Go to Post One of my management professors taught me this: At all times you are holding a bucket in each hand, one full of water, and one full of gasoline. Management is knowing when to throw which bucket. - Barry Bonzack [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.67 average. Display Modes
  #46   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 20:38
Crop-Circles's Avatar
Crop-Circles Crop-Circles is offline
The Fifth
AKA: Mike Boehl
#0066 (Flyers)
Team Role: Programmer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ypsilanti, Mi
Posts: 141
Crop-Circles has a spectacular aura aboutCrop-Circles has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via AIM to Crop-Circles
Re: Robot Collaboration

How often do we talk about how FIRST is about people and not robots?

It's true that a certain amount of balance must exist among teams, but collaborations such as this one are not overpowered. If you're concerned with teams having an unfair advantage, you should be worried about teams that can have engineers build robots for them. If teams wanted only to win, there are better and easier ways to do that. We have to trust that teams will focus on the true goals of FIRST.

It may be possible for 16 teams to all build the same robot, but will that actually happen? I doubt it. Personnaly, I trust 60 and 254, and all other teams for that matter, to stay focused on what truly matters.
__________________
Rule #1: Fix any and all problems with duct tape and/or zip-ties.
Rule #2: Always respect the authority of the conch.
Rule #3: Goto 20
Rule #4: Don't touch the hair.
Rule #5: (see rule #4)
Rule #6: Never call us the robotics club. We are a team, NOT a club.
Rule #7: The power of the fuzzy compels you.
Rule #8: Show EARL and CHARLIE the respect they deserve.
Rule #9: If it starts glowing, don't touch it.
Rule #10: Gracious Professionalism is a balance. Never leave home without it.

Break any of the above rules and you will be FIRED!
  #47   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 20:43
Madison's Avatar
Madison Madison is offline
Dancing through life...
FRC #0488 (Xbot)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,246
Madison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond reputeMadison has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!

Teams 60 and 254 are each viewed as powerhouse programs in FIRST -- due largely to that about them which we all see; their well designed robots, their excellent performance, and the testimony of their students. What challenges they may face are not apparent to those who observe their teams.

It seems to me that this collaboration comes as the result of boredom with and stagnation within their programs. Perhaps it's precisely that their respective lack of adversity -- in finding sponsorship, technical guidance, or in resolving conflict -- has caused them to seek out additional challenges. They maintain that this collaboration is more challenging than we might expect. In fact, it may simply be that they're unfamiliar with the challenges that many other teams face and can't understand that their collaboration is no more difficult than things we've all had to face.

If this is the last frontier remaining for teams 60 and 254 to explore, it may be worthwhile. If they must create new challenges for themselves so that their programs remain relevant to FIRST, I commend them for having the initiative to take that step. I am hopeful that this effort has proven worthwhile in inspiring their students to take similar initiative in their own lives, as it does very little to inspire me. I know that these teams are each, on their own, capable of creating amazing robots -- designed and fabricated with thought and care. Instead of seeing two such inspiring robots this season, I am left to look at one. Instead of looking to these teams as beacons of hope when I'm sitting at my computer designing another part; or sitting in the shop waiting to have a part made, I only see that they had someone there to share the workload. Where I struggle to have access to our single CNC mill, I see that they have twice as many as before.

I'm not against such collaboration, really. But, that being said, I do not understand why each of these teams did not choose to work so closely with teams that are less fortunate than they are. Instead of partnering with a rookie team and showing them what FIRST is and can be, they've partnered with a team that knows exactly what FIRST is -- just like they do.

I can understand that they see this collaboration as having been a challenge to both teams. I do not see it as being any more a challenge than myriad things other teams must overcome, nor do I think that it was worthwhile or useful to either team or the larger FIRST community.

Logistically speaking, I'm interested in the response to both Matt and Joel's points regarding the robot's cost limitation and how this shared labor is going to be billed out. Until they share one team number, they are not one team, regardless of anyone's feelings regarding "extended family."
__________________
--Madison--

...down at the Ozdust!

Like a grand and miraculous spaceship, our planet has sailed through the universe of time. And for a brief moment, we have been among its many passengers.

Last edited by Madison : 16-02-2004 at 20:57.
  #48   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:10
Joe Johnson's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Johnson Joe Johnson is offline
Engineer at Medrobotics
AKA: Dr. Joe
FRC #0088 (TJ2)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 2,648
Joe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Glidden
It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.
The difference is that the rules don't specifically call out requirement for accounting for engineering or design done by non-team members while they DO specifically require that non-team labor in making parts be counted against the $3500 limit.

The way I read the rules, there is no way that $3500 limit does not apply. BUT... ...is this the spirit of the rule? I don't think the rules were intended to prevent this type of labor sharing among teams.

As a practical matter, there is zero chance that FIRST is going to disqualify either team 60 or team 254... ...so for 2004 at least this practice is going to be allowed.

I think that FIRST is going to get an earful in the off season about this, especially if Kingman and Cheesy Poofs keep up that habit they have of winning regionals and placing high at the Championships.

Deciding what the rules should be next year is going to put Dean's statements about FIRST being for engineers not lawyers to the test...


Joe J.
  #49   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:11
Krystine T. Krystine T. is offline
Registered User
FRC #1868 (Space Cookies)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 36
Krystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud of
Re: Robot Collaboration

I would just like to bring up one point...the build load did not decrease.

Yes it is true that we only made 1/2 of the robot ...but we made 4 robots... After school, work, and homeowrk, team 60 and 254 put in alot of very long nights. Every part that was made took quadruple the amount of time. Often it took hours or even days for that matter to finish a certan part...and several times we had to go back to the drawing board and re-design new mechanisms.
I hope that everyone realizes that there is more then one way to go about building robots. The students on team 60 and 254 have learned 4 times over the difficulties and challenges that robotics teams face.
I have realized the importance of communication. The students on our teams will walk away with a new lesson in life. They will walk away knowing that they will face challenges greater then themsleves, and they will know that working on a team will bring up new challenges and new ideas, and give them knowledge that they never thought possible
  #50   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:20
Jessica Boucher Jessica Boucher is offline
FIRST Historian
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Jamaica Plain, MA
Posts: 2,090
Jessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?
__________________
jessicaboucher.com
FRC Alum, Mentor, Volunteer, lots of things.
Championship Volunteer of the Year, 2016
Advisor, NE FIRST
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:24
crazykid234's Avatar
crazykid234 crazykid234 is offline
Techincal assist
AKA: Brian Clegg
FRC #1646 (Precision Guessworks), Alumni FRC #234 (Cyber Blue)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 78
crazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to beholdcrazykid234 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Robot Collaboration

I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!
__________________
Don't see the world as it is and ask why; see the world as it could be and ask, why not? - unknown author


Last edited by crazykid234 : 16-02-2004 at 21:28. Reason: quick point
  #52   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:24
Dan Richardson's Avatar
Dan Richardson Dan Richardson is offline
iR3 Creative
AKA: Dan Richardson
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale FL
Posts: 1,121
Dan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond reputeDan Richardson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

I've been involved in FIRST for a short few years. Over these years I've come ucostum to as soon as I get to nationals ( which is all 4 years ) I've run over to team 60 and 254 ( and a few others ) robots to check out how they individually solved each problem. What unique devices they may be using, and why they may have chosen to go with a certain solution. Each robot has been unique in its own way. Whether it be a little vast differences or very small all have been different. I've found one of the biggest learning experiences for me ( and funnest to say the least ) is when I get a break from the buzz of competion to just walk around and look at the other bots. To talk to those teams and see why they went a certain way, or put this nut here or this nut there. TO really figure out how things work. Now I have have 1 less team to visit and figure out how they did it.

You see the learning experience doesn't stop during construction. It goes on to competition or to everyone who looks at a picture on delphi, who studies the bot and says I like how they did this or I woulda changed this a bit. So in a way I feel a bit cheated. My learning experience may have been curved because of something like this. The very fact that now 2 power houses of teams have joined up somewhat dissapoints me, that FIRST now gets 1 for the price of 2. It is not that I'm upset with 60 or 254, I am just concerned. I do believe that now that they have done it, they have crossed that rubicon, if something is not done to stop it, what is to say that all 950 teams collaborate with each other where we only produce 425 robots.. what if it goes beyond there.. 3 or 4 or 5 teams start joining together and making things simpler. You see you drastically curve everything you create a blan game with no creativity. If FIRST wanted identical robots, if they had inteded this, they would have sent us parts that snap together and said here use this.. but only use this.. use nothing else.

I can understand what you mean about collaborating for a real world experience, however I'm somewhat confused where that example would fit. I'm not well aquainted with any situation where 2 companies involved in heavy competition would work together to create identical products. Thats like a Microsoft and Apple joining together to create 1 os and only selling that 1 os. This infact is called Collusion and is illegal in the United States because in all examples it reduces competition.

I'm not really upset with these teams. I don't believe they had bad intentions. I don't believe they believed it would give them a competitive edge because if won't. Infact if their bots are good they may even have to compete against each other in the finals.

Now I still don't believe it was right, the time and energy spent here could have been more justifiably been given to 2 different rookie teams without the resources of 254 and 60. Four teams would have been effected for the better.. wrather than 2 teams.

I'm dissapointed, but not angry. I think it was the right idea, just gone to far. It is my belief helping each other is great, but building half of each others robot for each other is not the way to go. Sharring drive trains designs and one or the other team perfecting them in different ways, good. Building the others for them, not good.

Not everyone will view this as good or bad. It is surely a new undiscovered avenue. I still await whether or not FIRST will release a statement. But it is my ernhest hope that the rest of FIRST does not venture down this avenue.

Dan

/edit sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes was in a hurry
__________________
CO-Founder of Robot in 3 Days and the Robot in 3 Day Challenge.



Last edited by Dan Richardson : 16-02-2004 at 23:30.
  #53   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:31
BionicAlumni's Avatar
BionicAlumni BionicAlumni is offline
Registered User
AKA: Shane
no team
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona
Posts: 79
BionicAlumni is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to BionicAlumni
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Leung
Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.
I found out about the alliance between 254 and 60 about 3 weeks ago. When I first heard about it I was skeptical to say the least. My first question was the same as Matt Adams. How would this be accounted far as the 3500 dollars that can be spent? This was answer by the fact that Laron is sponsoring the cheesy poofs. If this is valid answer, I am not sure, but it is an answer to the question none the less. I guess you just have to read between the lines of each and every rule.

Now my next question is exactly the one that Joe J. proposed. What keeps companies and teams like Delphi, Ford, NASA, and GM from sending the same robot on the field with 16 different team numbers? Right now I would say it isn't possible for 16 teams to come together and design 1 robot to suit the needs of all 16 teams, but last year I would have said it wasn't even possible for 2 teams to do it. Especially teams as far away as 60 and 254. So where does that leave the future of FIRST? A regional comp with 64 teams entered but only 10 different robots? That isn't something I personally would like to see happen.

I know for a fact that both team 60 and team 254 have nothing but the best intentions for the students on the team and for this partnership. I think that for these teams it’s a great idea, but the idea can be taken to a different extreme and that is the scenario I don't want to see.

I guess all I can say is congratulations to both teams taking first to a different level weather it be a better or worse place.
  #54   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:37
Joe Johnson's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Johnson Joe Johnson is offline
Engineer at Medrobotics
AKA: Dr. Joe
FRC #0088 (TJ2)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 2,648
Joe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher
Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?
Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots -- one to ship and one to program autonomous mode with while you wait to compete at the regionals and championships. This is a serious problem for FIRST in the long run (more serious than the topic of this thread, imho), but it is off topic for this already overheated thread.

So, they had to build 4 of each so that both Team 60 and Team 254 can have an extra autonomy robot (for who among us reading this deeply into this thread can seriously doubt that both teams are serious about maximizing their chances of placing well in the robot competition -- whether they "put their ego's aside" or not... -- sorry Glenn, it was too easy).

Joe J.
  #55   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:39
Jessica Boucher Jessica Boucher is offline
FIRST Historian
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Jamaica Plain, MA
Posts: 2,090
Jessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond reputeJessica Boucher has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!
I know, I was more-so asking because "we had to build 4 robots" to me isn't a valid excuse.
__________________
jessicaboucher.com
FRC Alum, Mentor, Volunteer, lots of things.
Championship Volunteer of the Year, 2016
Advisor, NE FIRST
  #56   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:39
Eric Bareiss's Avatar
Eric Bareiss Eric Bareiss is offline
It's a Bird
AKA: BoogyShoes
FRC #1492 (Team Caution)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 291
Eric Bareiss is a glorious beacon of lightEric Bareiss is a glorious beacon of lightEric Bareiss is a glorious beacon of lightEric Bareiss is a glorious beacon of lightEric Bareiss is a glorious beacon of light
Send a message via AIM to Eric Bareiss
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher
Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?
One practice bot and one competition bot per team.
  #57   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:46
Joe Johnson's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Johnson Joe Johnson is offline
Engineer at Medrobotics
AKA: Dr. Joe
FRC #0088 (TJ2)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Raynham, MA
Posts: 2,648
Joe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Johnson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Originally Posted by kat
I would just like to bring up one point...the build load did not decrease.

Yes it is true that we only made 1/2 of the robot ...but we made 4 robots... After school, work, and homeowrk, team 60 and 254 put in alot of very long nights. Every part that was made took quadruple the amount of time. Often it took hours or even days for that matter to finish a certan part...and several times we had to go back to the drawing board and re-design new mechanisms.
I hope that everyone realizes that there is more then one way to go about building robots. The students on team 60 and 254 have learned 4 times over the difficulties and challenges that robotics teams face.
I have realized the importance of communication. The students on our teams will walk away with a new lesson in life. They will walk away knowing that they will face challenges greater then themsleves, and they will know that working on a team will bring up new challenges and new ideas, and give them knowledge that they never thought possible
I cannot disagree more with your statements. If I KNOW I am going to make 4 of something, I can think about it as I design it and as I make it. For example, it may not be worth making a jig if I am going to make 1 but if I am going to make 4 -- it probably will be, possibly saving me huge amounts of time per part.

In short, I suppose that on average you can make 4 of something in 2-3 times the time it takes to make 1. Even if we take the high number of 3, then assuming each team shares the load equally, then each team only had to do 87.5% of the work they would have had to do had they made the parts themselves.

12.5% may not seem like much of a savings but that is almost another week of time saved during the 6 week build cycle.

Joe J.

Last edited by Joe Johnson : 16-02-2004 at 21:49.
  #58   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:48
Krystine T. Krystine T. is offline
Registered User
FRC #1868 (Space Cookies)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 36
Krystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud of
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazykid234
I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!

Both Team 60 and 254 are helping rookie teams. And both teams are more then willing to help anyone who asks. I am a student on team 60 and our team loves good competition, we also love to "raise the bar". We didnt build identical robots to beat down other teams or garuante ourselves a win...there is no point in that. We did not expect everyone to like this idea of collaberation but we did expect everyone to think about FIRST in a different perspective. Our goal was to learn more...by putting in our ideas and adding ideas from other teams.
  #59   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 21:53
KenWittlief KenWittlief is offline
.
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,213
KenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Robot Collaboration

Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.

Last edited by KenWittlief : 16-02-2004 at 21:55.
  #60   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-02-2004, 22:01
Krystine T. Krystine T. is offline
Registered User
FRC #1868 (Space Cookies)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 36
Krystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud ofKrystine T. has much to be proud of
Re: Robot Collaboration

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.
both teams worked together to design the bot, both teams shared the work load
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:53.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi