Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Karthik, do all three teams share the same engineers and machining capabilities? can you give us some insight before this gets out of hand? Thanks.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Personally, I don't care about this assumptionative (made up word by me) discussion going on here. It's quite silly.

What I do want are some specifics!!! Come on Karthik! Spill the beans on the designs. I want to know what we are up against (or with) at GLR in a week and two days!!!

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Rothy,
Let me begin by saying you are making way too many assumptions.

1) Before you post please get your facts straight.
Niagara FIRST is not a sponsor, it is a collection of three teams (1114. 1503, 1680) that decided to get together and build their robots with each other.

2) Saying that a robot was not student designed is not a good idea.
You do not know what happened on that team. I agree with you that FIRST is all about students learning about engineering. BUT you cannot make assumptions and then go say that you didn’t.
It sure looked like it…

3) Your whole schpeal about their design getting recognition is invalid.
It’s not about getting recognition for your design. It is about joining with other teams to get more ideas to have a better design to begin with. Yes it is nice to get recognition for your design, but that’s not the whole point. It is very hard to keep a single team organized, let alone a culmination of three teams. The design process is all about finding the best design before you go out and make it. If you have more people working on the design, and separate designs, then you are bound to find the best deign possible. More hands equals more work.
Also it is not just the design that makes a team win. It also has to do with the drivers and their alliance. Strategy, luck, programming, driver skill, human player; these are all things that affect the outcome of a match, not just the robot design.

4) Bad for creativity? I beg to differ.
The fact that a team, or three teams for that matter, decided to get together is a good example of creativity. We have never thought of doing this. In the real world there are many times when people seek help with designing things. Especially in the industrial world were there are many design firms. If a company has a part they want to make in an automated fashion, they send out a bid to design firms and the firms all come up with their own way to solve the problem. But in the end the company only chooses one. This is the same scenario.

5) I must be out of my mind.
I see a really good set of robots that look like they could do very well at competition. The design looks simple and effective with a lot of capability. Attention was paid during the design process because these robots have a high shooting height, probably to clear the top of other robots. I would be scared if I was against all three of these robots. They look like formidable fighting machines.


If you want to go and slander other teams on information you can’t be certain of, then fine, be the person that is always there nagging and saying negative things. But you must learn to look past a picture and see how this has changed people. I bet every kid on those three teams now knows more about engineering than they ever did. Even sitting there looking at what is going on you learn things. Humans and animals learn through imitation and imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I see nothing wrong with what is going on and I applaud Karthik for what he has done with Niagara FIRST.



And yes come on I want to know all about these bad boys (or are they girls?)

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

FYI - http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=collaboration
Thread beating to death Collaboration.

I am quite interested in hearing from Karthik (or anyone else, for that matter) on how collaboration works between three teams, and how they all came up with the same design. In contrast, when 217 and 229 collaborated, it was only partially (Only the towers/arms were the same). 60/254 made the same robot, but from the discussion surrounding it, I gathered that individual components were designed/manufactured between the two due to lack of resources. I assume that the Niagara triplets all use the same manufacturing area? In which case, how was design split up?

Having been involved in this argument before, I am reserving judgement until I hear the entire story from the horse's mouth (Not to imply that anyone in Canada is a horse ;))

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Guys Guys Guys! Calm down! I can offer my best explanation.

We are all sponsored by GM, and we all share engineers, but we also have our own sponsors as well.

for example, Fort Erie had a sponsor who has a great CNC setup with a 16 foot bed. they got us our towers made. they also got us our drivetrain materials. We worked on all the little things, shafts, spacers, and all the little important things, because we have a good shop. Simcoe worked on the shooter and making the machine work. We all got together and put our robots together and helped each other.

I dont know where you guys get the idea that we are all mentor built, we are about 50/50 and we believe thats the way it should be.

and to CatchRothy22: NiagaraFIRST is just the name we have given ourselves. not a company.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

How is it unfair? Everyone has the option to collaborate with other teams. If you want to build three identical robots, then you can, no one is stopping you.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

correct, just imagine all NY teams have one bot and all MI teams have another. that'd be crazy!

/back to the point of the thread.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Okay - with respect to everyone that has posted - take a deep breath and slow down the argument a bit.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and that is all they have at this point) and we hope that they can be presented in a manner in which doesn't incite problems.
As pointed out by others - this topic has been discussed in depth on other threads from other years. Let's not re-hash that all over again here.
Please respond respectfully to each other and as "grandma said - if you don't have anything nice to say - don't say anything!
Thanks -
Mike Aubry

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

I read through this thread with incredulity. How could a community such as FIRST which preaches such values of gracious professionalism just jump on NiagaraFIRST like this? Not only are they powerhouse teams who do a LOT of work to get to where they do, they are the epitomy of gracious professionalism and dignity. What they have done for FIRST in Canada, and for other teams is incredible.

Earlier in the season, my team was having problems finding parts, and some of the ones we ordered got held up at the border. We asked team 1114 for help, and they donated tread and wheel sprockets to us, driving all the way from St. Catherines to Oakville to drop it off. For this I thank them. I know that we are not the only team they have helped out. At competition, they are always incredibly graciously professional, and always follow the rules to the letter.

I have no idea how the internal workings of these teams work, but they seem to have had no problem in INSPIRING their students and getting RECOGNITION for the program. Isn't that the point, not whose robot preforms well on the field or what they look like or how many teams are involved? Isn't it not about the robot? These are incredible machines, Karthik, congratulations, and I hope to see you at Waterloo and Greater Toronto.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

On behalf of Phill (catchrothy) I apologize, he made too many assumptions. I personally am a little disgraced by the Co-op between these three teams, because here on team 11, we believe that a bad robot with no adult design input is much better than a good robot with no student input. I am not saying niagraFIRST students had no input, because they clearly had some form, but i believe that the mentors are there to challenge the students mind by asking questions the students must think about hard and long before giving an answer. Our leadership always wants a good robot, but they ask us what we want our robot to do, and then ask us why we think that, and when the students come to a majority for a single strategy, we keep it. Afterwords, it is in our hands to design the robot. The mentors work FOR us, when we come up with a design, they help us solve details by offering ideas. They help us learn HOW to make the parts of the robot, not how to DESIGN it. I am not accusing these three teams of not designing their own robots. We CADD our own things, all CADD'd by students, then send the drawings to our local county college, or one of our teammate's basements to have it CNC'd. We then assemble it, and if there is a part that is not made, our mentors point it out and we make it. Not to say these three teams don't do so. Its about time i get to the point: disagreements are unavoidable. there is no such thing as the perfect robot. Everyone has a different view on how to do things. I personally think that the Co-op could've resulted in similar ideas (IE high shooter, same abilities) but i think that every robot should have a different solution.... seriously.. if you have to design something.. and its the same amount of material as the other robot..... then you can easily CAD something different and send the CAD over to the source of all your heavy machining. The robots would do the same things in the end, but the way they do them may be different. Essentially, it's like one giant team, which is great, because we have a fairly large team ourselves, but everyone wants to build a robot. It'd get crowded, sure, but thats the point where i think that they should go in the direction that RAGE went. Two robots (or in this case 3) for one team, using them as spares. Its all one team in the long run, but if something breaks they have a back up. Its not three teams competing with the same robot that way. its one team with two spare robots, which would not call any attention to it. But having the idea of having three teams with the same exact potential is... its just unfathomable. I'm not saying the design of these robots was easy. Honestly, i think the robots themselves a very impressive. But i want to compare this to the real world. Take any industry you want. Three companies/firms need to come up with a product to do the same thing. They work together and come up with the same result. they market the end product under a different name, but they go for the same price and work exactly the same. which one do you buy? i think that the idea of three teams with the same robot isn't bad when it comes to learning how to construct it and design it.... its just a bad end result..... and after all this rambling (which is all it really comes down to) I'd just like to state that i have no stance on this. i like the robot, and i know students took part in it. But the fact that they acted as one team and want to compete as three others goes against my FIRST morals. What's done is done, but i recommend forming one team with three robots next year. Our team founder/current mentor found this picture... and the look on his face could only be described as the deepest disappointment. As a team that worked with another school to help them get started, we know that cooperation between teams really helps, and we've helped that team when they had problems, but we never designed their robot with them. There is a fine line between one team helping and three separate teams. i think you blurred it to make something no one has ever seen. My point is really just to let people have their opinions, and that there were better ways to go about this. Nice robots, good luck, and i hope that we see more great robots in the future.

Sincerely,
Mike

note: I know the people involved in the NiagraFIRSTteams are amazing people.... but three teams may be a little excessive for what they need to do.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Well PJ, since you're so sure of yourself, I'd like you to meet Peter Diakow, Grade 12, from Team 1114 and NiagaraFIRST. He's actually building the hopper of a 2006 NiagaraFIRST robot.

Oh, why does some rookie team mentor from PA give a crap about this? Well, it seems as though Team 1712 was having difficulty figuring out how to marry that big CIM with a roller system because of limited resources. So I'm discussing this online with Karthik and he says, "Dude, why don't we make you a shaft adapter." So NiagaraFIRST's and 1114's own Peter Diakow took time out from BUILDING their robot(s) about 8 pm one night, so he could help 1712 in PA. Then Karthik brought the STUDENT-done work to us in DE where we met up at a Vex event. The kids on 1712 were so elated, they wrote 1114 a long letter for the incredible act of gracious professionalism. See 1712's tribute here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=44048

Just because this isn't how you do business, don't make assumptions about others - EVER. Would my team collaborate like this? Probably not, but that's a team decision. In this case, when you talk about collaboration you are taking shots at 229, 217, 60, 254, the Niagara teams and some of the most storied names in FIRST that go along with these numbers. You know, these are the same names that brought us the kit gearbox and other incredible acts of gracious professionalism.

Take a step back and decide how gracious it is to accuse someone in a public forum without knowing all of the facts. You now have a chance to make things right. Take the opportunity. Namaste.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

In response to this..... i'd like to say that Phill has jumped to conclusions. and he is in his place to apologize..... so, from a teammate/friend, phill, you have already apologized once, but i think you need to apologize to a greater extent.... these teams worked hard, whether or not we like the fact that the robots are the same.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

That's great for Team 11, but this thread isn't about you. I'd venture to say that (GASP!) every FIRST team is run differently.

Furthermore, I was actually impressed this year with the amount of GP on these boards, the encouragement given to designs and teams, and the questions some of the students are asking about other bots to learn more about them... until I read this thread. Is this really an argument worth getting worked up? Don't you think the kids on these teams would be hurt by you making assumptions about their sponsors, mentors, and the students themselves?

Are we really that close-minded that we have to insult other teams that deviate from what we percieve to be right? Giving an opinion and insulting someone are far from each other. Graciousness isn't just sharing your crayons in kindergarten. It's also about encouragement and growth, especially in this program.

A little note for everyone: If you want to rant collaboration, mentor involvement, or any other topic on here, don't disgrace one team by attempting to call them out. There's a handful of collaboration (or mentor involvement, or whatever) threads that serve the same purpose. If you aren't familiar with the ChiefDelphi boards, I'm sure a moderator would be happy to show you around.

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

At any rate, those are some very nicely designed 'bots... 10 days 'til we meet...

Re: pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!
 

Thread is closed and may reopen tomorrow in the moderated forum, collect your thoughts.