Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cory

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Mentorship is key.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

*sarcasm

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

Enough!

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

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

Ken Loyd
Team 64

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The design is the thing.

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p.s. thanks amanda. :)

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

I agree totally wiht you thats what i did cause if i posted right when they said they were workign together i would had bad reputation. Please everyone think about what youpost before you post cause i would liek this thread to stay open to see were this goes

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

a few more facts
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: a few more facts
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

legality
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

I haven't seen any posts 'attacking' either of your teams, persay. In fact, I think the posts have been, for the most part, good-natured. You shouldn't label a post as an 'attack' because it may express an opposing viewpoint. You should embrace the criticism. And to all of the people complaining that this thread should be closed: If every controversial thread were closed, this forum would be downright boring. Until there's a blatant insult towards either of the teams involved, or any other team, for that matter, I see no reason to shut this one down.

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

From what I've seen there are, in fact, some angry people. Just because a person is angry, does not make them ignorant and it is unfair to say such. No one has the right to tell people how they should or should not feel about something. You can disagree with them all you want, but no one has any right to tell someone not to be upset or angry about something.

I know quite a few groups of students that are fully capable of "doing every task" on a robot and then some. It is not a requirement that a robot be welded, or that a student should be asked to weld anything. This whole thread is about experimenting with something new and different, correct?

I don't think anyone has said that teamwork and cooperation will ruin FIRST. I think what people have been saying is, with this advanced level of cooperation, what stops the 1,000 teams in FIRST from building 1,000 identical robots? Why not just ship a set of instructions with the kit of parts each year? I have not seen anyone call for the demise of either of these teams. Some people are simply not happy with what they are doing.

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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


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

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


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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan

Collaboration Debate.
 

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

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

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

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