Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[Thad House]

Our team is thinking about bringing back our sister team, and we we have 2 scenarios if we do bring them back. One of the scenarios is that we bring back the second team but have both teams build identical robots, similar to 254/968 in previous years. Some members on our team see this as being unethical, and think that other teams would hate us if we did this because it would make us look too competitive. I see it as a chance to give more teams members a chance at being on drive team and pit crew, and don's see a problem with both robots being the same. I was wondering what anyone else thinks about this issue.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

Our team is thinking about bringing back our sister team, and we we have 2 scenarios if we do bring them back. One of the scenarios is that we bring back the second team but have both teams build identical robots, similar to 254/968 in previous years. Some members on our team see this as being unethical, and think that other teams would hate us if we did this because it would make us look too competitive. I see it as a chance to give more teams members a chance at being on drive team and pit crew, and don's see a problem with both robots being the same. I was wondering what anyone else thinks about this issue.

Do a forum search for Canadian Triplets. There was some pretty heated discussion a couple years ago. (Not to say they were the first, just that I recall that discussion vividly)

[EricH]

60/254 had some pretty heated discussion back in 2004 when they built identical robots.

254/22 (2005) and 254/968(2006-???--not sure if it's still going on or not) didn't draw anywhere near the level of heated discussion. Partly because the Triplets were drawing all the attention, but still...

[Dale]

There's nothing unethical about it in my opinion. I don't however think it's a good use of resources in most cases. Having two different robots means there are twice as many opportunities for students to experience the design process...the sense of discovery that only comes from doing the work, prototyping, and making the tradeoffs.

At some point you can't have any more people doing design work without tripping over yourselves. What that number is depends on how modular you can make things and the nature of the challenge. I've never seen a FRC challenge that couldn't be designed by a half dozen people. You could maybe double that but I doubt any more than that would be manageable. The communication overhead just gets too large.

The whole point of FRC is to expose as many students as possible to engineering. Does having two identical robots accomplish that? In the case when one team is so on the ropes that they can barely get a box on wheels to function maybe so. In most cases, though, I'd say no.

[Thad House]

So some of the members think that bringing 2 identical robots to a regional would be cheating because they think it gives us an unfair advantage to winning. That is the reason they think other teams will hate us.

Both teams have always shared the same shop, which caused major issues in 2009/2010. The reason they share the same shop is because the 1st team comes from the high school the shop is in, and the 2nd team is from a magnet school in the district. This makes it difficult to design and build 2 distinct robots because the resources in the shop are split. Back in 2009 and 2010 we both built separate robots, and almost did not complete them because we did not have enough shop resources.

We want to bring back the 2nd team because of the connection with the school and the culture of the team, but we do not want a repeat of the 2009/2010 seasons, where both robots were barely finished by ship day and needed much work at the competitions.

[Madison]

I don't understand why this is an issue now -- 1510 and 2898 have already done this in the past and nobody hates you for it.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Madison

I don't understand why this is an issue now -- 1510 and 2898 have already done this in the past and nobody hates you for it.

We have always done 2 separate designs, and 2 completely separate robots. The issue is we might want to make both robots the same in order to save resources, and they other members say that other teams will think this is cheating. I don't believe this, and think that this would be perfectly OK. i just wanted some other opinions that i could bring up for discussion.

Being competitive is one of our goals (and the main goal in some member's eye's), but in mine and the coaches opinion teaching more students is the main goal.

[Dale]

I don't think other teams, including ours, will think it's cheating. However, besides the point I made earlier, it IS putting all of your eggs in one basket. Seldom can we be sure we've made the right trade-offs during the design process.

148 and 217 got so much grief in 2010 not because they shared the same design but because they built robots so much more advanced than other teams because of their hands-on mentors and IFI partnership. With your commitment to having students do most of the work that wouldn't be a problem for you folks.

We're building four BunnyBots in our lab right now no two of them the same. The students go out of their way to make them different to have the fun of doing it their own way and to see which design turns out to be the most effective. I think it would be more fun and valuable for the students if they were different, but that's just me.

[Isaac501]

I don't see this as being a problem as long as everyone on the two teams agrees on the design and works on the robots honestly.

We've seen this done before. I think in the '09 Regional at UCF. If memory serves one of the twins won.

[ajlapp]

So because our teams are based out of the same shop, the 2 teams would be combined into 1 during build season. Once competition started, the team would split into 2 in order to have the 2 separate drive teams and pit crews. Would this be collaboration or something else.

Isn't this exactly how frc494 and frc70 do it every year? The Martians and More Martians have had this setup since around 2006.

I think its cool....and definitely not cheating or unethical. I think it's a great way for large teams to get more students involved in building the robot.

[IKE]

My only caution would be to warn that collaboration is not easier.

When done right, you can end up with a technically superior product from additional prototyping and sharing.

When done poorly, you can end in gridlock and not get robots done in time. You can also get a compromise by commitee design that isn't particularly good at anything.

Collaboration on the scale of "identical" machines can be quite difficult. It can also be interesting when one team clearly outperforms the other with identical machines.

I would recommend trying to talk it through with some of the teams that have tried it in the past. You could try a call-in similar to the EWCP guys as the pros and cons of collaboration would make a great topic.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by IKE

My only caution would be to warn that collaboration is not easier.

Bingo. (You must spread some reputation ...)

Building two robots that are alike (and possibly a 3rd practice robot) requires more precision, especially if parts are meant to be interchangeable.

The "unfair/unethical" aspect of this is if Team A designs and builds a robot for Team B. Then B's experience with the robot is only driving it, and A has robbed the members of Team B of valuable design and build opportunities.

As long as both teams are equal partners in the design and build, members from both teams get to learn and be inspired from the whole process.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by IKE

You could try a call-in similar to the EWCP guys as the pros and cons of collaboration would make a great topic.

We've actually been trying to set up this topic for a while now and have discussed it a bunch of times among ourselves. Usually, our main source for the topic (Karthik) has been busy but was gracious enough to do the 1114 Spotlight cast with us. That talked a little about the old NiagraFIRST collaboration, but not much.

Hopefully we'll be able to get some time from Cory, Travis, and EJ from 254 along with Kiet Chau, Adam Heard and Ranjit Chahal from 968, 973 and 1323 respectively to talk about their collaborations/twin builds. It would be tough to pick a good time due to the 3 hour difference.

If you guys have others you would like us to interview, drop any EWCP member a line.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I think you will find that I am changing my mind on this issue but here goes...
The true reason we are in this is to inspire students. How any team does that and whether they are successful is a matter for that team to decide. I now have lived through the experience of working and playing several of these multi robot teams and here is what I have brought away from the exposure. Students on both (or all three) were inspired. There did not seem to be a big advantage to one or both on the field. It is important to realize that in some cases, one team would not exist without the other which results in less students inspired. Often these teams did not attend similar events but when they did if one made it to the finals, they naturally picked the twin. In virtually all cases, strategy was different between the two and there is an obvious difference in drive teams. If you come up with a winning strategy against one robot design, then you have it easy to play against the other.
The similarities are hard to forget but the differences are significant enough to consider as two separate teams/robots.

[de_]

I can't say if this scenario applies in this case

Lets say you are a super team and you build (or help build or direct the building of) an identical robot for a non-super (say rookie) team and the 2 of you form an alliance that wins not only your local regional but you go to say 3 other regionals and win all those as well.

If the second super robot did not exist, at 4 regionals another 4 (deserving) teams would have virtually certainly been in the winning alliance and would have received:
- a permanent very desirable trophy
- a highly visible regional championship flag
- a very limited availability invite to the championship (a huge growth experience for students)
- substantial recognition in their school, mentors, sponsors, students etc
- substantial improvement in funding opportunities to go to the championship (versus if they had come second place with no invite, no trophy etc)

This may not break any current FIRST rules but it is clearly inconsistent with the goals of FIRST and the student base overall are the losers.

Clearly its okay to help a junior team get a basic robot to a regional. To help them so much that they get into winning regional finals in my mind crosses the line.
Update: clearly the above scenario is extreme and I won't comment if this scenario has already happened (or something close to it) but clearly there is some gray areas in the issue especially when super teams are involved.