The Triplet Challenge
 

Dean will give us a homework assignment again this year. I’ll go out on a limb and speculate that it will involve continued growth of FIRST. Let’s beat him to the punch, and develop our own.

The Triplet Challenge:
Let’s forever end the debate on collaboration – and commit to use it for the purpose of growing and sustaining FIRST. We should all be able to rally around that. Go out and find a high school whose students are yearning for the opportunity, but whose faculty or administration is intimidated by starting a team. Or, find a school that is willing and able but doesn’t have the engineering or mentor support to provide the guidance. Or, resurrect a school that used to have a FIRST team, but dropped out because of lack of support. Offer to have the new team copy everything you are doing next year. Everything. Get that team off the ground and performing at a high level. Have them copy your design. Help them make some of the parts. Stretch your budget to help them with registration, travel, spare parts, batteries, and tools. Help them with their organizational structure. Assist them with marketing and financial planning, coach them on scouting and game play, and share mentor expertise.


Let’s see Twins and Triplets all over the country – but with the clones being schools that are new or who are in need of support. Let’s not stop at the Niagara Triplets, or the Martian Twins. Let’s see Twins and Triplets popping up all over – all with new or fledgling teams that couldn’t quite do it all on their own. Watch these teams grow and improve. And some day they will fly on their own, and maybe create their own Twins or Triplets.


What I Believe: Collaboration is the most effective way to get a new team up and running quickly, with a high level of capability. Students on these new teams get inspired more quickly, grab the attention of school administrators right away, generate more media attention, attract more interested students, and attract a larger sponsor base. We’ve proven this in Niagara with The Triplets. The collaborative leveraging strategy has huge potential to accelerate FIRST growth if it is embraced responsibly. The Governor of Michigan has pledged to get FIRST into every high school in her state, and announced she is adding $2 million to the state budget to get things started. Collaboration needs to play a part in all of this, or there will be many teams that will fall by the wayside, or struggle and become disillusioned. The Niagara school boards have been so impressed with the inspiring success of The Triplets that they are budgeting entry fees for new school teams in the future. Don’t expect to see The Quads or The Quints, but expect to see responsible, rule-abiding collaboration used to field some highly competitive rookies and to keep the current teams alive and well.


I can envision the FIRST landscape being filled with Twins and Triplets with monikers like: Pinklettes, Division by Triplets, TribeDelphi, Wildstang Posse, Huskie Platoon, The Beastie Boys, Trucktown Thunder & Lightening, Killer Beehive, HOT-HOTTER-HOTTEST, Thunder Henhouse, The Bomb Squadron, and RUSH! RUSH! RUSH!.....to name but a few.


The Triplet Challenge: Go ye forth and multiply!!!

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I like the idea of using collaboration to create new teams. There are so many things an existing team can do to pave the road for a new team - facilities, travel, old robot parts, mentors, teachers... but I dont like the Everything part.

FIRST is about doing, doing things yourself shows you that you can do it - thats the whole point.

Handing a team a completed robot design is, in a way, insulting.

Collarboration is an excellent tool, make sure the new team has a meaningfull role to play or they will end up feeling like second rate poor cousins.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Stephen,

Excellent assignment. Thier are many teams throughout the country that would gain tremendous expierence working with older teams.

I agree that if need be we build twins and triplets with these rookie teams, and give a lending hand to those veteran teams that need it. Collabration is something that as you said shouldbe used as an educational tool.

I agree Stephen, lets all go out and try and help the teams that need our help the most. Wether it be building twins, triplets, or even quadruplits, to just helping them understand some concepts.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Amazing post, very well worded.

In this, not only do you describe why the Triplets exist, but also how they are fulfilling FIRST's goal of inspiring the kids. They have 3 times the idols, 3 times the inspiration. Thank you for calling attention to how your team is truly embodying the ideals of FIRST, and encouraging other teams to do the same.

[Edit] Perhaps as a part of this challenge, NiagaraFIRST can create some sort of presentation, packet or guide for other teams to follow in order to start a similar program.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I agree with Ken. It's hard to remember but FIRST isn't about a robot competition. The competition is the just celebration of your accomplishment.

Collaboration can help when resources aren't there but the other teams need to be actively involved in all aspects, not just handed a design or a kitbot to put together.

Real learning takes place when you have to overcome hard obstacles and challenges. Having a winning robot is nice but I would rather be a 'loser' and have the students on my team learn as much as they possibly can. That's just my opinion.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I won't argue the legality of clones here, as that's been done to death. However, to actively encourage rookie teams to participate in such partnerships is suicide for FIRST.

Yes, many rookie teams don't do very well, and they all face challenges. However, the main reason -- heck, the only reason -- I am still involved with FIRST was the thrill I had during my and my high school team's rookie year designing a robot from scratch, getting to build it, and then getting to see it out on the field. We got to design and build everything: driveline, chassis, manipulator, electronics. Of course we had design help from professional engineers and mentors, and we received lots of advice and tips from other teams, but there was still a sense of ownership of our design, our process, our organization, and even our mistakes.

If you are so keen on assisting "helpless" rookies by doing their work for them, why not take a page from Team 190's book. Invite students from local school who do not have a team to join yours for a year. Work with them on your team. They will be getting he same experience as if they cloned your team, without clogging FIRST with carbon copies and crowding events with duplicate teams (plus you save on a second registration).

The next year, they can go on to start their own teams with the benefit of a year's worth of experience. Once they start a team, mentor them, but don't coddle them. Work with them to improve their design, invite them to come in and use your facilities and equipment, help them manufacture a couple of precision parts, but always make sure that they maintain full ownership of their design, their robot, and their team.

One of the great things about FIRST is that you can have over 1000 teams given the same task and the same kit of parts, yet you wind up with 1000 completely unique robots. I'm not going to condemn teams who have chosen this route in the past, but let's keep it as the exception, not the rule.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I love the whole idea of collaborating on funds and leadership structure. But its the robot part i can see you collaborating by helping them design and build things but duplicating the same robot isn't the way to do it in my opinion. you could give them the same color scheme and name them similarly to let peole know your working together. but the best part of this competition is going to a competition and seeing all the different designs and how they work.
and if everyone make triplets and twins and so on it will continue and we'll never see truly unique robots there will always be copies. :( . just like chain stores taking over local business's like every restaurant you see will be a mcdonalds theres no unique places. so if everybody starts building duplicate robots we lose the individuality of the game.

i like the idea of collaboration just not on everything

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Team 1114 is actually in the process of doing this already. We have our "virtual team". Notre Dame SS is the midst of their virtual season. They attended our brainstorming sessions, and have been coming to our competitions as well. We've donated our old KOPs to them, and they're slowing building their own robot, under the guidance of our mentors and students. Their goal is to have their own robot ready to compete in this fall's Canada's Wonderland Invitational. After completing this virtual season, they'll be ready to jump into 2007.

This will be an off-season project for the team. :)

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Please don't misunderstand my vision. I'm ONLY pitching collaboration when without it there would be NO team. I'm looking to get teams started that wouldn't have the guts to take the chance without it. If a school takes the initiative to start a team on their own because they have the resources and the support -- then that's great. They may not need a collaborative approach. No one should get handed a design that they don't need or want. I also don't believe in doing the work and handing it to them. Collaboration is defined by Mirriam-Webster as "to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor". Collaboration is PARTICIPATIVE.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

We talked to a team in Las Vegas and next year there will be another team with a 25 drive train lol. The west coast may never be the same. :yikes:

Shaun

we are not going to build it for them we just gave them our drawings and they are going to try to reproduce it.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Stephen, you know that I respect you and the team. I am also known to be against collaboration. I will admit that the triplets have improved and that there has been more student involvement. I will admit that there has been a lot of inspiration from your robots.

However I have seen only 1 robot for the past 2 years. I have not seen the inspired students and schools splitting off to form their own teams. These are the things that need to be addressed. If every team was sent a copy of plans and had all of the machining done so that they just needed to assemble, would there still be inspiration. If GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan etc shared and built from the same plans were would the diversity come from? How do we stimulate creative juices if we do not think individually. Many teams mentor other teams but do not build the same robot. The creativity is shown with individual accomplishments that inspire. We also learn from our mistakes and those of others.

I believe that we must stand out and be seen. We need to inspire others to exceed our potential, to use their own creativity and ideas. Heck to coin a famous phase " To boldly go were no man has gone before". This is FIRST. Is there anything wrong with a lot of strong teams staying together and being the best? That I cannot answer but I know that eventually all of the "Mom and Pop" teams will disappear as they will be unable to compete against the mega teams.

I work in a field that specializing on products is slowly increasing. This has caused the problem of narrow areas of knowledge and abilities have become diminished. We should be doing the exact opposite. Expanding our areas of knowledge and abilities. By doing this I believe that we can find new and exciting solutions.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Guys I see this thread somewhat slowly turning into yet another dumpster of is collabaration a good thing or bad. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for this, but while reading Stephens' post remember that this would be for rookies or for say a team that has just lost thier major sponsor. These teams could always use help.

Also do we go around and pick apart Dean's homework? No the reason is because we understand that it is important. As I believe the things that Stephen point out are important. Never should an idea be ridiculed, because ideas are exactly that just an idea.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Just handing a school a robot design isn't a good idea. If I were starting a new team and knew that another local team wanted to give us some designs for drive trains and manipulators, I would have to decline. Helping us with brainstorming, designing, and fund raising I would gladly accept. We would need to be our own team, which the triplets all are. I think having a unique design, not just in the robot, is what would get people interested more.

Also having students from other schools come and be apart of your team until they get enough support is great, We are currently doing that with Furitport and Zeeland High schools. Furitport is about 45 Min's north of us, and they don't have enough interest from sponsors to start a team. When a team does get started there we will help them with anything they need.

Collaborating with other teams on how to play the game, on where to go for competitions, on a problem they are having, and all the other things besides the robot should be done. I would like to see the local Holland and Zeeland teams get together and go too all the same regionals. This would establish that we work with each other, but we would all have different robots. We need teams helping each other, why do you think there's a Sportsmanship award. Helping other teams is #1 on the list of FIRST, because spreading FIRST and getting kids interested is #1 and helping other teams does just that.

Working together is great, we have all said that, But a team has to have it's own identity. I'm know it sounds like I'm bashing collaboration, but I'm not. I'm all for it, to some degree. Anyhoo, lets not make this a bashing discussion, because that get us nowhere.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Stephen, you have many good ideas in your pitch for collaboration among teams. Helping to start new teams and keep existing teams in the game is a very important task, and anything that would assist teams is a winner by my books. However, let's not forget that old mantra about "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you'll feed him for a lifetime."

I am not against total collaboration, but if two or three teams decide to work they should also each still have some autonomy. I would actively encourage the teachers / engineers / parents of the teams to try to help each other, but let each team still create their own ideas. Once each team has their own ideas, let the other team(s) conduct a "peer-review" where each team can critique the other team's ideas to help refine them. This way, you still have teams collorabating and you will still end up with two or three different robots.

Creativity, not cloning, is the mother lode of successful innovention. (And yes, I just combined invention and innovation into one word. :p)

And after all, what fun would the competition be if we had 1000 indentical robots? ;)

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

This is the single greatest reason that I'm still "Watching and Waiting". I know, I know. It's not about the robots, and it's not supposed to be fair. But I enjoy competing. The students I've worked with in the past enjoyed competing. If FIRST is to become a competition for some and merely an exhibition event for others, then it's just not for me. I'm extremely discouraged to see the direction FIRST has taken regarding manufacturing alliances.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I have to agree with stephen on this one you guys. Think about it for at least 5 minutes, and really think.

What i came up with is a worst/best case scenario:

Single Team with no collaboration:
Worst : NO students inspired or learning
Bad: Few students inspired and learning
Good: All students actively learning and being inspired to do great things by mentors, themselves, and other teams and companies.

Multiple teams with collaboration:
Worst : NO students inspired or learning
Bad: Few students inspired and learning
Good: All students actively learning and being inspired to do great things by mentors, themselves, and other teams and companies.


But the difference was: when there are more students total, then it is more likely that x number of kids will become inspired. Plus, giving kids a chance at first and a chance at inspiration is more than worth it to me.

So the way I interpret the challenge is this:
FInd some kids, show them the robot. Get them to understand how cool this stuff can be and begin to inspire. Once things are looking good, try to help them start a rookie team. Offer them straegies for brainstorming, work strategies, and whatever else they may need (including but not limited to funding, workspace, travel, registration). Help them to design their own robot if they want. If they aren't comfortable with that, Offer them your robot design. Have them manufacture things if possible, but i guess you can make it for them if they can't. Bottom line, do everything to get those kids and hopefully some potential sponsors excited about FIRST and about engineering.

I personally don;t have a strong opinion about the ethics or whatever else behind collaboration, but I'm never going to do anything that keeps me from inspiring my peers or students next year when i become a mentor, and I hope that many of you feel the same way.

-Rich Ross

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I traded homework assignments for honey-doos a long time ago - thank you.

But all on my own I'll go you one better and suggest one big collaboration. That is, instead of the sponsor's dollars/loonies and manpower going to a team or three, it all goes into a general fund. Share and share alike.

Hum, sometimes when an idea gets taken to the extreme it stops looking so good. :confused: They tried something like that in the Soviet Union - on a much bigger scale mind you, but it didn't work out.

So, we have to ask ourselves just where to draw the line on collaboration. In my opinion, we've already crossed it.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I want to keep this thread on point. This is about growth. Period.

My “challenge” seeks to steer collaboration AWAY from all of the controversial aspects, and to focus it towards GROWTH (less controversial). For instance…..

• I only support collaboration when without it there would be no second or third team.
• My vision and application of collaboration is “participative”. Students that want to be involved in the design phase have the opportunity – they work hand-in-hand with the multi-school design team. Students that want to build parts get to – they work side-by-side building parts or make their own. Students that want to write programs get the chance to load their code into the robot and test it out. No one gets hand-outs. No one gets short changed.
• My vision of collaboration does not have super teams wiping out smaller teams, or hundreds of robots all looking identical. If it is used for growth, then this is of no concern. Be responsible with it. Use GP as a sense check.

As Karthik mentioned, we are continuing to use collaboration as a growth strategy in Niagara, by adding a 4th team to the region. They are NOT copying The Triplets. But, they are copying a U.S. team’s robot. The students want to compete in off-season competitions and want the confidence in a proven design the first time. Next year they will build their own unique robot from scratch – because of this initial confidence builder. They would not have signed up to do this without it. It was really easy to convince them to jump on board and start spending money when they knew they had the ability to copy something that worked.

There is a win-win here for both the “For” and “Against” Collaboration Camps. Keep the good aspects, toss out the bad. Focus it on growth only. I believe FIRST can grow faster with it, than without it.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

One more:

Three teams with light collaboration:
Worst : NO students inspired or learning
Bad: Few students inspired and learning
Good: Three seperate robots created, and all three teams learn the pros and cons of all their designs. A wider variety of skills are needed and learned among the teams that are helping each other. All students included are exposed to three times as many design problems and solutions. Information sharing among teams allow all 3 teams to learn about and suggest solutions to problems that other teams are having.

It's not complete collaboration or complete isolation, as many posts in this thread has shown. There is probably an optimum point in between those where more people get inspired, more problems are solved, and a greater variety of robots are created.

Personally, I think full out copy-collaboration isn't great. The 'virtual team' idea seems much better as far as starting teams. You get the same increase in your team size for designing or building, the same inspiration for other schools and liklihood they'll start the next year, and the same sharing/critiquing of designs. The participants in the virtual team will come out knowing all the pitfalls of the design/build period, and has none of the bad aspects of copy-collaboration.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I don't understand how you're tossing out the bad. Regardless of -why- a team choses to enter into a manufacturing alliance, doing so provides a competitive advantage, especially if the members of that manufacturing alliance attend the same regionals or are in the same division at the championship. There are many teams for whom such manufacturing alliances are not possible. There are also teams for whom manufacturing alliances are undesirable despite the competitive advantage they provide. My belief is that FIRST's tolerance and encouragement of manufacturing alliances is driving mentors away.

I can't explain my point of view more clearly than I did two years ago when this issue first flared up. So, I'll just link it

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Stephen,

I think the spirit and intent of this thread, to start new teams and make it as easy as possible for them, is excellent.

The thing that seems to be getting people fur ruffled is the idea of giving the new team a robot design.

this goes back to the root of all the philisophical debate here on CD: are we here to get teams to a regional to play robot games, or are we here to show HS students what its like to be an engineer or scientist?

If FIRST is all about robot games then, ok - give then a starter robot, give them someone elses robot so they can compete.

If FIRST is all about the engineering experience, then give them everything else they need to get started, but make them go through the process of designing as much of the robot as they can, themselves.

We already have a default robot in the KOP that can be assembled in about two weekends - it would be easy for a team with 5 students and one adult mentor to assemble the KOP drivetrain, hook up the control system and battery, and you have a basic moving robot platform that can play defense - and you can bolt on other stuff to play offense, add sensors, get fancy with the SW, modify the wheels.... take it in whatever direction you think you can pull off by ship date.

For most students FIRST is the hardest thing they ever do in HS. I think that is a large part of its appeal. If you make it too easy they will not really be engaged by it, and that hook is lost.

For everything else, make it easy: Money, mentors, facilities, spare parts, tools, computers, money, playfield access, shared travel, money - I agree, collaborate on all the rest.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Having the students do as much of the work is really what I want. Tooting my own teams horn, we always try and have the students do as much of the work as they can. This gives them confidence and lets them know that they have a part in building the robot. It also lets them know that they can go out and do whatever they want. From designing buildings to making nanotechnology to whatever interests them. This is the goal of FIRST, to give high school students the inspiration to go do anything they want.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Ken,
You don't lose out in seeing what engineering is all about. Product design is not the only engineering game in town. In my work, we manufacture the Corvette Engine. We don’t design the Corvette Engine, but we collaborate with the engineers that do. We manufacture copies of the design hundreds of times each day, and do a darn good job of engineering the manufacturing system. That doesn’t stop us from having a pretty inspired workforce and engineering team. This is one exciting product we're involved in. Zero to 60 m.p.h. in under 4 seconds! Yee-haw!!! And you can get pretty fired up about designing and improving the manufacturing system that makes these powerhouses at the highest quality, lowest cost possible. Creativity and engineering doesn’t just exist in product design -- it exists in the whole value stream. Inspiration is created by a vision and is reinforced with success.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Keep on track here. Collaborate for growth.

If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten. FIRST’s growth may flatten out into 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.....

I’m suggesting we change the shape of the curve to: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256.....

Here is FIRST’s growth percentages taken from their 2005 Annual Report:

1996 – 59% more teams than previous year
1997 – 61%
1998 – 32%
1999 – 36%
2000 – 38%
2001 – 38%
2002 – 25 %
2003 – 22%
2004 – 18%
2005 – 7%
(and I understand 2006 is around 5%)

Must change the inflection of the curve!!!

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I read Karthik's explanation of the Triplet Philosophy in an earlier thread, and have to say that I am cautiously supportive of it.

I would encourage anyone entering into such an agreement to do so with an exit strategy in mind from the beginning. One long-term commitment would be to invite students from a school without a team to join your team the first year. Collaborate as two separate teams the second year or maybe third year. Then split apart with separate designs, but share resouces (such as machining) when needed.

It must always be a collaboration though, not a "here's your robot, insert Tab A in to Slot B, have fun driving" thing.

JVN on Collaboration
 

Short & Sweet:
I think collaboration is a good thing, and I hope lots of teams take Steve's challenge.

I predict 1114 will have us all amazed with the success of this experiment, and will have a Chairman’s Award within 4 years.



(For those who care about my opinion),
Here is a longer philosophical analysis:
There are many ways to form collaborations. We have seen several different collaborative examples within FIRST already and there are many more out there. For discussion purposes, I will divide these methods into two major categories:

• Collaboration to Grow FIRST (Start New Teams)
• Collaboration to Sustain FIRST (Sustain & Improve Veteran Teams)

The triplet model falls heavily into the first category. A successful veteran team spreads itself thin, and in the process helps start one (or more) rookie teams. These rookie teams get to (ideally) play at the same level as the successful veteran team almost immediately. This success then helps them build into a sustainable program.

Now I’m going to say something that may be unpopular:
Teams that perform well on the field are more sustainable than ones that do not. A rookie that is “competitive” (insert whatever definition you’d like, but the one I’m thinking of involves some success on the field) stands a better chance of coming back than one that doesn’t. This does not just apply to rookie teams (which is something I will discuss below). This is not a universal, but it is true MOST of the time.

There are many people, who will disagree with the above paragraph, and many would accuse me of being out of line for saying it, but based on my experiences it is all true. “Winning cures all” – This can be very true. Sponsors, school administration, community members, everyone likes to see a team with a chance to win gold. Everyone likes telling the story about coming out there and playing hard, and having a shot at winning. No one talks about the team that doesn’t move.

The triplet model gives teams the “taste of success”, and also gives them hands on experience with some proven methods. They fly up through the learning curve, and within a few years, are ready to become a separate, self-sustaining program.

Now, how much collaborative-meddling-involvement is required?
This depends on the situation. In some cases, it requires no more than quick phone call every few weeks. In others, it requires you hold their hand through every step of the process, and/or build identical robots. This is the way of life; every situation is different, and every situation requires a different way of doing things. This is not black & white, as many people seem to think it is.

Some will argue that you could choose a more hands-off approach if you will accept a less competitive showing from your rookie. This is probably true, but why would you? A FIRST team does not need to learn for itself how to be successful. This Darwinian approach to survival is dangerous, and the attrition is killing teams. Let’s face it, there are a LOT of teams that couldn’t figure out how to be successful, and didn’t last in this program. What if we could save them? Collaborative support could have kept them around. Again, the amount of support is not black & white.

So now we’ve got teams collaborating, and spawning new super-teams, who will eventually grow-up and spawn their own super-teams. This is good (will anyone argue that more good teams is a bad thing?). Now how do we save the veteran teams?

Let’s talk about Division by Chicken.
This was an alliance formed between two veteran teams (217 & 229). Why did these teams form this alliance? For 3 main reasons:

• Enhance & Sustain both teams through the use of resource sharing.
• Provide the unique long-distance collaborative opportunity for students on both teams to experience.
• So Paul and John could have fun working together.

Both teams participated (equally!), both teams benefited, all students benefited. These veteran teams came together and became stronger from collaboration. Both teams did well, and both teams had fun with the partnership (and the mentors on these teams, had a LOT of fun). Some may argue the point, but I think THIS is a good thing. This is an example of the second type of collaboration. (Remember when I divided it up, waaaaay up at the top of this post?)

This is not the only example of this type of partnership; this is merely the one I’m most familiar with (obviously). Another famous example is 254+60 in 2004 (there are many others).

How much collaboration is required in this type of example? Do the robots need to be identical? No. Teams can collaborate on something as small as a gearbox or something as small as a motor-mount. Again, this is not black and white, there is an entire spectrum of collaborative involvement, any amount of which can be used to help a team; depending on the particular situation.

Now, there is one major catch here. 90% of arguments against collaboration come down to one thing. It needs to be done right, to be effective. How is collaboration done effectively? I think this is a topic for another time, I’ve been rambling for long enough. If there is demand, maybe I'll help put together a "collaboration methodology" paper.

Based on the potential to GROW, and SUSTAIN this wonderful program, not to mention the unique and beneficial experiences it can provide a team, I believe collaboration is a good thing, and I hope you will feel the same way.

$.02
-JV

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

The growth rate from 2005 to 2006 is slightly over 10%. In 2005 there were 1024 teams, there are now 1133. Not where we'd like it to be, but better than 5%. :)

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I've been watching this thread for a while, really trying to figure out how to add to this conversation without detracting from the initial idea of starting teams.

I would rather see a veteran team donate one of its senior mentors, college students, or anyone close enough to running the team, to run the rookie team, and let them do it for themselves. I've been through three rookie years now... and the rookie year is the most precious. Its the first year your team really sees the game, its when the amazing enlightenement occurs. I would propose to give them a leader rather than a robot design. Most teams dont want to give up their mentors. I get this... but if you are serious about the growth, let them catch the bug for themselves. I will be sad the day that a rookie team that was lead through everything wins the Championship Rookie All Star. We cherish that award, and its because our team did it all for themselves. Did they have my help? of course! Did they have my past experience? Definitely! Did we get help from teams like 229 & 191? Of course! Did they attempt things no other rookies had? Yup. Did they have a team design a robot for them? No.

Ok, so going back to Steve's point that you should do it where no team would exist or no team would have the courage to pursue/continue FIRST. I would argue that given a good leader, ANY team can succeed in FIRST. Look at all the teams that are starting to spring up from FIRST veterans. They all work, they all have courage, they all attempt FIRST, possibly without design experience.

This year, we adopted a team that lost its sponsor and dropped out of FIRST. We let their students continue with us, and next year, we are helping them start their old team back up. We have already agreed the robots will be completely different, but we will help eachother everywhere else we can.

I really thought the idea of the triplets was cool when I first saw it... but now that I see it popping up more and more, I have my doubts. The dependency scares me. I can see teams sharing designs in the offseason, maybe even building new robots from old designs for offseason competitions... but let the rookies learn what it is like to struggle. Show them how to ask for help from the veterans, show them how to fundraise, how to design an omnidrive, how to build an effective manipulator. FIRST is about growth... but to be honest, I dont think it can sustain the opposite curve of growth Stephen is suggesting. If it becomes too big, too political, too fast, it just wont have the same effect.

I know... I didnt really stay on the topic, but I will be honest, I dont know what is expected in this thread.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I just want to clarify something that I am pretty sure is true, however people seem to be confusing. With the Niagara Triplets at least, the students, all of them from all teams, work with their mentors to design and build the robot. Steve, correct me if I am incorrect with this, but I don't feel like Steve is in any way insinuating that the veteran does everything and the rookie goes by observation only. I've watched the Niagara Triplets, the kids are assisted and helped by their mentors when they get stuck, but to the best of my knowledge, all team members contribute in all aspects.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I take it as a good sign that this thread didn’t need to get moved into the moderated section.

I’ve had a number of private messages and e-mails from mentors who really like this approach to growth. As many of you have pointed out, there are endless ways of packaging collaborative approaches depending on the circumstances.

Woodie declares FIRST “a microcosm of the real-world experience”. The real-world is moving towards global collaborative enterprises. GM & Ford will share a 6-speed Transmission in 2007. GM & Toyota manufacture Vibe’s and Matrix’s in the same plant together. The Chevy Equinox is built in a joint venture between GM and Suzuki. And when you examine the explosive growth of the automotive industry in Asia, you will encounter a complex set of alliances and strategic partnerships all collaborating together for the purpose of GROWTH. Collaborating in FIRST Robotics is a microcosm of what is already transforming society, for all the same reasons. I’m concerned that if we take a hard line and insist that teams try to do everything on their own, then we are burying our heads in the sand. Collaboration is happening in the real-world at an accelerated pace.

Now, back to the challenge. For those of you that are working on growth initiatives in your region, when you begin with the premise that collaboration is a means to get a new team off the ground you will be more successful in attracting school administrators and sponsors. You will be more successful in getting them to put some money down on a venture that already has some sort of successful support system. You will more likely be able to get a teacher to sign up for a new school robotics club when they know they have a sure thing.

This thread has generated some healthy and enlightening debate. But in addition to debate, I was seeking to hear from those teams that are actively pursuing applying collaboration to their region to help with growth. Or I was seeking to hear from teams who are now comfortable with the concept and will consider it in the future. I know from some of your private messages that there are unique and creative collaborative approaches brewing. Let’s hear from some visionaries on some plans…..

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I think you should ask teams 33, 201, 67, 1901, 931, 1281, 1305, 1419, 1620, and 865 if the triplets did indeed "align (them)selves against all of the rest at every event".

Not to mention alliance partners from the qualifiers.

Not to mention all the other teams aided and inspired by Niagara First (mine included).

If 1114 was as antagonistic as you say, would they have won the Chairman's award in Waterloo?

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I did not say it was antagonistic. Nor did I say that no good has come of it. What I said was that it was just human nature to go for the win. And I would hope that we find a way to keep that instinct in check.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

That's not the only objection. None of the Niagara triplets are rookies this year. Why does an experienced team need to have a paint-by-numbers solution to building a robot? If each of the triplets had designed a robot for one or two rookie teams I might buy the argument. As it is, when all the layers are peeled away, most of the multi-robot collaborations look -- to me -- like a way for multiple teams to leverage engineering expertise to build successful robots. It's a program to develop robots that play the game successfully, which I will admit is a part of FIRST, but let's not kid ourselves that it has some unique ability to help the program grow. There are a lot more ways to achieve that than to hand a team a robot. I also question the underlying assumption that winning tournaments produces excellent teams. I thing it is just as likely that they causal flow is in the reverse direction -- excellent teams produce successful robots, not that successful robots produce excellent teams.

Teach rookies how to build robots and then turn them loose to innovate. Why teach writing when we can hand them literature? Why build your own cabinet when you can buy one built by James Krenov? Why learn to tie a fly when you can buy them at sporting good stores? Why not have Dave Lavery and the game committee commission a complete robot design and provide it to all the robots competing in FIRST? Because variety is generally better than uniformity, and because the learning value is in the process and not in the result.

This multi-robot collaboration thing is going to grow, and it's bad for the sport. I would like to see FIRST take a stand against it.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

This thread shouldn't be about whether collaboration is good or bad. Collaboration is essential, but at what level is open to debate. But not here, please.

Rourke presented a possible way of bringing a team into FIRST, and growing FIRST is something with which we (probably) can all agree is a good thing. His approach is not a universal fit, but elements can be modified to work in many cases, and I think that's why he started the thread.

Good idea, I disagree with some parts of it, but will steal other parts and use them this year already...


I also agree with JVN's statement "Teams that perform well on the field are more sustainable than ones that do not." It is true in many cases, and if collaboration helps a rookie team gain some measure of success, good.

From personal experience, an unnamed team in its second year performed poorly last year, and again this year. The students, mentors and even teachers left the regional so discouraged, I fear for their survival. The worst of it, they left thinking of themselves as losers. What could have changed that is a plan like Rourke's, where a powerful team adopted them and helped them improve.


Lastly, a comment on the growth statistics: Chart the number of teams, not the percentage. Yes, still could be better, but not as ugly. The attachment (from a 2004 booklet) shows mild exponential growth, even ignoring the 2007 prediction.

Don

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Ya know...alot of people look at me awkwardly when I say...growth isn't exactly a good thing.

My take is...growth is great when there is enough money in the pot to take from. While the idea of having every high school in a state with a FIRST team may sound nice, financially it is just not feasable. In a time where the job market is flat, sponsors are also very hard to come by. I feel this is why Dean is putting pressure on the politicians...but once again, money from the government will only take you so far. Not only that, but once again, growth means more teams, more teams means more regionals, more regionals means more money needed, more money needed means higher registration fee's.

Honestly, Rourke's explanation and take on collaboration was so good that I am finding it hard to come up with a counterpoint other than what I just said, and the ol' "I think seeing a bunch of robots that look the same is boring" idea. That, and I feel that it is also essential for teams to learn how to fail. Failure is in my eyes, the key to success. If you can deal with failure, look it in the eye, and conquer it, the hard stuff won't really intimidate you any more...and you can only get better. That is what the charm of a good ol small market or traditional rookie team is. They don't get much help, they have to scrape, and search to get by monetarily, designwise, strategy wise, and everything...but you know, that is a wonderful thing for a team to experience.

You really haven't experienced FIRST until you have something bring a team together like having almost nothing. Thats why I am against collaboration.

-Andy Grady

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I'm going to stick with Rourke's focus on the concept on the idea of teams working as Triplets and not the creation of the Triplets which is the source of so much controversy.
In a way the Xerox robotics program is similar to the Triplet's design financially. Xerox handles the budget for us, Sparx and XQ Robotix. As for robot design each team is pretty much left on their own with varying results. This to me is an ideal design for a robotic program. The biggest worry many robot teams have is fiances and to have a centralized system to handle the financial needs is essential. Teams can readily share information and design ideas if they so please but are not required to do so.
I think teams can also collaborate on other projects from website design,animation and team spirit if they are lacking the resources to do so on their own but they should be options not requirements.
I do wonder if people would have such a big problem with the concept if the Triplets (actually only 1114 and 1503 have tasted on field success. 1680 has only a finalist award so they haven't been so beneficial of this arrangement as the other two have) if they haven't won three regionals.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Well put Koko Ed. This is also how 340 and 1567 work. We are both Rochester NY areas teams that are sponsored by Bausch & Lomb. We have the option of working together if we would like, but are not required to.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I agree wholly with helping rookie teams. I have made it known that I am willing to help anyone that asks. I have gone to schools, worked over the internet and on the phone. Team 188 is not a powerhouse. We are however a team that does "well" and has learned from trail and error. We are not above collaborating with teams on certain components (not my choice) or using others ideas to improve. We do however build and design our own robots and those we help also build their own robots.

The teams that we have helped one year come back less and less for help or advice as they grow and improve. Heck some are better than us and we are learning from them.

Growing FIRST does not come from just robot build. How many times this year have we seen teams that have been around for a long time fold up because of lack of funds. MONEY is a big key to success. Without being taught to stand on their own, teams will never stop crawling. FIRST is about the real world. What would happen tomorrow if the triplets lost all of their GM sponsorship? I know that 1680 has EDS as a sponsor and that they would probably be around. Would they be at the same competitive level? Who knows. This is a hard time for teams raising money. I think that it is great that GM puts so much into teams. Do they go out and bang on the doors of their suppliers, dealerships, advertising agencies to get them too pitch in? How many teams have been started from this type of involvement? Have the kids had to worry as much about affording a part as those that have to sell 10 more cases of candy to purchase the same part? These are all FIRST experiences.

I may come off as someone that is jealous. Not so. Our team does fairly well. We have long time sponsors and constantly seeking new ones. The kids and mentors do fund raising activities. We are probably classified as one of the better off teams. We do work for it and we do have to consider all purchases and decisions. Our team is not going to Championships this year as we did not earn our way and the students were given a choice of extra regional or Championship. Our team does help others (as does 1114, they even helped us out) and we give supplies to other teams.

I guess what I am saying is that I don't want mega teams but teams that help build FIRST one step at a time. I respect JVN but I know that we disagree about winning being a way to grow teams. There are over 1000 teams and only about 100 winners. If you take away multiple winners then the number is even worse. Some teams have never won. I have also seen brighter lights shining in the eyes of a rookie team that just got their robot running than in some of the teams that winning has become second nature. We must remember that we keep those that participate and can see results of their actions and we lose those that are only watchers. We MUST have teams that encourage independent thinking and self sustainment otherwise FIRST will start a downward trend.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Clarification:
I don't think I ever said "winning" was required.

In my mind, being competitive is important. Being "in the hunt" is important.
There are only 100 winners, but there are significantly more teams "in the hunt". In my ideal world, everyone would be "in the hunt". (Unpopular statement: this is not true at the average FIRST regional.)

Example:
188 did not win, but they were "in the hunt" at all three of their events.

My argument is that teams who consistently play at this top level are more sustainable than teams that do not. Not winners, but teams who have a chance of winning and know it. I will again emphasize that I am saying this applies to MOST cases, but is not universal.

Steve,
Do you disagree with this?

-JV

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Those with the bright lights ARE winners. It's not necessarily winning the competition or an award, but the positive accomplishment - doing something well.

Don

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Not to make too fine a point of it, but why there is even anything to debate on this topic any more? FIRST has been explicitly clear about this: collaboration is a good thing. It is an excellent way to grow the program, increase technical competence, share resources, and increase the inspriational effectiveness of multiple teams. It is not only permitted within the rules, it is encouraged. To be sure, teams are free to choose to collaborate or not for just about any reason they like. But to be blunt: at this point, for someone to state that they are against collaboration and then to demean any other team for participating in the practice is an indication that they just don't "get it." To whit (excerpted from the FIRST Q&A system):
and
Anyway, let's move on to JVN's excellent post. I am in agreement with almost everything that John has to say (oh, dang, I am sure that I will regret that statement!), with just a few exceptions.

OK, this is one area where John and I differ a bit. I don't think that he is out of line for saying it, and I can see how based on his experience it certainly can be a true statement. The comment I will add is that this is not the ONLY way to have a sustainable team. There are many examples of long-lived, sustained team efforts that have never put a primary focus on the playfield performance of the robots they build. I am not saying that they intentionally try to do badly. It is just that building a kick-butt hyper-competitive super robot may not be their highest priority. Instead, they may focus on experimenting with innovative new technologies, trying new team organizations, focusing on outreach efforts, concentrating on pulling certain groups of students into the team, or (back to the original point of this thread) helping new teams in their area to get started. Given a finite set of resources, they may not be able to do everything, and so they choose to let the desire to be highly competitive become a secondary consideration in favor of other priorities. They may not push too hard to win on the field, and they may not care that they don't "win" - because there are a lot of other ways that they can be successful. This is not to say that when they do win on the field that they don't enjoy the process and celebrate along with everyone else - it is just that it may not be their cause celebre.

Just as I do not think that the "you have to win on the playfield to have a successful program" method is the ONLY way to have a sustainable team, I also don't think that the "focus on the off-field activities" method is the ONLY way for a team to be successful. But I do maintain that both approaches are equally valid, and neither one should be discounted.

And this is the real key to the whole concept of "collaboration" and how it is used to grow successful teams and the FIRST program overall. When teams share successful ideas with others, everyone comes out ahead. It doesn’t matter if it is a team sharing their shifting transmission designs, or helping another team without manufacturing facilities to build a few parts, or in a full-blown cooperative design process like 254/60 in years past or The Triplets this year. If the result of the cooperation is that a new team gets the knowledge they need to become successful (by any definition), they how could this not be a good thing?

Awww – don’t stop now!! :) This is actually the most important part!!! You could ignore everything said up to this point, if instead you REALLY described how to make an effective, efficient collaboration work in terms that other teams could understand and use. The real value to be added here is the experiences that the collaborating teams have had and they can describe – warts and all – to other teams so they know what to do and what to avoid should they decide to attempt a collaboration.

-dave

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

C'mon Jack. You're getting a little carried away with some fear mongering. But you are right about one thing, it is downright un-American. The Triplets are Canadian.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

First, good points Ken, especially about remaining focused on the goal - inspiration. "It's still not about the robots".

But nobody said anything about "winning".

Our team placed 61st out of 65 teams in 2005, but came home feeling like HUGE winners, as Rookie All-Stars. Not for the award (just a hunk of plastic!), but for WHY: We were a rookie team, but we reached out to at least half a dozen teams and helped them with their robots, including rewiring & replumbing the robot from the (also rookie) team next to us in the pits. This was unplanned, and not initiated by the adults. The KIDS did this on their own, because they knew that helping others is the right thing to do. The award made it official, but the THANKS from those teams was what made us into winners.

In 2006, we moved up: 34 out of 65 or so at NJ. We still came home BIG winners: Judge's award for "Building Traditions" - the kids went and did the same thing (helping other teams), again. On their own, again. The other teams' gratitude, again.

Turns out, the kids like building robots, and they don't really care whose it is. Who'da thunk it?

That Finalist thing in Palmetto: Honestly, it wasn't from our stellar performance on the field. Our scouting team finally Got It and gave us great strategy, which we followed. Team 16 must have seen us as consistent (we hardly scored, but we seemed to to the right thing a lot), or maybe 16 had temporary insanity (more likely) but they picked us. We rode their coattails, along with 95 with their innovative and awesome shooter.

The point is, I guess, that JVN's comment is something i really believe in, but perhaps the "on the field" part can be taken out without changing its validity. I guess 'teams that are proud of their accomplishment are more sustainable than ones that do not' might be a better statement.


Regarding the 'discouraged' team - well said from a 'good' team. It suchs to think of yourselves as losers, and whether you and I like it or not, they do. Those hypothetical teams you mention sometimes never improve, because the best players put their energies into something else, and (sadly) so does the Administration. I completely agree, it is wrong, and we have failed, but it's still true in some cases. I, for one, am going to help correct that for next year: They also have a need for more, higher-quality mentors. (Anyone in the north-central NJ area thinking about it, PM me.)

Don

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

John, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. Yes I do agree with your eloquently put statement.

OH, my bad! :o

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I shall use this post to offer partial points, opinions, and empirical data, as my own stance on this is somewhat divided. What I will say is that I prefer partial collaboration, such as 217/229 sharing arm/tower designs but creating individual drivetrains to total collaboration.

Not counting the BAE Regional (Award sheet wasn't up) or the Israeli regional (all teams are >1000), there were 39 regional wins (not winners) by teams numbered >1000 this year. That is more than 1/3 of the regional wins. Perhaps collaboration isn't essential to creating a winning team. Although, many of these teams most likely did have some level of collaborative effort. Also consider that 6 of these 39 wins are from 1114 and 1503.

While the % of growth may be little, the number of teams created is relatively high during the past few years. I beleive it was 2003 that we saw the first 4-digit teams. In 2007 we will have teams with #s >2000. Although how many of these teams have dropped out during this span is also a concern, as voiced by Stephen and John.

Here is my father's example of "off the field" success, plain and simple to be used as simple data. 116 is an 11 year veteran team. We have yet to win a regional event, or even an off-season event. The furthest we have ever advanced in a regional is the semi-finals (2001 and 2004). We have only made the elimination rounds 3 times during the alliance era (2001 VCU, 2004 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) at a regional competition. We have been seeded last once at a regional (2003 VCU) and twice at off-season events (2005 IRI, 2005 Capital Clash). Our highest seed ever at a regional was #4 (2001 VCU) and #2 (2004 York Summer Frenzy) at an off-season. We have twice been an alliance captain at regionals (2001 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) and once at an off-season (2004 York Summer Frenzy). We did not win a single award until 2003, where we won the Lonestar Autodesk Award for Visualization. In 2003 there were 3 members working on our animation team. In 2004 there were 11 (beleive that was the number, not positive) and we won the Autodesk Visualization Award twice (VCU and Annapolis). In 2005 there were >20 members on the animation team and we won our only regional event in Annapolis. In 2006 there were once again around 20 (slightly less) members on the animation team and we won the AVA in VCU, and lost to 1414 in Peachtree. In 2005 we spawned a FVC pilot team, FVC 18. FVC 18 had 6 student members and 2 mentors in 2005, and went on to win the FVC pilot event in Atlanta, and were nominees for 2 other awards, including the Vex Challenge Award (FVC's Chairman's). In 2006 FVC 18 had 5 student members, 1 adult mentor, and 1 student mentor. FVC 18 would be finalists at the Duluth regional, and win the Amaze award and top rated Autonomous award.
While that shows 116's limited "on-field success", 116 has had much other success. We developed one of the first shifting gearboxes in FIRST capable of being manufactured with lesser equipped machine shops. 116's "control box" design has enjoyed wide spread popularity over the last two years, and has been part of winning 2 technical awards (2005 Chesepeake Xerox Creativity Award, and 2006 Peachtree Innovation in Control Award, our awesome auto mode helped that). Our 2005 drivetrain, the "cambered holonomic drive", has been called the most innovative drivetrain in FIRST and was part of winning our 2005 Xerox Creativity Award. Multiple teams around FIRST have adopted both 116's shifting gearbox and our control box in part or in whole, and often have improved further upon them (and many may still adopt the cambered holonomic drive in games that better suit it than Aim High). We have also gain tremendous community prestige. We have done extensive outreach to the community through many different mediums. From schools, to community events, to businesses and restaraunts, and even yard sales. Many event organizers even request our presence now (from Herndon Festival, one Parade magazine's top 10 rated town fairs, to the NASA/VCU regional).
Can a collaborative team enjoy off-field sucess as well as on-field sucess? Most certainly, and from what I have heard about the Triplets, they definately do. But is on-field sucess truly necessary to keeping a team alive?

Collaboration does not have to be total. You could collaborate on something much smaller, such an individual robot components, or sub-systems. You could also help out "pre-rookies" and virtual teams design bots, or understand and use your practice bot, at off-season events, and let them design their own for their actual rookie year competition. 341's Team in a Box is another terrific example of how to help rookie teams. Countless other methods exist, and I think each specific team needs to find the one that best suits them.

Explosive growth is not always good either. When funds/sponsors/community interest does not exist, it isn't always a good idea to start more teams. Rather you should work to create these interests, but there are other means than making a winning team. A winning team is guaranteed to spark interest, just like a losing one isnt guaranteed not to. For example, 64, who played on Einstein in 2005, did not compete in 2006. Another example is the struggles many Richmond area teams have when trying to find sponsors. Because of the large amount of Richmond area teams, it is hard for all the teams to receive adequate funding due to teams competiting for the same sponsors. When Computer Assossiates stopped funding teams after only a single year in the Northern Virginia area, many could not continue on for more than 1 or 2 years more (although some, such as 612, 614, and 623 have survived and are excelling).


/sorry about the long winded post

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I don’t think anyone here is against collaboration, per se, but they don’t like the direction it has taken. They forebode a future where many more and even larger coalitions pull teams up by their bootstraps and then use them as soldiers at the only events they can afford to attend. IMO, any who can’t put themselves in the shoes of the also-rans who get caught in that crossfire are the ones who just don’t “get it.”

When will enough be enough? When eight coalitions bring in six teams each so that the other half of the field may as well pack-up during lunch?

Please excuse my naivety, but I thought there was an “I” in FIRST. Apparently not, because the Q&A gets quoted chapter and verse as the definitive doctrine to which we’ll abide. If that’s the way it is; if it’s take-or-leave-it, then I wonder how many will vote with their feet when they reach the conclusion that the only alternative is to become one little cog in a very big wheel.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

If you want to see the I in FIRST, talk to the kids on the Triplets teams. Very rarely, if ever, have I seen kids so excited about this program and about engineering. I sat with these kids for 2 days at GLR. I watched their actions and I talked to them. IMO, they would be just as excited about FIRST and engineering even if they weren't winning. That is because their mentors are really doing their "I" jobs.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

For better or worse, Q&A is the definitive doctrine for that particular season. I can't say I've liked every call they've issued (someone will still have to explain to me the difference between paper-with-clear-tape and a label), but it is quite frequently a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement for the next three weeks. On the up side, FIRST does attempt to listen to us to improve the experience. (Kitbot, anyone?)

That said, going back to the original challenge, I can't find too much fault with it. The aim, at least the way I read it, is to bring the inspiration that tends to come with FIRST to areas where there hasn't been any (or hasn't been any in some time) while improving the teams' success both on and off the field to a level that might not normally be reached unassisted.

Perhaps, just as not everyone accomplishes Dean's homework, the Triplet Challenge might not be your thing. Or perhaps your partnership has more of a taste for Division by Chickens. Or perhaps you have your own model for helping out new or struggling teams. Just as your team probably has a bias towards wheels or treads or omni drive, do what works for your team. If the kids are enjoying it and getting inspired, what's the problem?

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I believe Jack has got it here, we are not all against collaboration, It's just that for some of us we fell that it has gotten to an extreme. I know a lot of teams which have collaborated to help out with other teams during the season, and even to help get teams started look at 188 role in the early days of FIRST in Canada, and even ourselves 610 have helped to try and start a few teams. But I truly feel that there is now a difference between the original definition of collaboration where a more experienced team will help start a rookie team, and the collaboration we see now with the triplets and other teams. These teams have developed collaboration to a point where the more experienced team becomes much more involved in growing and developing the rookie teams, and they end up acting almost like one large team.

I am all for collaboration in the sense of experienced teams helping to start and keep alive rookie teams. But what I fear with this more extreme level of collaboration is that these rookie teams are resting on the knowledge of the more experienced teams, and not getting the full FIRST experience of going through the struggles and learning experiences of designing your first robot, getting funding for your first event, and gathering the required student support. The question is not are you against collaboration, it is do you feel that this level of collaboration is beneficial for the rookie teams in the long run, and for FIRST.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

The fact of the matter is that people don’t want to see collaborated teams join together and win regionals together. When this happens, it makes people think that teams collaborate simply to win regionals. Whatever the real reason is, however good a team’s intentions may be, it is human nature to think this way.

If you are going to collaborate, prepare for an onslaught of criticism if you ally with the other teams at an event. There are too many people in this program who are against the concept in the first place (For whatever their reasons) to make it universally acceptable.

I personally don’t like the idea of collaboration. I feel there is importance in the rookie year for a team, to get a hang of how things work and to develop their own identity. Mentoring a rookie team or another team is fantastic, but I would disagree with holding the team’s hand throughout the season and building identical robots.

I believe that overcoming failure is just as important as success when you are actively developing student’s character and inspiring them into engineering. This concept pertains to building a team’s identity too.

People talk about inspiration here a lot. I ask, what kind of inspiration is most effective? I would argue that having teams build their own bot’ and having the students do the work is the best way, as would a lot of other people on these threads. However, stray from this ideal and you may be accused of covering up alternative intentions under the veil of “inspiration”.

The sad fact of the matter is that this actually does happen. The worst part it, it doesn’t happen nearly as often as people seem to think. Collaborated teams seem to get the finger pointed at them often for this.

So, morale of the story, if you are going to collaborate with another team, show exactly what your intentions are; do it clearly and publicly. Perhaps this will lessen the onslaught when you start succeeding. :(

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

There is something "cheap" about these collaborations. Especially when people try to talk about the ethical reasons they collaborated. It sounds like spin.

But the collaborations I've seen thus far haven't really bothered me. So I guess the "cheapness" factor is just a glum outlook on what could happen in the future.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Jack,
I will excuse your naivety and your cynicism. This doomsday scenario will NOT happen on my watch! You will NOT see eight coalitions bringing six teams so that the other half of the filed may as well pack-up during lunch!!! I will NOT be a party to that.

But I GUARANTEE you will see bus-loads of inspired students flocking to FIRST events because they are inspired by the opportunity to which they have been afforded. And many will be there because collaboration makes it possible.

Now, everyone please stop saying the world is flat. There is irrefutable evidence that it is round, and collaboration is here to stay -- in every imaginable fashion under the rules. Now let's embrace it in a responsible manner. I was (naively) hoping that teams would post what they were planning - because I know there are some unique and creative things planned. I thought we would benefit from hearing about it! The negative spin only keeps the real activity underground -- which only hurts those that need it most!!!

As I scan the sections of the ChiefDelphi Forums, I see that there is a section missing. I now think it's time that there is a Forum Category dedicated to Collaboration. This no longer belongs in the General Forums.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

It bothers me that you would refer to this as a “doomsday” scenario. One would think that you would love the idea of this, as it is what collaboration is and has ended up being for your teams at the events that you have been to.

I am a bit bothered by your assertiveness in this matter, as well as the way you seem to address the FIRST community. We are not ignorant nor are we unintelligent, and the “world is flat” digression is a bit condescending.

There are people who do not like collaborations. Period. Read some of the posts in this thread and others, you will see. Blatantly telling them that they are wrong and need to “embrace” it is unacceptable. People are entitled to their opinions and are certainly not going to change their minds any time soon.

You have three excellent, wonderfully designed robots which have won events several times. However, lots of people don’t like how you have been pairing up with your collaborators. The way they see it, you are in it to win. And, in some of their minds, if you are in it to win, you can’t be doing it for the right reason, which is inspiring students.

Yes, you will tell me and have that your students are inspired by what they have seen, but aren’t there better ways? I don’t pretend to know how your teams operate, and am not going to make any assumptions, but how inspired can your students be when there is spite surrounding you at the events? Everywhere I went at GLR, I heard spite about your teams and how “unfair” it was all day long. Is this really what you want?

Let’s hear from some of your students. Let them be the voice of your ideals and your method. You will not convince the community at large by simply telling them they don’t understand, and if you fail to convince them, the spite won’t ever go away.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Hello,

I personally don't mind collaboration in some form or another... if teams want to work together and they end up having a great time and feel inspired in some way, then the collaboration has been successful.

Now in terms of plans...

This isn't definite at all and I'm not in a leadership role on the team anymore but I know that students and other mentors on team 772 wanted to try some sort of collaboration (or it might just possibly be a mentorship) next year with a possible new team in the Windsor (Ontario) area or reviving one that only lasted through their rookie year in 2003 (they have taken part in a smaller robot competition in the few years since then).

The point is that the Windsor, ON area, along with pretty much every other area of Canada with FIRST teams outside of the GTA (the Toronto District School Board has done wonders for FIRST's growth in Canada) does not have enough knowledge of/support for FIRST, and we are trying to change that. I know for certain that there are quite a few other schools in Essex County and Windsor that have very well-equipped machine shops like Sandwich Secondary does, and Windsor is a hotbed for the auto industry in Canada. Yet there are only three (772, 773, 776) teams there. There is great potential for funding and raising awareness, and I think that partnerships with FIRST teams in this area of Ontario could definitely make it happen!

--edit--
Re: (post above mine)

Once any team gets to the competition, if they are in a position to win, why wouldn't they take it? The main difference between allying with your good friends who have an equally dominant (identical) robot and pairing up with some other team with an equally dominant (but different) robot is that you're pairing up with your friends.*edit again* - this may still be true but apparently it isn't the deciding factor in why the Niagara teams picked each other this year. (see Karthik's post below...)

I can see how it seems unfair, but it's pretty much the same situation with every #1 seed alliance that goes on to win regionals. They are generally the most dominant and it's very possible that they will fly through the elimination rounds (of course I'm not saying that this is always the case).

Personally I'd love to win a regional with some of my best friends :).

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

i suspect that if the Niagara FIRST triplets hadn't collaborated this year, those that are complaining about the unfairness of the triplets would still be complaining; only they'd find some other reason to complain, be it that the top teams have more funding, more engineers, more shop time, etc. this is a problem, but it isn't the triplet's.

while teams 1503 and 1680 are obviously integral parts of this alliance, i feel safe in assuming that 1114 is the leader. the way i see it, team 1114 could have continued on there own, building dominant robots year after year, they instead decided to help two other teams. i can't count how many times i've seen someone post that a team could better use there money "helping out another less fortunate team" rather than building practice robots, ornate pits, flashy carts, etc. well, guess what? team 1114 seems to have taken those comments to heart. and now, i suspect, those same people who've in the past condoned other teams for there "opulent" practices are now whining about the dominating performance of the triplets.

so if some wish to complain about other's massive budgets and resources, thats to be expected; not every team can have huge machine shops, billion dollar sponsors, or teams of engineers at their disposal. but with modern communication, they shouldn't complain about the unfairness of collaboration; this is a case of "if you can't beat them, join them".

and finally, what is with this apparent taboo against playing to win? would i not be selling my teams short if i didn't do my very best to help them win? among my teams, we have a saying,"if you're not playin' to win, then you're just playin' ". this is after all, FIRST Robotics Competition. the way i see it, inspiration is inexorably linked to the competition. so it stands to reason, the more competitive the competition is, the more inspirational it is.

wow...i think thats my longest post, ever.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

You think that post was long? :)

Edward Abbey once said that “growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” I cannot accept this challenge, not just yet. Not until I'm fully convinced. I don’t dispute the fact that the institution of collaborative manufacturing and design alliances has the opportunity to lead to the creation of very impressive robots and strategy; you need only look at 1114’s – and increasingly the other Triplets’ – downright godlike performance in the last two years. I also don’t dispute the fact that FIRST has positively endorsed collaboration more than once; this has been done via documentation and also in the multitude of awards that individual teams in collaborative alliances have received (including the 2004 Chairman Award, awarded arguably for creating an ambitious collective). Furthermore, I won’t dispute for the purposes of this thread (though it is very debateable) the possibility that in some cases, teams that otherwise wouldn’t have existed do now because another team was willing to take them under its wing by doing all the thinking. I’m a huge fan of some of the team building practices and philosophies that have sprung up as a result of collaboration (take for example the “virtual team” process that Karthik mentioned), and I am consistently impressed by the sponsor enthusiasm garnered by teams in collaborative alliances. On the surface, I am all for collaboration.

But I do dispute the premise that FIRST needs to grow at any cost and as quickly as possible. Mr. Rourke points out that FIRST’s stated goals and Dean's "homework" are all about growth, and then later uses trends of collaborative alliances in the business world as evidence that such an approach is a good thing for FIRST teams, which should strive to mimic this. His position implicitly suggests to me that since FIRST’s growth is good no matter the means, and since collaborative alliances work in the business world, we should use the latter to encourage the former. I’m not so sure I can agree with this. We cannot “forever end the debate on collaboration,” certainly not so soon. Not when FIRST has been growing at a healthy rate without the help of collaborative alliances (to look at percentage growth of FIRST’s annually-increasing size and not factoring in the surrounding system is an erroneous measure), and not when what Ken Wittlief describes as potential “second rate poor cousins” have shown strikingly little team individuality and innovation thus far. JVN is absolutely right when he says that those of us weary of collaboration are weary of how collaboration is carried out procedurally. It is this I am not so sure about, because in theory, I agree almost completely with NiagaraFIRST's philosophy.

Teams are here to learn, cooperate, and indeed help each other, but whether this can apply with the same force to the design stages as it does to the competition is yet to be determined, regardless of what the teams, the Triplets, or even FIRST might tell us. I think some of us might be overlooking the value and personal satisfaction derived from using one’s own intellect to build a product, a team, and a mythology from scratch. Zan Hecht points out that one of the beautiful things about FIRST is that with an identical kit of parts, there are 1000 different solutions to a single problem, and I would add to this by saying that this is due to the individuality and diversity of the young men and women that make up each team. But if FIRST does as some might suggest (not neccesarily Mr. Rourke), the trend of collaboration will represent the biggest change to ever hit FIRST since it moved out of Manchester. I will not liken the practice of collaboration to copying the smart kid’s homework (effectively what some in this thread are doing, in addition to laughably likening it to communism, the Devil, and whatnot), because I don’t believe that is the case at all, but I do believe it has the potential to threaten team individuality and innovation if not carried out properly, and this is not something I can overlook so quickly. Specifically, I cannot endorse a ‘quantity over quality’ ethos, whether explicit or implicit.

Here’s why I say this: once a team that would not otherwise exist is brought into a collaborative alliance to get it on its feet, there are overwhelming factors and social forces that compel it to stay in that role, not the least of which might have been unwittingly outlined by JVN’s excellent analysis where he suggested that that “winning cures all.” A team that wins ‘artificially’ is a team that doesn’t want to leave. If you feed a pigeon a couple times, it becomes dependant. I’m not convinced that this is a healthy growth for FIRST, because if this does occur it will lead to a state of affairs whereein a bunch of collaborative alliances are working against each other. Mr. Rourke gave us an example of a team that is starting off in a collaborative framework (copying a design) and will eventually leave the alliance and build a robot on its own. If this is not just an exception, that is, if that team and other teams that follow do indeed consistently go out and use the success and enthusiasm gained from collaboration to propel them on their own courses, kudos to them, kudos to NiagaraFIRST, and say hello to collaboration’s biggest supporter (me!). This is what NiagaraFIRST seems to be trying to do, but it’s not like they are going to forcibly kick teams out after a certain time, is it? What about the subsequent collaborative alliances we are encouraging here? Stephen Rourke and NiagaraFIRST seem to have the very best of intentions, but that is only so much. If teams become domesticated like pigeons and collaborative alliances end up saturating the field, we will have created a monster in our haste to make FIRST grow. I just don’t think we should be in such a rush.

Right now, collaboration presents us with huge challenges never before seen. There is a quid pro quo mentality that surfaces in the playoff selection process, an implicit obligation to pick the teams in your cooperative (and therefore not other teams) when one of you seeds highly. If we look at teams as unitary actors in an anarchic FIRST system (borrowing an international relations paradigm), there is an erosion of team autonomy never before seen as more and more teams defer authority to a higher cause. There is also the potential that loyalty will trump Gracious Professionalism. This approach also presents all kinds of other problems. What does a team say about itself on its website or to judges, and how does it explain its work to parents (“yeah Mom, do you like it? We designed the wheels and we got everything else from other teams”)? Who do the judges give awards to when a great design comes up? FIRST is not as yet organized to accommodate possible side effects of collaborative alliances, and as a result, I cannot yet provide an endorsement of this solution to FIRST’s alleged growth woes. I see NiagaraFIRST as a promising and so-far successful experiment whose conclusion has not been reached, and I just am not as yet fully convinced that we've waited long enough to call others to work off its projected outcome. Perhaps next year.

Personally, I think specialization is not always a good thing, and that teams should be taking a more holistic approach from a strictly pedagogical perspective, rather than working on (and teaching students to brainstorm about) a specific part of a robot. If NiagaraFIRST and all other rookie cooperatives are a means to that end, then they are a good way to help FIRST grow. I just don't want to create 'domesticated pigeon' teams. If the concept of collaboration is only a temporary step in creating new teams that eventually fly away (okay Jon, kill the metaphor now), I’m all for it, but otherwise, I think it is growth for the sake of growth like Abbey said. We can’t add new teams to FIRST if they aren’t going to truly become new teams, because that undermines a certain element of the experience and the learning.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

well it was long for me.;)

i feel that as far as FIRST goes, growth for the sake of growth is a good thing. each year, thousands (millions?) of high-schoolers will graduate, and a large portion of them will never learn about 'GP', see that engineering isn't just numbers and math, or be otherwise inspired. unless they somehow get roped in during their college years they're going to miss this eye-opening experience that most of us take for granted. so be it by the triplet model (many teams, many schools), the MOE model (one team, many schools), or something else (i like Kim's idea), i think we need to grow as much as we can, as fast as we can. i want as many people as possible to experience FIRST.

personally, i've always pictured FIRST more as a virus than a cancer. we try to 'infect' who-ever we can, in an effort to destroy the current culture; the one that elevates actors, athletes, and singers as heros, with little or no respect for engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.

hey, i can do metaphors too!!

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Just some brief insight into something:
A lot of people have been posting about how the triplets collaborate, then pick each other at regionals. This is a half truth.

The Simbots have some of the most top-notch scouts and strategists in FIRST. I've gotten to work with them on several occasions, and even sit in on two of their pick meetings. Let me tell you this: during the pick-list making, their relationship with 1503 and 1680 does NOT come into account.

They are smart. They play smart. They take hard data about all teams at the event, and using these quantitative evaluations of performance they make the pick lists accordingly.

This year, they have one of the best performing designs in the competition, and as such they are typically at the top of everyone's picklist (including their own.)

It is important to note, last year 1114 seeded 1st in Toronto, and did NOT pick one of their collaborative partners.

They play smart. Would you expect them to pick a "lesser" team? (Lesser being determined by a HIGHLY quantitative gauge of performance.)

I see no problem with what they do, and how they play. Yes, they play to win. Should they be playing some other way?

-JV

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

There's been a lot of talk about the triplets ganging up together at regionals. I'd like to address this claim. By no means was it a certainty that 1114 & 1503 would pick each other. I'm the lead strategist for 1114, and I have final say on our pick list. At all three regionals we went to, there was debate over who would be at the top of our list. At GLR it was a decision between 469 & 1503. In Waterloo is was 68 & 1503, and in Toronto the choice was extremely difficult between 1503, 703 & 217. Our policy on 1114 is that we pick the best team, period. At both regionals where 1114 was the #1 seed, 1503 has been the pick, and the results speak for themselves.

Now, I'm sure many of you are saying, "Well, sure they were, that's awfully convenient". For those of you who feel that way, consider the GTR in 2005. Team 1114 was the number seed, and chose Team 1305, a non triplet, while 1503 and 1680 were still available. In the second round, 1680 was still available, but we chose 1511 instead. As has been said in the past, "compete like crazy, but co-operate the rest of the time." Team 1114 will always strive to put together the best possible alliance. We spend a lot of time strategizing, collecting data and scouting. We use this information to choose our alliance partner, the decision is not based on friendships or who we collaborated with.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Here is what we (234) did last year. I would not call it "collaboration", but merely helping a new school get a team moving.

We had been working with a nearby school (who is a rival in everything else) to help them get started. They had a few students come to our meetings, they went to the Indiana Forums, and were getting interested and excited. So to help them, we invited them to the 2005 IRI. Then, we worked with 217, who usually builds 2 robots, and asked if they could bring robot #2 to the IRI. They could and they did. So we kept working with the new school, and had a few summer sessions for them to make some controllers, and then we put their pit between us and 217 at the IRI. And we had two of our just graduated seniors be mentors for them and help them.

They learned from us, from 217, and everyone else at the event. They did not build their robot, but learned immensely from being a part of a FIRST event and seeing what everyone could and would do to help them.

They became a team for 2006 #1741), and designed, manufactured, built and competed with their own robot. We still gave them some help, but they worked considerably on their own. They competed at Boilermaker, even winning some awards (Rookie Inspiration and Regional Finalists). They are truly an inspired team and I amsure will be successful in many ways in the near future.


Another way to create some growth.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Alexander,

It's clear that there are people who do not support collaboration. If I may put some words in Steve's mouth for a moment, I believe his "world is flat" analogy is refering to the fact that FIRST has clearly said collaboration is here to stay. Obviously there will be people who don't like this, but what Steve is suggesting is that those who disapprove, try and accept it's presence and make the most of it.

Let me assure you our students are inspired, as they tell me on a daily basis. I'm sure this doesn't satisfy you, but they'd be glad to tell you in person if you took the time to stop by our pits. Yes, we're aware that many people were not happy with the success of our teams at the competition. I'm sure my students realized this as well. But, we were also overwhelmed by kind comments from enthusiastic mentors, students, judges and general FIRST supporters. The positive comments definitely outweighed the negative. These comments definitely inspired our students. (Granted, I'm sure most people with the negative comments chose not to come forward with them)

Yes, not everyone likes the way we operate. Should we abandon our approach, to satisfy the critics? Obviously not. Team 254 is always unfairly criticized by the FIRST community, has this stopped them? No. They keep doing their thing, inspiring thousands along the way.

This collaboration has benefited our community, our high schools, our sponsors and our students. We've been able to affect the lives of 4 times as many Niagara Region high school students. We've energized our community about FIRST. (Expect 1114's Chairman's submission to be posted in early May, which details many of these topics) Of course we don't like the spite, but it's a small toll to pay on the road to a culture change.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Collaboration has definitely benefitted me as a student.
Its helped me experience the true meaning of the word team. Whenever there's a problem, it doesn't matter what team you're from within our collaboration, someone will come to your aid. Its like we've all become one huge team, yet we've still kept our individuality at the same time.
Our collaboration has inspired me to help others. When I first joined team 1114, I was really unsure of what I would do since I had no experience in the shop. My opinion soon changed once build season started because I had my teammates, as well as members of 1503 and 1680 asking me to do little jobs in there, as well as teaching me how to operate some of the machinery. From this, I've felt more involved, and I now know more about the shop then I ever thought I would. I still don't know a lot, but it makes me eager to learn more so I can continue to aid the team on our way to success.
I know I'm not the only one who feels this way on our teams, and if it wasn't for the collaboration, so many students would be missing out on the opportunity to become inspired by what is accomplished. I wish to spread the word of FIRST as much as I can to other students, so they can experience the excitement and passion that we experience everyday with our team, as well as the friendships that will last a long time.
Team 1114's goal is to spread the word of FIRST, one patch at a time, and our collaboration is allowing us to achieve this goal.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I have watched this thread for a long time now and am quite pleased by the fact that collectively, people have managed to keep their tempers, egos and attitudes in check as we debate this thorny issue. That being said, please let me make one thing clear, that has already been mentioned by other members of CD and myself on several other occasions.

1114 is a Regional Chairman's Award winning team.

They have some of the most intelligent, most respected and most committed mentors in FIRST. Not only can you confirm that with their students, but you can ask virtually any Canadian or American team that has had the opportunity to play with them or work with them. They have a Woodie Flowers Finalist, Outstanding Volunteer and numerous UFH Awards to demonstrate this as well.

You do not receive any of these accolades without doing something right.

Perhaps oversimplification of this issue is a dangerous thing, as it may stifle what appears to be a frank and open discussion about this issue, but it must be made clear and understood that the Triplets and the Triplet model are currently not doing FIRST any harm. To anyone that says so, I point to the awards that they have received, the students that have spoken out on behalf of them and the fact that a corporate sponsor cares enough to make his opinion known on a public forum.

The Triplets play the game and play the game well. They play to win, as anyone else would and should do. They have more resources than other teams and sometimes that makes them the target of petty bickering and jealousy fueled comments. But I ask any of you to switch positions with them. Would you not be following their model in competition? Would you not be choosing what appeared to be the best fit for you? If you already won one regional event with them, would you not realize that you could work effectively with them and if given the opportunity, choose them again? FIRST should and is bigger than any petty arguing that you might overhear at a competition. Emotions are high, the goal of FIRST is higher.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Let me ask you something. How many teams out thier do people say are unfair. I can name a few that people normally say are unfair. I can name many that I have heard people say are unfair, but i'm not going to.

But heck even last year people complained about how us (229) and 217 collabrated. What exactly is unfair? I know personally, I full believe in what the Triplets are doing. It IS working for them whether or not people outside of thier teams believe it.

When I stopped by thier pit at GTR I was greeted by high school students. When I started talking to them about thier robot, it was high school students who told me. When i watched one of thier matches it was high school students cheering. Everywhere i looked around on of these 3 teams (1114, 1503, 1680) the high school students were energetically doing whatever they could to help thier team. This shows me that they were inspired. So just because people think that its unfair that they help each other out and find it easier to build 3 robots doesn't mean anything.

What is "unfair"? Isn't FIRST supposed to be about learning and inspiration? Well NiagaraFIRST has found a way to inspire students and i congratulate them on this achievement.

So my final thing to those on NiagaraFIRST. Thanks for fulfilling what FIRST is about, INSPIRATION.

Tim

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

What is it about collaboration that appears to be unfair?

I think its two things:

1. You could have one big team with students from 3 or 4 schools, 30 or 40 mentors, tons of money. If that is one team then how many robots are they allowed to enter? One! Should we allow one big team to build three or 4 robots, pay 3 or 4 registration fees, and then have 3 or 4 robots at each regional they attend instead of only one per team? Clearly the more robots your 'team' enters into a competition the better the odds of one of them winning. When you have a collaboration across 3 schools from the outside it looks like one big team.

2. Competition. People keep saying winning is better for a team. This is an engineering design competition. When 3 teams collaborate they are not competing with each other. It become us vs them - the collaboration is us, and everyone else is them. No matter the rational used to justify the collaboration, when you compete against those teams it feels like they cheated.

We are emotional beings. We have an ingrained sense of fairness and fair play. You can rationalize all you want but if students from other teams feel like you are cheating or side-stepping the intent of the game, then that is how they feel.

You cant talk someone out of their feelings. A persons feelings are what they are. When three teams work together to compete against you then it feels like its 3 against one.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I admire the extra efforts taken by collaborating teams to make sure their schools are each involved in the decisions being made during brainstorming, design, and build. This has got to complicate the build season when you have people at these different locations making decisions.

I empathize with those who are not sold on the collaboration idea, because of where it could lead. This is where we are counting on the great people who are running teams like 1114 to continue to do a great job of staying true to their goals of growing and inspiring without going too far.

I worry that if each team only has to do a fraction of a robot (i.e., you do the base, we'll do the arm, those other guys'll do the software) that it will be seen as a shortcut that gives collaborators an advantage and keeps the team from doing the complete set of elements that all the other teams are doing in this competition.

I would be willing to bet that many people who think collaboration is just fine would change their tune the first time that a team builds two complementary robots (instead of identical robots as we see now). Imagine if a team built one awesome shooter that docked with one awesome feeder-bot. The feeder bot has incredible storage capacity, pushing power, and a collaboratively-designed connection that locks the bots together and allows balls to flow right through. Not simple twins anymore. Siamese twins, one with great eye-hand coordination, and one who has lifted weights his whole life. Sure, you still have to have one of 'em (the "smart" one :)) get to be a picker so it can pick the other one, but we know thats possible. You could call one bot "Gretzky" and the other "Semenko" :)

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Winning is certainly a motivating factor, but I would be the last one to promote the trend of collaboration in order to create winning teams. If indeed collaboration becomes an economic requirement, in particular the automotive industry, than it doesn’t make it any better to act as this would be the best thing in the world. The German competition may even use this to their advantage, selling more BMW’s with their very individual design.
Here is another example, how a team can win, have fun, learn and become highly motivated.
Team 1414 evolved from one single student, who seeded the idea of FIRST into the Atlanta International School and a body of very individual, multi cultural and multi lingual students.
I had the pleasure of teaching and mentoring these students (15 in 2003/4) in ACAD, electronic and mechanical design, but also grew some gray hair by teaching some tool basics, as most of the students had never used any tools in their young lives. Thanks to other parent mentors and students, I had to learn to ease off in my German attitude to have everything perfect and aligned.
All students, regardless of their technical knowledge and the feasibility of their ideas were involved in the design concept. The prototype drove well forward, but failed miserably in turning. The final robot managed to cap a goal in one event, but the final result was the last place in the Peachtree regional.
After all, team 1414 was fortunate to win the rookie award and even the rookie all-star award in 2004.
With 30 team members in 2005, the team didn’t receive any awards and we don’t want to mention the place in the ranking of the Peachtree regional.
In this season the students designed and built the robot completely themselves.
I would love to get another rookie team going.
Team 1414, now a team of 45 students, did cut each piece of aluminum extrusion very carefully ¼ inch shorter than maximum dimension, but the completed robot didn’t fit the shipping box, because the robot didn’t end up to be square.
At the Peachtree regional, team 1414 succeeded to score all ten balls in the auto mode, ended up in second place in the ranking and won the regional event together with two other teams. On top of it, team 1414 won the Daimler Chrysler spirit award and the ACAD visualization award.
These students may never get any CNC tools in their shop and their robot will be lacking the sophistication of the triplets for example. Needless to say that these students are very happy about their success, they don’t care about the triplets at all.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I'd be fine with that, since such a robot would be useless at an actual competition. They'd only get paired together maybe 2-3 times during qualifying so they wouldn't make it to the top 8, and it would be practically impossible to pick both of them as part of your alliance because someone else would pick the other one before you do. Also, you'd be taking a pretty large risk picking the two of them as your alliance partners since you may have only seen them playing together 2-3 times.

Such a collaboration would be taking a ENORMOUS hit in practicality and chances-of-winning just so they can collaborate, which I doubt would anger anyone, and would be pretty cool to see in the few matches they'd have together.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Yes, it does increase the chances of winning. That cannot be argued. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, that's not why we did this. The reason we collaborated was to give 3 times as many students a chance to have direct ownership over a robot. We could have had one large multi high school team, and I know many teams are successful that way. We felt that this route was better utilization of our resources, to maximize the inspiration process.

Yes we are competing against each other. If you saw 1114 tip over 1503 in the semis of the 2005 Waterloo Regional, you might understand this. If you saw 1680 & 1114 pushing each other in the finals of the 2006 GTR, you might understand this. Yes the teams collaborate during the season, but on the field it is a direct competition and nothing else.




Okay, I'm getting sick of this line of logic. Collaboration is fully permitted within the rules. We understand that many people do not like this, or accept it. Many teams feel we are cheating. Just like many student-only teams feel like mentor driven teams are cheating as well. Does that mean the mentor driven teams should stop what they're doing? No!!! You can't please all the people all the time. The rationale of "lots of people don't like it" is not a reason to stop doing it. FIRST has publicly come out and condoned collaboration. It is 100% legal. I'm all for a discussion of the pros and cons of collaboration. I want to hear why other teams don't think it's right. But saying that we should stop something that has enriched the lives of students and spread the word of FIRST because it's upsetting a vocal minority is ludicrous. There will always be people who don't like how certain teams operate. This is a certainty. It's up to the teams to look within themselves, and make sure they're okay with the way they run. As long as that standard is met, then proceed as planned.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

There are precedents for multiple teams from one school. Consider Goodrich HS (70, 494) or Emery CI (1219, 1309). By accepting their money, not just once, but several times, FIRST is pretty clearly open to this sort of arrangement.

That's totally subjective—you feel cheated, but that's only because you aren't necessarily privy to the structure and organization of the team. In the case of NiagaraFIRST, they have explicitly decided to compete with one other on the field—and off the field, apart from having very similar robots, they act just as any other group of friendly teams would; that is to say, they share resources.

Maybe it feels like cheating, to some interested observers; but is it cheating? Is it even a violation of some indeterminate intent? I certainly don't see anything in the rules (of this year's competition, or any prior one, for that matter) to conclude that it is even remotely close to cheating. Similarly, every indication from FIRST (with regard to their intent) has either been neutral or supportive of these collaborations—where's the violation?

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

The topic is, go out and multiply, you will have more fun, you will inspire more students. If we can do it you can too. I agree with the Chairman Award winning team that started this post. I also look forward to competing with and against them. At Martian head quarters we do not have the wonderful facilities that the Triplets have (and we still multiplied). We have a band saw and a drill press that we restored and brought into the school. Any machined parts that you see on our robot were not made at our build site. We still plan on giving them a run for their money and look forward to seeing their great teams at the Championship. Be not afraid, go forth and multiply.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Isn't it funny how we always think the other guy is the vocal minority. I'm certainly guilty of it. I really wish I knew the numbers on how the FIRST community as a whole views the manufacturing alliance / design alliance / four identical robots brand of collaboration.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

What worries me is those cooperatives that might surface who might not follow these ideals. To whom is a collaborative alliance accountable with respect to Ken's statement? Going back to the idea I borrowed from international relations in my earlier post (sorry if you feel a whoosh), on a team this accountability is to FIRST, its ideals, other teams, and its own constituent students and mentors. As a unitary actor in FIRST's eyes, there are quantifiable sanctions for not acting properly. As we create a new level of analysis (that is, the cooperative alliance level), this becomes very blurry and relies more upon the responsibility of those in charge of the alliance. We can all conceive of a cooperative that has 6 teams that go to the same regional, each of whom having six weeks to design only a small fraction of the robot, each of whom pairs up only with another in the finals, where they all face each other. This would be terrible, and would create a huge compulsion for teams to start picking sides (I suppose for rookies I could liken this to the woes of new inmates). Still, my concerns are mainly functional; will teams still have the holistic educational value they used to under this new model? At this very moment, my inclination is to say there are numerous forces that point collaborative alliances away from this, especially if we try to grow into the model with haste.

This goes slightly beyond the scope of this thread so I'll be as brief as I can muster. I would argue that the complemetary robot possibility is definitely one of the most intriguing possibilities that might occur, and is one that has not been fully realized. I'd further argue it's fundamentally different from simply sharing an identical design as the Triplets do, because in theory one would only have to neccesarily share and standardize certain dimensions and characteristics while perhaps keeping other aspects unique and/or secret. Teams could cooperate on a very limited basis in terms of design but on a wide scale in terms of participants, and this is just another one of the many side effects we are bound to come across in the future that compel me to reserve judgment on any sort of inter-team collusion and by extension Mr. Rourke's call.

Indeed, people might argue it will further perpetuate a two-tier system of elite versus 'normal' teams. Perhaps it would be too difficult to implement as Bongle suggested, but I disagree. My personal thoughts on the matter go as follows: I see this new mentality of collaboration as an opportunity. If a few teams were to standardize some mechanism in the first two weeks of the build period, robots that were paired up and followed this regime would be at a decisive advantage, and this is easier to pull off than some might think. I had a defeated idea on my team to make a not-very-mobile but accurate shooter that could plant in position and had receptacles for balls that were similar in size to the corner goals; such a design did one thing very well, and would make all corner goal bots (that is in general, rookie bots) potential shooters and eliminate the possiblity of the opponents shutting them down on D. It was very easy to do in this game, but in a more involved game (say next year's), a collaborative alliance clearly could be beneficial to rookies in this manner without 'giving away' a robot design. This thread is about using collaboration as a means to draw in rookies, and I've just presented one of many possible ways this can be done. Again, this is an opportunity, but I'm not entirely sure just yet whether it's a good one.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

One question. Why do people assume identical robots, no matter how good they are, are the best alliance structure?
1114 picked 1503 at their regionals, because as mentioned by Karthik, they had the best fit for their alliance. In 2005, they did not pick 1503 or 1680, why?, because they did not fit their alliance as well.
3 amazing robots != 1 amazing alliance

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

You need to caveat your challenge to include a statement about long-term support. If a rookie team is given a competitive design their first year they will do well, have fun, and be ready to come back the next year. If the handouts suddenly cease and they field a bad robot that does not work and is not competitive they will probably fold. Where are you then? Inspiration does not equate to a bunch of smiling excited kids. They have a winning robot, of course they're excited! When they're still excited through the rough times, then you have something.

I've been to a regional with a robot that was not competitive and it was extremely frustrating and stressful. It was no fun for the kids cheering when the robot didn't move in many of the matches. Say what you want about FIRST, but the regional is all about the matches. Bust your butt for six weeks plus, then drive three hours to watch a paperweight. If the team did not have some fantastic mentors and an army of organized parents and teachers that team would be long gone.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

FIRST is an engineering design contest / competition - who can come up with the best engineering solution to the problem that has been presented to solve: a machine that can play a game on the field.

Teams average 120 hours designing and building their machine during the six week build period, about 20 hours in the pits at each regional modifying, testing and maintaining their machine, and about 20 to 30 minutes on the field actually playing the game. That comes out to 9,600 minutes 'off the field' and 30 minutes 'on the field'.

If you collaborate with another team you spend less than 1% of your time 'competing' against that team, 99% of your time collaborating with that team, and 100% of your time competing against all the other FIRST teams.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

NiagaraFIRST

So with this Triplet Challenge I can assume that after 2 years you will start to break away and form separate collaborations with other teams you individually start, after all I assume you are all well off, and have very understanding students by now, which can mentor rookie teams or stuggling teams... OR ... Is this just a way to make more teams have carbon copied robots thus taking the pressure off of your collaboration, allowing you to continue to have a killer collaboration, with identical robots... which go from regional to regional inspiring the crowds by winning them all (even though you apparently are still competing with each other)... so what is it? will carbon copied robots continue? will your collaboration continue? or have your teams reached a point where they will branch off, and add more numbers to the thriving NiagaraFIRST coalition?

David

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

if we followed this line of logic, much of the behaviour that is termed 'GP' would no longer be acceptable. no more loaning parts, tools, or skills to needy teams. no more shared machine shops or practice Fields. no more mentoring rookie teams. we'd go from 'co-opertition' to total competition. the truth is, collaboration has been going on for as far as i can remember (i.e. the 6 years i've been involved), just in varying degrees. whether we're giving away spare wheels, chasing bugs in the electrical system, or helping to program an autonomous mode, any time we help another team to become more competitive, are we not 'collaborating' with them?

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

no, you are not. The difference is the core engineering challenge. Here is an engineering problem to solve - YOU come up with the solution.

I can mentor your team and show you step by step how engineers take a problem through the complete design cycle, I can lend you computers and tools and shop time, give you access to my machinists and welder, show you how to hook up wires and program the control system - ALL without solving the design problem for you.

This thread has turned into a 100% collaboration vs 0% debate - I never took that position. The first post in this thread (in my opinion) took it too far by saying that (if necessary) give a new team a complete robot design and let them copy everything.

I dont think collaboration is a bad thing, esp if you have one team that is rich in mechanical engineers and has a big machine shop, and you have another team with nothing but electrical engineers and SW programmers - If there is a natural divide then YES work together.

But dont take it to extreems. Dont let it end up where one team is only doing one small part, and esp dont give a team a complete design to copy 100%.

That is where this thread started drawing flack and criticism - going too far to the extreem. There are drawbacks and tradeoffs and fairness issues when teams collaborate. When you take it to the extreem then the drawbacks outweigh the good you are attempting to accomplish.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

If you take it to "the extreme", you are no longer collaborating. Many people in this thread have come to the table essentially saying "Paint by Number teams are bad". I don't think that's what Collaboration is.

People here have said you take the I out of FIRST when you collaborate. I don't think you do. If you are collaborating you merely have a larger group of people working on 1 problem, who happen to have different team numbers. "Build by Number" teams are not what collaboration is about. Sure if you collaborate with a rookie, the veteran team may have more input becuase they know their way around the block, but if the veterans merely hand the rookies a robot to copy, they aren't collaborating. They're robbing deserving students of an opportunity of a lifetime.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Although your sarcastic remarks don't warrant a response, I will give one anyway. People say I am too nice.

The truth is we don't know what will happen next year. I hope that Notre Dame High School in Welland will become the newest member of NiagaraFIRST. Based on their progress so far as a virtual team. they should be able to manage to build their own robot during their rookie season (as long as they can keep using the shop they found). I hope that 1503 and/or 1680 can build their own robot. We will sit down as a group at the end of the season and make the decision that we feel is best for the current and future students in the area.

Our teams have worked very hard for the success we have had this year. I am not going to apologize for winning a few regionals. We built inspiring robots, we seeded high, and we picked the best team available (although, I was a little unsure watching 217's autonomous mode in the semis at GTR - wow!).

Is collaboration the only way to grow? Of course not.
Does it work? So far so good. We'll see how the next couple years go.

Now, can we please keep this debate civil.

We will continue to defend our side, to show how collaboration can aid growth and we will listen to others opinions on how we can improve.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Giving a new team a complete robot design is extreme and definitely not the ideal solution. If you can find a way to work together (as our teams did) then that is definitely the preferred method. However, if that's what it takes to get a team started then so be it. I would have no problem with that. Being involved in FIRST is addictive, especially when you get too see your robot do what it was designed to do.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

if you have a mechanically complete robot that is theoretically able to fulfill the requirements, but is unable to because it isn't programed or wired properly, then has it still solved the design challenge? i don't think so. the challenge is to build a competitive robot, not to design a competitive concept.

i agree that collaboration should be a give and take relationship, that all parties involved should contribute (more or less) equally. obviously, this would be the ideal collaboration.

what everyone seems to miss about 'the triplet challenge' is that the copy part applies to a team that would not otherwise exist, if not for the collaboration. i expect this scenario will be rare, but if thats what it takes to get more people involved with FIRST then i'm for it. the question isn't (or wasn't) whether you were for two individual teams, or one team copying another, but rather if you want a new team to copy an existing one, or to not exist at all. wouldn't you rather these students get a glimpse of FIRST, rather than sitting at home unaware, playing video games and watching TV?

if you can't tell, im one of those that believe "if the students are inspired, its all good"

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Well I am disappointed to see that this has turned into a Collaboration is good/bad debate.

While this idea may not be the best way to spread FIRST every where I know for a fact is would be the most effective way to do it in my community and in other area High schools. I would love to see more collaboration in RI especially if it means that more teams would be started. While I see no need for 71 and 254 to ever collaborate, I would love to see those teams work with other teams (I know 254 has done this) This helps to blur the line between the higher and lower level teams. If collaboration helps a team to come into existence or to jump up to a higher level then it is great, If it doesn't then maybe it is not necessary. I know that Niagara FIRST is not the only collaboration but their actions and performance in the GTR finals, helping to fix the bot they were competing against. 1114 is definitely one of the premier teams in first and is clearly helping to bring their siblings to that level, It will not be long before you see the Niagara community support all three programs so they can split up and continue to spread first either by new collaborations or by other methods( I am sure Karthik will think of something). In the mean time I hope that all of the collaborations continue to thrive, I have never seen harm done due to a collaboration, for that reason I have nothing bad to say about this method to spread the FIRST message.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I am sorry if I came across rude, that was not my intent, I just noticed that the whole topic you had been defending the collaboration you had this year... now don't get me wrong I personally don't have a problem with collaborations, what I have a problem with is 10% of all robots at a regional being identical (as we saw at Waterloo) ... I do not see this being the meaning of FIRST, nor inspirational (as I find showing others that you can be effective with an array of designs inspirational, and at the same time innovative), yes your robot was an amazing accomplishment, and I applaud you on your design, its just I don't agree teams as developed as yourselves should have the need for carbon copied robots, I'm ok with it however if it is sharing individual designs with rookie teams or struggling teams. Sorry again.

David

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Most everyone seems to be focusing on how collaboration affects the final inspiration of the students involved in such a partnership (the output of the process); however, few have commented on the effects different forms of collaboration have on the mentors (the "equipment" driving the process) and the team's resources (the inputs of the process). Inspiration is neither a free nor an easy thing to create. Teams stepping outside of their comfort zone in an attempt to increase the amount of inspiration they generate is an even more difficult challenge. There are real costs associated with altering the inspiration process via collaboration – you cannot celebrate the end result of changing the outputs of the process (more inspiration) without also examining how the change affects the process inputs and the process itself. Before a team enters into a collaborative agreement with another, all sides must examine how the new partnership would affect EVERY aspect of their programs, from initial input resources to mentorship involvement to the final process output.

For simplicity's sake (hopefully), I wish to describe a typical FIRST team as an "inspiration factory". The final output product manufactured by this team factory is inspired students. The primary "assembly equipment" which drives the process used to manufacture this product is the team's mentorship base. The raw materials that are fed into the "assembly equipment" are time, money, physical resources (tools, machine shop equipment, etc.), and impressionable students who have yet to be "processed" by the team (perhaps a bit of a scary image, but I think you all know what I am talking about).

Let's start with a typical veteran FIRST team "factory". It turns out high quality product every year, and the factory is running smoothly. In fact, it has received high marks and praise for its product from the manufacturing community; perhaps even the highest award granted by its peers. It has just the right amount of resource input to avoid "excessive inventory", and its "assembly equipment" is properly maintained and never overworked past its capacity limit, so it keeps churning out the inspiration at high efficiency levels.

Suddenly, the plant manager has a bright idea. He is a noted philanthropist and thus has no designs to achieve personal gain by pushing his superior product on customers at the expense of others within his industry; instead, he wishes to augment the productivity of inspiration at other factories in his region so that the combined overall productivity of the regional factories is doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled. How does he choose to achieve this objective? Let's examine two different pathways, one involving regional partners that are not nearly as productive, and another involving partners that are on par with the plant manager's factory….

*********************************************

Pathway 1 (Collaboration between an established factory and those that are either new or not as productive)

The plant manager eagerly pushes through an agreement with several other factories to merge their resources and build their product at the manager's facility. The other regional plant managers welcome this partnership with open arms, for they are either newcomers to this industry, or they have struggled with notable productivity and quality control issues as an independent manufacturer.

Upon merging the other factories' "raw material inventory" and "assembly equipment" with his own, the plant manager quickly discovers that he is in for more of a challenge than he originally expected. The other factories' assembly equipment, while demonstrating great promise, is far behind the efficiency and technology levels of the host plant's equipment. The host factory spent years learning how to fine tune their equipment based upon experience and feedback from industry professionals. The other factories have not had that luxury. In addition, the other factories, while bringing equally large stores of impressionable students over to the host factory, were short on the raw materials of money and physical resources. These factors all threatened to upset the delicate balance of input management the plant manager had established over the years. What was he to do? How was he to achieve his objective of increased inspirational output and still account for the excess inventory? He could make 1 of 2 choices…..

Decision 1

Not wanting to divert too much of his factory's raw materials to improving the relatively inefficient assembly equipment brought into the factory by his partners, the plant manager chooses instead to let that equipment sit relatively idle as he ramps up the production demands of his original assembly equipment, which he trusts. He feeds most of the combined raw materials of the partnership into his equipment, effectively absorbing the additional material inventory recently brought into the factory. His assembly equipment is a well-oiled machine and is flexible to changes in process and in material input levels, and for a time, it compensates beautifully. Production is way up, and from the outside, the factory appears to be succeeding in its objectives. The manager only activates the additional equipment in limited situations where the process demands weren't nearly as taxing. The other plant managers are thrilled by the accolades and awards they receive for being associated with this partnership, yet they see that their own assembly equipment and processes have not improved to anywhere near the same level as the host manager's. Because of these facts, they have simultaneously grown too dependent upon the current level of success and too afraid that they do not possess the same level of ability as the host manager's process to separate and return to their own factories.

Over time, as the original host factory equipment is continuously pushed to or past its capacity limit, this extra production demand slowly takes its toll. If the plant manager doesn't recognize the imminent danger this poses to the entire factory, a severe meltdown could eventually occur. The host assembly equipment will never again function within the factory walls – it will take a new factory and a fresh new approach to restore the broken equipment to the level of excellence it once demonstrated - and the remaining partner managers' equipment won't be developed enough to compensate for the loss.

Decision 2

The plant manager recognizes that his own assembly equipment is a precious resource that should not be overtaxed by the new partnership. In fact, he feels he should invest more time and money upgrading the new, raw assembly equipment and bring it up to the quality and productivity of his own. All of the partnership's raw materials would be more equally distributed among each piece of equipment, and all equipment would be run at nearly the same rate. While this path may not lead to the same immediate increase in output that would have been seen by following the path of Decision 1, and in fact, the productivity of his original equipment may actually decrease for a time, taking this direction would eventually lead to multiple pieces of high quality equipment running within his factory walls, all churning out the high-quality product his factory produced before the partnership took place. In fact, at this point, his partners may be so encouraged by their progress that they take their raw materials and equipment and go off on their own, perhaps even to propagate the same successful plan implemented by their host.

*************************************

Pathway 2 (Collaboration between two factories that share the same high-quality levels of productivity)

I don't have to go into nearly as much detail here. To achieve his goal of increased productivity throughout the industry, the plant manager contacts another plant manager from an equally successful factory. Both managers recognize that they do many, many things right, but each could stand to learn from the other and implement improvements to their process based upon the experiences of the other factory. The managers keep their factories distinct and separate, collaborating only to upgrade their assembly equipment and processes such that the quality and rate of production of their individual product is improved. Each manager gives proper credit to the other for their role in these shared improvements, and the two factories maintain lifelong connections so that they can continue to benefit from the partnership. They also agree to share their knowledge with other, less efficient factories that could use their assistance.


************************************************** ***************************************

As you pursue "Pathway 1" collaborative partnerships, please do not overtax and ultimately break your "assembly equipment", because without it, your raw materials will either be wasted or sit around as excess unused inventory, and they will never combine to form the finished product you seek. The key new point to all of this is that if you don't take care of your mentor resources - if you try to overwork them too hard and too long and stretch them too thin - if you do not supplement them with an infusion of equally capable mentors from your new collaborative partners or alter your internal process to see that your new, inexperienced mentors have room to grow along with your students, then you will most likely place an undue amount of strain on your most experienced mentors, and the quality of the inspirational output of your program could suffer.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

One factor of collaboration that may not have been taken into account by those encouraging it is its effects on the inspiration of those who are members of other teams. If nothing else, this thread has proved that there are many out there who believe collaboration provides an unfair advantage, whether or not it really does. This could easily lead to teams that were beaten by an alliance of collaborators feeling that they have been cheated. That can make it much more likely for these teams to drop out of FIRST.

This leads to the question: are the collaborating teams responsible for the damage their collaboration does to other teams they compete against, even if they didn't intend it? The answer to this is definitely yes. Whether it is intentional or not, teams must take responsibility for their effects on others. If a collaboration of two teams (which has actually only grown FIRST by one team, because the collaboration founder was already participating) drives three teams out of FIRST the next year because they are convinced it isn't fair, it is actually a net loss for the organization.

Finally, we must ask if collaborations have a moral (in the FIRST sense) right to exist if they do not cause a net gain in the number of teams. No! Collaborations that are non-profitable to the goals of the competition should not be allowed to remain collaborative. This will only hurt FIRST further.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Speaking as a student on another team, who has competed both against and with the triplets, they have added to my FIRST experience, not detracted from it.

My team played against 1114 and 1503 in the finals at Waterloo. In no way were we intimidated, or annoyed that we were playing against two of the same robots. We knew that it would be near-impossible to beat them, but it did not decrease our level of drive. If anything, it increased our will to win, being up against two of the best robots in FIRST. Naturally, I was disappointed when we lost, but in no way was it any different from losing to three different robots.

Their actions on the field are echoed off the field. I got an opportunity to talk to both mentors and students on the triplets, and our pit at Greater Toronto was beside 1503. Every time I talked to one of their members, I was so impressed with the level of inspiration I saw from their team. It has inspired me to try and raise my team to that level. They are amongst the nicest teams out there.

I believe that the level of enthusiasm amongst the students and mentors on the teams, and the behavior they have towards other teams, goes further then what their robots look like. In my humble opinion, teams who cannot be graciously professional and accept that other teams have different ways of inspiring their students, and choose to drop out because of it, never truly understood the values of FIRST in the first place.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

This is the other side of the "bigger picture" that I tried to examine in my last post. If the collaboration is able to further inspire students even on other teams, then that is awsome! I have never personally been to a competition with the Triplets, and I honestly don't know how I would react if I did. If their approach is able to inspire more students than it discourages, then more power to it. I by default took the negative side of this argument in my last post (it seemed that most people posting in this thread that weren't Triplets themselves were against the Triplets), but there is also the positive.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I'm going to respond to some parts of this thread, not necessarily the original post, so disregard this if you think it is off-topic.

One thing I've seen a lot of criticism towards is the "Paint-by-Numbers" method of collaboration. To me it seems like this doesn't even fit what collaboration actually means. Merriam Webster says that collaboration means "to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor." If one team gives another plans to build a robot that the first team has designed, there is no working jointly and no intellectual work happening in this situation for the team receiving the plans. As far as I know, there have not been any instances of this happening, aside from (in my understanding) some virtual teams. If it did actually happen, as many people have stated before, I would be completely against it, as it takes all of the inspiration out of the FIRST experience.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

So I keep reading through this thread, and I was brought back to Lindsay's post and the posts of several people who have "met the triplets"

Everyone keeps saying how inspired the team is, how inspirational they are, etc... And maybe this goes off topic a little, but I would like to hear some stories of how this collaboration exactly "inspires" in a DIFFERENT way from normal teams (yes we are all driven to beat the best of the best, yes we all learn how to use tools we never would have touched outside FIRST, yes all of us gain confidence to meet others, to work with other teams, etc), so what is different??

I'm really glad that Lindsay, and the other students are "inspired" but from everything I have read (and no, I really haven't met their students), I think many of us would benefit in knowing EXACTLY how they are inspired... give us some of the crazy/cool stories, show us how collaboration is different... why the teams chose to continue collaborating this year, what the rest of the world can gain from this.... help us learn all this, instead of just bickering back and forth, "my way is better" "no my way is better".

What I am looking for is the "above and beyond" stories... for example, we end up talking a lot with our janitors late at night... one of them got so involved he came to the local regional last year, and again this year... by the end of this year, he told us that he now wants to go back to college because of all he has seen with us! (Yes I know this has nothing to do with "collaboration", but I'm looking for the stories that make the collaboration different from just "mentoring" rookie FIRST teams like most other teams do.)

I think these stories (because I'm sure they are there) would be incredibly effective in convincing this forum and many others of the true effectiveness of the collaboration... because I think everyone here is getting too defensive/offensive because we don't know the real deal. Everyone keeps saying "well go talk to us/them in their pit" ok ok I get that, but its not going to stop this thread from escalating...

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I’d like to explain why and how the Martian Twins happened this year.

History: Team 70 was a small veteran team operating out of Kettering University that was about to disband. Their mentor was retiring and there was nobody to take his place. Our team did not have mentor resources available to send there to keep the team going. We did, however, believe we could mentor two teams, 494 and 70, at the same location.

Mentoring: Our team leader and another mentor secured sponsorship for this second team. All the other mentor tasks that are mostly invisible to the students were done by shared mentor resources: registering for events, travel and accommodations, ordering team shirts, ordering raw materials and components, meeting with school administrators, book keeping, etc. All of these activities are essential, represent a lot of mentor time and energy, and can be done in bulk (for multiple teams) more efficiently. These aren't’t tasks generally associated with providing the inspiration or recognition to our students.

Membership: Students from surrounding high schools were invited to join. Currently we have students from two other area schools and expect to have more in the future.

The student experience:
All activities for brainstorming the game and robot are done as a combined group.
Building of mock-ups and “mules” to prove out concepts is done jointly.
Construction of the robots, programming, etc. is done jointly in our modest shop, which is the balcony above the gym that we share with the cheer leading team.
All students participate in fund raising.
Each team has a distinct pit crew and drive team. Scouting is a collaborative effort.

The bottom line is this: Mentor resources are limited and burn-out is a real danger in FIRST. Collaboration was essential to keep this second team in existence. There simply were not mentor resources available to sustain it on its own. Nobody was cheated out of their inspiration or handed a Pre-built robot or a complete design, it was all done together. This project was not undertaken as part of our plan for Martian domination of planet Earth, but to the best we could with what we had to work with. I sincerely believe this was and will continue to be good for FIRST.

Jay

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

What Jay didn't mention was that 494 and 70 stretched themselves even further by fronting team 1213 $4k in order for them to make the initial payment deadline. They went further yet to organize a raffle where the two teams worked together/separate to pay back the Martians' kitty. Neither 70 nor 1213 would have been in the hunt this year without 494.

Maybe next year 1213 will wise up and ask to borrow Jay instead of the cash. :)

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I would like to give my 2 cents on this topic

The Triplet Challenge sounds like a fun and innovative way to get more students into FIRST and partake in an engineering competition. However, I believe that it would not happen for several reasons. One, it sounds boring to have a same design for 3 or 4 teams. I like it when I go to a competition and see how everyone has approach the game from a different angle. “Who did this?” and “How does the mechanism work?” are some of the questions that I asked myself when I looked at about 400 robots all season. Everyone has a different approach to the game and it is more interesting when you get to see how they will affect how the game piece is use. Second, it may be a disadvantage to teams that make one robot. 2-3 Teams that have the same robot design and are effective enough to get the job done can outlast any one robot team. Lastly, it causes more problems when it comes to paying for everything; you got the competition fee, and then everything else on the outside. You basically got to spend you whole entire pre-season doing sponsorship if you don’t have a corporate sponsor. As a mentor on Team 204, I am dealt the task of finding money with students for us to go to the competition and other matters. Now try doing not once, but twice. It is a difficult challenge. Do not get me wrong, we actually have looked into doing a “Niagara Triplet” kind of thing here in South Jersey, however it is a difficult challenge to try and get everyone on board.

Just giving a little feedback to CD.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freddy Schurr It is a difficult challenge. Do not get me wrong, we actually have looked into doing a “Niagara Triplet” kind of thing here in South Jersey, however it is a difficult challenge to try and get everyone on board.

Freddy raises a valid concern with respect to beginning a collaborative growth strategy similar to what was done with The Triplets. In a previous post, Karthik promised to make this the subject of a post-season paper. In the meantime I will outline what I believe are some prerequisite requirements based on our experiences. More to follow in the post-season.

Prerequisites for a NiagaraFIRST style collaboration:

• Mentor consensus on the growth strategy.
• An established, experienced, and capable base team.
• Mentor diversity and single-point leaders – with mentors having different “lead” responsibilities for elements of the collaboration, as well a lead mentor that represents each school team’s interests.
• A new team(s) whose teacher (and any new mentors) prefers to learn from an experienced team.
• Acceptance that all teams will share resources and facilities. There must be a vision for how these resources or facilities can be shared so that everyone can be involved.
• A common organizational framework for each team to facilitate communication and to keep the collaboration aligned.
• Education and training materials for all aspects of the project delivered in the pre-season.
• A web based bulletin board and forum for communication and information exchange.
• A disciplined project management, scheduling, and review process for each team.
• A weekly forum where all mentors gather to discuss progress, lessons learned, and improvement opportunities.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Sorry to rez a dead thread, but this has been bugging me for a few days. I originally made a post offering the evidence of 116's history to support either side of the topic. The evidence itself, in many situations, at least how I originally presented it, seemed a bit biased against the need for sucess to sustain a team. I, however, forgot to include one very significant detail, that I remembered (and have no idea how I forgot in the first place), that presents another valid argument.
In 1999, 116 moved from South Lakes High School, to nearby Herndon High School for reasons of faculty support. South Lakes would have a "rookie" team in 1999 (even though 116 was much more of a rookie in terms of membership than the south lakes team. 116 retained it's NASA sponsorship and almost all of the mentors at HHS though), but it would only last one year.
Sorry again for rezzing a dead thread, but this was buggin me and I couldn't edit my old post for some reason :confused:

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

Well, it's only been a couple of minutes since I made this post:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=36

But, since I've already gotten a couple of IMs about it, I thought I should explain.

When the NiagaraFIRST collaboration was first conceived, after seeing the 60/254 collaboration in 2004, it was never planned to be a permanent solution. The purpose of the collaboration was to help develop two new rookie teams to the point where they could stand on their own two feet, as successful teams. After two years of mentoring by 1114, we feel that the groundwork has been laid for both 1503 & 1680 to go out on their own. Both teams have had the time to develop a solid base of resources. In fact, 1503 went out made a pretty big free agent signing. :P

So, what does this mean for NiagaraFIRST? The NiagaraFIRST community still exists to help the teams of the region share resources. It's just that this year, you won't see three copies of the same robot. 1114 is going at it alone.

That being said, Team 1114 has helped start two new rookies teams this year. Team 2056 - Stoney Creek SS and Team 2166 - Appleby College. We will be mentoring both these teams, but again they will not have the same robot as us. Logistically, it's just not feasible for us anymore. Although, I would expect many of the local teams to have similar drivebases, as we've made all our drawings from 2005 & 2006 public.

We look forward to an amazing season, and the further growth of FIRST in the Niagara region.

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

First off, congratulations and thank you for helping new teams!

As for not having the same robot, I believe that this is as it should be. The GDC works very, very hard to come up with a game where a rookie team using the basic elements in the KoP can come up with a good effective robot. With help and mentoring support from an experienced team, they can get that much more out of the experience but in the end, they will still be able to say "This is our 'bot!"

Good luck in 2007.

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599 - The RoboDox

Re: The Triplet Challenge
 

I think that you understand how the triplet collaboration worked, All three teams put in alot of work on their robot and all of the teams certainly could say "this is my bot" This thread turned ugly quickly because people didn't understand the concept of the collaboration. I know your intentions were good but I don't think the triplet debate should continue, 1114 used the collaboration to start up 2 new teams both of whom this year will be competitive with out the collaboration, I am sure whatever they will be doing this year to assist the new teams will be equally effective. Hopefully this time there will be more focus on what it is they do rather than bashing them for the way they do it.

James