Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

This year? No. Future years? Absolutely. If this practice is allowed to continue unrestricted, the FIRST Robotics Competition could change dramatically (for the worse, IMHO).

Yes, if it has allowed circumvention of the $3500/$400 limit, I do.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck to all,


Dennis Jenks

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's keep to those and other related topics.

Good luck everybody,

Matt

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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


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

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


Shawn
Teacher
Team 60

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

Okay.

Time to step back, and take a break.

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

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

Everyone needs to cool down, on both sides.

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

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

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

JVN
Proud friend of the cheesypoofs

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

I'll re-open this thread later tonight.

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

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

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

Thanks.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Field

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

I guess I never really did any.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to work...

Matt