Corporations Build Robots
 

Throughout my two-going-on-three years of participation in FIRST I've heard mutterings about teams whose basic setup is to have the associated corporate sponsor build the robot. So, I had a few questions about this:

1. Does this actually happen, or is it just a rumor that keeps circulating?

2. Is this something that is talked about in the community? In other words, is this post unbelievably awkward?

3. I understand that this is accepted by FIRST, the organization. But is it accepted by FIRST, the teams? The students, mentors, and parents that make up the teams? Basically, there are two parts to this question. First, if you want to personally answer feel happy to do so (better than just feeling free). Second, if you want to answer what you think many other people would say, or something in that vein, also please fell happy to do that.

I understand that FIRST does not provide a model for how teams are supposed to run; I'm not claiming this is some sort of rule violation, I'm just asking, well, the above questions.

Thanks,
Paul Dennis

P.S.: I did search through the forums, but found nothing that seemed to answer my question. If anyone can point me to a thread where this was previously discussed or help me refine my search terms, I'd be much obliged.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Hmm, this is news to me. Elaborate, someone?

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I don't think the controversy has been so much over corporation built robots but more-so the common debate surrounding mentor built robots. Many mentors represent business's though so this is possibly where this came from.

I know there isn't a place in the FIRST rule book prohibiting this from taking place. I am not going to argue that students do not still learn something from watching a build rather than building it themselves.

However, in my opinion, it is more beneficial for students to receive hands-on-learning. If you watching the whole time, why not just watch the discovery channel all day, or read a text book. If there is a student that wants to get involved hand's on, I don't see any reason why there should be any limit to his ambition. Then again, that's just how I've expierienced it. I have never worked in an environment where I've had to do everything myself without mentor aid, or in an environment where learning was occurring while observing.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

AndyB is correct; this does partially fall under mentor/student build ratio discussions. It is also not prohibited from happening.

blakcheez, Paul is referring to a rumor that pops up from time to time that a given team (which team depends on who starts the rumor) has not included the students in their design and manufacturing at all. This is usually proven false as soon as it is introduced.

To answer Paul's questions:

1) I believe it's just a rumor and will continue to think so until it is proved true. I certainly hope that it never is. (personal opinion)

2) Not usually. The most common occurrence is an accusation. I think that your post is fine for now, as it could spark some healthy debate. As soon as it turns into an accusation/flame/mentor vs. student built thread, then it should be closed.

3) Personally, I don't think this helps the students at all. Unless the design process is explained to them, they are not really participating other than driving the robot. That would be like grabbing Joe-off-the-street to drive in NASCAR, or worse, lead the pit crew for that NASCAR team. He doesn't know a thing about performance increasers, race strategy, etc. The students don't really learn what being an engineer means. Chances are, they won't be inspired. (May be exceptions, of course.)

3b) I'm going to go out on a thick limb and say that a team that actually did something like this would be looked upon with displeasure by the FIRST community as a whole. This is based on the "mentor vs student built" threads and the large consensus toward a 50-50 split or fully student built robots expressed in them.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

looks like FIRST needs it's onw MItchell Report... i'll just leave it at that

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

This discussion falls under the mentor/student ratio debate which is by far one of the most heated debates in FIRST that can spark some fires from time to time.

Just a warning to take a look at older threads discussing this topic, if you feel you have anything more to add to the discussion feel free, but this is one of those topics that has been beaten over the head a couple times.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

1. I think it does happen. This debate is brought up every year...

2. Usually topics are "hinted" at specific teams and these threads happen around the 6-wk robot "show off" period as well as after regionals/Atlanta.

3. FIRST is not about making engineers, its about inspiring people to become engineers, if not than at the very least it is about respecting engineers. ... I don't think this can be lawyered anymore than that? Just being part of a winning team can boost a person's spirit so if this false win (false because the students had very little to do with the robot itself) converts them to engineers than FIRST's overall mission is complete, right?

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I really don't care what other teams do, so long as they aren't blatantly cheating and ruining my team's FIRST experience.

I don't think an all engineer team would have much of an advantage over some seriously dedicated, smart, and talented students.

(Shady wiring practices, extra motors, little wedges, purposefully whacking other robots with arms, thats basically my list of don'ts)

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Expand?

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

What you are talking about has almost definitely happened, but very rarely and I would think more in the past than currently. I seem to remember some horror stories (I think they were about old MN FIRST teams) where a team had to give their robot back to their sponsor at the end of the season to be dismantled because the company apparently didn't want their designs to be copied. I am not sure of the details of that situation, but it is an uncommon one.

I think the proliferation of teams has made it harder for big corporations (especially those who sponsor many teams) to be highly involved in the robot building process.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

like i said in my post before, maybe FIRST needs to have someone independent run a report looking into this. I think it would be worth our time to do this and be better for the future of FIRST. Just like what happend with baseball today, maybe FIRST, or some of us should look into this

btw: this is just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth to you

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

EDIT: my avove point was taken care of: many more big teams have responded.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I think this is an issue that needs to be carefully and sensitively addressed as FIRST expands and more and more teams are formed. To focus on one aspect of your question - I would like to point out what exactly corporate involvement might entail.

Corporate sponsorship of the technical sort is a different boat from standard small-organization sponsorship (e.g., a local company that earns a spot on the back of the team shirt). Let's look at some of the potential situations...

- Sheer monetary support: A corporate sponsor may fund the trip and registration fees for a team, or some of the material costs.
- Mentor support - an engineering firm (or university!) may provide a volunteer engineer who works with the team to provide support and teach key lessons to students.
- Ongoing interaction - This might be a step above the standard "providing an engineer" situation. The company might invite the students for tours, provide the team information on upcoming / unique internship application opportunities, or request to be represented at competition.

- Technical Interaction - Here is the clincher. Technical interaction could come in a lot of forms. A company may go from offering workspace to constructing the robot entirely, and that is the grey area. There are so many options for the company (listed above) that I feel can be more mutually profitable - without taking over the key task of this competition, the company can gain a valuable and talented potential future workforce, and / or a great deal of PR.

So yes, maybe this overwhelming involvement happens once in a rare while. However, there are so many ways that it doesn't lead to success, that I feel the problem has, in some ways, fixed itself over time while FIRST as a program remained smaller and more intimate. However, rookie teams now have a lot more experience to draw from, a lot more potential veterans in the area, and maybe, just maybe, a more solid image of what students alone are capable of in that short six week period in January and February.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Before we let our own personal convictions turn this thread instantly into a 200-posts-in-two-hours-type-thread, let's take a step back for a second and think about this.

FIRST makes no intention of telling teams how to run themselves. FIRST does not tell teams what hours to meet during or after school, or what brand of tools to build their robot with, or what food to eat during the build season.

There's a reason for this, and that's the certain level of responsibility and self-reliance that is laid upon every FIRST team to govern themselves and operate in the manner which they feel is most conducive to carrying out FIRST's goals of inspiring students.

I don't think any rules explaining exactly how teams can/should govern themselves are necessary, since overwhelming mentorship is a self-limiting in a team. If the students aren't being inspired in some sense (whether it's for engineering itself or just a greater respect and recognition of science and technology in general), they aren't having fun. If they aren't having fun, then why participate in robotics? If there are no students, there is no team.

Just remember, while you may prefer student-built or mentor built (or a combination of the two), there will always be teams who stand by the opposite, since that's the way they feel is best to inspire their students. Instead of opening up this same discussion for the ∞ + 1th time, let's just come to a conclusion that if students are being inspired by both models, we should just accept the fact that there is more than one road to success, and that as a community let's move onwards. :)

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

My opinion :

WHO CARES

get the game, do what ever your team does to compete, what ever it is , lock yourselves in a shop for 6 weeks till its done, lock some engineers in a shop for 6 weeks, work together to build the robot it doesn't matter just do it

FIRST like life is what you make of it, if you would rather go through FIRST worrying about what other teams do to make their robots, then your destined for disappointment. if you go through FIRST making the most of it doing the best you and your team can then it doesn't matter what other teams do.


that is all

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Why should we?

I think collectively those "bigger" teams that do well every year have no reason nor need to defend themselves.

P.S. This comment turns the thread from discussion about the original topic to which teams have mentors build their robots. There's plenty of other threads that have done this, and they all have one thing in common--they've been closed.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Whoa there; bold statement. First of all, this thread has barely even been on chiefdelphi, give it some more time.

I'm not even sure what your proposed solution is.... A report on what? It's entirely legal for mentors to design the robot.

And, like Cory said, why should they? The goal of FIRST is clearly defined, the means to that goal are not. Therefore, a team can do whatever they please within those means. Now, I doubt ANY team has an entirely mentor designed robot, and even if they did it doesn't mean the students didn't learn/be inspired.

This is kind of another version of mentor/student involvement, and complaining on chiefdelphi isn't going to change anything.

Really, no matter what you do, you can't change what other teams do. They aren't breaking any rules. You'll get much more enjoyment out of FIRST if you focus on what your team can do rather than if you focus on what you think is unfair.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

this is classic case of david vs. goliath.
life isnt fair. you just gotta be more creative and hard working when life isn't fair.
we are probably one of the most remote schools on the island of Oahu, HI. Up until this year, we had to deal with $$$$ costs just to compete, where the nearest competition was 2600 miles away, and pay hefty amounts of shipping for parts only available in the continental US.
It forced our team to dig deeper and work harder.
After 9 years, I would have never envisioned where we are at today in terms of sponsors, resources, and experience.
Do what your team feels is best to communicate and experience the meaning of FIRST. Whoever builds the robot on your team should be a meaningful experience for all.
:)

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

With all due respect ... this is entirely the wrong way to look at things.
FIRST has made it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR over the years that there is no rule governing who builds how much of any FRC robot. The program is about inspiration and recognition, period. We're here to change the culture. There are plenty of rules to follow in FIRST, but this one does not exist. What you or I choose to use as a rule/guideline/method of inspiring during the build period with our own teams is a separate conversation. When we show up at competition we get to celebrate ALL team's creations and the effort put in, regardless of how any team got to that point. Wasting your time on being a skeptic about these things is time wasted that you could have used to inspire a student and change the culture. Namaste.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

The involvement of the adult and the sponsor in building the competition robot has been healthy debate on these message boards since they were started in 1998. As folks have said, there are many threads discussing this subject.

There are two that stick out in my mind...

1. This discussion started out as a presentation of a 2-speed shifting gearbox used by the TechnoKats Robotics Team. (this is the design that eventually launched the AM Shifter series of shifting transmissions) The discussion quickly turns into a discussion about engineer involvement. You'll read a post by me that could have been much more tactful.

2. This thread raises questions and discusses the merits of different types of teams (100% student designed and built, mix of adult and student, 100% adult designed and built). This thread is pretty long, and many people weighed in on the subject. We all learned a few things during that thread.

There's nothing wrong with bringing this discussion up again. FIRST is a unique thing... a special arrangement of teamwork, cooperation, and inspiration between students and adults, within and throughout all teams. New students and mentors enter into the FIRST community and they have questions and opinions about these things. To discuss corporation and mentor involvement is a good thing, even if opinions differ.

Enjoy,
Andy

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

By "shady" you mean????
Is this in reference to supposed "mentor-built" robots?
Is it possible these people have lives outside of CD?
Man, I hate to see distructive finger-pointing right before kickoff.

Andy points out there have been many conversations on this topic before, points to a few, and is very gracious in his word choice.

Read. Digest. Understand. Then read FIRSTs mission and reread the rule book from every year you can get your hands on.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I posted last night right around post 4. By the time I finished writing my post, several had been added. I was a little concerned with the direction the thread was taking. Because I could not find the quotes I was looking for, I decided it was best to delete my post. It is good to see folks attempt to steer this thread into one of thoughtful discussion and away from insinuations and finger pointing.

This morning I found one of the posts. (I was looking for 2 particular quotes regarding the topic from wise mentors who both happen to come from the same team, FRC 234, Cyber Blue.) Mr. Ritchie provides an excellent perspective when approaching FIRST, Kick Off, and discussions like this.


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=38

I appreciate the whole post, the part below in bold (my emphasis) is valuable.

Our students value the education and experience the mentors have that they have yet to achieve. At that point they step back and observe how things are done by professionals.To have respect for the process you are in right now, respect the knowledge around you by using it to your full advantage. By having the engineers involved you bring in industry standards, project management, and fresh ideas.

Excellent food for thought, I won't need breakfast now. :)
Jane

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

1) There are some robots built more by mentors than by students. For those of us who've been doing this for a while, we know it happens. But I don't think the number of these teams are as high as people may think.

2) Teams often look at a well sponsored team and make assumptions about the mentors/sponsors involvement. My team has been guilty of this in the past. We'd get frustrated because our robot might not perform as well as we'd hope, and then we'd see the well sponsored team kick butt in the competition and out of jealousy and envy, accusations would surface about "well at least students built OUR robot". Come to find out later that the well sponsored team had a lot of students involved in many different ways which led to their well-designed robot and performance.

3) For those few times when a mentor(s) has built most of the robot, the team doesn't always last very long. I know two teams in my area that started and then folded because it relied so heavily on the mentors. When the mentors changed jobs or positions, the team couldn't survive. SAD.

4) There are many ways for students to be inspired, working along side an engineer or engineers working along side students. Both work, FIRST has proven that. Get over it.

5) Ask anyone who has judged a competition, if they know which teams had mentors doing most of the work. They know and take it in consideration for certain awards. Don't set your team up to rely on success with the robot competition only. There are other awards that are very meaningful to a team, make sure YOUR team knows this. For the first 2-3 years our team worried mostly about getting the robot to perform well. In the subsequent years, we prepared more for different awards, how to talk to judges and our overall team presentation, and wouldn't you know it we started winning some of the other awards and take a lot of pride in that even though we have yet to win a competition.

Don't close this thread, it's good discussion and information that teams need to grapple with. I'd rather they grapple with it on a well moderated thread than make rumors worse elsewhere.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

First off, thanks to all who have replied and a further thanks to putting up with what may seem like a regurgitation of old arguments. That was not entirely my intention, though I may have stepped into a bit of a quagmire.

My intention was really to ask this question without shades of grey (which, of course, we all know is impossible, which I'll get to). When I originally wrote this post, the word "mentor" was not something that was at all in my head, frankly. This is because to me, mentor means a teacher who takes a special interest in students' development. I hope this isn't getting too much into the whole 'which is better debate', but I will say that I find it hard to be a true engineering mentor if you're not at least in some small way working with the students to build and/or design the robot. I'm not saying that I think teams that have engineers build the robot are bad, or that they aren't inspiring students.

What I was really thinking of is when ABC Corporation picks up the K.O.P., takes in back to their shop, and designs and builds a robot and then ships it. Now, there are shades of grey within this. For example, if the students watched the engineers build the robot, they probably got something out of it. And if one student tightened one bolt once, did the students have a meaningful role in building the robot? Whether you think student involvement is important or not, most would agree that this doesn't constitute terribly meaningful involvement. But really, I was talking about a situation where students have no significant roles in either designing or building the robot.

So, to summarize the rather lengthy point I was perhaps obtusely trying to make: I wasn't thinking of "mentor-built" robots, because I don't personally see them as "mentors" if they're not teaching the students and at least partly involving them in the design or build process.

One last point: though perhaps unwise, I did request personal opinions on the subject. Mostly so far I think we have been fairly reasonable to each other, and let's try to keep that up. Specifically, FreedomForce thinks that FIRST should change its rules and audit teams, and he's entitled to his opinion. I'd also point out that responding to someone saying "mentor run teams do not acheive the goals of FIRST" by saying "well, FIRST does not have a blueprint for how teams run" doesn't make too much sense (to me at least). The first person is suggesting (or seems to be suggesting) that FIRST should have such a blueprint. Responding by telling them that there is no blueprint is not much of a logical point.

Paul

P.S.: I am not at all talking about NEMOs. I just don't equate "this guy who built a robot for me" to engineering mentor.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I have been on two teams in FIRST, my high school team had 1 teacher a couple Parents and 10 students, the team I mentor in college has about 24 college mentors about half a dozen professional engineers, 3 teachers and about 15 students. Needless to say there is alot more involvement by mentors on my college team.

My point is I have seen the system from both sides (neither team is completely mentor built but there is a great difference in mentor involvement in design and build) both teams have performed fairly well and have similar records over the last 3 or 4 years, one team has a good win loss record with no regional wins and the other has a regional championship and a regional finalist award, this shows both can be competitive.

The only thing that matters in this debate and in FIRST is that students on both teams joined the team looking to build a robot and left the team looking to become engineers. If the team inspires students then who cares how they do it. I know it is becoming a little cliche but FIRST is about building people, not building robots. Please only worry about how your team chooses to inspire, if you have a problem with your teams system then talk to the mentors about it otherwise enjoy your season while every one else enjoys theirs.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

"shady" is also, probably, a poor choice of words as well.

First off, who really cares if a teams robot was built by the students, the mentors, or a company; as long as the students were inspired by the program?

FIRST is not about building robots, it's about inspiring the future. We, in 1824, try to do that with a "student designed, student built" structure. If another team inspires their studens by having the engineers/mentors design and build the robot, explaining the design process and reasoning behind the design, then they have succeded.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I have heard this rumor as well. I have also seen previous years' robots in displays and at competitions from the accused teams, which seems to fly in the face of the aforementioned story. Ultimately, I dismiss these rumors as just that - rumors.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Ok, I've had it.

FIRST is not about the robots. Lets get that out of the way. The point of FIRST is not to go out every spring and kick the crap out of a few aluminum and plywood based contraptions! The point of FIRST is to benefit from mentor interaction and learn in an environment that reflects the real engineering world.

Some teams may have mentors who help design. Some teams may have mentors that help build. Some teams may have mentors that do everything. The reasons: WE DON'T KNOW. So quit making the automatic assumptions that these mentors, WHO ARE HERE FOR YOUR BENEFIT, are telling kids to go sit in a corner. If there are teams out there like this, well then all you need to do is ask yourself 1 question: Why does it matter to you.

There are many ways to learn. Through trial and error by working through problems by yourself-- Through hands on work with supervision and advising from mentors-- And believe it or not, you can learn from watching as well.

So let me recap:
1.) FIRST is not about the robot
2.) FIRST is about learning
3.) There are multiple ways to learn

/vent

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I guess with this entire discussion there is a fundamental idea that have an entirely engineer built robot is bad and eliminates students from the process. I don't personally see what says that this is true, and I do not see where we have the high moral standing to come down on those said teams.

I don't believe an audit system is logistically possible, and I do not believe it is necessary either.

Why is an engineer built robot bad?
Why is an entirely student built robot good?
Where do we have the authority to make these evaluations of other teams?

I just don't understand where it is others place to make these judgments when they have no perspective on the teams inner workings nor how it came to be this way in said teams.

I have been on every style of team rich, poor, student led, mentor led, "engineer built". My thought is that they all worked to inspire at the end of the day. I think we lose perspective and think that this is only a competition of robot building. I wonder if we start thinking in terms of how many people of that FIRST team went to college, how many started their engineering job, and how many of those students are better off after the FIRST season is over. If we start to change this thought process I think that these discussions don't matter as much because they have missed the idea of FIRST when they are discussing this audit.

I wonder could our energy be better served elsewhere? Our time and energy are finite resources that should be used properly. I think that this audit process would be a waste of those things because ultimately it would NOT ensure anything except more paperwork for the already overworked mentors.

I hate to break it to everyone and hopefully people someday will be able to handle this notion that this competition isn't fair. It just isn't, I'm sorry. Just be content that you are doing what you THINK is best approach here in FIRST. You are losing your finite resource of time and energy worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I dont think that it is in the spirit of FIRST to have sponsors build the robot. Dont get me wrong, if thats what your team does then thats fine, but I think it is better for the team members who want to be Engineers if they are the one building and designing the robot. I hope that I will be an engineer one day, and coming from our student run Team 4 Element, I think I will do well in the workforce. The help of our members is what makes FIRST possible, but I just dont think that, if I had a choice, I would have a sponsor build my robot.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Five FRC seasons ago, as a rookie team coach/mentor/teacher/whatever attending my very first FIRST event (the GTR, not that it matters) I was very suspicious of the level of student involvement in some of the robots.

They just looked -- and performed -- too well to have been designed, built, or programmed by students. Or so I thought...

So I actually took the time to talk to some of the students in the pit about their robots. In almost all cases there were at least a few students on the team who could provide a sufficiently detailed technical description of how everything worked that I was forced to reconsider my opinion.

It turns out that some of these students started building Lego League in elementary school and joined their school's FRC team in grade 8 or 9. By the time they were in grade 11 or 12 they had been through four or five seasons of robot R&D. They probably knew more about FRC robot design than a lot of us rookie mentors did!

Now as a veteran team I have grade 10 students who started building FLL robots for me two years ago, who are building and programming VEX robots and are in their second season of FRC. Their designs are already starting to outshine what my original grade 12 students did. What will they be building two years from now? I can't wait to see, but to a rookie team who has never been to a FIRST competition it will probably (hopefully) look and work so good that they assume it was designed, built and programmed by professionals.

Does that mean that there won't be adult guidance? Absolutely not. In fact adult guidance (combined with natural talent and personal dedication) is why these students will be performing at such a high level.

So if you see a robot that looks "too good" to be true, take the time to talk to some of the senior students on the team. In most cases -- based on my experience -- what you will find is a team with a strong recruitment/retention program for students combined with a strong team of mentors who teach the students how to design good robots. They will probably do a lot of work in the off-season, and will probably kick your butt on the playing field as a result. I know that if I looked at the robot we built last year (mecanum drive with individual PID loops on each wheel, three ultrasonic rangefinders, CMU cam, etc.) when I was in my first year, I would have throught "yeah... right students made that".

I would consider it a compliment if people were to watch our matches and be left wondering if the robot was built by students or professionals. It would mean that I had done an outstanding job as a teacher to have a team perform at that high level.

Congratulations to teams that have worked with their students to get to the point where they seem to be "too good to be true". It takes a lot of work by the students... and a lot of teacher, mentor and coach involvement.

And if a team's robot is built purely by adults... well, then it is just all that much more sweet for the students on the opposing alliance when they win. :D

Jason

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

to me, it doesn't really matter, it just doesn't sound like it would be as much fun as the teams where the students actually build the robot. so all in all, i kinda feel sorry for them, cause they don't get teh full experience that other teams do.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

WOW!!!

I have to say i completely agree with Big Mike here.

WHO CARES!!!

Honestly a team shouldn't be looked at from who built the robot... A team should be looked at from what the students on the team have gotten out of it.

If a team decides to be all mentor/engineer built but the kids learn a lot is it wrong? I say that it isn't. FIRST is all about the great learning experience you can get from this.

If a team decides to be an all student built team, struggles through the season, doesn't learn very much but had the resources that could have made them great but they refused to use them, I would consider this that they failed. They did not make the best out of what they had.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that one way is better or worse. What im saying is that it depends on which way will help get the most knowledge to the students. (it could be 50 50 even)

Now honestly stop "bashing" some teams. It would do well for those that have posted "negative" things in this thread from refraining to do so, because it could smeer your teams image with the rest of the teams. (what would you think of a team if they said negative things about your team?)

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I don't want to put words in Rich's mouth, but what I think he means is that there is no blueprint because FIRST does not care what method of inspiration teams use. They are just happy that kids are being inspired.

We should be too. If something works for another team, who are any of us to say that's wrong? When I was in high school I used to share some of the same opinions of the "engineer built" teams (and most of the time, this isn't even the case. Very few teams have a system where the kids don't do anything), and I said some things that in retrospect made me look plain old silly. I'm glad that I got to know those said teams, and found out that first of all it wasn't the way I thought it was, and second that even if it was, they have every right to run their team however they want, and their model is no better or worse than my own.

I think ultimately the student-mentor debate comes down to jealousy. Would any of you who think engineer built robots are bad care at all if every single one of them took last place at every event? It wouldn't be an issue if they did. Instead of worrying about how some other team is run, look around at all the successful teams in your area, and see what you can take from their model to improve your team. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If every team spent the time they waste pontificating on the merits of another team, and invested it into improving their own, FRC would be a much better place.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion except for this comment. You cannot, and should not make assumptions over why or how a given team dynamic has arisen. I am aware of several teams (I'm not going to mention who) that have mentors do much of their robot building; students may do final assembly, but the sponsor does the milling/lathe work/CNCing/etc. In all the cases of this that I know of, the reason was INSURANCE POLICIES, it was not a team choice. The insurance policy in the teams' school/workplace did not allow the students to operate the machinery; thus, they had to either have their mentors do the machining or not use the resources at their disposal. I think (and I assume these teams probably think similarly) that not using your machining resources is foolhardy; those tools allow the team's students to get the benefit of learning about constructing/designing systems that require such devices (two speed transmissions, for example). Thus, by having their mentors machine their parts, the students are able to learn more about things that they otherwise would not have.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I think that is a great point that I didn't think about, and in those cases I completely understand, my view point is on teams that have the ability. I think, also, that is is more in the spirit of FIRST rather then gracious professionalism (as I stated earlier) that it is about, the spirit of FIRST is for highschool teams to compete, not for adults and professional engineers. Through my experience I see that the members of our team (4), myself included, get a lot of enjoyment out of seeing a robot that WE built and designed working rather then something that was built for us.

Of course I am not saying that those other teams are not as good or anything like that, I just think that a team that does all the work by and for itself is going to be better off in the future.

Re: Corporations Build Robots - If You Don't Care, Stop Reading
 

I'll just post a quick reminder: the original intent of this thread (though it may have been redundant with other threads) was to find out A. if there are teams that have corporations or groups of adult mentors exclusively design and build the robot and B. is this fact talked about in the FIRST community.

I do think that, as part of an organization, we have a full right to express our opinions about what policies or organizational philosophies would best fulfill the goals of that organization. So, Tim, for example, to answer your question, "Who cares?", I think you can read over the posts in this thread and see that in fact quite a few people do care. If you don't care, that's fine.

If anyone finds this thread to be uninteresting, boring, etc., that's fine too. Really quite a perfectly valid opinion because as some have said this subject may have been beaten into the ground. But, and I hope no one takes offence at this, no one's forcing you to read it.

I will say that I am quite impressed by the people who are making arguments for why mentorish-run teams can be successful. Though I would not want this model for our team at the present time, you've gone a long way in convincing me about the fact that some good can come of this. You all have made me think about this in a new way - which I appreciate.

Thank you all,
Paul

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Correct Cory, and thanks for clarifying. I've spent the last seven years in FRC, the first four with a very different FRC team than the one I currently run/manage. I also spent three of these years "working" as a Senior Mentor for FIRST and have been blessed enough to help FIRST design the FVC/FTC game for the past three years. In all of my work with teams and FIRST, the message about this point has always been very clear and the only point I'm trying to make is this:

FIRST exists to change the culture; to make a better world; to excite students about engineering, science, math, and technology; and to show students about the exciting potential futures they can have in these areas. Please, please, PLEASE listen carefully to the speeches we hear from Woodie, Dave, and others. If your primary focus in FIRST is on the competition itself, you're totally missing the point.

Instead of looking at a robot or mechanism that may have been built by engineers and thinking to yourself, "they're cheaters" you should be thinking, "Holy crap! Look at that! I need to find out how they did that. I want to learn what they know." If you're having a hard time getting to that point in your thinking, I would suggest your focus and emphasis need some adjusting.

Re: Corporations Build Robots - If You Don't Care, Stop Reading
 

It could be helpful for you to understand the very beginning of FIRST. I have a grasp of it enough to understand it but not to inform adequately. I always look forward to listening to the wisdom and information provided from those who were there before us. Hopefully, one of our engineers/mentors/students from that time period could post in this thread or lead us to other posts that explain how this all came about. Where we are today, in our upcoming 2008 season, has our roots in the formation of FIRST. The roots run deep and they are healthy. The FIRST website is helpful as well. It may not provide the answer you are looking for but it provides the mission and the vision very well.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Now that your question is more clear.

I highly doubt that a corporation took the KOP and delivered a robot 6 weeks later with no student involvement. I really don't think this has ever happened, or will ever happen.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I believe that in fact it does happen. Granted I've based it purely on hearsay and occasional allusions to it, and I haven't seen such extreme cases in person. Below I will provide a full post, most of which doesn't apply directly to this conversation. I'm provided the full post in a hope to avoid it being taken out of context. I will, however, bold the section that directly applies. It was taken from this thread

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I've seen some of these FIRST electronics boards. And man. I don't know how the insepectors do it...

It would be pretty easy to connect multiple motors to the same victor, over-compress the compressor, play with the current... This is a very low form of cheating.

Back to the topic.

I would be interested to see what an all engineer team would design. Just imagine if the NASA engineers got down to business to build a FIRST Robot? :ahh: I'd lose to that robot gladly!

And if my team beat it? Well imagine the glory of saying: "I outsmarted a bunch of NASA engineers with government funding!" It would certainly be a proud moment. Much better then beating a bunch of kids...

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

This topic comes up from time to time. Many who have a background in FLL, where the creed is "the kids do the work", have problems with teams with a lot of adult design and construction.

Still, I doubt anyone has ever seen either of these teams:

In Team A, the mentors drop the KOP boxes on the worktable and say, "There you go, have at it. Let's see what you can build."

In Team B, a group of mentors absconds with all the motors and other proprietary parts, secludes themselves in a locked room, and 4 weeks later they unveil the shining new monster.

Real teams are somewhere between those extremes. What works for a team in the past may be changed in the future. Depending on the particular strengths of the students and the engineering mentors, the pendulum may sway toward one or the other extreme, but will never max out or stay in one place. Neither Team A nor Team B will be particularly successful in inspiring students to succeed. Success in inspiration and in learning comes from cooperation and interaction between mentor and mentee. Each team must discover the dynamics of that interaction for themselves, to see what works.

I am happy as a parent that my daughter is involved with mentors who want the students to do a lot of the work, and want them actively involved in the design process. Yet they had me work on the bumpers, and I did most of the cutting and much of the fabrication. You know what? Cutting and filing several dozen 45* cuts on angle aluminum was pretty boring. I didn't learn much except how hot pieces could get. What did I take away from any student that already knew how to use a chop-saw? Nothing. When it came time to assemble, I had a student or two working with me to hold the material and operate the staple gun. Nothing big there either - but the students knew how the bumpers were constructed, and could describe it properly if asked by an inspector. Mission accomplished. The same process is repeated over and over as mentors and students work together to design, build and program all the marvelous parts of the machines that come to the competitions.

As I was typing this, I looked up at the top of the screen and saw a highlight from Karthik. How appropriate. It was from 2004. I think I'll go rep him just on principle.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Actually, I think this happens all the time. I always see teams touting how their team has no engineers.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I see individuals saying this. I don't know if I can accept the claim at face value.

I can believe the team might have no professional engineers, but it's very unlikely that none of their mentors help with the robot.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I shared my opinion in the second thread mentioned by Andy Baker, and I'll repeat it here: While student designed & built is my favorite, virtually all of the goals of FIRST are achieved with student designed/mentor built.

As an engineer in the design world, I work on paper, then hand it off to a technician to actually fabricate my design. Not that isn't fun to fabricate, but they pay me far too much to operate a saw and lathe.

But, I am just as good with the saw and lathe as the master technician. Just not quite as fast. That makes me a better designer, a better engineer, and ultimately a more valuable employee.

Student designed & built offers more value to the students, but student designed and mentor (or commercially) built is nearly as good. If that's what it takes to field a team, do it.

Don

PS: I wonder if we can start a Mentor-Designed & Built class of competition in FIRST? Maybe the kids wouldn't get much from it, but boyoboy would us mentors have a blast!

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

It is time for the periodic all-mentor versus all-student debate.

The all-mentor is obviously not a desirable situation.

But is an all-student situation desirable ?

In normal practice there should be a continuous cascade of knowledge spilling over to the less experienced team members and and continuous upward flow of members gaining experience. Almost like a continuous fractional distillation column.

In FIRST parlance it is the "cascade of mentorship". More experienced members (mentors, highly experienced students) raising up junior members. FRC teams to FLL teams, etc.

Maybe if this collaborative team experience doesn't exist in the steady state then either mentors are not giving up knowledge and challenging the students enough, OR the students are not learning as fast as they could with some good mentorship.

For thousands of years people learned their trades in an apprentice to journeyman to master craftsman educational progression. Where did the idea come from to abandon that method to throwing a KOP on the floor in front of a group of inexperienced students (or mentors) and expect that to be optimal?

Kudos to all those that have struggled to get the robot designed and built without any help. Just think how much more you could have learned if there had been a good healthy collaborative partnership with mentors and experienced students.

The student versus mentor debate tends to miss the point. It is more helpful to describe the model for teams to strive to achieve. The "continuous cascade" principle is probably a pretty good description.

I like the "continuous fractional distillation" idea. Raw students in, pure engineers out.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I'm going to say that if the students are inspired, I'm fine. Now, how they are inspired differs from team to team. I'm going to make some generalizations here. These may not be accurate; they might describe your team exactly. I'm just presenting a broad spectrum of possible team structures and adding my personal opinion to each.

Situation A: Mentors hide everything, students just see finished product, no explanation or anything. I don't know about this. I'd say, probably not a good idea in terms of inspiration. Not having been on a team like this, though, I can't say for sure. (This is the situation asked about by the original poster.)

Situation B: Mentors do all the work, but explain what they are doing to the students. I'd say, OK, great. Are the students inspired? Likely. Even more likely if they have some input, but I'll take what I can get. Again, I haven't been on a team like this.

Situation C: "Ideal" situation: 50-50 or similar split. Mentors mentor students, and students eventually take more of the initiative, moving to Situation D. Students are inspired a lot. I have been on a team like this.

Situation D: Logical continuation of Situation C. Students take a lot of responsibility for the robot, but mentors are there mainly to help the students stay within reason. The other "ideal" situation. I haven't been on a team like this either.

Situation E: No mentors. I'd say, Go find a mentor who can help organize. Try to get to Situation D from the other side. As I understand FIRST's intention, some sort of engineering mentor should be involved. No, it isn't required. Yes, it is recommended. I don't think I have seen or been on a team like this yet, though some have "borrowed" a mentor from another team (but who cares where the mentors come from, as long as they are there).

Again, as long as the students are inspired, I don't really care. If a Situation E team wallops a Situation A team and is inspired by that, so be it. The same goes for the other way around.

Let's get back to preparing for Kickoff and the ensuing six weeks. Use the system that works for your team.

Re: Corporations Build Robots - If You Don't Care, Stop Reading
 

A. if there are teams that have corporations or groups of adult mentors exclusively design and build the robot

- Yes, maybe, I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me either.

B. is this fact talked about in the FIRST community.

- Too many times.

... You got 6 weeks to build the robot. Some teams have time to train the students, some don't. Some teams have mentors who get their hand dirty and the students follow them to get their hand dirty as well and some teams don't have a single engineer.

Individuals have their own opinion and I personally would worry about how my teams will get through those 6 weeks to come up with a product rather than worrying about what other teams are doing. Whether you like it or not, teams you are competing against will be on the other side of the field with the best they got and you will be out there with the best you could come up with in the 6 weeks.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Interesting thread. Team 2339 is new and it seams there are a lot of ways to get the project done.

Our team doesn't have a separation between mentor and student. Of course my task as a mentor is to ask the right questions and push for logical answers. I find the best results so far by letting the students drill, cut, fabricate etc based of their designs massaged by info found elsewhere:)

We just completed a simple 2WD KOP frame platform in 1 week. Most of the work by students. My job was to teach how, theirs was to do. It worked and they are ready for Jan 5. There was no real separation between who did what. "we" did it all and it was fun.

It seams whatever a teams setup, we all benefit from the final design thru discovery, ideas, and just good different design. Most of 2339's ideas are from this and other websites. We are looking forward to the regional and the other teams solutions to the challenge.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I realize that every year we have many, many, new folks register on this forum - and many don't know the history of FIRST, nor what it is really all about, so they ask questions. Every now and then, a topic or issue surfaces that causes debates and arguements about what is "right" or "fair" or "meant" by FIRST. The past 12 years experience tells me that this is one of them.

I must say, that I'm proud of the veterans that have absolved from posting the perverbial "did you search first" line. Thanks to those that have posted in a professional, and well mannered method.

From the 1st year to this past year, I can truely say that I've been part of every variety of engineer/mentor/teacher/student/parent level of participation in the FIRST experience with team 47.

From mostly engineer designed, to mostly student built.
Sometime, over the past 12 years, we made a big decision to re-locate the robot build from our company shop to the school - that made an enormous difference in who did what, and how we mentored to meet the same goal. In doing so we had to implement a plan that included re-stocking the school shop with the basic essential machines and equipment. It took a long term plan and alot of effort to get that done - thanks to the great relationship between our sponsor, the teachers, and the school, we were able to pull it off.

In doing so, what we learned was that regardless of the percent done by any group of team members, if you always stay focused on INSPIRATION as the goal, you will be successful. I would also have to say that regardless of the "mix" of who did what - we have always succeeded in meeting that goal - even when our robot didn't do very well - and I think that many of our students would support that statement.

To answer the questions in the initial post -
1) Are robots designed and/or built solely by the sponsor (engineers)? - I don't know, they might be, but to us, this is a non-issue - as our focus is on how our team attempts to meet our goal of inspiring the students.
2) Is it talked about - Yes, every year it comes up. As alluded to by others, it usually comes down to this.
FIRST doesn't care how much, if any, any one group of people from a team designs, builds, mentors, or INSPIRES (in any way), one, or all of the students on your, or any other, FIRST team.
3) I have no idea - again, it doesn't matter to us - see answers to #1 and #2

Mike Aubry
Engineer Lead, Coach, Mentor, Teammate
Chief Delphi - Team 47

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

I am a recently graduated member of a "big-team" and the idea that mentors design and build the robot almost entirely is very reasonable. I am going to share my own experience with out naming names, etc... in order to stay GP.

My team has a large corporation as its main sponsor. Building is done at their facilities and the team of engineers numbers about 10 in total. It seems that in this thread, many people are concerned with all the work being done by 1 group or another. That, I doubt, has ever been the case. However, in my own experience, very little design work was ever done by the students. The electrical system was always designed/constructed by the engineers, and the most work the students ever did was assembly. Student input to the design was basically a presentation of our ideas, in a conceptual manner, to the entire team (mentors included) and then occasionally (i.e. maybe once every other year) some concept from a students design would be incorporated in some way onto the robot.
However, before I make this sound like it was all bad, I need to explain the full extent of what was going on. Sponsoring a team is an expensive endeavour, and our team in a sense needed to perform well in order to justify our rather large budget. This is completely understandable, however, the actual mentors were put under pressure to produce a well built, clean, effective robot that would represent our sponsor well. Also, understandable, because image can be inspiring itself. A well built robot, that is clean, effect, and robust is inspiring, we all can admit that we have stood in front of some of the robots in recent years and just drooled over them. However, at least on my team, although I supposed this is why a lot of teams might do this, this sort of pressure to perform and look good doing it, puts the mentors in a bind. I don't doubt for one second that the mentors on my team were people interested in achieving the goals of FIRST. However, I also don't doubt for a second that they thought that the only way to win was to have the mentors do the work.

As a result, as the build season progressed, students would drop from the team, finding the meetings boring because there was no real student involvement until week 4/5. A bunch of my team mates found it all to be some kind of joke, like the engineers were playing us into thinking we were involved in order to keep us around until the robot was essentially done. Personally, I don't entirely buy that idea, however, there did seem times when that was the case.

But what did this all mean? Some members of my team were actually pushed away from the idea of becoming an engineer because of their experience in FIRST. This is not what FIRST is about! If the mentors insist on designing the robot, for whatever justified or unjustified reason, they should still and always include the students, even if we just sit back and watch the engineers work through problems that arise.

I think it is important to note as well, that our robot was designed entirely on CAD by the engineers, the most the students ever saw, were weekly renderings of the progress. The parts were then shipped off to be made, and returned needing only assembly.

Yes, students can learn from assembly, but they can learn a ton more from design.

In general, I fear that teams that compete to win, will often cut corners in reaching the goal of FIRST, in order to reach their own goals. The students always lose in case, because even if their team wins the championship, the students will be no better prepared for engineering, or, in many cases, even know how their robot worked! (This is true, there were kids on my team who did not know how many wheels were on the robot until week 5). I think this leads to what I have really been trying to say in a rather long, round-about way, FIRST is not about the competition, it is about the 6 weeks we actually work as a team to achieve something. The competition is only their to motivate us to reach the rather short deadline, and to motivate us to do better. Those 6 weeks are when you learn about working with people, and about design, fabrication, construction, destruction, and all the other things that make robots the things we build to get inspired.

I hope that teams that do have the mentors design/build their robots at least keep the students in the loop every step of the way. This is so important to the goal of FIRST, students must know what is going on on the robot, even if they aren't directly a part of it.

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Everyone,

Could I ask you to take a look at this one page document and see what you think about this approach to explaining the mentor-student relationship, the mathematics of FIRST mentorship.

http://www.kellrobotics.org/pdf/FIRST_Mathematics.pdf

Thanks,

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Priceless. This fits in with a spotlight I have seen (sorry, I don't remember whose it is) that reads, "Good mentors[list of attributes] and, over time, make themselves progressively unnecessary."

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

That would be Mr. Kressly:

'"A mentor, by definition, provides a nuturing environment and, over time, makes themselves progressively unnecessary."

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...53&postcount=5

The thread this post came from is a great read. It was started by JVN

Re: Corporations Build Robots
 

Well, from what I've heard, there are teams who barely actually use their students, and lock engineers in a shop for 6 weeks and have those 20 - 40 year old men (or women) produce something, and have very little input from the actual students.

Whatever works for them, sure it's not fair, but that team doesn't get the same experience as we do. Playing a game with a robot that you contributed to, feels amazing in many aspects, especially if that robot is working properly.

Playing a game with a robot that came in a box, and you had very little input on, is like getting a remote control car on Christmas when you're way too old to be playing with remote control cars.