|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
You took some words right out of my mouth
Posted by Justin Ridley.
Engineer on team #221, MI Roboworks, from Michigan Technological University. Posted on 3/20/2000 10:34 PM MST In Reply to: A matter of opinion.. posted by colleen on 3/20/2000 8:58 PM MST: I just have to say that I whole heartedly agree with you. There are lots of different types of FIRST teams doing things in lots of different ways. And I also have been on ones where the kids play larger roles in the construction of the robot. I like this kind of team, and this is the type I would want to be a part of. I learned an incredible amount the time I spent working with engineers building the bot, and I wouldn't personally have wanted it any other way. I think it's absolutely great when the students are deeply involved in the design and construction of robots. And I think it's awsome that many teams are able to build competitive robots on shoestring budgets. But, you know what, kids on other types of teams enjoy FIRST just as much. The big thing all teams do is introduce students to the world of engineering, and I think this is one of the major goals of FIRST. As for team 47, I think they do this and much more. They do a lot of good things for the school, the community, and most of all the students on their team. Just because their kids might not be spending hours milling out parts doesn't mean they arn't learning and gaining a lot from the FIRST experience. I know I would absolutley love to sit down with their engineers in one of thier brainstorming sessions. They are obviously incredibly brilliant to design and build the robots we've seen year after year. I know they inspire me and members of my team to keep striving, trying to reach their level. I'm sure they inspire their students in much the same way, and that's what matters. I look forward to trying to compete with teams like ChiefDelphi, and nickel and dime basement builders, this year and the years to come. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sub Contracted ?
Posted by Ken Wilson.
Engineer on team #248, FEMEX, from Philadelphia Girls High and PECO Energy Company. Posted on 3/21/2000 7:06 AM MST In Reply to: Re: Sub Contracted ? posted by mike aubry on 3/20/2000 6:14 PM MST: Mike - you don't have to justify you're team efforts. FIRST is about inspiration and recognition. Your (teams) creation should inspire anyone who is lucky enough to see it in action. My 3 year old son (apprentice robot builder) was one who marveled at its performance this past weekend. We saw it in the pits and were equally impressed. I was personally impressed with your team's sportmanship when the tide turned against you. You guys raise the bar each year and we all benefit. Winning is nice, but its not the goal. Besides, FIRST competitions reveal that there are many different ways to 'win'. In my book, TEAM 47 deserves much recognition. KUDOS FROM TEAM 248. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
More light less heat...
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 3/20/2000 8:42 PM MST In Reply to: Sub Contracted, Eh? posted by John on 3/20/2000 5:03 PM MST: Let's all take a step back and take a deep breath. There is no need to be hostile in any case either by my own friend and colleage, Mike Aubry, or by others whom I am less familiar with. John, you being up a lot of important issues. Your voice is welcome on these forums. I have much to say, but I will try to address it in a civil manner. I look for civility in return. Deal? Joe J. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#1 Engineers do not run lathes, mills, etc.
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 3/20/2000 9:02 PM MST In Reply to: More light less heat... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 8:42 PM MST: Point #1 Engineers do not, in general, run precision metal working equipment. Engineers do not, in general, weld. Engineers do not, in general, make stuff*. What we DO do is solve problems, plan for the execution of the solution and communicate that plan to people who run precision metal working equipment, weld, and make stuff. You tell me what is closer to the spirit and intent of the FIRST competition. Invovling students in the real job that engineers do every day (i.e. the creative process and the turning of ideas into buildable designs) or having students watch chips curl off a piece of aluminum chucked up in a lathe? INSPIRATION is the key yardstick by which I feel all aspects of this program should be measured. Our team feels strongly that the inspiration is in the idea creation and the subsequent 'magic' called engineering that turns those ideas into real working beautiful robots. Other ideas are welcome. Joe J. * Of course a strong case can be made that engineers who know how to run lathes, mills, etc. are better at their jobs because of that knowledge, but this is not to say that being good engineer is the same as being a good metal smith. I can also say that engineers who have read Homer are better at their jobs, but I don't count the ability to discuss Greek tragedies intelligently as part of the job description of a typical engineering professional. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: #1 Engineers do not run lathes, mills, etc.
Posted by Greg Mills.
Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare. Posted on 3/21/2000 6:19 AM MST In Reply to: #1 Engineers do not run lathes, mills, etc. posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 9:02 PM MST: Joe, I have found that the best way to get the idea across is to mention what Dean said one night a few years ago - If you want to inspire a student to be a great basketball player, is it better to give him a basketball and tell him how to do it or take him to watch Michael Jordan play (maybe that should be Vince Carter now)? The answer is a little of both. We try to combine as much drilling and tapping by the students as possible with them watching a five axis CNC magically turn out a sprocket. We let them see what we can do - and what they can do with a little hard work over the next few years. Don't sweat the comments Delphi - in fact I have come to take those as a complement to our program. Except for two minutes at a time this is really a celebration more than a competition - it takes a few years for that to sink it. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#2 FIRST does not make students engineers
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 3/20/2000 9:24 PM MST In Reply to: More light less heat... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 8:42 PM MST: FIRST does not magically turn high school students into engineers in six short weeks. If it were so, then why did I go to college? I used to think that I was really an engineer in high school and that college only provided me with a piece of paper that somehow gave me official permission to be what I already was. How young I was! I can't tell you how often I use the tools that I learned in school to do my job. Yes, I had the inclination toward being an engineer before college, but it was only an inclination and an aptitude. FIRST at its best is not so much about making students engineers in 6 weeks, but about inspiring them to stick it out through the Calc 3 class because it is a step on the road to a place they want to be. At our best, the Chief Delphi team is very effective at this task. Or at least that is our aim. Sometimes we miss the mark. Even so, the target remains clear. Joe J. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Definition of an Engineer
Posted by Kate.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Posted on 3/22/2000 5:10 PM MST In Reply to: #2 FIRST does not make students engineers posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 9:24 PM MST: engineer n 1: a person who uses scientific knowledge to solve practical problems I'll mostly agree with you.. It's just the title of your post that I'll disagree with.. I believe that participants in the FIRST competition are engineers.. No matter how far they've come in school.. The difference is that not everyone is on the same level of being an engineer.. Those who have degrees in engineering are obviously on a higher level than those that are in high school.. Everyone that does FIRST solves problems in a usually pratical manner.. I'll even call my camp kids engineers.. I had them for camp over the summer for the Lego Mindstorms camp at FIRST.. They solved the problem basically on their own.. Just with a little bit of mentoring and guidance.. There are different levels of engineering.. Because if there wasn't, then you would go from being nothing so suddenly being an engineer.. And that isn't the case.. It takes time and practice.. But some of that engineering magic is even found in the young kids.. Kate |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3 Chief Delphi Builds Its Robot
Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]
Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems. Posted on 3/20/2000 9:55 PM MST In Reply to: More light less heat... posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 8:42 PM MST: Having defended the right of a team to totally farm out their design, this is not what the Chief Delphi team does. We do work on the robot. Quite a lot actually. Cutting, drilling, tapping, dremelling, wiring, bending, shearing, assembling, bolting, bleeding, etc. These are just a few of the 'ing' words that we did a lot of. Why? When Chief Delphi is obviously able to hire out the entire process or even to build several robots while we are at it (sarcasm alert ;-) Because it is part of the inspiration process in our opinion. We do plenty of work on that machine (We in this case being engineers, students and teachers). If it is not enough to suit some teams or if the balance of what is done by this group or that group does not match the ratio set by your team's internal standards. What can I say? We are trying to inspire our students using our best judgement. I find it singularly uninspiring that some teams come to competition with robots that cannot drive, move their arms or do much of anything. Many times this is done in the name of inspiring students by letting them design and build XXX% of the robot. Am I to complain that this is a great unfairness to other teams and should not be allowed? I think not. FIRST has not made a rule about what percentage of a robot must be built by any one group (including so-called sub-contractors). FIRST has (wisely, in my opinion) allowed teams to use their best judgement about what balance is best to maximize the inspirational aspect of their FIRST programs. I think this is part of the richness of FIRST and what makes it such a dynamic community. Joe J. P.S. As to rumors that Chief Delphi has built more than one robot. This is totally false. In my rookie year, I strongly advocated this strategy as a means of gaining drive time. It was a total and complete failure. I swore that we would never again waste such energy chasing down a 2nd robot that never did manage to get completed. It is a vow that I repeat often. In my opinion these are the keys to success: Make ONE robot. Pick a strategy early. Design it in CAD before you cut ANYTHING. Pull the all nighters in week 4 to finish it early rather than in week 5 to put it in the box. Give your drivers time behind the wheel. Building multiple robots hurts many of these efforts and only potentially helps the last one. Overall, I feel strongly that it is a huge net loss to build more than one robot. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Let's make this the last time . . .
Posted by Dan.
Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering. Posted on 3/20/2000 10:53 PM MST In Reply to: #3 Chief Delphi Builds Its Robot posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 9:55 PM MST: It's a shame that every year (or at least the last 3) Chief Delphi does very well, and every year you have to defend your program. If only for the sake of time (and your wrists, one notices it is far more time and energy consuming to DEFEND than to ATTACK) you should consider posting a 'Mission Statement' to once and for all clear up why and how you do this. There are obviously many misconceptions about FIRST and especially about Chief Delphi; it would be to everyone's benefit if these misconceptions could be cleared up once and for all. Of course, this is just one lowly student's opinion and Lord knows you guys already have your time filled. :-Dan PS I'm not trying to attack John, who posed the question. I think he's got valid points IF one looks at this competition as simply and engineering education. But as Dean, Woodie, and everyone else in here has mentioned there is more to it than that. It should also be noted that FIRST really allows you to determine your own mission. For John's team it may be an engineering education. No goal is really better than another, but different schools use FIRST for different purposes. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: #3 Chief Delphi Builds Its Robot
Posted by Scott Vierstra.
Engineer on team #128, Cold Fusion (TOGA PARTY), from Grandview Heights and American Electric Power. Posted on 3/22/2000 6:51 AM MST In Reply to: #3 Chief Delphi Builds Its Robot posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 9:55 PM MST: :I agree that engineers do not often have the opportunity to run equipment and machinery, but this is mostly due to the economic impact and the relative cost of engineering services. However, there are a lot of engineers who without the experience or with limited experience of getting their hands dirty struggle to truly understand how things work. By excluding students fromany part of the building phase of the FIRST competition, it is my opinion that they are robbed of a very valuable aspect of the overall process and an appreciation for the artistry of building things. I've felt that the purpose of FIRST was to introduce high school students to technically oriented fields, including being machinists, welders, mechanics, electricians, technicians, etc. An engineer without the support and valuable input from these other related fields would have a very lonely and unproductive existence. I was fortunate to have experienced Woody's Introductory Design Course at MIT, and I remember that one of the neat aspects of that competition, as well as FIRST, was the attempt to start with a level playing field. Winning the competition is nice, but at what price? If we place too much emphasis on winning the competition, we take away some of what it's all about for the rest of the competitors. Only one team can win the competition, but all can be winners. When a group of students who join a FIRST team with little experience, find that they can actually build a robot themselves in just 6 weeks time and have it survive the rigors of competition, they have truly learned something about technology and themselves. They realize that given the kind of resources that some teams have at their disposal, they can easily make an impact in this world. More importantly, they have pushed themselves to levels they previously thought they were not capable of. They go away with the knowledge that they can exceed their own expectations and overcome obstacles in the process. Don't get me wrong. I believe that the engineers play a vital roll in guiding the students, helping them to avoid pitfalls, and providing some level of assurance that the robot will do what it was intended to do. Chief Delphi is to be commended on their continued success in developing sound designs and competitive robots. I simply think that the students gain more by owning more of the process and doing the work. With team Cold Fusion (TOGA PARTY), we are fortunate to be able to start early in the fall and can develop student skills as welders, electricians, programers, etc. allowing them to feel more comfortable in applying these skills in the robot building phase. Good Luck to All at Nationals : Having defended the right of a team to totally farm out their design, this is not what the Chief Delphi team does. : We do work on the robot. Quite a lot actually. : Cutting, drilling, tapping, dremelling, wiring, bending, shearing, assembling, bolting, bleeding, etc. : These are just a few of the 'ing' words that we did a lot of. : Why? When Chief Delphi is obviously able to hire out the entire process or even to build several robots while we are at it (sarcasm alert ;-) : Because it is part of the inspiration process in our opinion. : We do plenty of work on that machine (We in this case being engineers, students and teachers). : If it is not enough to suit some teams or if the balance of what is done by this group or that group does not match the ratio set by your team's internal standards. What can I say? : We are trying to inspire our students using our best judgement. : I find it singularly uninspiring that some teams come to competition with robots that cannot drive, move their arms or do much of anything. Many times this is done in the name of inspiring students by letting them design and build XXX% of the robot. : Am I to complain that this is a great unfairness to other teams and should not be allowed? : I think not. : FIRST has not made a rule about what percentage of a robot must be built by any one group (including so-called sub-contractors). : FIRST has (wisely, in my opinion) allowed teams to use their best judgement about what balance is best to maximize the inspirational aspect of their FIRST programs. : I think this is part of the richness of FIRST and what makes it such a dynamic community. : Joe J. : P.S. As to rumors that Chief Delphi has built more than one robot. This is totally false. In my rookie year, I strongly advocated this strategy as a means of gaining drive time. It was a total and complete failure. I swore that we would never again waste such energy chasing down a 2nd robot that never did manage to get completed. It is a vow that I repeat often. In my opinion these are the keys to success: : Make ONE robot. : Pick a strategy early. : Design it in CAD before you cut ANYTHING. : Pull the all nighters in week 4 to finish it early rather than in week 5 to put it in the box. : Give your drivers time behind the wheel. : Building multiple robots hurts many of these efforts and only potentially helps the last one. : Overall, I feel strongly that it is a huge net loss to build more than one robot. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|