoc, and it was a disaster in the robotic sense, but it was phenomenal experience in every other way. Some years the students have designed and built most of the robot and other years, very little. The student involvment depended entirely upon the students on the team. If we had students that had enough machine tool experience and maturity to work under the safety rules of the machine shop, then we had students machine parts. Keep in mind that the liability for a company to have a student in their machine shop is unbelievable to say the least. But, we have had students make parts every single year. Another consideration is the sponsering corporation and their expectations of the team. There are not very many companies that will invest $20K-$40K in a program that allows 15-30 students see what they can do in 6.5 weeks. That would make good copy in the community, but the stockholders would have a vote of "no confidence" against the board of directors. The bottom line is that the sponser expects, in most cases, to see your team do what they saw the other teams do when they were talked into doing this. Another objective that has been mentioned by FIRST is that the machine shops have disappeared from highschools. The students need to start putting pressure on the Board of Education to bring skilled trades back to the highschools or at least make the skill centers more plentiful. I am 54 years old, a Viet Nam veteran Marine, I've built and driven many types of race cars and I still go out west with my Jeep and Mountain bike and hike and backpack and when I went to highschool we had mandatory shop classes and I have benefited greatly from them. I am now a Controls Engineer with 33 years experience. I'm not saying that they should be mandatory, but if you had them in your school it would certainly make building the robot alot easier
I think you'll admit that there is alot of lively discussion that goes with this program. Although there were a few "testy" responses to your posting, overall it was mostly veterans taking the time to share with you some wisdom and there was no rebuke meant.
I certainly look forward to hearing from you after you have survived your rookie year.
Tim Gates
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.