![]() |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Something that did Mr. Leppard did not point out was that while Team 1369 built the drive base and our team handled the arm and programming, it was not a completely separate operation. Both teams had the same amount of input on both aspects of the machine. We had several meetings with team members driving over to the others facility to come up with a complete design together, and then decided who would work on which part.
I personally understand the argument about winning awards because frankly, I in years past I did not feel it was fair. While I am not speaking for all the collaborations that took place, I feel that because of the way ours was done it would be fair to compete for all of the awards. These are my personal opinions and do not in anyway represent those of either teams 1369 or 1902. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Many people have asked me why we decided to do a collaboration this year. It seems like a fair question, as it seems to be still a mildly hot topic. I must admit if you read my collaboration posts from when this became a hot topic back in the 60/254 days I was mildly condescending towards the idea. I was under the impression that It was unfair to many of those involved, I believed it was unfair to the FIRST community, I believed it was unfair to competition.
That being said, I thought it was unfair until I realized that this program was only mildly about the physical competition itself. Both 1902 and 1369 are respectable teams, with respectable people, and respectable ideals. We both strive to work hard in all areas of FIRST, demonstrations, outreach, fund raising. Not being able to speak the behalf of 1369 but only my team I know that we do everything in our power to help strengthen those around us so that our Area is improved because of this. But I guess to stay on topic why did we choose to collaborate, and more specifically why did we choose to collaborate with a veteran team? The answer for me is actually quite simple but three fold. First and foremost, 1902 is still a young team, we are a second year team and we do a lot, we may not look like a second year team but we are just that. There are 20 students on our team and 2 mechanical mentors, both of which are in college, the oldest being me and only Junior in standing. Not being sponsored by any schools we still do not have a home location. We still build in my garage and tho we did raise money for more than just a Chop saw, drill press and hand tools this year, we are still what would be considered very under developed in machine capabilities. Our students are brilliant and resourceful, eager to learn and work hard. But when it comes down to it, often their ideas may super seed our capabilities, and its extraordinarily difficult to see the best design cut out because its just not possible for us to complete. 1902 was very successful in its rookie year, and I wanted to see the same excitement out of our students as we did last year, and in that our team decided that a real world style collaboration would be help to conquer our lack of resources. The second reason can be seen all across Delphi, there is a lack of competitiveness this year. FIRST has put such an emphasis on growth it often seems like no one is tending to the growing pains. More and more respectable teams seem to be dropping off the radar, certainly faster than new super teams are springing up. This years challenge may have been more difficult but regardless across the nation there is a trend occurring. We've seen this problem and have become dedicated to sustaining our local teams more than raising new ones. Rookie teams will still pop up and thats great and too be encouraged, but we want to see many Veteran teams be able to help them, and not need help themselves. One of the biggest gripes people have with this years game is the random match algorithm. Teams say " Number has nothing to do with quality of the robot, if your a low number it does not mean your better than a middle or high number. " This is 100% accurate but this I also believe is a problem. This should not be the case. The low numbers and middle numbers should, in the majority, be better with only a few exceptions. Veteran teams should be exactly that " Veteran " but often times teams are just numbers with no experience. This dedication to sustaining teams or helping veteran teams grow so they can better impact their communities is important. What better way to inspire and impress people than to show them something that people say "WOW! You helped build that?" If you have 5 minutes to get someone interested in FIRST a well built robot as an example is the best tool. Lastly, for the team this was about real world experience. Every year Dean, or Woody, or Dave steps up to the podium and says " This competition is the only competition where students get to work hands on with professionals to get an idea of what the real world is like. " If you don't take advantage of this, I personally believe its foolish. Now I realize everyone is not lucky enough to have professionals on their team, mechanically speaking neither 1902 nor 1369 has a professional engineer. But as far as establishing time lines, learning about the design process, dependability, responsibility to make deadlines or the discipline of someone else relying on you is extraordinarily important. The knowledge that what you design has to be reliable and dependable and time friendly and cost effective is lesson thats extremely emphasized in a collaboration. A phrase we came up with this year was "Simplicity in Design, Reliability in Function." This simple design mantra teaches all those involved something that often gets over looked. The argument can be made " You should learn that on a single team anyways, " but the fact of the matter is that in collaboration this point is emphasized. If you don't follow these rules, you don't only let your own team down, you let your partner down, and in a way you let FIRST down. Four years ago, I made the argument that it was pointless to see two Identical robots at competition that I'd feel cheated out of my experience learning from your teams. Now I make the counter. Show me two Identical robots that I can learn good engineering practice from, that will WOW their respective communities, and that raises the level of their respective competitions, and I'll applaud their effort to inspire and to strive towards the goals of FIRST. P.s. To answer some of the posed questions. Gary all costs were accounted for in the collaborative effort. Machine shops that were used were approached as sponsoring both teams, and all costs incurred were accounted for. Many of the efforts in assembly were taken on by both teams collectively and design was a collaborative effort. All mentors involved with the construction process acted as mentors for both teams in respect to the learning/build process in design, fabrication, and assembly. P.P.S. Mr. Van, To be honest tho awards are nice, they are not what drives 1902 in competition. It wasn't really in the consideration during the talks, however, through a slight miscommunication 1902 and 1369 will not attend the same competition. So this should be a none factor, however, If you are extending that if a component was not completely designed or fabricated by teams then I guess Andy Baker should win half the design quality awards out there. These collaborations, or usage of like designs are not intended to skew competition but to enhance. Most of these awards about final product and not design process. We do not hide the fact that we collaborated at competition, just as we don't hide the fact that we purchased Andy Mark performance wheels or 2 speed transmissions. If the judges feel it necessary to score us lower based on the fact that our Robot is not completely unique that is there perogative and that is fine within the realm of the competition. Tho neither 1369 nor 1902 has won an engineering based award yet it does not make our accomplishment any less impressive. A combined 18 out 22 attempted autonomous caps, or 0 matches missed due to mechanical difficulties through 2 competitions, that is rewarding enough. Our collaboration has helped tons of teams and hopefully soon the presentation of our autonomous code will be available to all. I imagine all those who use bits and pieces from our autonomous code should also not be eligible for awards either. :rolleyes: Many designs are not 100% your own, such is a fact of life, and of competition, the teams collaborative accomplishments however are not any less impressive. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Dan, I was with you for most of your post, but I disagree about teams being less competitive. There is a definite misconception about this. Some teams have ebbs and flows of competitive ability, and down and up years. Sure 45, 67, and 175 missed the elimination rounds for the first time in their history in 2006. But look how they responded in 2007, 45 and 175 have regional wins, and 67 and 175 have each been the first overall selection in their elimination "draft". Sure, some old powerhouses have folded, but this isn't new. 16 didn't compete in 2001, the year after they won the National Chairman's. And there is a new breed of powerhouses being born as well. Let's examine some of the teams over 1000 (2003+). 1002 has 3 Regional Chairman's, and 2 EIs. 1038 won Curie in only their second year, and visited the regional finals twice this year. 1114 has a stunning 7 gold medals, and 4 silvers. 1126 has already been on Einstein twice. 1213 is constantly competitive, although unrewarded. 1251 has a regional championship each of the past two years, and a pair of finals as well. 1261 won the 2005 and 2006 Peachtree regionals, and was the first overall selection this year. 1305 has 3 gold and 5 silver medals since their rookie year in 2004. 1403 has been one of the most consistent teams, although they haven't been able to punch through for a gold yet (2 silvers, finalist and EI, are nice though). The 1500s are loaded, 1501, 1503 (even post-collaboration with 1114), 1511, 1523, etc. And of course there's 1610, 1625, 1680, 1731, 1732, etc etc etc
As for the awards portion, VCU was interesting. All 3 of the West Henrico Triad won an award. 540's regional championship doesn't really apply to the conversation, but 1086's Delphi Driving Tomorrow's Technology, and 384's Motorola Quality certainly do. How would 384 have any more of a quality machine than 1086 or 540? How would 1086 have any more new technology than 384 and 540? |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
There is nothing really all that unique about 1902 and 1369 robots. Six wheel two speed transmission with an arm is common place. We didn't really have anything that outstanding to win awards. So I think it was a moot point.
BUT, both our teams realized we did not have enough depth of team to build a robot in 5 weeks, so we worked together to combine strengths and overcome weaknesses, thus bots were delivered in 5 weeks, so practice and software could be done in the last week. We could have done the same thing if we had 1369 two mentors on our team full time, then had two teams working on different parts. I lived in Silicon Valley where Apple, HP, Microsoft and others were born. No company does it alone, they accomplish great things by combining forces. When Dan approached me with the idea of working with 1369 I was skeptic, what if 1369 dropped the ball, how would parts built at different locations fit into a single plan. But I recognized the plan as our only hope to build a winning bot. It was a great gamble that I feel paid off. When you guys go into industry, you will learn partnership is what it is all about. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
I think collaboration between struggling teams is an excellent idea. However, I view collaboration between non-struggling teams as an arms race that could get out of control.
Good teams that collaborate have multiple different teams of people focussed on fixing the problems. The likelihood is that they will show up to the matches with extremely polished robots that already have the bugs completely worked out. When one team finds a solution to a pesky problem, they hand it to the other teams collaborating with them and they all advance, essentially leapfrogging the teams who work alone. There are obviously degrees to collaboration. Sharing design teams, but not designs, is a good thing. Sharing facilities is a good thing. Sharing resources and machine shops is a good thing. I think it all comes back to forcing each team to have a unique design. Perhaps first should pass a rule that requires teams who wish to collaborate to design significantly different robots in form and function. That would keep the true idea behind collaboration alive in that you'd have people helping your with your problems, and it would keep the idea behind First alive - to Innovate. Not to copy. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
I'm hoping at some point, that students and mentors alike, can share what they have learned from a collaborative effort. Things they didn't think about. Things that surprised them. Maybe how attitudes or opinions were verified or changed. What worked, what didn't work. What was easier, what was harder.
It would be nice to see what was gained from the experience(s). |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
we won the Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology" Award not the Xerox creativity award.
|
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
2. I was surprised how seriously they worked on keeping to their goals and making time lines. 3. As we had cross team meetings, I got a greater appreciation of what goes into building a robot and how "professional" the college mentors were. 4. When 1369 had software problems, we were able to send programmers to their regional to help. 5. You got to cheer for two teams, instead of one. 6. We were able to do more and compete at the level of larger teams like 233. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
In reference to the discussion of lack in quality, or degradation in competition in robots the past year I was merely referencing these such threads: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=55549 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=56090 http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=55938 There has been a significant amount of discussion about the lack of quality in the robots being produced. Its to be understood that not all robots will compete like 254, 25, 1114 or others you may have mentioned, and sure there are a significant number of good teams out there. But for every good team out there, there is significantly more teams who struggle just to make it to competition with a half working robot. "Etc. etc. etc." is not infinite, it has its limitations and as in most competitions there are more at the bottom than at the top. At many regionals I've attended in the past 7 years there are a significant number of bots who don't even have slightly working drive trains. If you talk with these teams or help these teams you find that its hardly a lack of motivation, its just a lack of resources. These teams strive to do well at competition but unfortunately each year or of recent years either fail to meet the mark or are just there enough to say they competed. I've been there I've done that, and it stinks. I can't imagine having to live with it year after year. "But Dan the competition isn't about winning, its about the experience or inspiring." Your right it is, and I'm the first to bring up that argument nearly every time it arises. But this is a competition, there is winning involved and I guarantee you losing is not as fun as winning. These kinds of collaborations can kick start a team in a way you would not believe. Given combination of most FIRSTers hardworking mentality and a little bit of Mentorship, and most teams can sore. But this mentorship often isn't there, and a collaboration, whether it be full or partial, is often a way that these teams can learn and begin to develop their technological aspirations. Many of these teams I speak of rarely are on these forums, maybe they don't know they exist. They may have one teacher mentor or parent sponsor who thinks the program is cool yet have no clue what they need to do. When they get to competition they love the atmosphere but begin to nearly resent teams that are better than them. Or teams that seem to be 100% mentor built, teams get angry and resent the fact they are consistently being out performed. I believe this is where you get a lot of the arguments " Well we should win those awards because we are a 100% student built and thats what this competition is all about." FIRST has repeatedly told us this is not true but at the same time, Its good for these teams to get a chance to see how these teams run or perform. To break down these barriers of resentment and let them realize they can learn a lot more from these bigger teams than they originally thought. I know you've listed off some teams that are succeeding, but for every team you listed I can name two that struggle. But as you are concerned with the top 1/3, I am concerned with the bottom 1/3.The point of our collaboration was to eliminate some of this, allow our FIRST community to experience FIRST to the fullest and not just exist within the program. Now I guess the root question was why then 1369? They aren't a weak program, they put out respectable bots and do well in competition. Well this year was more of a pilot than anything, and we each helped each other equally. But in the upcoming years we look to collaborate with more teams and as our resources grow the teams we reach and the teams we collaborate with will also hopefully grow. We have a mission to sustain our direct FIRST community in excellence rather than watch it grow itself into a lackluster program. In regards to awards, its well known that robots do not merit awards, presentations do. Whether this is the way it should be or not, Se La FIRST Vi. I can not speak for the triad, but I'm sure they warranted receiving those awards. Keep in mind that regardless of similarity in robot design, its silly to think each robot is 100% the same. There are some significant differences in 1369 and 1902 bot. Regardless of these differences it is up to FIRST and the Judges panel to decipher those deserving, and since FIRST encourages these types of relationships I'm sure they will continue to win awards. Is it fair? I'm not exactly sure. But I know that in presentations our students easily identify to the judges what attributes that 1902 was directly responsible for. Just as you would accentuate a particular design implementation on any robot during a judge presentation they show ones they were more involved with. I don't know what 1369 does in this case. But in the end its for Judges to decide who deserves what, thats why they pay them the big bucks. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
I don't understand how you can cite the supposed degrading quality of robots as justification for your collaboration when you decided upon such action well before ever seeing the work of other teams. The three threads you've linked to as part of this justification have all been created within the last two weeks!
I don't care how, why or if you collaborate with another team as it's none of my business, but I'm not inclined to believe that the overall quality of robots that did not yet exist factored into your decision. |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
but i think that although some teams may be doing a little worse. it isnt due to a lack of quality bots n teams. it is the exact opposite. there are more good teams. it weeds out the so-so teams which may have gotten by in the past making for much better compititions |
Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
Quote:
Believe me, I have no problem with collaboration. Collaborations has positive effects, and creates situations that mirror real life, as well as teach valuable skills and can have a positive effect on all teams invovled. But I disagree with the reason you cited. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:26. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi