[EricH]

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST? Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?

If you would like to start a collaboration debate, search first. It's a long-dead horse.

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded.

There is no requirement that students even be involved in fabrication. IN THEORY (not that I reccommend this; in fact, I would call FIRST's official attention to this if I became aware of a confirmed case), it is possible for the students not to see the robot (or design) until Thursday of their first regional. (I don't know of a single case of this happening.)

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?

If a part isn't COTS, COTS rules don't apply. Custom part rules do. Again, if the team chooses to count the maker of a part as a sponsor and to do so does not violate team sponsorship guidelines (or FIRST sponsorship guidelines), I see no problem with not involving students, although if possible students should be involved.