Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Our team is thinking about bringing back our sister team, and we we have 2 scenarios if we do bring them back. One of the scenarios is that we bring back the second team but have both teams build identical robots, similar to 254/968 in previous years. Some members on our team see this as being unethical, and think that other teams would hate us if we did this because it would make us look too competitive. I see it as a chance to give more teams members a chance at being on drive team and pit crew, and don's see a problem with both robots being the same. I was wondering what anyone else thinks about this issue.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Do a forum search for Canadian Triplets. There was some pretty heated discussion a couple years ago. (Not to say they were the first, just that I recall that discussion vividly)

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

What do your team members think is unethical about it?

The fact that you bring back an old team into existence, in my opinion, makes those assumptions null and void.

Come back after asking your team what the specific issues are. What do they think possible problems would be? Why would teams 'hate' you for being a better performing team?

What else should you be asking yourself and teams like 968/254? Ask them logistical issues, design issues, how they run their collaboration. I have a feeling you'll find that the building of two identical robots would be harder than dealing with any team who talks trash about you doing it.

In the end, do what you think is best for your team. Outside opinions that affect your performance as a team negatively probably aren't the best.


Good luck! :)

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

60/254 had some pretty heated discussion back in 2004 when they built identical robots.

254/22 (2005) and 254/968(2006-???--not sure if it's still going on or not) didn't draw anywhere near the level of heated discussion. Partly because the Triplets were drawing all the attention, but still...

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

There's nothing unethical about it in my opinion. I don't however think it's a good use of resources in most cases. Having two different robots means there are twice as many opportunities for students to experience the design process...the sense of discovery that only comes from doing the work, prototyping, and making the tradeoffs.

At some point you can't have any more people doing design work without tripping over yourselves. What that number is depends on how modular you can make things and the nature of the challenge. I've never seen a FRC challenge that couldn't be designed by a half dozen people. You could maybe double that but I doubt any more than that would be manageable. The communication overhead just gets too large.

The whole point of FRC is to expose as many students as possible to engineering. Does having two identical robots accomplish that? In the case when one team is so on the ropes that they can barely get a box on wheels to function maybe so. In most cases, though, I'd say no.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

So some of the members think that bringing 2 identical robots to a regional would be cheating because they think it gives us an unfair advantage to winning. That is the reason they think other teams will hate us.

Both teams have always shared the same shop, which caused major issues in 2009/2010. The reason they share the same shop is because the 1st team comes from the high school the shop is in, and the 2nd team is from a magnet school in the district. This makes it difficult to design and build 2 distinct robots because the resources in the shop are split. Back in 2009 and 2010 we both built separate robots, and almost did not complete them because we did not have enough shop resources.

We want to bring back the 2nd team because of the connection with the school and the culture of the team, but we do not want a repeat of the 2009/2010 seasons, where both robots were barely finished by ship day and needed much work at the competitions.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't understand why this is an issue now -- 1510 and 2898 have already done this in the past and nobody hates you for it.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

If you believe building identical robots is the best course of action for the team, then go for it. It sounds like building different robots was a struggle in the past, but do consider it as an option.

Whatever you choose, there's nothing stopping you. There really isn't any cheating in FRC unless you break a disqualifying rule (opening the bag, being overweight, etc.). Everything else is strategic (retrieving a tube from an opposing lane, despite the penalty, and scoring it), if sometimes frowned upon. There are no rules against any level of collaboration between teams.

If it's not in the rule book, don't worry about it. If it is in the rule book, think carefully about your actions and if they're in your best interests.

P.S. If being competitive is your primary goal, I'd suggest that building two identical robots as a single team, keeping the second as a practice robot, could very well provide a greater competitive advantage.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I personally have no problem with it, I think it's fine. But you have to look at the fact that you will catch a lot of flak for it. Look at 217 and 148 in 2010. They got ripped apart for collaborating. So I say go for it, but be warned not everyone will be happy about it. But if it's what you want to do, look past the haters and do what you want.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

There is absolutely nothing unethical about this. Inserting "ethics" into the conversation here is inherently tainting the pool of responses you're going to get.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Or... Brain wave.

Back in 2005, two teams collaborated. There was one minor detail, though--they did not build identical robots. Try "fraternal twins"--it's a pretty good description.

217 and 229 built robots with very similar--or identical--towers and drive bases that year. But, they placed the towers differently on those drive bases, and there were a number of other less easily noticeable differences between the two robots.

So, why not come up with a pair of designs with as many shared parts as possible that is still different? Say, one team uses a mecanum base and the other a 6WD, and they share a superstructure design. Or share a drivebase design, but one team has a lift while the other has an arm. Or, have very similar mechanisms that are oriented differently.

You don't have to have identical robots to collaborate.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

We have always done 2 separate designs, and 2 completely separate robots. The issue is we might want to make both robots the same in order to save resources, and they other members say that other teams will think this is cheating. I don't believe this, and think that this would be perfectly OK. i just wanted some other opinions that i could bring up for discussion.

Being competitive is one of our goals (and the main goal in some member's eye's), but in mine and the coaches opinion teaching more students is the main goal.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I disagree that you are halving the opportunities for students to experience the design process.

Done properly you allow twice as many ideas to be prototyped/investigated. You can focus much more effort on refining specific systems.

The challenges that come with a collaboration are a lot like those that come in the real world on an engineering project involving multiple contractors, vendors, etc. Students working through those challenges is great experience for the future.

There are certainly times it is and isn't worth it. It definitely won't be easy. But it can be very rewarding.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

So because our teams are based out of the same shop, the 2 teams would be combined into 1 during build season. Once competition started, the team would split into 2 in order to have the 2 separate drive teams and pit crews. Would this be collaboration or something else.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't think other teams, including ours, will think it's cheating. However, besides the point I made earlier, it IS putting all of your eggs in one basket. Seldom can we be sure we've made the right trade-offs during the design process.

148 and 217 got so much grief in 2010 not because they shared the same design but because they built robots so much more advanced than other teams because of their hands-on mentors and IFI partnership. With your commitment to having students do most of the work that wouldn't be a problem for you folks.

We're building four BunnyBots in our lab right now no two of them the same. The students go out of their way to make them different to have the fun of doing it their own way and to see which design turns out to be the most effective. I think it would be more fun and valuable for the students if they were different, but that's just me.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

It would be counted as collaboration.

This is effectively how the various collaborations of the past have functioned. X teams meld into one, then produce X+Y robots, one per team and a practice one.

It should also be noted that you want to be careful how the team is split. While I'm not sure anybody would really ask (and most don't), it could be seen as one team building two robots and competing with two robots under two numbers, simply because the teams are so close (this would be the closest collaboration distance-wise that I'm aware of, and the only one where multiple teams shared a shop). There is a long-running rule about this (2011's <R10>). While this is not your intent, this is where most of the questions will probably come from/are coming from on the team, if they're asked. (And the general format, if asked, would be something to the effect of: How is this not one team?)

To that end, I would suggest three possible routes to take:
1) Single team. There is no one-school-per-team requirement. Build one robot and an identical practice robot.
2) Double team, collaboration, non-identical robots. See my above post for a short explanation.
3) Double team, collaboration, identical robots. Make sure that the teams are distinct apart from the design and building (this will help with the above-mentioned rule question).

If I was to recommend one of those three, I'd probably go with #2 if you have the combined resources to pull it off. It'll still allow many of the same benefits as a full collaboration (e.g., lots of spare parts for shared systems when you're at the same competition), but will force the teams to troubleshoot problems semi-independently, which will reduce a lot of the questions. If you don't have the resources, #1 and use a non-identical practice robot, say a modified older robot.

I'm not saying that this type of collaboration is against the rules; I'm pretty certain that it is not. I'm pointing out one place that you'll need to make sure you have an answer for any critics (and the past collaborating teams have had such an answer).

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Those are the exact 3 routes that we came up with in 1 of our meetings. Route 1 is what we did in 2011, and it worked very well, plus we had the resources to build 2 identical robots. Route 2 is what we did in 2009/2010, and it worked but not very well. We want to bring back the second team, but dont want the major flaws from 2009/2010 again. Route 3 is the compromise i would like to make.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Building a group of similar robots together seems more pragmatic than unethical to me. In particular inner city and close by rural teams that have limited resources of mentors students and facilities that could combine with other teams to make up for these lack of resources and build something that could actually be useful at competition instead of building a half functioning robot that spend most of it's time broken in the pits so they can pack up and leave on Saturday afternoon after alliance selection.
These teams should be encouraged to work together so they can get more out of the completion than just that. Otherwise why bother showing up if all your doing is coming to the event to be dismissed as a viable option? That's not fair to them and it's not fair to the other teams at the competition.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't see any issue whatsoever with however teams want to collaborate.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't see this as being a problem as long as everyone on the two teams agrees on the design and works on the robots honestly.

We've seen this done before. I think in the '09 Regional at UCF. If memory serves one of the twins won.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Isn't this exactly how frc494 and frc70 do it every year? The Martians and More Martians have had this setup since around 2006.

I think its cool....and definitely not cheating or unethical. I think it's a great way for large teams to get more students involved in building the robot.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

My only caution would be to warn that collaboration is not easier.

When done right, you can end up with a technically superior product from additional prototyping and sharing.

When done poorly, you can end in gridlock and not get robots done in time. You can also get a compromise by commitee design that isn't particularly good at anything.

Collaboration on the scale of "identical" machines can be quite difficult. It can also be interesting when one team clearly outperforms the other with identical machines.

I would recommend trying to talk it through with some of the teams that have tried it in the past. You could try a call-in similar to the EWCP guys as the pros and cons of collaboration would make a great topic.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I think you will find that I am changing my mind on this issue but here goes...
The true reason we are in this is to inspire students. How any team does that and whether they are successful is a matter for that team to decide. I now have lived through the experience of working and playing several of these multi robot teams and here is what I have brought away from the exposure. Students on both (or all three) were inspired. There did not seem to be a big advantage to one or both on the field. It is important to realize that in some cases, one team would not exist without the other which results in less students inspired. Often these teams did not attend similar events but when they did if one made it to the finals, they naturally picked the twin. In virtually all cases, strategy was different between the two and there is an obvious difference in drive teams. If you come up with a winning strategy against one robot design, then you have it easy to play against the other.
The similarities are hard to forget but the differences are significant enough to consider as two separate teams/robots.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't think you fully understand what I meant by Route 2.

Reread the post I made describing the 217/229 collaboration--that is what Route 2 is in essence. It's 2 robots with similar designs, but they're different in some significant way. In 217/229's case, tower placement on the base was one of the most obvious signs of a difference.

From what I understood in your post, you guys actually did "Route 4--two teams, same shop, no collaboration*", which is similar to what 254/1868 do these days. If I misunderstood you, then maybe you want to talk to Paul Copioli or JVN about both types of collaboration and see what they'd recommend (as they were both in the 217/229 collaboration and in the 217/148 collaboration).

Remember what question I said people would be asking if you did Route 3, and make sure that you have an answer ready.

*While collaboration/advice-giving can take place just due to two teams being in one shop, it isn't necessarily going to be intentional.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Why identical robots? I wouldn't want a robot on my alliance that looks and behaves exactly like my robot. I'd rather have a robot that compliments mine. Perhaps the two teams can focus on different aspects of the game and excel at those, while sharing some common traits (duplicate parts can make fabrication and assembly easier and more efficient).

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

To answer your question directly, I will say it is not considered cheating. While I doubt people will get mad at you, some will think it a little unfair if both of your robots end up in the finals together (Same team or opposing teams).

I don't know about ethics, but if I were in your situation, I'd get to work on getting more sponsors so you have the materials to make 2 different robots. I know more people get the "driving" experience, but at the same time the rest of the team will only get half the experience.

It's like 2 teams designing 1 robot. Each person only gets half the work of the normal person, since there are 2 teams. Plus, it wouldn't be as fun!

I say if you can, get the money to get the extra resources to build two different robots. It's totally worth it in the end. In that scenario, the two teams act like two teams the whole build season, and it'll be even more fun to go against each other in matches to see which robot is better!

If you really want to share something in design with the other team, do what 254/1868 do, share a similar if not exact same drive train/base

Hope this helped! And remember, have fun with it!

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I agree with most here, there's no real "ethical" issues with what you are proposing.

Honestly you can look at what other collaborations have been successful or you can dig hard enough and find some examples that weren't so successful. Whatever you decide, you have to make sure it will work for your team with your own resources.

Just make sure the decision you're making is for your team(s) best interest. Collaboration can still be a hot button issue for some people, so make sure you are listening to what others are saying, but ultimately making the choice for yourself. It seems like you have been collaborating in some way for a while already so you probably have some good experience on how collaboration could work/hurt your own team.

Good luck.

-Brando

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Here's an interesting thought exercise.

How many teams that collaborated won a world championship prior to collaborating? How many won a world championship during collaboration? How many won a world championship within 3 years after ending collaboration? Why?

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Bingo. (You must spread some reputation ...)

Building two robots that are alike (and possibly a 3rd practice robot) requires more precision, especially if parts are meant to be interchangeable.

The "unfair/unethical" aspect of this is if Team A designs and builds a robot for Team B. Then B's experience with the robot is only driving it, and A has robbed the members of Team B of valuable design and build opportunities.

As long as both teams are equal partners in the design and build, members from both teams get to learn and be inspired from the whole process.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I'm with Kodo Ed on this one -- collaboration like this is a way to bring the cost of building a good robot down for teams who have the motivation but lack the resources. Instead of 2 teams going through the same bad iteration separately, only one team goes through it and thus between them some money is saved on parts. They can also partner up on shipping robot parts, wholesale purchases of aluminum, and travel to/from competition.

If both teams benefit from the collaboration, who are we to judge it? Sure, we may get our face stomped in by 2 teams instead of 1 team ... but in the end someone on those teams came up with the design and we would have lost to one of the teams anyways.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Because you should always assume that you will be with two box-bots during qualification rounds.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I can't say if this scenario applies in this case

Lets say you are a super team and you build (or help build or direct the building of) an identical robot for a non-super (say rookie) team and the 2 of you form an alliance that wins not only your local regional but you go to say 3 other regionals and win all those as well.

If the second super robot did not exist, at 4 regionals another 4 (deserving) teams would have virtually certainly been in the winning alliance and would have received:
- a permanent very desirable trophy
- a highly visible regional championship flag
- a very limited availability invite to the championship (a huge growth experience for students)
- substantial recognition in their school, mentors, sponsors, students etc
- substantial improvement in funding opportunities to go to the championship (versus if they had come second place with no invite, no trophy etc)

This may not break any current FIRST rules but it is clearly inconsistent with the goals of FIRST and the student base overall are the losers.

Clearly its okay to help a junior team get a basic robot to a regional. To help them so much that they get into winning regional finals in my mind crosses the line.
Update: clearly the above scenario is extreme and I won't comment if this scenario has already happened (or something close to it) but clearly there is some gray areas in the issue especially when super teams are involved.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

254 won their first championship the first season they didn't collaborate following 7 years of collaboration.

We won our first championship the first and only season to date we had collaborated.

I can't think of any teams winning championships while collaborating aside from these two points, but if you open it up to division wins it becomes quite more (2005 [254], 2006 [968], 2007 [1902], 2008 [968], 2010 [254], maybe others I'm forgetting/overlooking).

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

What makes those teams any more deserving than the 2 teams that built a robot that proved more capable? Sounds to me your problem isn't with teams building identical robots but with those teams winning multiple events which is an unrelated problem.

Furthermore, FIRST has never come out and said that building twins or triplets is not in line with their goals. Collaborations have been around since the beginning of the 2000's so they've had plenty of time.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

The only thing preventing these four "deserving" teams from winning the event was that they built a robot that wasn't as competitive.

Both the "super team" and the "deserving" teams were given the same opportunities, timeline, ability to fundraise, ability to find sponsorship, ability to find mentors, etc...

If the deserving team truly deserved it, they would have achieved it.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

There are multiple problems with this scenario that you outline.

The first, quite frankly, is that the team(s) in question do NOT fall into the super-robot class quite yet. They're mid-pack, though near the upper end of that. In other words, your entire scenario does not apply.

Now, assuming it did, in fact, apply:

The second issue is that it's not always advantageous to pair with a team that is just like yours. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You're also assuming that you can do so every time. There may be another, better team at the event to break things up. (Say your hypothetical collaboration shows up to an event with 188, 1114, 1503, and 2056, among others. Or any event with 67, 217, and 469. Or... Or... You get the picture.)

The third is that the invite to Championship is not exactly limited. Any team can register for the Championship (given that they aren't a rookie and they register during their time to do so). Teams that don't get in get spots on the waitlist in case of scenarios like you propose where teams get multiple invites, which of course they can't accept all of.

The fourth is that if you're going to 4 regionals (and Championship), someone's going to be hurting anyway. That's why most teams don't do it. It'll either be robot quality, student homework quality/quantity, or sanity of various people on the team.

The fifth is, quite simply, it's not a collaboration as you outline it (maybe in one of your three cases, it is). If one team with one design is merely copied by another team, is that other team going to do as well? I think not. There are infinitely many tweaks that can be made to improve performance.

And now, a little discussion on the goals of FIRST. What is the goal of FIRST, in your mind? Is it to inspire students? Is it to educate them?

Or is it:
These are taken from http://usfirst.org/aboutus/vision. Or is it:More students inspired by a powerhouse robot (or two) means more mission accomplished. Despite some people not liking said powerhouses, or said collaborations, they do fit right in with those goals.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

217. Collaborated in 2005 (non-identical robots). Made Einstein semis. Did not collaborate in 2006, but won the Championship that year (and repeated in 2008). Collaborated again in 2010, with one of their partners from 2008 (148), but no championship that time out. As far as why, you'd have to ask them.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

So, to get this straight: If I am helping another team- I should make their robot a haphazard version of my own and make sure they aren't as successful as my team will (or hopes to) be? Why are they not deserving of winning with me?

What would be the point of helping another team at all then if I don't plan on helping them reach success?

Your issue doesn't even seem to be with collaboration, it seems to be with being too helpful of a mentor team. Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I would steer the team discussion away from the ethical standpoint of a partnership. There's been a lot of first teams that have done it in the past, and the majority of the community has deemed it plenty ethical.

I would look into the logistical angle of the plan and see if its something the team members want to do. There's a lot of opportunities and a lot of sacrifices, and if most don't want to do it they'll spend all season focused on those sacrifices and will get less out of the program than if they hadn't gone the partnership route.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Well from a competition standpoint, one might get confused seeing 2 of the exact same robots on the field at the same time. I know at the CAGE Match we lent out our practice bot to a new team and it got somewhat confusing watching them both in the field at the same time. Also when we were partners in the elimination matches it was hard to efficiently divide up tasks because our robots were made to do the same tasks the same way. I know 1501 also lent out their bot at CAGE but I'm not sure how they did with that.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Um, what if both robots perform very poorly? Will teams like you for having an advantage to losing?

Ethics is not a question here. Neither is "Fair" (or unfair). Nobody will hate you for collaborating. There is no advantage to building two identical robots*

So, considering those truths, don't worry and just build 2 twins. It'll work out fine.


(*Actually, this is true if they are built at the same time. If one is built after the first is completed, the second one will be better made. The design could still be awful, but build quality improves in the second iteration).

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I'd agree that building two identical bots isn't cheating, its doubling down on your bet. If you think your design is the best there is, and you build two you're giving it twice the opportunity to succeed, and twice the opportunity to fail. But that's just it, the idea gets more game time and chance, but each team has the same chances. I've been to a regional or two where another team there had an almost identical bot to my teams, it was by pure coincidence that both teams had the same idea and built in the same direction, does that change the fairness because we didn't work together? Is it only fair to help another team if you don't give them what you think is your winning recipe? I do know when it comes to FIRST values, it has nothing to do with what design you use for the bot, FIRST has always been focused on how the program encourages students, and said over and over its not about the robot. More recently FIRST has added this new idea of cooperating with your competitors to have a friendly and supportive atmosphere at competitions, I don't see how collaborating with another team does anything but support these core ideas.

changing gears to a personal opinion: I don't like seeing a collaboration to build the same robot because to me its boring, it reduces that interesting spark as I walk through the pits and see the dozens of unique ways teams came up with the solve the same problem. What I'd really like to see some teams do is collaborate to build complimentary bots intended to form a powerful 3 bot alliance in the finals. It would be hard to make it happen, but I think the cool factor would pay off.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Just to go on the other side of the debate, there are a few advantages to having two similar robots. Once both are made, you could use one for practice, and the other for testing new ideas and building. That would involve very close collaboration between the two teams, since one robot would be almost a driver's only thing, and the other could be use to better the overall design of the two robots.

Why make two different robots when you could make one and perfect it? It's like giving two different robots 50% of your genius, or give 2 identical robots 100% of your genius.

While it is true that not all people will be doing things, there will be a lot more work time open since the drivers will be driving the other robot.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

*runs and hides in a corner over brewing firestorm*

-Nick

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

We've actually been trying to set up this topic for a while now and have discussed it a bunch of times among ourselves. Usually, our main source for the topic (Karthik) has been busy but was gracious enough to do the 1114 Spotlight cast with us. That talked a little about the old NiagraFIRST collaboration, but not much.

Hopefully we'll be able to get some time from Cory, Travis, and EJ from 254 along with Kiet Chau, Adam Heard and Ranjit Chahal from 968, 973 and 1323 respectively to talk about their collaborations/twin builds. It would be tough to pick a good time due to the 3 hour difference.

If you guys have others you would like us to interview, drop any EWCP member a line.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Definition of success should be taken into consideration here too...there are unique learning experiences for students and mentors on a rookie team that could conceivably be lost with too much help from a mentoring team. That's not to say that the situation is necessarily bad, but there are pros and cons both ways.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Which is why I wrote in my post: "Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need."

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Sorry - I hope that didn't come off as an attack on what you were saying. I just wanted to emphasize a point that I thought could use more attention.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Nope, totally fine. And yes you are correct with defining success in different ways, I was just referring to the point brought up about winning regionals and trophies and blue banners.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I guess you should have both teams talk and see what both teams want to do. It may be easier to have the same bot but it will have advantages, like more people will know how to drive it if your driver cannot drive. My old team, our rookie year had a older sister team, and we had two totally different bots. It helped use, but they didnt do as well. Yet, our teams were so close, we cheered each other on, and we always helped each other. Best thing to do is a team vote.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't agree with that at all. Strike the "missing out" and "much needed" and "unfortunately" parts.

In fact, remove everything after the first comma and replace it with "someone is going to get seriously inspired, and in many cases it'll be both teams -- the veterans by exposing the rookies to good practices and by having a complete mentoring experience, and the rookies by seeing what can be done and by participating in a well-managed process."

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

No. Not at all. I agree with that about as much as I agree that putting a power drill to my temple would be a good idea.

In fact, I'll say the opposite. In the scenario of a rookie team being mentored by a powerhouse... They learn how the powerhouse is run, what the design process used is, how they approach sponsors. They learn how to emulate this powerhouse. They don't miss out, they don't miss experience. They get an awesome chance to see how a good team should be run.

Also, I cannot agree with Alan more.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I think that, as with most things, there are good and bad ways to do this kind of collaboration. A powerhouse team could leave the rookies bored by doing everything, not taking the time to explain and teach, and essentially using the rookies as window dressing (and perhaps fodder for their Chairman's Award presentation). It could be done so badly that instead of being inspired, the rookies get bored of watching the powerhouse's well-oiled machine and don't even last the six weeks, instead moving on to activities wherein they can actually participate and contribute.

I find this situation unlikely in the extreme, because I do not believe that the mentors who get involved in FIRST (on either team -- the powerhouse or the rookies) would allow it to happen. Instead, they would use their boundless mentory goodness to ensure that whatever arrangement is reached and however things work between the teams, they are mutually beneficial to each -- however those teams decide to define the term "mutually beneficial".

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

This situation is a little different here than most veteran team/rookie team collaborations. 1510 and 2898 would share many of the same mentors and the same shop space. Students would, I assume, split into two groups if they were to build two different robots but it's not like one group is necessarily less experienced than another or that poor little 2898 needs the help of it's older brother. These are very capable students and mentors. They'd spin off another robot in order to give more students key roles as the team is getting pretty big.

My point early in this thread is I think it would have more impact to build two different robots so that more students can get their hands dirty in the design process. Otherwise, all you're doing is spending $10K for eight more students to have more fun at the competition (drive team and pit crew) and you get the "fun" of assembling another robot just like the previous two. The lasting impact of FIRST happens during build season, not at the competitions.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't think this is true. Students still get their hands dirty in the design process. Making two different designs means nothing if one is superior to the other because logically, the best aspects of both designs from both teams would be merged into one if you build twins. The final product would possibly be an iteration of both teams' ideas.

Also, I completely agree with Alan's post. Well said.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

What's the point of competing if you're not going to be competitive? I'd say go for it, I like the idea of two teams coming together and devising something that just one team may not have been able to come up with alone. If you guys are able to successfully collaborate and create something outstanding, I'd say the more power too you! Also, I agree with Alan's post. Very well said.

-Dave

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

It's not unethical. Other teams wouldn't hate you for including more students into FIRST and allowing more students to compete in FRC while fostering their STEM interests in an environment geared towards our age group specifically. More so, if you don't have the resources then do the right thing for the students.

On 2471 we build 2 robots and bag one and then use one the other for practice and spare parts. You could argue that this is unethical but it has been extremely beneficial in refining our design process and allowing our growing team to get 2x the building experience, distribute more leadership roles and anticipate successes and failures in regards to our robot.

That being said, for the local Bunnybot competition this year, we have enough resources to build 2 robots but they're not identical. Two students who have demonstrated ample leadership skills each presented a robot design and both were supported by our mentors. Thus, we're currently in the process of creating two different robots and, again, giving more students the chance to work on a robot. In doing so, we're allowing more room for error yet ample growth as a team as our students work to meet deadlines and troubleshoot different problems individual to each robot.

Personally, there's more of a safety net insured if two teams work side by side to create two identical robots to enter into the same competition. However, there's something about taking chances, trying different ideas, experimenting with different technologies and building off of one another instead of simply copy and pasting.

I wouldn't hate 1510 if you held your competitive edge and made two identical robots. I would however hate it if you pushed your team to the edge and didn't enjoy your build season like you should.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

As long as the relationship between the teams is and stays a true collaboration, I see no problem. If the relationship ever devolves to one where one team has any sort of control over the other (e.g. the first team designs the robot for the second team), basically any situation where "collaboration" does not describe the relationship of the teams, then some students are missing out on important aspects of the FIRST experience and I have a problem with the situation. I think this is a very slippery slope, especially when teams are sharing workspaces and/or one is not yet fully developed, but if proper precautions are taken, this relationship can certainly be beneficial.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Who all? Not me.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

In a good collaboration, no one should be missing out on their chance to design the robot. For a good example, let's look at the 2006 Niagara FIRST triplets. While I wasn't in FIRST in 2006, I've heard and talked about the Niagara FIRST triplets quite a bit. By my understanding, this collaboration did not go something like this:
1114: Hey 1503, 1680, here's the robot design. Get cracking!

Instead, it went something like this:
1114, 1503, 1680: Let's all work together! We'll design different parts of the robots individually, and then discuss our designs all together. That way, we all get a chance to "get our hands dirty" and we all get a superior product.

In the OP's case, collaboration is easier: they'll actually be in the same school. Remember, the more ideas you have, the better robot you'll build. The chances of stumbling on that "gamebreaking" or competitive design only increases with the number of people you have thinking about it (ie, look at the spread of the pinch rollers in 2010. They popped up most prominently as a result of the 148/217/1114, and 254/968 collaborations. The Pinch roller was generally accepted to be the best form of ball control that year).

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

First, my answer: I have no problem with collaboration (ethical or otherwise). Personally though, I'd build 1 robot and a practice robot if I had the resources to build and enter 2 teams. You can use the leftover entry fees for either another regional for the single bot, or for tools/computers/travel.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a large fraction of the responses you'll get on CD (especially this time of year) are mentors, people from successful teams, and people who have seen and accepted many different ways to organize teams. I bet if you compared the success rate of the teams of the responders here to the set of FRC teams at large, you'd find a large difference. Similarly, there is probably a big difference between the opinions here and in the FRC community at large - For my first couple years in FRC, I was not a fan of teams with heavy mentor involvement, teams with lots of money, teams that collaborated, etc. I've gradually come around on most of those topics (as happens when you become a mentor and still need to justify your continued involvement), but there'll be no small fraction of participants at your regionals who will hold opinions very different from the majority of this thread.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Collaboration can be found in many forms and there is no set right or wrong way to do it. There's nothing wrong with taking suggestions but be sure not to let other people tell you how your team should be run. In the end, what outsiders think of your team's structure is unimportant.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

So I'm going to state my opinion on how this worked out.

We went with the building 2 identical robots for the 2 teams. During build season this worked out pretty well. Everyone was working great and both robots were completed on time, which had never happened before. The only main issue involved programming. We had one team(2898) doing C++ and 1510 was using LabVIEW. As the end of build season approached, the C++ code had fallen pretty far behind, and we decided to use the 1510 LabVIEW code on both robots.

As soon as competition hit, all hell broke loose. There were some changed that I and my co-driver wanted made in the controls. The programmer didnt want to change them, and didnt want us to change them either. This created a huge fight at our first competition, until the code was completely changed for the our team for our second regional up in Seattle. This split the team in a VERY bad way. This part could have been resolved fairly easily, and I would still recommend working this way again if not for the 2nd, Much more major issue.

Only 2898 got the chance to go to worlds, because they pre-registered. Neither team won their way. But some people on 1510 still felt they had built that robot and wanted the privilege of being on drive team and pit crews. Our coach earlier in the year said the teams were separate after build season and would not be combined. But then he went and moved 2 people from 1510 over to 2898 for worlds without the teams approval. This caused major havoc on the team, and if anyone was around our pit on friday night would know how bad it really was. Student from 2898, including me, were shoved out of the pit to make room for the other 2 members.

Ego's hit some of the people VERY hard, and many students feelings were very hurt, including mine.

I have not talked to the people that shoved me out of the pits much since worlds, and am having a difficult time deciding it will be possible for me to return to the teams to mentor next year, as those 2 students are the captains of the teams next year. Also there are 3 other students planning on moving to another team, which is a rookie team. That is where I plan on mentoring as well.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I don't think the issue there is two identical robots...

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Aye, the issue is more in tune with cooperation between two teams.

@sst, I don't know if you wanted to just get it off your chest, or if you're actually looking for a discussion, but there are threads that go into a cooperation between teams and building twins. I'd recommending reading up on those.

- Sunny G.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Not completely. The way I see it, the members of both 1510 and 2898 were involved in building the robot(s). Some of the students of 1510 felt that it was "unfair" that 2898 got to go to the Championships, while they didn't, because they were involved in building 2898's robot. However, everyone knew that once build season was over, they were separate teams again. The issue later becomes that a coach moved two students from 1506 to 2898, seemingly without talking to anyone else about it.


I don't think this situation would have happened if each team had built a separate robot.




As someone who went though something similar, I highly suggest you talk about it with the coach and the students involved (and a "neutral third party"). I feel that you deserve an explanation. You may not get an apology but you may walk out with a better understand of why things happened the way they did.

From personal experience, this may not completely repair your relationship with the people involved, but you're at least taking steps to address the elephant in the room and get the issue out in the open.



Feel free to PM me if you'd like more information about my experiences and how I handled it.

There's two solutions to this problem: create a district team of both high schools (elimate one team number) or find the funding to get the magnet school a different shop. The former is more cost efficient, the latter inspired more students. But after reading this thread, I believe that two teams in one shop isn't something that works.

This thread was about sst's team's decision. He revived it to update everyone on whether the decision was a good one or not. This is exactly where he should be posting.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I dont think two teams in one shop can't work. In fact my team has been building our robots in team 3130's shop for a few years now. We helped them start there team and they let us use their tools and space. The relationship has been beneficial to both teams through the years. The big difference is that we build two distinct robots designed by each team, no group discussion on how the robot should work/look. The issue here is that members of 1506 feel like they built that robot and deserve to go to worlds. I am in favor of collaboration, as in sharing resources, but i believe teams should design their own robots. From what ive read this would have solved a great deal of 2898 and 1506's problems. Just my 0.02$ take it or leave it.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Agreed, that one sounds like more of a problem in communication among teams, agreements made prior to the season, as well as decisions made without consultation of the whole team.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I do not recommend students come back as mentors especially their first year out. Especially if you are harboring grudges/hurt feelings. I am making these assumptions as I notice that you have "mentor" in your title block, and yet were a driver this year (and thus must be a student).
************************************************** *******
Chain of command and decision authority are often a difficult aspects for many teams. I know our team still has issues with this from time to time even with years and years of experience.

I am going to make some comments that sst.thad may take offense to. These are not meant to be offensive, but merely to showcase some holes in the strategic or organizational process of forming the coop. I initially was just going to send this in PM, but feel that it may be beneficial for discussion.

#1. While the drivers may have wanted different programming, I have seen many teams loose matches due to tweaking the code without time to fully vet the changes. As a driver, I am sure you were frustrated with something not behaving as you want, but if the programmer has the authority on code, then you you need to accept that. If the drive team has authority, then the programmer needs to accept that. If there is no clear authority, then you have the situation you eluded to. On my team the coach/lead mentor has the ultimate authority.

#2. You said that "our coach" said the teams would be seperate after build season, but was that the other teams understanding? They may have been operating under a different set of assumptions. Were those clearly communicated? Possible assumptions they were operating on could be:
We are in this together!
If one team qualifies (via winning), then it is their right to compete alone, but if it is a purchased spot, then "we" should get to compete as it is the "fair" thing for us and them...

*************************
Partnerships can be very difficult. Laying out and discussing expectations up front can help you deal with situations later. As you are likely going to college, you will have a roommate if you are living in the dorms. Most schools provide a "discussion" sheet of items to discuss. MAKE SURE YOU DISCUSS EACH AND EVERY ITEM. While you might think it is a no brainer to "not share clothes" your roommate may come from a family where that is common practice and thus expecting it. While you might think sharing food is perfectly acceptable, your roommate may find it a objectionable. When lights can be on. When you can work on your computer. Having friends over. There are literally hundreds of things you need to discuss in order to not get into inreoncileable fight later in the year.

The same is true for doing a robotics partnership. If the two teams compete at the same event, and have identical robots, who gets to apply for which awards (or does it even matter)? Is the other team expecting you to pick them, or are they wanting to be in seperate alliances so as to "double the likelihood of winning"? If parts break, who gets the spares?

Partnerships can be very tough. Hurt feelings usually occur at the intersection of unmet and unstated expectations. When dealing with a partnership, try to remove "expectations" and replace them with "agreements". Partnerships can be done in such a way as to require around 1/2 as much work for some items, but they often require more than 2x as much communication.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I disagree. We worked largely over at 103's facility (they have a machine shop and a full field to practice on). Our robots are nearly identical with a few small differences (we have the flashlight, they have a laser; they have a bridge manipulator, we wheelie onto the bridge; we both use different wheels). I have never witnessed any conflicts surrounding one team's success over another's and the students from both teams are now good friends and the mentors work well together. We help each other out at competitions when one of the robots breaks down and I find myself rooting for them just as much as I do for my own team. The only tough matches are when we have to play each other, but, even then, it's a friendly rivalry and there are never any hard feelings.

In terms of actual workload during the build season, 103's mentors tend to lead the fabrication of parts with assistance from students from both teams. 25 led the software end of things and the code for each robot is nearly identical.

I think it's important to look at the dynamics between the individuals on the team. There are many teams that have successfully collaborated and built identical robots. Take a look at 254/968 or the old Canadian triplets of 1114, 1503, and 1680 or the example I just presented of 25/103 as well as the number of other teams who are able to pull it off.

Also remember that working together in a shop doesn't necessarily mean building identical bots. You can share resources but you don't have to share the same design.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I have many opinions on this, but I have to say, the Coach should not have let those students be apart of the team going. (As long as it was clearly expressed).

I know many teams have done Identical Robots but I think that it was more of two (or three ;) ) completely different teams joined together. It seams that this was a signle team at one point, and then they became two differnet teams? (I dont mean for this season I mean for the teams existance). Would 48 and 3139 be able to shine a light into how they did it this year? Even though the robots werent Perfectly Identical.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

For the past two seasons, 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E. (Warren G. Harding High School) and 3193 Falco Tech (Austintown Fitch High School) have independently built robots from the same shared robot design. The only common person "shared" between both teams in the 48/3193 collaboration is one of 3193's founders, Mike Mellott, who is also 48's long-time CAD design lead mentor. Fitch is his alma mater. He retains membership on both teams, which is good, as we are still attempting to bolster our CAD mentor/student ranks such that we wouldn't experience such a big dropoff in capability should he elect/need to become a part of 3193 full-time. There are many new hires running around here at Delphi....we're going to eventually snag some of them for the team, I swear.....

Both teams are encouraged to contribute freely to the design, combining forces during early design meetings. Once the base design is locked in, both teams seek to be as independent during our robot builds and operations at competitions as possible. Quite truthfully, few on 48 saw any of 3193's robot until our first event, and vice versa. When we're at the same events, we do help each other out during emergencies and such.

Both teams are free to customize their robots independently throughout the season. 48 developed a bridge tender inspired by 2614, along with a simple stinger, while 3193 kept the original concept of using the tilting arm as the bridge tender.

3193 does not yet possess access to the same kind of tech sponsors and shop resources as 48, nor do they have the same practice space, although they are working hard and fast to acquire such things. In the meantime, 48 shares extra sponsor machining capacity - waterjet, CNC, etc. - stuff we cannot do in-house - as well as other tech resources so they may have a better competitive experience.

We split part fabrication duties, with 3193 handling more of their fabrication workload in 2012 than in 2011 - a very positive trend that will continue as they add more mentors, sponsors, and resources to their program.

One of the most important benefits of the collaboration is our ability now to create a third, shared practice robot. This has been absolutely ESSENTIAL to our success the past few years. 3193 would certainly not have the resources to build one working separately from us, and with Mike mentoring both teams, 48 would also be very stressed to construct a practice bot alone if 3193 had a totally different design.

Both teams seem to have gotten along well. 48 has been more successful on the field than 3193 the past two years, but the people of Falco Tech realize that many factors other than just the robot play a part in that. It was fun being on the same alliance at Queen City, which led to 3193's first ever on-field trophy. It was also very neat (and unexpected) to see 3193 win the Queen City GM Industrial Design Award. We have felt that bringing the same robot design to the same event might hinder each team's ability to pursue such awards, but in that case, it wasn't an issue.

Will we continue this collaboration forever? Likely not, but for now, it makes perfect sense for both teams - a situation where more can be achieved by working together than by working separately.

Regardless of the design collaboration, 48 and 3193 will continue to be members of our NEOFRA group, which includes 379 and 2010. NEOFRA (it's a pain to type it out - look in the sig) is built upon many of the same collaborative concepts used within the more intense 48/3193 partnership. Again, we are all better off working together throughout the year than working separately, and we have a heck of a lot more fun doing it.

What lead to the decision to build the same robot? (I have an opinion on this, but I will reserve it until I feel more informed, and of course my opinion may change.)

Do you guys partition the shop? Or do you just agree to not look at each other's robots?

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

A lot of it had to do with our main sponsor, BMS, decreasing the amount of support we got. At one point, we had 5-6 technical mentors from there and access to their machine shop. As the years went on, many of those mentors retired or were unable to devote as much time to the team. With the economic situation being what it is, BMS itself also had to scale back much of its support for the team. We were able to snag some of the smaller machines and tools from their shop but our school simply does not have the space for us to have everything we need. We were able to get by almost entirely with their support for over 10 years and we found ourselves in a difficult situation. (It is worth mentioning that one of the BMS guys is still involved with the team, especially the design process).

We've worked closely with 103 for years and have used their facility before. They have a much larger machine shop/work area with plenty of space and a few other classrooms to use. This is in addition to their "barn" that was built for the team that houses a full field. They also have a great sponsor in Day Tool who provides them with the machining capabilities and they graciously extended their support to us when the situation at BMS changed.

There had always been talk of building twins or ramping up our collaboration, especially as we started spending more time out at their school (about a 45 minute drive from ours). Our mentors have always remained in close contact throughout the build season and, as I said, the less support we received from BMS, the more time we spent working with 103.

There's just always been a really good relationship between the teams from the mentors down to the students and as we shared our resources more and more, it really just made sense.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

No, the shop is open and we often ask questions about each other's robots and decisions but in the end the team makes their own decisions about our own robot. An example would be this year we asked what 3130's reasoning for using mechanums was.

Boe, it's actually pretty awesome that you guys can share a workspace and knowledge and still build different robots. I guess I'd just ask too many questions for a situation like that. And Alexa, your situation makes a lot more sense now. I can definitely see why a collab would benefit your team better than simply joining the other team. And the 48/3193 collab seems pretty reasonable too, especially the idea of using identical bases and branching out from there. Clearly, the right mix of situation, proximity, and friendliness is necessary to pull it off.

My knee jerk response is to the lessons I feel like all students should take away from FIRST: communication, team work, leadership, and commraderie in even the most difficult situations. I don't think the situation with 2898 and 1510 allowed for those lessons to be taught in a positive manner. As a result, I feel like steps need to be taken to increase the level of communication between the teams, and failing that, either dissolving one team or moving a team out is the best solution.

I think the other problem here is the championship situation. In my opinion, 1510 should not have allowed to touch 2898's robot, but they should have been brought along as spectators. Just leaving behind half of the robot's designers seems wrong, but breaking an early-season promise is just as bad.
(Haha, what error, RC? :D )

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Small Error,

-RC

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

So to clear up some confusion I have seen. Our coach is the same for both teams, and all the mentors are the same between the teams. Back in 2009 and 2010 the students and robots were completely separated, and this worked great on a people level but had robot problems because we didnt have enough space. Then this year, we had 2 great robots, but had major people issues. Also the 2 people that were switched were the 1510 mechanical and electrical lead. The designers and programmers gladly went to spectate, and we had some of our greatest spirit we had had in years at worlds because of them.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

There's something that doesn't entirely sit right for me here. When I think of our team, it's a single entity that's doing its best to win. The mentors on the team will do everything they can to help the students find success.

Now, by collaborating, you're already breaking some standard team barriers and sharing ideas, which isn't bad. However, I think that my actively having participants (mentors in this case) that are crossing between teams, it becomes...weird to say the least, and it sets up the precedent of being able to openly swap teams.

- Sunny G.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

As of now I completely agree with that, and think if we should we should find a place for the 2nd team. Its just too complicated to have 2 teams in the same shop, when the mentors and coaches are combined. And students from both teams actively build both robots. In fact we did not decide which robot was which teams until the last week of build season.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

I would say that this is your problem. This probably made the students on 1510 feel that a robot that they helped build was being used by another team at a competition that they could not attend. I am no expert on collaboration, but I would suggest that you keep the two robots separated and have each team design their own robot and clearly define which robot belongs to which team at the beginning of build season. If I was a student on 1510 who had worked on a robot that another team got to take to championships, I would be quite unhappy. You may want to talk to 254 and 1868 to see how they keep the two teams separated while sharing a lab.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

We've had no problems building up to four pre-season BunnyBots out of one lab with the same mentors advising all the teams. No two BunnyBots were even close to being the same. Where things may have gotten complicated in the 2898/1510 case is having students crossing over between the teams working on each others robots.

Building twins seems fine if that's what you decide to do but then it should be clear up front that if neither team qualifies for Championships then the organization is sending 2898 (because 1510 couldn't get a lottery slot since they went last year) and that it will be an all-star drive team and pit crew made up of members of both 2898 & 1510.

Building twins does reduce the engineering being done which might be good if those resources are limited or less than optimal if there are students who aren't fully utilized. It is also somewhat cheaper since you only need one set of spares and one robot might be available as a practice robot if the other is on the way to champs.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

When you say this, you may want to consider combining teams into one.

Consider this: your mentors are probably people who love helping and teaching kids, they also probably want to reach as many kids as they can with the time they volunteer. Being shared between teams is the best way they can accomplish their goal of mentoring. Also consider that being a part of both teams means that they feel obligated to both teams and bring opportunity to both, such as traveling to championships.

Why make the mentors choose between the two teams if their goal is to help as many kids as they can? It would frankly be pretty selfish.

Try to work out with the mentors what they would like to do in this situation. I'm betting they would not want to abandon one team or the other. You may find that combining into one team would be the easiest thing on the mentors.

+$0.02

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Something that I may not have been clear about is that the 2 students that were moved were kids that were there to just build a robot, and didnt care if they went to worlds to compete. The kids that were pushing at the beginning of season to combine the teams for world were the ones that were happy in the stands. They are choosing to not come back because of the coach, who decided to change his mind anyway without consulting the students. At the beginning of the season EVERYONE was told that the teams would be completely separate by competition. Some kids were not happy about that, but they became even more mad when the coach decided to do it anyway, without consulting anyone, including the captains of the 2 teams.

And Dale. We did use 1510's bot as a practice bot between Seattle and Worlds. And as far as I know, the 1510 students didnt mind that we did that.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Sorry about the double post, but back in 2011 we only had 1510. 2898 did not compete. The mentors have not have any issues between any of the 2 years, at least none that I know of. The issues we are having are entirely because of the students.

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

If student members of Team A are not members of Team B, then isn't the budget limit for two collaborating teams building identical robots a limiting problem?

Under R16 of 2012:

The Bill of Materials cost of each non-KOP item must be calculated based on the unit fair market value for the material and/or labor, except for labor provided by team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team) and shipping.

If it is agreed that student members of Team A can not be considered student members of Team B, then the labor provided by students of Team B that are not employees of the sponsor of Team A must be calculated at fair market value.

The 2012 Budget Constraint rules seem to require that the shared student efforts of two teams who are not on the member-rosters of both teams, must be small, that is:
(TeamB_student_hours * FMV_shop_rate) << (robotA_Value).
With a typical $100 shop rate, the total student hours that one team can offer another would be limited to a few tens of hours.

I might have missed an exclusion in the rules this year about a budget exclusion for student labor to other teams. I recall such an exclusion in a prior year, but I didn't see one this year.

Does R16 limit the student collaboration of two teams whose members are not on both teams rosters?
Any thoughts?

Re: Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots
 

Guys,
It's not about the robots it's about inspiration. If we (111) had the money and sponsors to register (and build) another robot design we have more than enough students that would participate. Yes, many of the mentors would support both teams, we might need a few more in key areas like software and mechanical design. But the push is to get more students involved and inspired. Any team decisions should be based on the effects to students. When we cause a smile to turn to a frown, it is our responsibility as adults to figure out what we did and fix it. On the surface I think the original issue may have been the wrong decision but I am only hearing a small part of it and certainly only one side. However, if the mentors felt that bringing along two other students would improve the overall experience for everyone, then it may have been justified. It is not easy to mentor one team let alone two, so some errors are likely to be made.
I am committed to this program because I know it works. It gets more students (than the school average) into college, it makes better adults of the students we mentor, it makes better employees of the mentors that participate, and it makes better schools in our communities.