Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
no, you are not. The difference is the core engineering challenge. Here is an engineering problem to solve - YOU come up with the solution.
I can mentor your team and show you step by step how engineers take a problem through the complete design cycle, I can lend you computers and tools and shop time, give you access to my machinists and welder, show you how to hook up wires and program the control system - ALL without solving the design problem for you.
This thread has turned into a 100% collaboration vs 0% debate - I never took that position. The first post in this thread (in my opinion) took it too far by saying that (if necessary) give a new team a complete robot design and let them copy everything.
I dont think collaboration is a bad thing, esp if you have one team that is rich in mechanical engineers and has a big machine shop, and you have another team with nothing but electrical engineers and SW programmers - If there is a natural divide then YES work together.
But dont take it to extreems. Dont let it end up where one team is only doing one small part, and esp dont give a team a complete design to copy 100%.
That is where this thread started drawing flack and criticism - going too far to the extreem. There are drawbacks and tradeoffs and fairness issues when teams collaborate. When you take it to the extreem then the drawbacks outweigh the good you are attempting to accomplish.
|
if you have a mechanically complete robot that is theoretically able to fulfill the requirements, but is unable to because it isn't programed or wired properly, then has it still solved the design challenge? i don't think so. the challenge is to build a competitive robot, not to design a competitive concept.
i agree that collaboration should be a give and take relationship, that all parties involved should contribute (more or less) equally. obviously, this would be the ideal collaboration.
what everyone seems to miss about 'the triplet challenge' is that the copy part applies to a team that would not otherwise exist, if not for the collaboration. i expect this scenario will be rare, but if thats what it takes to get more people involved with FIRST then i'm for it. the question isn't (or wasn't) whether you were for two individual teams, or one team copying another, but rather if you want a new team to copy an existing one, or to
not exist at all. wouldn't you rather these students get a glimpse of FIRST, rather than sitting at home unaware, playing video games and watching TV?
if you can't tell, im one of those that believe "if the students are inspired, its all good"