Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Joe J.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

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

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

Joe J.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

One practice bot and one competition bot per team.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

I cannot disagree more with your statements. If I KNOW I am going to make 4 of something, I can think about it as I design it and as I make it. For example, it may not be worth making a jig if I am going to make 1 but if I am going to make 4 -- it probably will be, possibly saving me huge amounts of time per part.

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

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

Joe J.

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont see any way around this.

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

Re: Robot Collaboration
 

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