[moderated] Collaboration
 

FIRST ruled. People want to discuss. Reply to this thread, all responses are moderated and may take a little while to show up (if they show up, at all).

This thread should discuss the general idea of collaboration, and not specific teams or people. Gracious professionalism applies, as usual.

---

and...

This was taken from the Q&A section 5.3.2.2

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I have to say that this was one of the sticker issues that FIRST has had to deal with and...

...I think they gave a pretty good answer.

The answer is clear in what it is trying to say. They give reasons. Over all, I have to say that this was a pretty good ruling.

I still have concerns about possible nightmare scenerios at some future, but we can deal with that when and if that nightmare ever starts to become a reality.

Over all. Nicely done FIRST.

Joe J.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Tho somewhat dissapointed with the descision, I still believe they gave justification for it.

FIRST is about the furthering of science and technology and in their eyes it does.

I still believe however that to keep up teams now must collaborate, or else in a sense be pushed out of any chance to win.

However its just a new avenue, nearly like everything new thing FIRST throws at us, it might not be readily accepted. It is to be taken in stride and I believe it will bring new dimmension to FIRST, and I'm excited to see where it takes us.

So all in all good job FIRST, I'm not sure where this road less traveled will take us in the coming future, but I am sure excited to find out.

Dan

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I have been thinking a lot about this collaboration issue since the first threads were posted and have realized that this is what FIRST is all about. If you look at the games they have produced they have changed in format from every team to themselves to a complete collaboration of forces and now and alliance. I disagree with all aspects of a team’s robot being the same but at the same time I understand how input from many different sources and people who have different experiences. Take this message board for instance, at the beginning of ever season there is talk of strategies, ideas and how things will be played for that season and in a cense that is collaboration.

I guess my overall point is that collaboration is part of every aspect of FIRST and teams choose for themselves how much they wish to work with others and this is why we have such diversity in this competition


On a side note I think that the official FIRST response to the situation was very professional and a good solution to the "problem" at hand.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Bravo to FIRST!

Bravo to CD!

Bravo to the bulldogs and poofs!

Bravo to the beginning of Regionals!

Let the fun Begin!

Ken Loyd
Team 64

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Here is my take...

1. I am not in favor of the decision.

2. I wasn't in favor of alliances at first either.

3. I was dead wrong about alliances.

4. Put 2 and 2 together.

Lets put it this way, Kingman and the Poofs went out on a limb to try something that could shape the future of FIRST. They faced a huge firestorm from many members of the FIRST community for their efforts. They handled themselves in a very admirable and exemplary (sp.?) way. If all the teams who collaborate in the future carry themselves like Kingman and the Poofs did...it might just work.

Finally, Kudo's to FIRST for the well thought out and explained answer. Like I said, I may not agree with the answer, but I am very happy with how FIRST handled it. I said in the past, for FIRST to make games interesting, they have to take chances. All of those chances are hit or miss. Here is another one of those chances...and I hope it works out well.

Good Luck,
Andy Grady

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I have supported the 254/60 collaboration from the start. With that said, I obviously agree with the FIRST ruling.

Collaboration will not reduce your workload by 50%. Effective collaboration is not easy. Collaboration is not for everyone. Team 217 will probably not collaborate in the future, because we have a very large team which is hard to manage.

For those of you that do not support collaboration, let me leave you with this scenario:

Here is team A (the ThunderChickens, for example) with several CNC mills, lathes, grinders, etc at their disposal. Also, they have 14 CAD workstations with SolidWorks and a 36" laser plotter. They can design and build pretty much anything they want. They also have several software mentors and students that are awesome at C programming.

Here are teams B and C. Team B has an awesome machine shop that has CNC mills, etc. They have no CAD design to speak of (everything on a napkin), but they have mad software writing skills. Team C has design workstations and students who can run them, but no high tech machining capability. Teams B & C team up to do a collaborative effort. Together they design some simple parts, some complicated parts, and some parts in between. They divide the machining up by who has the ability to machine each part, they divide the software development up based on who has the ability, and they divide the detail design (not concepting) by who has the ability. The result is the combined capacity to do what team A can do by themselves. With the ruling on cost to machine not counting against teams, we may even machine parts for people in the future.

I, personally like to be in the team A situation. If I wasn't, you bet we would collaborate with another team that matched our weaknesses with strengths.

-Paul

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I am reminded of something that Dean said at the 2003 kickoff.

I believe that this ruling is not fair in the context of the game. But, I agree that it is consistent with the higher level ideals of FIRST. I believe that collaboration at some level is a good thing for FIRST. However, I am worried about what collaboration on the level seen this year will mean for the future of FIRST.

My personal motivation for volunteering in FIRST is twofold. I strongly agree with the ideals and high level objectives of FIRST. I go to bed at night feeling good about having done something positive and contributing to my community. But, when I go in early, stay late, design, strategize, motivate, and pour my sweat and blood into a robot, I do it because I want to do whatever I can to help my team win.

I don't want to come off as melodramatic, but, in all honesty, if FIRST abandons fairness, I will abandon FIRST. I'll have to see how this all plays out in the next few years.

The bottom line is that if the rules of the competition create an environment in which there is no reasonable chance for my team to win, I will find something else to do with my time, money, and energy. I do not need FIRST if I want to have a positive impact on my community. FIRST needs me and others like me if FIRST wants to continue to grow.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I applaud FIRST decision on collaboration. It enhances the FIRST experience ten fold. I think Paul put it best in his description. FIRST in a sense is trying to get teams to be like a business. Teams split up between marketing and technical aspects. Teams have leaders that essentially act like the boss. And now teams have to learn to work together. In the real world, companies are constantly working together. This just adds a new challenge for teams to work more as a business.

-Pat

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Wow. A lot's been said, and before it's done, I believe a lot more will be said.

As so many have pointed out, collaboration will allow two teams which are at a disadvantage to overcome that and raise the bar. And inspire more students.

But I can definitely see the point at which this begins to fall apart.

Many companies have engineering centers across the world that work together today. Removing obstacles of language translation and time zone differences, I don't believe collaboration is as difficult as some team's make it out to be. It's been going on in the real world for some time, and while there may be a short adjustment period, it makes things easier across the board.

Where's the downside?

If two teams collaborating is good, wouldn't three teams collaborating be better? It would create a better performing robot, and more students would be inspired by the awesome experience. Wouldn't five teams be better than three? What about ten?

At some point it becomes more impractical because it's difficult to coordinate several sites, but it can be done without too much difficulty on every Saturday, even for five to ten teams.

If these are teams with real complimentary abilities (as in Paul's post), that is one thing. However, as teams become better equipped and as more teams are added to the "super-alliance", I see some sort of regulation being necessary - to prevent one "super-alliance" from becoming so dominant that other teams feel there is no point in participating, and students of the remaining teams become uninspired.

I know that TRW has the ability to coordinate several facilities via NetMeeting, video conferences, etc. and does this with US facilities as well as locations throughout Italy, Germany, Korea, and Japan just to name a few. Designs are shared, reviewed, improved, etc. Again, choosing the proper time becomes an issue with time zones, but it can be worked out.

And based on my experience, I strongly believe that when designing a subsystem or component, it is a lot easier to optimize for weight, strength, performance, etc. over a certain period and coordinate with other facilities as to how it will work with the entire system, than to optimize an entire system for the same characteristics given the same time constraints.

I would be shocked if Delphi / GM / Ford didn't have this ability. This is not to single out companies that I expect would be collaborating in the future, but more to mention some teams (or sponsoring companies) that, if they did collaborate in the future would make it incredibly difficult for a rookie team to be competitive against. Perhaps difficult enough to persuade teams to not form or drop out.

It is true that today there are teams with little to no engineering support. But if collaborating continues , let alone grows, I would hate to listen in on the brainstorming and concept generation meetings that these teams would have, as I imagine they'd go something like:

"What about a robot that grabs the goals and pulls them around?"
"What about a robot that collects balls and delivers them to the player station?"
"What's the point? You know we won't be able to compete with the Delphi Super-Alliance, or the GM Super-Alliance, or ..."

Raising the bar for robot performance is good. Inspiring more students is better. But inspiring select students on superior teams with significantly overlapping capabilities at the cost of the future of the competition (and all it stands for) is, in my opinion, not worth it. I don't mean to imply this is what happened this year. I'm speaking of where I see this leading to.

Some people have even compared this to NASCAR. Where all teams have the same robots (because they all worked in the same Super Alliance) and the competition comes down to which students operate the robot the best. This might still be exciting to watch, but I doubt it will still inspire students to pursue scientific and technological fields.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Personally I think this decision from FIRST has crossed a new boundary, and in the long run it might not be a good thing.

In the past teams have always helped each other out, sharing knowledge, experience, resources, spare parts, designs from previous years - primarilly sharing knowledge and resources.

the thing that is different now is not only can you tell another team how to do something (shared knowledge) you can actaully DO it for them. Brainstorm, design, fabricate, build, test, debug, and then say "here you go - here is your completed arm, drivetrain, tranny, SW, or the whole machine!"

that will reduce FIRST from a robotics design competition to a robotics sporting competition - you no longer have to account for who built your robot, or where you got it from - another team can build the whole thing for you now, and you only drive it during the matches (that is not what has happened so far, but it is the extreem of what this new ruling allows)

thats the line FIRST has crossed, from showing other teams HOW to design and build, to DOING it for them.

I know that FIRST already supplies default transmissions and default code - enough to get a basic frame up and running - but that is only a starting point - you could not compete very effectively if you only assembled what came in the KOP and added nothing to it

but now things have changed. Now you can get a very sophisticated transmission, or have someone else write very complex code for you, and you can use it in the games, never having to do any design, build, test, debug work yourself - why is this different?

Now there is no incentive to do it yourself - almost anyone could design something better than the stock FIRST drivetrain, but can you design a drivetrain better than teams who win regionls or chamionships repeatedly? Why push yourself out of your comfort zone? why push yourself to learn something new, to work on something you have never done before when you can get a final product from another team that is probabally better than what you can do on your own?

Is this the direction FIRST really wants to take, to eliminate the design competition and focus only on the playfield competition?

And what about the design awards? if 3 or 4 teams show up with identical robots, how can you give a design award to one of them without giving it to all 4 teams? how do you know which team designed the part of the robot that the award is being granted for?

I dont mean to be the devils advocate on this subject - there are many areas within FIRST for teams to work together and make the experiece more rewarding on all sides. Personally I think that allowing one team to DO the work for another will dilute the experience of the receiving team. You learn so much more by trying to solve a problem yourself, even if your solution is not very good or effective on the playfield - at least by then you will know intimately WHY it did not work and have some idea of what you could have done better. If someone else builds all or part of your bot for you then what have you gained?

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life :c) To really set someone on fire with a passion for engineering and science, you have to let them struggle through the design cycle, to push themselves past everything they have done before. And most important, to see for themselves "I can do this!" I believe this is one of the core value of FIRST.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

The entire collaboration issue reminds me greatly of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program. The fact that two teams were able to make this work is impressive.

I also think that FIRST's answer is very professional and makes good sense. Kudos to them.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

You know, on a much less obvious level, many of the Ford teams have been doing this kind of thing for a few years. In the Detroit area, there's Team Ford FIRST, which is a group of Ford sponsored teams. Many of the teams work within a few miles from each other, because it IS the Motor City, and they've become a "union of teams" as such. Every year, you see two or three of Ford robots that range from looking slightly to remarkably similar - that's because many of the teams colaborate between each other during the inital weeks - strategizing, planning, and designing. They share resources with each other, and I don't think they still do this, but they used to run scrimmages against each other around this time of year.

Albeit this case isn't exactly the same thing - I just see it as the next step up, so I wasn't really surprised by it.


Referencing the car analogy, sometimes the major OEM's do collaborate. The Mercury Villager, for example, is a joint venture between Ford-Mercury and Nissan (The Nissan counterpart is called the "Quest"). The late Mercury Cougar was based off of a Mazda platform. Many GM divisions (Pontiac, Olds, Buick, Saturn) end up building one vehicle and slapping a different badge on it.
The point being that most of these collaborations aren't as successful as the companies hope. The sell a lot of cars, but they aren't really "revolutionary" or even above average. They're just mediocre cars that some people buy, and then they fade off and are forgotten.
I don't mean to insult the Bulldogs or the Poofs by this, I just don't think that they'll be any better than most other robots out there. I hope that they do good, but my feeling is that they won't be the best two teams out there.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I'm still undecided about collaboration as a strategy. I can see how it can damage the game in the future, but I also see how much it can help to inspire students.

That said, I was against it initially, because I couldn't see how it was legal within the rules given to us at the beginning of the competition. However, once again, FIRST has amazed me because they were able to find a happy medium. They have an interpretation which allows 254 and 60 to compete, and also uphold the rules.

Now, of course, this ruling only stands for this year. I'm sure that FIRST is watching this thread, and they will be listening closely at the Team Forums this year. So, this discussion has shifted from whether it is illegal or not, but whether it should be legal in the future, and more importantly WHY it should be legal or illegal in the future.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I have some more comments on the subtleties of collaboration that I will post later. But I do have one thought about the "full-blown" version of collaboration (to the point of co-design and co-building) that has caused all the uproar, and I am very surprised that this has not come up anywhere in the various discussions so far.

As a COMPETITOR, I just absolutely LOVE the fact that these two teams have essentially built the same machine this year, and I hope they continue to do so forever! Why? Because they have just made my job 50% easier!

Huh?

OK, here goes. Every year I get to praise the heavens because our team rarely has to go up against 254 and 60 (thank goodness they are on the wrong side of the country!). Their solutions to the game are always so good, and so creative, that we have to spend a very great amount of time trying to figure out how to defeat them should we ever oppose them in a match (the same can be said for Team Hammond, Chief Delphi, Team 122, and many others). When considering these two teams, we always had to come up with two counter-strategies, develop two sets of plays, practice two sets of scenarios, etc. **

But now, if we can figure out how to beat one of them, then we know how to beat the other. We get twice the benefit for half the work! Everyone posting concerns about how closely teams have collaborated has intimated the result of the collaboration will always be an unbeatable machine. I am not convinced that is the case. We have seen in the past that every "unbeatable" machine has a weakness, and it is just a matter of exploiting it (e.g. even the mighty Beatty Machine in 2002 lost a few rounds). The result of teams collaborating (to the point of co-designing) may be better machines, but I am a long way from assuming they will be unbeatable (or even the "best" machines). Given that, our job is to look for the weaknesses in the design - and if we find it, then we can "kill two birds with one stone."

A concern was expressed earlier in the thread about what would happen if five or ten teams all worked together to build identical machines. Well, they would build ten identical machines, with ten implementations of the same strengths. But they would also have ten copies of the same weaknesses. If we can find it, we have just figured out how to defeat ten teams all at once. So if I hear about ten teams that want to get together, my only response will be "BRING IT ON! :p "

At the end of the day, I think that the off-the-playfield ramifications of the "full-blown collaboration" are a very positive thing, for the reasons stated in the FIRST answers, and many others. As a potential competitor ON the play field, I like it even more!

-dave

** note: a few times in past years, our response strategy has been to build a machine that falls apart before we can ever compete against these guys, and we therefore avoid the entire issue altogether - perhaps not the brightest strategy, but hey, it works for us! :)

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

(Yay!! I finally get to (maybe) post this!!)

I have decided to offer an idea into play that just may be able to come to be with the advances FIRST is making with this whole collaboration ruling.
I think everything that needed to be said about that whole 254-60 thread has already been said. So, I am going to pose a question for all of you and you tell me what you think about it.

Two years ago I talked with a member of a very competitive and good spirited FIRST team from California. (No, sorry, it wasn't team 254 - I cannot reveal my source - yet - unless they want me to.)

Anyways, we talked about the fact that in 2002 it was the first year that a team could make a custom electronics board. (With, I believe, it was a $100 limit.)

The idea that was proposed was to work together with a team, like 60 and 254 are doing this year, but allow your two robots to link physically and electronically somehow during competition and make one robot that is

a) possibly double the weight limit
b) double the electrical power - hence the intergration of the custom circuit board
c) allowing a sort of partnership to form over the six weeks between team members of the two teams
d) allow the robots to possibly compete together in the competition and just possibly win it all - together (with the current qualifying structure that exists you could do this - alliance pickings are NOT random as of yet)
What do you think of this as a possibility of happening, or the legality of this under FIRST jurisdiction now or in the future???

While I wondered over the technical aspects of this possibility it never came to my mind that members of an organization such as FIRST who are on the cutting edge of technology at such a young age, would have such a problem of trying to have an open mind and "thinking outside of the box" as I have seen in that closed thread about 254 & 60.

While in this particular case team's 254 and 60 are not essentially linking together their robot's to "win it all", in the scenario that was concieved a few years ago on a Saturday night in Epcot after a few days of heavy competing, trading information with fellow teams, wins, losses and some major bonding and heartbreaks, a few assumptions can and will more than likely be made for the two, or more, teams that do this.

Is it fair? Probably not. But is the FIRST competition fair as it stands?
As it was quoted before, even Dean himself said that FIRST was not fair to all, even though they try to give everyon a level playing field so to speak.

Does every team get the same knowledge coming into the competition every year?
Does every team have the same facilities and/or resources that all other teams have?

Does every team have the same number of students and engineers?

The bottom line and question I want you to think over is:

Do you think FIRST will ever write a rule that says something like:
"You can not pool resources together with another team and help each other. You can not build similar robots, or ones that interact with each other?"

I personally think not....
But, that is just my opinion!

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Wow ... I guess I never really thought about it from that point of view - Thanks, Dave! I feel enlightened. :)

When I first heard about the collaboration of 60 and 254, I felt the same way. After the ruling stating the legality of the collaboration of two teams, I'm not totally for or against the idea of this type of collaboration. If that's what teams want to do, and they feel it's the best way to learn, teach and be inspired, go for it! That's what this is all about, anyway! Thinking about it, it takes the 'real world' side of FIRST to a whole new level - communicating between two cities is hard, imagine how hard it is to communicate between two states! Congrats to the teams that are able to do this, and do it well. :)

That said, I don't think I would personally want my team to participate in this sort of collaboration with another team. Why? *shrug* I like trying to build a new, innovative, robot that performs the same tasks as everyone else's in a different way than others. Seeing my robot on the field compete with or against its twin would be ... different. I don't think I would care for that.

But that's me and just me. Like I said before, if teams want to go ahead and do it, I have no problem with it.

Good luck to everyone this season!

Haha, very nice. *makes a mental note - "team 116 will fall apart if they feel the competition is as tough as 60 & 254

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I agree that a flaw or weakness in a design of a super collaboration would mean a weakness in all ten teams on the field

but I think the weaknesses that show up on the field are largely due to the fact the we have a limited amount of time and resources, and we have to design a whole robot in 6 weeks

so by having a ten team design alliance, each team only has to build one tenth of the robot - they will have plenty of time to perfect it in 6 weeks

it would be like playing against a team that has 300 students and 30 mentors, who are entering 10 robots into the contest, instead of playing against 10 individual teams with 30 students and 3 mentors each.

I dont like those odds. If we are on the opposite side of the field, It would feel like you are going against a team that had 330 members and $300,000 in funding.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Hmmmm.... I am getting even further convinced that any group that goes down this road will quickly discover the point of diminishing returns.

I'm thinking about 300 studnets and 30 engineers, spread across 10 different locations, working on the same project, trying to set interface standards for at least 10 different subsystems, establishing production procedures for at least 10 copies (20 if you want a spare robot, 30 if you want spare parts) of everything, setting up communications infrastructures, the required layer of management and bureaucracy to get everything coordinated, shipping and logistics for all the parts, quality control for the production runs, new facilities needed for parts production (you are no longer in "one-off" mode here), etc. etc etc.

Then there is the fact that you need to get 330 team members to agree to the design approach (that will take at least two weeks of negotiation - just try to get a group that size to agree on ANYTHING). At least 30 engineers need to converge on the design details (there goes another ten days). Develop the interface specifications (one week), and control theory. Assuming you actually want to practise with your completed robot for at least 48 hours, that least one week for actual construction of parts, shipping them around the country, assembling and integrating them, finding out the specs were wrong, and iterating through the whole thing at least one more time. They are going to spend most of their $300,00 budget just on paperwork, logistics, communications and shipping. The net investment in the actual robot should be about $1.97.

As I said before, if some group wants to go through all that, I say "BRING IT ON!!! :D )

-dave

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Id like to propose an idea that takes collaboration almost up to this point, but still allows each team to create a unique machine.

When you have a regional in your hometown its much easier to form new teams - the travel and shipping expenses dissapear, unless you want to goto more than one event.

a couple years ago I was talking with other engineers during the championship at epcot, and came up with the idea of cities that have regionals also having a year round FIRST facility. A place with a single machine shop, a single playfield, computer room, lunch room, parts room, electronics equipment

but separate meeting and assembly rooms for individual teams. this would allow small teams with no real resources to meet in a common location and share a great deal of facilities and resources, while still being able to be independant teams with regards to their robot design. Engineers and mentors could choose to be team mentors or site mentors (im sure they would all end up helping all the teams as needed).

From my experience over the years the competition part of FIRST is extreemly important. When we have tried to get students to work on ideas in the off season, participation drops through the floor - nobody is interested.

There is something about human nature that makes us want to compete with each other - Im worried that having too many teams working together on a single design will take that away from FIRST, and the energy will drop like it does in the off season.

Having a single central location for multiple teams to work on their machines allows the maximum amount of cooperation, without loosing the element of competition. FIRST needs both.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

We were two teams and it took us about two weeks to get the CAD and desing done, let alone build a thing. Mistakes are worse when they are done at long distaces. Here are just two examples. After the gear boxes were designed, 254 made the side plates and 60 made the gears. 254 shiped the plates to us, 6o, and we realized they were designed wrong. We, 60, then had to re-engineer and build new paltes and ship them back to 254 (both teams losing time), Secondly, 254 made the plates for the wench. They made side plates and not the mounting paltes. OOOPS again. I think we sent 254 the wrong drawing, I still don't know what happened. Collaboration like this is easier in some ways and harder in others.

I have found over the years that when you try something new you solve some problems but also trade old problems for new problems.

My experience so far this year is that is has been as challenging, exciting, stressful, and rewarding as my previous 5 in FIRST. My students are equally happy and excited.

13 Days until the Phoemix Regioanl

Shawn
Team 60

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Our team was allied with Beatty that year in nationals. I agree that there is no such thing as an unbeatable machine. However, if I recall correctly, when we and beatty were on the field, we never lost. Almost the only way to stop Beatty's beautiful robot was to turn it before it got to their scoring zone. Our robot was enough of a tank that we were able to stand behind them and keep them from turning. Our strategies complemented each others perfectly.

What does this have to do with collaboration?

It's true that FIRST provides enough of a challenge that it's not likely a single robot could be completly unbeatable. But an alliance built to function together might be close. Granted, two teams could do this in the strategy part of build season, it would likely be easier if the teams work closely all during build season. Besides, once teams get used to working together on robots, they'll likely be looking for more challenges. Building the "perfect" alliance may be that challenge.

Another problem could arise if teams start helping rookie teams through collaboration, but end up basicly building a robot for them. There is a certain balance created by the amount of competitive teams vs. the number of rookie teams. If more and more rookies are as powerful as veterans, it will raise the bar for veterans even further and could (as was mentioned before) intimidate rookie teams. If this was a widely established program, that wouldn't be to much of a problem. However FIRST still has a good amount of growing to do.

On the other hand, collaboration could be the next challenge for veteran teams that would get them concentrated on something other then building a better robot. It would then keep powerful teams from intimidating rookies while encouraging them to help the rookies, and further balance the playing field.

I think the real question is, is the threat of even more overpowered robots greater then the potential positive changes of increased gracious professionalism?

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

This hits the nail on the head doing a project with one other team is hard enough. You might be able to bring a third team into the mix but it would take a very special group to make that work.

For those of you who know team 60 we try to get our design and strategy complete seven to ten days after kick off, and our robot complete in week four. This year we were more than two weeks into the design and we finished up on the night before we shipped.

When you are building four robots you do save some time because of increased production quantities, but don’t forget we are proto typing at the same time so when something goes wrong you have to fix it four times and believe me this happened.

Was the project a success? Absolute both team 60 and 254 learned many valuable lessons. We had to work had but we had a lot of fun designing and building together and I believe I can speak for both teams when I say we would do it again.

I’m a businessman in Kingman, my competitors know when we go head to head for a job that I’m a tough competitor, but they also know if they need help they can count on us. This is what has made us successful company.

If we are going to put man on Mars and learn more about the creation of the Universe or find a cure for cancer and so on. It will take people working together and I believe this is one of the most important aspects I can share with my students.

I do not think you will ever see ten of the same robots nor do I believe you will see many team take this to the level that our two teams did.

As JFK said we did not do this because it was easy, we did it because it was hard.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Our alliance came up with a strategy to beat them last year, and we almost succeeded. We remain coopetitors with Team 60.

I was puzzled by all the controversy over their collaboration. I didn't feel threatened by it. I didn't feel it meant we had to collaborate in the same way to compete well, or that the sky was falling and everyone would be making the same robot. Creative solutions, realizing "life" isn't fair...all went thru my head - that it was still going to be fascinating to see their designs and how it all panned out.

Many, many years ago in high school modeling the teacher said that Cosmopolitan Magazine does all kinds of crazy things in order to get it's readership to make one tiny change, make a little purchase, move a tiny step forward in some area...

I can be fascinated by Martha Stewart - but certainly can't hold a candle to her. However she's taught me a thing or two that I can incorporate into my life.

60 inspires our team.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

With the collaboration issue now ruled on it will open up a new can of worms. I can't help but agree with everyone a little on this subject. Yes its a hard feat to accomplish, Yes if you build Identical robots its 50% the strategy, and yes you have to work hard at the infustructure to pull it off.

But now picture with me if you will. Teams will soon realize that to have any chance at winning it is almost nescessary to form some sort of alliance or a super-alliance. Everyone seems to believe that this would be a nearly impossible feat to accomplish, but think with me for a second. What if remote kickoff's turned into nearly ":Alliance Summits". Each team in the alliance ( maybe every team within 60 miles which in certain areas could be as many as 40 or more teams! )

Team sends delegates, maybe 2 mentors and 2 students to meet. Then those delegates present their ideas for strategies on the game. Depending on the game 2 or 3 different robots will chosen to be designed. Alliance appointed heads would then brake off and coordinate with each group to make robots that worked perfectly together. For instance, this year, if a 1 of the robots did the hanging and another robot latched on to it to hang. Or 2 years ago in 2002 2 robots latching onto eachother forming a super bot to push everyone and everything off the field. The possibilities are endless.

Each team leaves the summit with the plans in hand and begin building their bot. Now they only have to collaborate with the 8 or so teams that are building the same robot those 8 robots which work perfectly with another 8 robots, which in turn also can work perfectly with another 8 robots.

Regionals turn into basically giant practice matches, and with that many robots, the possibility that you would get a pair at nationals is huge.

Now this example is blown way out of proportion. But even if it is done with 2 or 3 teams. The odds of 1 of those teams to get into top 8 are pretty great. ( Even if they don't get into the top 8, what team in their right mind would not want to pick the 2 super alliance bots )They then pick the rest of the alliance to work with. Teams then start dominating regionals, which are quite possibly the most integral part of FIRST. Many smaller teams that make up the majority of FIRST would be discouraged from coming back, because the way they see it, the regional level is they only place they can win. But now they are dominated by super-allainces who rejoice in collaborated winning.

I am not worried about identical robot collaboration even tho it seems a bit unfair. I realize that 60 and 254 would have produced amazing robots anyways. Infact I never was upset with either of these teams.

I am worried about what ELSE can come from collaboration. Because FIRST ruled that teams can work like this together. This rulings allows teams to work together how I described. It gets rid of the uniqeness of FIRST, and creates a bland mediocrity in which superbly built robots crush the little guy. I've always enjoyed seeing 950 different robots every year. Now I imagine in the future I'll have to look forward to seeing 600 or 425, or 300, or 150.

However I still believe FIRST gave just reason for their rulling, so this is why I'll be doing a lot of talking regional events. Making friendships that hopefully will begin to form great partnerships. Now I could be wrong, the masses of FIRST might decide against such a route.

However I will not sit quietly and let my team or friends teams be pushed out of the competitive aspect of FIRST. I will take FIRST's descision and run with it. Even if it begins to make my worst FIRST nightmare a reality. I stand behind it and will work hard and continue to promote FIRST in its new avenue, where ever it may take us.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

My biggest problem with collaboration? Feeling involved.

Last year, I was on 818's "Robot Support" team. We did all of the odd jobs that the team needed someone to do - building the playing field, making the crate, and so on. The biggest problem I had with Robot Support was that the five of us that made up the group had almost no input in the robot design. I ended up feeling useless and uninvolved in the small successes 818 had during last year's game. Needless to say, that's not a good feeling.

This year, I moved to our team's Electronics group. Almost immediately, things were different. My group was asked to contribute ideas, and we did so. We were presented with the final design...and then, four weeks into the build, discovered that our work so far had to be redone because someone had decided to change the design of the robot without informing us.

I'm not sure how to best communicate my point...I guess it'd be that it's hard enough to feel involved on your own team at times, and even a minor change can spell disaster. Collaboration would definitely make it much harder for students to take a part in robot design. I may just be pessimistic, but the end result I see for collaboration woud be a small group of experienced students and engineers from various teams making the majority of design decisions and leaving the rest of the teams' members feeling useless.

As far as design goes...This is a rather extreme example, but let's say that Team A, who is working on the drive train, decides to deviate from the original plan and give the robots treads instead of wheels. The message gets through to several of the teams in the alliance...but Team E, who is working on the chassis, never finds out. Now all of the teams involved would be stuck with treads that won't fit onto their chassis. Not good in any way.

Communication and involvement are hard enough to control on a single team...it would be a nightmare if you had to get four or five teams on the same track.

I have a feeling that I'm not alone when I say that I'd much prefer to be involved in a team where the students make the entire robot instead of becoming specialized in a smaller area - say, electronics - and allowing others to design the majority of their robot.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

FIRST made the only ruling that it could.

Imagine that you were at a regional and you have gotten yourself into a box on a problem. Someone from another team comes by and says, "Hey, I ran into that problem a couple of years ago. Here's what worked for us." He then sketches a part, grabs some materials from his team's stash, and submits it to the shop for fab.

If FIRST had ruled, "No collaborative design," this assistance would be illegal.

The same argument could be made about fabrication. If a person from one team visits another team's pits and drills a hole, solders a wire, etc., the "donation of labor" would be illegal.

I don't think any of us want to see the world where we cannot assist each other in design or fabrication.

Now, some of you may say, "But these cases are different from one team fabricating all or part of another team's robot." They're different in the scope of collaboration, not the kind.

So, FIRST had no choice but to rule that both design and fabrication collabroation are legal.

The ramifications of disallowing collaboration are far worse than the ramifications of allowing it.

What many of us find uncomfortable is the scope of collaboration. In the extreme, Team X can develop a super design, program a CNC machine to make it, build a bunch of fixtures, and bang out 100 copies in the six week build phase.

Somewhere in between those two extremes, no collaboration and mass production, lies the correct path. We, as a community, have to find that path. Some teams will err towards no collaboration, others will err towards mass production.

As long as we keep in mind the true goal, inspiring young people to pursue science and engineering, we should be able to get by.

The next question is, "How many engineers, fabricators, and programmers does a team really need in order to be competitive." Three is probably too low; thirty is probably too high. Regardless of the number, the organizational structure has to be well developed in order to make efficient use of its labor pool. I think you'll find that the most competitive teams consist of a moderate sized staff, most of whom have worked together and know each other's strengths and weaknesses.

The "quickie collaboration" of teams that don't really know each other is a disaster waiting to happen. The thing that should worry all of us is two teams that collaborate and end up in a power struggle. Those two teams will end up hating each other in the end. This would be very bad for FIRST.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

People seem to have more of a problem with how team 60 and 254 went about this rather than what they did. Team 60 and 254 each made an identical robot and entered two regionals each

Here's a hypothetical situation:
Team 60 and 254 merge into one team, say team 1500, they make one robot and enter four regionals. At two regonals the 254 drives the robot and in two regionals 60 drives the robot.

What's different? The difference is that people wouldn't call the second one cheating, they would call it collaboration.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

There are some differences between two teams making the same robot and one merged team.

Two teams get twice the number of parts - of course, you can't have more than x of a certain part anyway. But, two teams also receive twice the chance of winning a regional. If 8 teams, for example, collaborate and make the same robot, they have a chance of being the top 8 seeded teams also. However, one super-bot of 8 teams merged into one can only be seeded 1st place, not 1st through 8th.

I agree with Andrew. It is far better to fully allow collaboration than fully prohibit collabortation. Gracious professionalism needs collaboration to work. FIRST made the right decision.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

This is my 5th year in FIRST and I have seen a gradual decline to where competiton has become irrelevant.

Long ago, individual robots battled each other. Then allainces were formed and the spontaneos pairings of two robots were exciting and benifetted first year teams. Now, we have teams building robots together to the extent where they are trading manafactured parts. What is the future?

The FIRST purist would say- it doesn't matter. The kids are still being inspired to pursue fields of technology, the program is working.

The competitive FIRST person would say- they are scared. Imagine Joe Johnson's suggestion: a 16 team Delphi alliance. Where a single team had 6 weeks to perfect a single component, a wheel, a goal grabber, a winch. How could another team compete against them?

Just as Joel Glidden has said, this might cause mentors and engineers to stop supporting FIRST. Which would leave FIRST with a dying program. Teams would have difficulty retaining mentors. At some point teams would have to drop out because of lack of support. FIRST would be in a dire situation.

Every mentor loves how they are inspiring America's youth. But which ones see that as a bennifet of creating a robot or the main reason? I think FIRST purists are underestimating just how many people are involved for a competitive robotics program.

How far will FIRST go before they realize that this was supposed to be a competiton? The kids will still be inspired, just keep FIRST competitive.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

What I am most intrigued about is the cooperation in the offseason. I had suggested this to a friend on another local team, that we may collaborate in the off season to develop technologies that would then be used in the season.

We are both rookie teams, we figured we could pool our resources and come up with some very successful technologies. Such as autonamous, the electrical folks on both teams when they first met (at a Georgia Tech TES) were very excited about their dashboard programs, encoders and inertial guideance. Also we wished to develop a form of machine vision that could sense the location of the playing pieces on the field and create a digital map of where every fied piece is. This system would also allow the robot to calibrate its sensors to the field.

This endevor would be both very costly and require much expertise that neither team on its own had. However, we felt that if we collaborated we could solve our problems together.

To make a long story short, final exams rolled around, then it was the winter break, and then the build season started. We had not collaborated.

I feel this is an excellent form of collaboration. Take the car example, Porche and VW collaborated to build the Chyanne and the Touraeg respectively. The cars systems are very similar, technologies were developed jointly as a result of their cooperation. They share a very similar chassis and transmission, however, the Porche looks nothing like the VW. They each took the base level technologies and developed something unique.

It would be pointless to have the same identical car because then they would not be in competition. That is why I ask, if both teams were to be yearning for the last spot in the finals. They were trying to get choosen, by a finalist team, what would set one team apart from the other? They are the same.

That is why there are different quirks about the two SUVs. The Porche is pricier but also more powerful. The VW is cheaper but lacks some of Porche's "umph". Which one would you pick?

Good luck!
-Andy

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I still see a few problems with this. The main one is that collaboration on this scale really does make it possible for a team to solely focus on perfecting a part of the robot. I realize that collaborating across state lines was difficult, but I think that would be the exception, rather than the norm. Collaborating with a team in the same city would make things much, much easier, while keeping all the advantages of the collaboration.

Mostly, however, my real issue is that this effectively allows a team to enter multiple robots into the same competition. Once this ruling has been made, I don't see much standing in the way of a school forming two teams, buying two kits and building identical robots and entering them both into the same competitions.

Finally, I slightly disagree about making FIRST teams more business-like. If FIRST really is trying to make teams into businesses, I can't think of a quicker way to make kids lose interest. With all the advantages of collaboration come highly structured meetings, procedures for making changes to the robot, loads of paperwork, diluted involement in the design of the robot, etc. Two teams collaborating could gain large advantages to making a competitive robot, at the expense of losing the interest of the kids. I don't think that's a good trade-off to make teams consider.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Actually, this has always been possible. There has never been an explicit rule against one school forming two teams, and entering the competition twice. There is nothing in the FIRST rulings that causes any changes to this.

-dave

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

To further a point made by KenWittlief and others earlier...

Ohio State this year sponsors *3* teams, each at a different high school (one public, one private, one home school). Each team operates semi-autonomously - each design/build their own robot, but at the mentor level there is a lot of cooperation (especially since we're all friends/classmates). We/they (I've graduated or something) run integrated fall training sessions (in conjunction with other Central Ohio teams), which is amazing. This is way better than each team developing and implementing essentially the same material. By sharing it across our teams and with the others in the area, we're able to leverage the combined expertise of the group. We're electrically heavy, so we teach most of the electrical/controls related materials. Mentors from other teams share their mechanical knowledge, or 3DStudioMax, or fundraising, or.... The class/team ratio is such that some teams don't even have to contribute - they can just show up and participate. To me, this really starts hitting at the spirit of FIRST - since it's all about inspiring/teaching, who cares who's at the front of the room or gets the credit?

We even extend this, to some degree, to the build season. One of our fall sessions is a "lessons learned", where we share how we go about the design/build process and some pitfalls we've come across - other teams do the same. This isn't to say we're dictating "here's how we run design week, you must do it this way", but rather we're just sharing our (unique) way of viewing the "FIRST problem". This is fairly recent so I can't comment on how well this is worked (unless some of the other CORA teams want to jump in here and say something), but I view this as a good thing.

The area-wide collaboration dies down once build starts, mostly b/c teams are too busy doing their own things. The idea has been floated to have design review sessions of sorts. The idea here would be for teams to present their high-level designs to some moderated (or un-moderated) panel, which would hopefully catch major design flaws and pass on advice. For example, if a team said they wanted to build a time travel device, the panel might caution against that. A similar idea has been proposed for exchanging strategy ideas. The big problem we've found so far is that the inner culture of each team is different -number of hours expected from the students, days of the week they meet, pace of the design schedule - those are prohibitively different enough that unless the need is really clear, most teams shy away. The comparisons to industry start to break down here – all TRW/Ford/Wherever employees share (well, in theory) the same vision, purpose – and they are paid to do so. That’s not always the case in the FIRST world – if it was, these forums would be pretty boring.

The OSU teams, however, still collaborate a little during build season. This is mostly limited to an exchange of ideas (again at the mentor level), leveraging off the experience of the collective group. We're all college students, so we don't have the years of experience built up to help us out. Instead, we do have years of making really stupid mistakes designing FIRST robots, so we pass those stories along hoping we don't repeat them. Each team has a machinist-type (a college student that has some experience), so we can leverage off the experience of another team's "machinist". For us, this is just a logical step. The number of mentors keeps increasing, so we keep spawning new teams. The relationships are there, so why not capitalize on them? In fact, for us it's one of the few ways we can really be competitive against teams with "real" engineers. (well, that and we have no families and lots of machine shop access, but that's for a different thread)

So, back to Ken's point, we nearly fit what he's saying - we're several teams, working together, but still semi-autonomously. At the mentor level, I think this is a great idea. The individual teams still have ownership of their designs, but we can leverage off of the collective experience of the group. For us, it's pretty natural because of the way the team(s) were founded/structured. For disjoint industry teams, the integration might not happen so seamlessly. Our biggest problem has just been a lack of workspace. The mentors play nicely (well, as much as you could hope for anyway ;) ), and the students seem to enjoy it. We did have an issue a few years ago where the "gracious professionalism" bit didn't take hold, but once they got it, things have been fine ever since.

We don't, however, completely share designs/prints/parts, though I suppose I could envision instances where this could/would happen. What I don't see, however, is that this ruling will "require" such collaboration in the future. To us, the most important thing is exposing the students to the realm of engineering. If we happen to build a robot to do that, so be it. The robot is just a delivery mechanism to make that happen. Would I like to have a competitive machine? Of course I would. Our team has had both the lows of not moving for most of a competition, to the highs of making the semi's at the Chicago regional a few years ago, so I know what it’s like to be on both ends of the spectrum. Performing well is much better than not moving. But does it really matter if we win? Of course not. To me, the basis for a collaboration decision shouldn't be to remain competitive, but rather to have your students get the most out of the experience. If your situation is such that a collaborative effort makes sense, then by all means. If not, so what? That doesn’t mean you won’t be competitive, and so what if you don’t win? (ignoring sponsorship concerns, of course)

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Just the dire need for twice the amount of fundraising efforts for registration fees..

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Just a few notes.
1 - Emery is entering 2 robots into the Canadian Regional this year. One robot built by the girls and the 2nd by the guys. This should prove very interesting.
2 - My belief is that I am against teams building for other teams. I work for a company that has 1 group of people that do all leading edge installations and all major installations. What this has caused is a serious weakness in the system. There are a lot of technicians that have dwindling skills, abilities and confidence. The longer that you are away from something the harder it is to rebuild your skillsets. With multiple teams doing their own functions they will be able to improve on their part but what happens to the rest of their skillsets?
3 - I am proud to be part of a team that builds it's own robot. Each year the students learn new skills and pass on to others what they have learned in the past. That does not stop us from helping other teams solve their problems. We are more than willing to share ideas and resources with other teams to help them improve on their ideas but we don't build their robot for them.
4 - Not all decisions that are made by FIRST are right. They are still the rules but they are also made by people that will, can and do make errors. Everyone of us (I am #1 in line) makes mistakes. This is how we improve and learn. This is how we make the best product around. Just ask any engineer and I am sure that they will say that nothing is perfect and the best possible design, on the first time around. FIRST is a great organization and does a great job. I believe that they also listen. There are decisions made that may not be liked by all of us but need to be made and evaluated at a later date. Let's continue to discuss and support one of the best informational, educational and inspirational organizations in the world.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

As has been noted:

1. There is no rule prohibiting multiple entries from single "groups" (schools, districts, pairs of schools, etc.).

2. The collaboration between 254 and 60 this year is no different than the collaboration that exists WITHIN a single team. (Yes, they did it across a long distance, but there are teams made of students that come from across cities, from different schools, etc.)

It seems to me that 60*254 is functioning as a single team with multiple entries - which is perfectly legal. As would be any "super-partnership" made of what were previously single teams.

Which brings up the question: Why don't those teams which have the resources to do so enter multiple times? I mean some teams have budgets two or three TIMES larger than others - they could easily enter multiple robots at single events, or travel to many different regionals in a season using different robots...

Just asking.

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I only have one small problem with the 254/60 collaboration, its not that they did it its that I think one of the coolest parts of FIRST is that everyone has the same task and the same parts and I love to see what ideas other teams thought of. Yea, I know sometimes the robots do the same general thing but collaborations kinda take away from that by having 2 of the same robots there. Just thought I had to say my part. Good Luck!

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Personally, I feel that it is:

A) Legal, since there is no rule against it.

B) Morally acceptable - It's cooperation, isn't that a part of what FIRST is about?

C) How do you enforce it, if it was illegal?

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Teams 254 and 60, I applaud you. I'm glad FIRST ruled in your favor.

Getting a robot designed, built and tested in 6 weeks is tough. Doing it successfully with a team that's in another state is incredible.

I work for a small division of Lockheed Martin in Florida - I doubt they even know we exist here. We have a sister office in Seattle that works jointly on our programs, but communication is like pulling teeth. It frequently takes more effort to coordinate the work than it would to do it yourself. We wonder why companies waste so much time reorganizing and moving, but studies show that if the guy working with you isn't within about 10 feet you won't talk to him. If he's on another floor or in another building he might as well be in another country. It's always amazing to go into a design review and see everyone surprised by some decision that you thought was common knowledge.

Even in procurement - I think the stat was that Lockheed Martin had 34 divisions, 33 of them used a common procurement system and then there was us. I used to be able to walk down to my buyer's desk, show her what I needed and have it on order the next day. But since that didn't use all the wonderful resources available to such a large company we got brought into the fold and now use the common system. Now I'm lucky if I get a part on order within a month and even luckier if it's what I wanted.

BTW - I love my job and love working here, just venting a little about the problems with large companies. There are definitely benefits but probably just as many if not more problems.

I wouldn't worry about competing against a Mega-Delphi team or Mega-Ford team, I'd worry about being on it and trying to get anything done. I think the reason Beatty is so successful every year is that it's a "small" company atmosphere where everyone works together and communicates.

One final thought - although in industry alliances are allowed, there are pretty specific rules to control them so they don't become a monopoly. I think FIRST has the ability to keep them in check so it's always a positive thing.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

So the question arose a while back about how the argument would change if one of these teams in question did well...and since 254 won Sacramento (congrats, by the way), I'd like to bring it back up again.

How does this make the discussion change? Does it change the dicsussion at all? Does it make you want your team to collaborate in the future?

Ponder. Discuss. :)

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

254 ALWAYS does well...they are simply a superb team. I don't know their exact record, but I want to say they've probably won something like 6 out of the last 8 regionals they've attended. So their victory in Sacramento should not be seen as evidence that collaboration is either good or bad.

Moreover, the students know the robot. When they have trouble, there are about 10 students (and two adults) actively working to get things fixed.

In fact, they did have some pervasive problems with their cable. Being an excellent team with an excellent robot, they still performed incredibly well.

I've personally decided that collaboration is now just another choice that teams can make, depending on their own philosophy. I think team 60 and 254 are model teams that really "get it".

Eric.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

I guess my only question is:

Did they account for the manafacturing done by the other team? And if so how?

EDIT: FIRST ruled on this in the Q&A system (ID:788). Apparently, the manafacturing of components by other teams does not have to be accounted for as long as no labor charges are involved. Only the cost of the raw materials have to be accounted for, as if the manafacturing was actually being done by the team itself. Thanks Ken.

Re: [moderated] Collaboration
 

Just a thought :rolleyes: does anyone actually think that this sort of super collaboration would occur? I think it's great if a more capable team is helping one with less capabilites (machining etc.), but I don't think any team would build a large portion of someone elses robot, or the whole thing. There's too much team pride out there for that.

This really dosen't answer the real problem though. If a high level of collaboration happens between teams of common location or sponsorship, first will have to do something to stop it if it happens. Just imagine the capabilites they would have :ahh:. It would make the game impossible for everyone else, and end up defeating the entire purpose of FIRST if a couple of teams had such a degree of domination.