Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54988)

Rich Kressly 25-02-2007 13:35

FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Alright,

Some discussion about FRC team design collaboration became very judgmental and hurtful in another thread. This is the respectful remix. Feel free to discuss collaboration here, the right way. What worked for you, what didn't work, what can be improved, what's unique to your situation, what difficulties exist in collaboration, what benefits you saw, etc...

However, the discussion needs to refrain from personal attacks, negative assumptions about teammates and other teams, and statements about one way being "better" than another. This is also not the thread to apologize, make amends, or explain yourself from the other thread that was closed. As I asked over there, please do those things privately and allow for healing. Perhaps, when the time is right, some of you may want to begin a thread in "thanks/congrats" once common ground and peace are found. Learn, share, grow - do NOT judge.

Carry on...

JackN 25-02-2007 13:55

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
I am glad that my teams do collaboration on robot build and design. We are a very unique situation, different than every collaboration I have heard about, except for 340 and 424. We began the collaboration idea when team 494 became to big for one team. We were running out of jobs for students to have a hands on experience in our build room, so when team 70, a nearby team was going to fold due to the loss of a mentor, team 494 came in and took the team under our wing, inviting all of their members to join us and work at our shop with us. Only a handful of members came so to fill out the members of the team, we added any student that wanted to be on 70. Mainly these were the new students to the team that joined that year, but several experienced members went over to help our as well. The partnership we had helped build a playful rivalry that existed all throughout last season, even into the offseason. This collaboration has created a bond that we hope will never break.

Doug Leppard 25-02-2007 14:53

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
The space shuttle is built by multiple teams working together to make the shuttle.

So it makes sense some teams want to do this. You learn real world experience by splitting up things between teams.

To be a really good team you need to have lots of depth. You can do this two ways, have a very strong team or split it up between a partnership like we did.

Doug G 25-02-2007 15:47

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
I can understand those who have a critical view of collaborations and the "Triplet challenge". I'm all for any collaboration that brings in a new team(s) OR a collaboration that prevents a team from dropping out. With the huge number of teams in FIRST, sustaining existing teams is very important and collaborations may provide yet another solution. After all, there are several FIRST teams that merged into one team and we aren't critical of that - so don't be critical for a collaboration that keeps some struggling teams alive. I think the long distance collaborations offer a new look at doing business in a global economy, a skill that will be (is) highly sought after. Any cross-continental collaborations next year??

bmusser 25-02-2007 17:51

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Thanks Rich for refocusing the previous thread. Our collaborative situation this year was purely a decision to help two teams that would have folded otherwise. We have a lost a lot of mentors over the years and are left with a handful of mentors that can help on a daily basis. The decision to build three identical robots was one made purely on our available resources. We would have loved to support three distinctly different designs, but were unable to do so.

Personally, I did not know what to expect out of this collaboration at first. I will tell you that it has been one of the most rewarding experiences that I have had in my 9 years with FIRST (besides meeting my wife). I saw students from completely different backgrounds work together where they maybe would not have had the chance otherwise. Pretty much all team members selflessly helped on all the robots. I am very proud of everyone on all three teams and I hope it was as rewarding experience for all of you as it was for me. I wish all the FIRST teams good luck this year. We will see you at GLR, Detroit, and West Michigan.

Joel Glidden 26-02-2007 10:29

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
I can understand, and I support teams sharing resources. I would just like the hear some of these teams weigh in on their rationale for building identical robots?

Mike Starke 26-02-2007 10:59

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
We are in a very unique situation...
340 and 424 are out of the same high school.... yes, two FRC teams in one high school. :]

We share mentors, but built two totally different robots....

It's a very cool experience!

Jeremiah Johnson 26-02-2007 11:17

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Team 648 is fairly close to team 107, Team ROBOTICS from Holland, MI. We haven't collaborated and the issue has never come up. That would be a difficult thing to do being fairly far apart. However, we do mesh together some of our other situations. For example, we have stayed in the same hotel together in Chicago for three years now. The first year it was by pure accident but last year and this year we've intentionally done this, as well as shared nightly meals. Last season, when we were in Michigan for WMR, team 107 invited us to their school for a movie and some Halo. It was a great time. We're very close for teams that are so far away. I thank Lav and my mother for that.

Back to the robots. Hypothetical situation, hopefully it can come real. When 648 gains the resources and interest in the area or somewhere around, it would be great for us to begin a new team. I will propose the idea that we could enlist the help of our "sister" team in 107 to help design a fairly unique robot, but with the major resemblances to our (648+107) bots. Kind of mix two designs. Nice run-on sentence, huh?

Not necessarily triplets in the Niagara sense, but in a similar way. Three different robots, but the rookie team has a similarity to the two mentoring teams.

rees2001 26-02-2007 12:40

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
This year we set out to do things a little differently than the usual collaboration. What we wanted to do was form an independent collaboration where each team worked on their own robot but we all worked together to help one-another. The plan was to have the 2 teams work independently to build 2 different robots but share the same resources, tools, & equipment. As the season progressed team 73 joined us more frequently and further contributed to design ideas. The nice thing about creating different robots was we could look at each others plans and help critique the designs. We made sure that communication between teams was open and allowed everyone to speak their minds. I would think that if all 3 teams set out to build the same robot we could have designed & built a better robot quicker but that is not why WE do FIRST. (not saying this is right or wrong, it’s just the way we do it.

Things we discovered as the season progressed.
There was a lot of sharing of ideas
The Bridgeport was very busy.
The welding machine was very busy.
We used a lot of aluminum, welding rod, and argon.
Everyone was VERY busy.
We (including our friends on 73) were able to build 3 competitive robots (plus we are almost finished with 2 practice bots)
We can eat a lot of food
There are some great people out there willing to mentor kids
We have good friends at 73
I must be nuts for taking this project on

RoboMom 26-02-2007 13:24

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
I’ve had the pleasure of watching another kind of collaboration this year. The 9 Baltimore area teams formed the “Baltimore Area Alliance.”
There are BAA teams that have lots of mentoring help, and others that have little. Each team has its own strengths and challenges. They want to have their own identity and build their own robots, but they have joined forces to help with fundraising and to help share resources. A local foundation donated the use of their 501©3, and there were grants to the BAA divided by the group. There were students from one team that did a fundraising presentation on behalf of the others. They held a common fundraising dinner. They are trying to help each other while competing. I believe this fits into Dean’s vision of “coopertition.” This group is still testing the waters and getting to know each other, figuring out what will work for them.

FIRST is all about partnerships, and each team has to figure out what works for them. What works one year, may not the next as teams often have to reinvent themselves. I hope everyone involved this year can realize the gift they have been given.

Doug Leppard 26-02-2007 18:39

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel Glidden (Post 586525)
I can understand, and I support teams sharing resources. I would just like the hear some of these teams weigh in on their rationale for building identical robots?

We built identical robots:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ight=1902+1369

1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming. By building it this way we were able to finish hardware and wiring at end of week 5, and that allowed us to have a good auto mode and driver practice.

We should have a strong start at florida regional.

Gary Dillard 27-02-2007 12:31

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Leppard (Post 586774)
We built identical robots:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ight=1902+1369

1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming. By building it this way we were able to finish hardware and wiring at end of week 5, and that allowed us to have a good auto mode and driver practice.

We should have a strong start at florida regional.

How are you accounting for cost of the parts that the other team built for you? In previous year's I believe the ruling was that you have to include cost of labor for parts that were not built by team members. I seem to remember that when Kingman & the Cheesy Poofs first did this they shared the design but each built their own parts.

btw I am very much in favor of collaboration - it is not as easy to execute successfully as it sounds.

Mr. Van 27-02-2007 14:12

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Leppard (Post 586774)
1369 built two bases, 1902 built two arms. Idea is that building two of something is easier than building one of something. 1369 is great at drive trains, 1902 is good at top end and programming.

To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?

I know that FIRST is not fair, but it is "borrowing a page from sports" and is a "competition" with numerous rules to keep something of a level playing field for our "superbowl of smarts". I also understand that teams that collaborate are perhaps giving members a closer example of what "real-world" engineering is like with multiple companies working on a single project. Still, I believe there is a fundamental question to look at here: How does collaboration (as described by Doug) effect the competition aspect of FIRST?

-Mr. Van

Billfred 27-02-2007 14:20

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 587178)
To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?

I know that FIRST is not fair, but it is "borrowing a page from sports" and is a "competition" with numerous rules to keep something of a level playing field for our "superbowl of smarts". I also understand that teams that collaborate are perhaps giving members a closer example of what "real-world" engineering is like with multiple companies working on a single project. Still, I believe there is a fundamental question to look at here: How does collaboration (as described by Doug) effect the competition aspect of FIRST?

-Mr. Van

If I were 1902 (which I'm not, and thus can't speak for), I'd just ask the judges not to consider their drivetrain for any technical awards, similar to a team that's already won Rookie All-Star at one event telling the judges at their next one that they don't want to win again. Doesn't seem like a particularly big deal.

Cory 27-02-2007 14:21

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 587178)
To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?-Mr. Van

Not all collaborations work with team X building the base and subsystem 1 and team Y building subsystem 2. It's very plausible that collaborating teams both worked on all parts of the robot.

Matt_Kaplan1902 27-02-2007 15:53

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.

Stephen Kowski 27-02-2007 16:22

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 587178)
To me, this brings up the question of awards. Many awards are given for specific design features (Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology", GM Industrial Design, Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control, Motorola Quality, etc.). How are Judges to evaluate teams that have designed and developed part of a robot (say a drive train) in 6 weeks (and field a complete 'bot via collaboration) with a team who have designed and fabricated a complete robot by themselves?

I know that FIRST is not fair, but it is "borrowing a page from sports" and is a "competition" with numerous rules to keep something of a level playing field for our "superbowl of smarts". I also understand that teams that collaborate are perhaps giving members a closer example of what "real-world" engineering is like with multiple companies working on a single project. Still, I believe there is a fundamental question to look at here: How does collaboration (as described by Doug) effect the competition aspect of FIRST?

-Mr. Van

I believe that this is skewing the discussion away from what this thread was originally intended (reference: see the 3 posts following this one) and I would respectfully ask that we keep on topic...if we need ANOTHER (see the ones from the past several years) moderated discussion on collaboration we should do this in another thread. Thank You.

Dan Richardson 25-03-2007 14:35

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.

Lil' Lavery 25-03-2007 16:10

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?

Doug Leppard 25-03-2007 16:22

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.

Stephen Kowski 25-03-2007 16:24

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly (Post 586130)
Alright,

Some discussion about FRC team design collaboration became very judgmental and hurtful in another thread. This is the respectful remix. Feel free to discuss collaboration here, the right way. What worked for you, what didn't work, what can be improved, what's unique to your situation, what difficulties exist in collaboration, what benefits you saw, etc...

I've already said this once (three post previous to this) I would like to remind people that will undoubtedly respond after this, what Rich intended this thread for. I see within the posts following my previous reminder this discussion walking a fine line....this has been argued to death already....please lets start a new moderated thread if we really want to have this SAME argument AGAIN.

Tom Line 25-03-2007 16:58

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.

JaneYoung 25-03-2007 17:11

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).

vikram31291 25-03-2007 17:34

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
we won the Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology" Award not the Xerox creativity award.

Lil' Lavery 25-03-2007 17:38

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by vikram31291 (Post 604626)
we won the Delphi "Driving Tomorrow's Technology" Award not the Xerox creativity award.

Woops, my mistake. I apologize.

Doug Leppard 25-03-2007 18:04

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneYoung (Post 604615)
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).

1. I was surprised how well it worked.
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.

Dan Richardson 26-03-2007 12:32

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 604577)
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?

I'll address the two statements separately.

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.

Madison 26-03-2007 13:07

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.

jagman2882 26-03-2007 13:13

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 604577)
1126 has already been on Einstein twice

i know its tooting our own horn but we have won 3 regionals too n a finalist n 4 awards.


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

Lil' Lavery 26-03-2007 13:36

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stud Man Dan (Post 605138)
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.

While I don't disagree that there are more poor quality robots than stellar competitors, I disagree that this a new trend, and that robot quality has decreased. Gone are the days of drill motors burning out and blowing breakers. Gone are the days of only the elite being able to score at all (watch videos of 1997, the last tube game, and you'll see that most robots then were even worse at handling torroids than these ones are, many teams relied entirely on human players scoring and/or loading their robots). FIRST now gives every team a functioning drive-train (save the banebots debate for later and elsewhere), an easily assembled frame, robot controllers they can keep between years, a plethora of motor options, and a library of online tutorials, presentations, and resources. I'm not saying that teams still don't need additional help, but I'm saying the steps taken by FIRST have paid off. As recent as 2003, I can remember a team that didn't make it onto the field for a single match at VCU. At VCU this year, I don't think anyone missed more than 2 qualification matches. The only teams I saw not driving were intentional, because they deployed their ramps at the beginning of the match. Teams aren't building any worse bots, the standard is being raised. The powerhouse teams are innovating more, and creating more effective robots than ever before, while the bottom 1/3 is just getting the grasp of the basics (but, make no mistake about it, they are improving significantly from what the bottom teir used to be).
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.

Matt_Kaplan1902 26-03-2007 13:59

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass (Post 605168)
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.

I do not think he meant to point out those specific threads as justification as more to show how it has become more evident this year than others. The simple fact is that the competition in our area has been steadily declining for years for a variety of reasons. Our team had come to the decision that a better course of action would be to try and help stregthen the foundation of the veteran teams rather then trying to start rookies.

I could continue this post with several more paragrahs of information but I do not want this specific thread to veer off of the topic. However I would be more than happy to dicuss questions,concerns, comments, etc. with anyone that may have them through PM, AIM, whatever.

Madison 26-03-2007 14:38

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_Kaplan1902 (Post 605206)
I do not think he meant to point out those specific threads as justification as more to show how it has become more evident this year than others. The simple fact is that the competition in our area has been steadily declining for years for a variety of reasons. Our team had come to the decision that a better course of action would be to try and help stregthen the foundation of the veteran teams rather then trying to start rookies.

I could continue this post with several more paragrahs of information but I do not want this specific thread to veer off of the topic. However I would be more than happy to dicuss questions,concerns, comments, etc. with anyone that may have them through PM, AIM, whatever.

Trickle-down robotics, eh? :)

I suppose there's a fundamental difference in how some of us perceive the quality of competitors this season. There is nothing about this year that strikes me as being particularly remarkable, for better or for worse. I don't recall any discussion during 2006 or earlier that reflected any trend toward diminished quality of competition, though, so it remains curious to me that others perceived as much and though enough of it to act.

I suppose, above all else, my concerns have less (or nothing, really) to do with collaboration between teams and all to do with this weird notion that's been floating around that this season has been less competitive or less inspiring than years passed. Collaboration works for some folks and doesn't for others the same way as lots of other things in life, but I think that defining the benefits of collaborating within the context created by veteran FIRST teams and participants that, somehow, the rest of us are doing a poor job of keeping up, is deceptive and a bit arrogant.

Stephen Kowski 26-03-2007 15:49

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass (Post 605234)
the rest of us

please don't downplay your efforts all year long for arguments sake here, im not exactly sure anyone was referring to you or your team in this discussion.....I'm pretty confident a team with a dedicated mechanical engineering mentor and an what looks like a decent sized budget (judging by your posts and offseason project photos) is not the team type we are discussing

Furthermore I do not see what your or my (first paragraph) discussion is adding to a thread intended for "What worked for you, what didn't work, what can be improved, what's unique to your situation, what difficulties exist in collaboration, what benefits you saw, etc..."

Please stay on topic, I know you are replying, but already I can see that this is starting to become a painful discussion. I don't need a response saying I am just as culpable, I know this.

Madison 26-03-2007 16:37

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski (Post 605300)
please don't downplay your efforts all year long for arguments sake here, im not exactly sure anyone was referring to you or your team in this discussion.....I'm pretty confident a team with a dedicated mechanical engineering mentor and an what looks like a decent sized budget (judging by your posts and offseason project photos) is not the team type we are discussing

Furthermore I do not see what your or my (first paragraph) discussion is adding to a thread intended for "What worked for you, what didn't work, what can be improved, what's unique to your situation, what difficulties exist in collaboration, what benefits you saw, etc..."

Please stay on topic, I know you are replying, but already I can see that this is starting to become a painful discussion. I don't need a response saying I am just as culpable, I know this.

I'd love to read more from folks who've been down this path about the specific things that have happened that have made the collaboration better and more challenging for the teams. I agree that such discussion is far more valuable than anything that tries to justify to others why you've gone down this road.

I'm interested specifically in learning how your manufacturing processes were impacted by working together and if it resulted in reduced, similar or increased burden upon those who do such work for you. My team does all of its manufacturing in our lab, and though we have access to some fantastic equipment, we spend far more time machining parts than we'd like to. I'd love to see more from people who've been involved in collaboration that talks about the potential it has for decreasing costs to teams for parts that are being manufactured by a third party. Our kids learn a lot from those processes, but I think there's more value in teaching them the fundamentals of design rather than how to properly operate a bandsaw.

How do you manage design responsibilities and integration? I'm notorious among my team for being difficult about allowing others to take on responsibility for the design of the robots because I've had several disasterous experiences with poorly managed design integration and find that it's easier to give one person control over the whole thing. I'd love to learn more about effective methods for distributing responsibilities in a way that doesn't leave you trying to put a square peg into a round hole during week five. I can't imagine the sleep I'd lose if I were relying on someone else for, well, anything -- but that's probably a personal problem. :)

I don't think we'll ever collaborate with another team in the same manner as y'all and others have done, but the lessons learned about managing two groups building the same robot still have some value to me. We've considered, essentially, splitting our team in two and entering a pair of cloned robots as a reasonably cost-effective method for providing our kids more opportunities to be involved than we can currently manage. That scenario isn't quite collaboration as most people view it, but many of the technical challenges would be similar.

That said, I'm sorry to read about the disappearance of teams from other regions and that people think that it leads to an overall decrease in quality. The Pacific Northwest has similarly lost a number of teams in past years -- in fact, 488 remains the only team with ties to Seattle's public school system -- but the quality of the teams that remain has been notably better this season than in the past. This season has more new teams than any before, so there might be some expectation that the quality of the competition would suffer, but a rookie team in 2007 is an entirely different beast than a rookie team several years ago. 1902, though only in its second year, has mentors with years of experience behind them -- and that same scenario repeats itself all around the country as FIRST-graduates go off to universities and corporations and start teams of their own. That's a far cry from the few weeks of preparation my very first FIRST team had way back in 1999.

I don't find this discussion particularly painful and I hope that's true of everyone down in the sunshine state. I think there're some interesting forces at play when you get down to discussion the quality of robots, what metrics are used to define such quality and those who're pointing out its deficit this season, however, and I agree that discussion is probably best for elsewhere.

Joel Glidden 26-03-2007 16:58

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
I don't think I'm helping to steer this thread back in the direction that the pro-collaborators seem to want to see, but I just have to respond to the notion that manufacturing alliances are going to stop the bleeding, so to speak, in FIRST.

I'm a four year veteran of FIRST (Engineering Mentor 2002 - 2005). I have fallen out of contact with my former team as work has moved me two hours away from them. There was a time when I thought I would start a team in my new location, but I have not taken that step. The single greatest reason I have not founded a new team is that manufacturing alliances for competitive advantage are both allowed and encouraged by FIRST. They are increasing in number every year, and with design re-use, their economies of scale become ever more effective.

If I were to set myself on an even playing field with these mega-teams, I would have to start not one, but two or three teams in an area that will be hard pressed to support even one.

Now I know there's no "C" in F.I.R.S.T. (competition). I know what the "I" stands for. I've found other ways to reach the young'uns. The point is that for me, as an engineering mentor, the answer to the question of "Why FIRST?" was that I thrived on the competition. Right now, the competition side of FIRST is flat out broken.


Now, addressing the topic - What worked for me?

One team building one robot, and if they had the resources, they could build that robot as many times as they wanted. But they had to design and build the entire thing themselves except for those items they purchased off the shelf and accounted for in their BOM and budget.

I'll grant you that letting your team get away with designing and building half (a third?) of a robot twice (three times?) may have kept your team in it for another year. But I'll also tell you that the very same thing has kept my team out.

James1902 28-03-2007 10:01

Re: FRC Collaboration 2007: Respectful Remix
 
On the subject of what worked about my teams collaboration efforts...
1) We definatly have an awesome robot this year. Plus becasue of the collaboration we got the robot to the drive team/programmers in week 5 so we had a full week to critique , drive and program.
2) Seeing how other teams work is an expirence. Having only been in FIRST 3 years it's nice to see things from a different perspective sometimes and knowing what goes on with other teams. Plus you can learn ,and teach, ways to build, organize, program, ect.
3) As a student I learned more of what a profesinal design, build effort is like. Heck when the Saturn 5 rocket was built to go to the moon parts were made all around the country. Last year the farthest you had to comunicate was from the drill press to the chopsaw. Just learning logistics was an eye opener.

Compared to last year this year was, for me, a better experience than last year. I got to meet more people, see the challenges of a "long-distance relationship", and I got an awesome product. Another great FIRST year.
-James Austin


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