|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
And on that note, I think we can all take a break on this topic and absorb the material in this thread. I think many good points have been made. This is a rather constructive discussion, if a little unfocused from time to time, but I think that's ok. I tried using the thread view only to look at this thread, but found it is impossible to seperate sub topic from sub topics. So, my recommendation is everyone please remember to quote the post you are replying to so we can maintain the train of thoughts. Try not to reply to all sub topics in one post, and instead reply to individual posts. Thanks. |
|
#2
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
I don't think that sponsorship can be just made up as we go or else the $3,500 rule is just so much non-sense. My particular part of Delphi has no shop to make a single part for our robot. If I want to get something made I have to apply the $3,500 limits or my team has to make it. If I can just call anyone who does work for me a sponsor or team member, then the rule has no teeth, especially, if I can barter for the goods and services. Remember Dean's statement that words mean what they mean? Well, the rules discuss even donated labor having to be accounted for. If all I have to do is call one my donator one of my team sponsors why even discuss such a thing as donated labor? I am back where I started on this one. I don't think I like this. Let's do a thought experiement... ...suppose that this was done by ChiefDelphi and another Delphi team or two. Based on the heat that Chief Delphi has taken over the years for pushing the limits of (what I feel at least) were more grey rules, I am sure that the calls for our heads would have been as loud as they were relentless. If you'd be upset if Chief Delphi did this, what is different about these two teams doing it? Joe J. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
I have mixed feelings about this. I see how it builds relationships and everything, but you already had a great relationship. This is taking it to a whole new level.
However, I feel that this is unfair to a lot of teams. Splitting up the work between two teams who do not have any trouble with resources is just not right. My team would kill to have the resources your teams have. I think this is just limiting creativity and making FIRST a little more sterile. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
i appologize for my seeming priggishism (sorry, just learned that word and wanted to use it and saw golden opportunity). this isn't black and white...at all. i'm sorry i saw it that way. there is a lot of grey. i do think that helping other teams is good, very good, and i guess if i look at this from a different angle i can see the fact that you all are helping each other. that's good. you may ask if i agree with the fabrication...no...but the principles i do agree with. i won't go into the "real world" because everyone's "real world" is different...i'll stick with my version of FIRST. FIRST (this is all FIRST to me) is as David Kelly said all about the I. without Inspiration this becomes a science fair (and we all know how Dean feels about that). i've been inspired in different ways along my journey in FIRST. without that "I" i wouldn't have a desk at Rolls-Royce and the opportunity of a lifetime as a high schooler. for me...a lot of that Inspiration comes because of the competition. for others...it must not. a note to teams 60 and 254-i personally look forward to seeing you at competitions (60 in AZ) not because of the robot but because of the idea and how it could possibly pertain to the FIRST International Partners (FIPs) idea. i think (with a little tweaking) it could work. of course, we would need an official word from FIRST and we'd have to keep it legal...but i think there are possibilities. as i said before...it's all about the I. and as long as the kids on teams 60 and 254 were "I"'d...congratulations. again...kingman...come see me in Phoenix...i'll be looking for you guys to get more details. p.s. thanks amanda. ![]() |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
but I dont want to be on the opposite side of the field against a robot that was designed by two teams (or more) against the bot we designed on our own. and I certainly dont want to be on the field opposite TWO robots in the elimination rounds that were designed together to BE a multi-team effort. Surely you can see that pitting two againts one is not good sportsmanship - go back and read what Dennis posted on the 1st page of this thread - he said you guys decided you could build a better product working together than either team could by themselves yes, exactly! which is not fair to the teams that build their bots by themselves. try to see this from the viewpoint of other teams, smaller teams, rookie teams who are going to end up getting trampled by your machines. if you did not have the resources to create a drivetrain and an acquistion system this year, you could have used the default drivetrain that FIRST provided, like MANY other teams are doing this year - and if you did not have the resources to design a super acquision system this year you could have designed a simple ball pushing device like MANY other teams will be using this year. Last edited by KenWittlief : 17-02-2004 at 12:28. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
Awesome work!!! I’m thrilled to see this actually happen. In the real world companies will in fact work together on projects to make something bigger and better. I’m sure this experience inspired your students and hopefully everyone in FIRST will be inspired too. There is nothing ungracious or there is no cheating here. The only thing that is unprofessional and ungracious that I've seen while reading this thread is the people that go and bash these two quality and great teams as cheaters and ungracious. What they did might have been a little unpractical and surprising, but it's not cheating. Remember Galileo's ideas were bashed by the public when they were first released, but they are now widely accepted for the most part. Nobody is stopping any of you from trying this, so why don't you go and try it yourself before you judge. It could be a good learning experience. Congrats to 254 and 60 on their nice work and I hope to compete along side or against you in Atlanta.
-D.J. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
My one and only qualm is about how this will work with the $3,500 limit.
1. There has obviously been some machining done by other teams. 2. This machining needs to be billed out at a reasonable cost. I don't see how it can be honestly billed out at a reasonable rate to both teams, and stay within the $3,500 limit. If it can be done within the rules, I'm all for it. However, simple algebra says that any reasonable amount of outside machining time at a reasonable (or even very generous) rate will add up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly. I don't see how it can be done, but I sincerely hope that I'll be proved wrong. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to need an official ruling on this from FIRST. I'd assume that someone from one of the teams has already asked FIRST about it before venturing too far. What ruling did they give you? If you haven't asked... I propose this goes up on the Q&A in section 5.3 Good luck everyone! Matt |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
Quote:
"If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply." Laron Engineering, the machine shop that sponsors Kingman, is also part of our team. "Shipping costs of Non-Kit items are not counted." Our shipping costs between the two teams are not counted. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
I think this is a valid discussion, so just keep it calm
![]() Last edited by Jessica Boucher : 16-02-2004 at 19:00. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Once again, hats off to 60 and 254 for an excellent idea.
I have seen people find objections to having cooperation of this kind between teams. People were talking about how unfair FIRST would be if there were alliances of great teams, creating robots which would be unbeatable. People have also mentioned the fact that both teams will have done only "half the work". I will speak now from experience. Building a robot is child's play compared to creating a consensus between people. Especially smart people who know how to create things, know what they are capable of. It has been said that invention is a human art, compromise a divine one. Pride in ideas is a very remarkable factor, as are logistics. If 60 and 254 were able to make sure nobody was silenced during the creation of this alliance, then all power to them. Especially to those who were directly behind this idea - does becoming a diplomat sound like a good career? There is no such thing as an unbeatable robot. Teams with experience and resources will seem invincible to those who don't have the same resources. It has been said that FIRST isn't fair. I think that statement itself is unnecessary. If FIRST was a competetion of equals, where would the motivation to build an incredibly slick robot come from? I wasn't at many competetions last year, but 25's robot (at J&J) sticks out in my mind as having been very well done. If all the robots present were of equal calibre, strategy and teams would be unnecessary. And just look at 25 at PARC. They were not invincible, just very good. I know that sometimes alliances between competetors can create improper situations. However I have enough trust in all of the students, mentors, etc. participating in FIRST to recognize such problems and ward them off. After all, bitterness takes all the fun out of wiring. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
|
#12
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
Quote:
Sometimes it's hard to determine who is a sponsor and who is not, especially as far as this rule goes. However, Laron Engineering is not listed as a sponsor for your team, currently. Your sponsors, according to FIRST, are NASA Ames Research Center, Unity Care Group, and Line-X. Your website isn't working right now, but before it went down, it didn't have any mention of Laron Engineering either. Thus, I think that you would have a hard time proving that Laron is a sponsor. Needless to say, I'm quite excited about the opportunities that this afforded the two teams. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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." Last edited by Madison : 16-02-2004 at 20:57. |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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 Last edited by Dan Richardson : 16-02-2004 at 23:30. |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: pic: Team 254 robot....almost there!
You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|