Corporations Build Robots

[aaeamdar]

Throughout my two-going-on-three years of participation in FIRST I've heard mutterings about teams whose basic setup is to have the associated corporate sponsor build the robot. So, I had a few questions about this:

1. Does this actually happen, or is it just a rumor that keeps circulating?

2. Is this something that is talked about in the community? In other words, is this post unbelievably awkward?

3. I understand that this is accepted by FIRST, the organization. But is it accepted by FIRST, the teams? The students, mentors, and parents that make up the teams? Basically, there are two parts to this question. First, if you want to personally answer feel happy to do so (better than just feeling free). Second, if you want to answer what you think many other people would say, or something in that vein, also please fell happy to do that.

I understand that FIRST does not provide a model for how teams are supposed to run; I'm not claiming this is some sort of rule violation, I'm just asking, well, the above questions.

Thanks,
Paul Dennis

P.S.: I did search through the forums, but found nothing that seemed to answer my question. If anyone can point me to a thread where this was previously discussed or help me refine my search terms, I'd be much obliged.

[synth3tk]

Hmm, this is news to me. Elaborate, someone?

[AndyB]

I don't think the controversy has been so much over corporation built robots but more-so the common debate surrounding mentor built robots. Many mentors represent business's though so this is possibly where this came from.

I know there isn't a place in the FIRST rule book prohibiting this from taking place. I am not going to argue that students do not still learn something from watching a build rather than building it themselves.

However, in my opinion, it is more beneficial for students to receive hands-on-learning. If you watching the whole time, why not just watch the discovery channel all day, or read a text book. If there is a student that wants to get involved hand's on, I don't see any reason why there should be any limit to his ambition. Then again, that's just how I've expierienced it. I have never worked in an environment where I've had to do everything myself without mentor aid, or in an environment where learning was occurring while observing.

[EricH]

AndyB is correct; this does partially fall under mentor/student build ratio discussions. It is also not prohibited from happening.

blakcheez, Paul is referring to a rumor that pops up from time to time that a given team (which team depends on who starts the rumor) has not included the students in their design and manufacturing at all. This is usually proven false as soon as it is introduced.

To answer Paul's questions:

1) I believe it's just a rumor and will continue to think so until it is proved true. I certainly hope that it never is. (personal opinion)

2) Not usually. The most common occurrence is an accusation. I think that your post is fine for now, as it could spark some healthy debate. As soon as it turns into an accusation/flame/mentor vs. student built thread, then it should be closed.

3) Personally, I don't think this helps the students at all. Unless the design process is explained to them, they are not really participating other than driving the robot. That would be like grabbing Joe-off-the-street to drive in NASCAR, or worse, lead the pit crew for that NASCAR team. He doesn't know a thing about performance increasers, race strategy, etc. The students don't really learn what being an engineer means. Chances are, they won't be inspired. (May be exceptions, of course.)

3b) I'm going to go out on a thick limb and say that a team that actually did something like this would be looked upon with displeasure by the FIRST community as a whole. This is based on the "mentor vs student built" threads and the large consensus toward a 50-50 split or fully student built robots expressed in them.

[Nawaid Ladak]

looks like FIRST needs it's onw MItchell Report... i'll just leave it at that

[Jonathan Norris]

This discussion falls under the mentor/student ratio debate which is by far one of the most heated debates in FIRST that can spark some fires from time to time.

Just a warning to take a look at older threads discussing this topic, if you feel you have anything more to add to the discussion feel free, but this is one of those topics that has been beaten over the head a couple times.

[Pavan Dave]

1. I think it does happen. This debate is brought up every year...

2. Usually topics are "hinted" at specific teams and these threads happen around the 6-wk robot "show off" period as well as after regionals/Atlanta.

3. FIRST is not about making engineers, its about inspiring people to become engineers, if not than at the very least it is about respecting engineers. ... I don't think this can be lawyered anymore than that? Just being part of a winning team can boost a person's spirit so if this false win (false because the students had very little to do with the robot itself) converts them to engineers than FIRST's overall mission is complete, right?

[=Martin=Taylor=]

I really don't care what other teams do, so long as they aren't blatantly cheating and ruining my team's FIRST experience.

I don't think an all engineer team would have much of an advantage over some seriously dedicated, smart, and talented students.

(Shady wiring practices, extra motors, little wedges, purposefully whacking other robots with arms, thats basically my list of don'ts)

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

(Shady wiring practices...)

Expand?

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Pavan

Expand?

I've seen some of these FIRST electronics boards. And man. I don't know how the insepectors do it...

It would be pretty easy to connect multiple motors to the same victor, over-compress the compressor, play with the current... This is a very low form of cheating.

Back to the topic.

I would be interested to see what an all engineer team would design. Just imagine if the NASA engineers got down to business to build a FIRST Robot? I'd lose to that robot gladly!

And if my team beat it? Well imagine the glory of saying: "I outsmarted a bunch of NASA engineers with government funding!" It would certainly be a proud moment. Much better then beating a bunch of kids...

[GaryVoshol]

This topic comes up from time to time. Many who have a background in FLL, where the creed is "the kids do the work", have problems with teams with a lot of adult design and construction.

Still, I doubt anyone has ever seen either of these teams:

In Team A, the mentors drop the KOP boxes on the worktable and say, "There you go, have at it. Let's see what you can build."

In Team B, a group of mentors absconds with all the motors and other proprietary parts, secludes themselves in a locked room, and 4 weeks later they unveil the shining new monster.

Real teams are somewhere between those extremes. What works for a team in the past may be changed in the future. Depending on the particular strengths of the students and the engineering mentors, the pendulum may sway toward one or the other extreme, but will never max out or stay in one place. Neither Team A nor Team B will be particularly successful in inspiring students to succeed. Success in inspiration and in learning comes from cooperation and interaction between mentor and mentee. Each team must discover the dynamics of that interaction for themselves, to see what works.

I am happy as a parent that my daughter is involved with mentors who want the students to do a lot of the work, and want them actively involved in the design process. Yet they had me work on the bumpers, and I did most of the cutting and much of the fabrication. You know what? Cutting and filing several dozen 45* cuts on angle aluminum was pretty boring. I didn't learn much except how hot pieces could get. What did I take away from any student that already knew how to use a chop-saw? Nothing. When it came time to assemble, I had a student or two working with me to hold the material and operate the staple gun. Nothing big there either - but the students knew how the bumpers were constructed, and could describe it properly if asked by an inspector. Mission accomplished. The same process is repeated over and over as mentors and students work together to design, build and program all the marvelous parts of the machines that come to the competitions.

As I was typing this, I looked up at the top of the screen and saw a highlight from Karthik.

Remember, there are many differents path to obtaining knowledge. There's no need to pigeonhole the process.

How appropriate. It was from 2004. I think I'll go rep him just on principle.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

Still, I doubt anyone has ever seen either of these teams:

In Team A, the mentors drop the KOP boxes on the worktable and say, "There you go, have at it. Let's see what you can build."

Actually, I think this happens all the time. I always see teams touting how their team has no engineers.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Cory

I always see teams touting how their team has no engineers.

I see individuals saying this. I don't know if I can accept the claim at face value.

I can believe the team might have no professional engineers, but it's very unlikely that none of their mentors help with the robot.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

looks like FIRST needs it's onw MItchell Report... i'll just leave it at that

With all due respect ... this is entirely the wrong way to look at things.
FIRST has made it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR over the years that there is no rule governing who builds how much of any FRC robot. The program is about inspiration and recognition, period. We're here to change the culture. There are plenty of rules to follow in FIRST, but this one does not exist. What you or I choose to use as a rule/guideline/method of inspiring during the build period with our own teams is a separate conversation. When we show up at competition we get to celebrate ALL team's creations and the effort put in, regardless of how any team got to that point. Wasting your time on being a skeptic about these things is time wasted that you could have used to inspire a student and change the culture. Namaste.

[BBnum3]

What you are talking about has almost definitely happened, but very rarely and I would think more in the past than currently. I seem to remember some horror stories (I think they were about old MN FIRST teams) where a team had to give their robot back to their sponsor at the end of the season to be dismantled because the company apparently didn't want their designs to be copied. I am not sure of the details of that situation, but it is an uncommon one.

I think the proliferation of teams has made it harder for big corporations (especially those who sponsor many teams) to be highly involved in the robot building process.