Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

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.

It would be counted as collaboration.

This is effectively how the various collaborations of the past have functioned. X teams meld into one, then produce X+Y robots, one per team and a practice one.

It should also be noted that you want to be careful how the team is split. While I'm not sure anybody would really ask (and most don't), it could be seen as one team building two robots and competing with two robots under two numbers, simply because the teams are so close (this would be the closest collaboration distance-wise that I'm aware of, and the only one where multiple teams shared a shop). There is a long-running rule about this (2011's <R10>). While this is not your intent, this is where most of the questions will probably come from/are coming from on the team, if they're asked. (And the general format, if asked, would be something to the effect of: How is this not one team?)

To that end, I would suggest three possible routes to take:
1) Single team. There is no one-school-per-team requirement. Build one robot and an identical practice robot.
2) Double team, collaboration, non-identical robots. See my above post for a short explanation.
3) Double team, collaboration, identical robots. Make sure that the teams are distinct apart from the design and building (this will help with the above-mentioned rule question).

If I was to recommend one of those three, I'd probably go with #2 if you have the combined resources to pull it off. It'll still allow many of the same benefits as a full collaboration (e.g., lots of spare parts for shared systems when you're at the same competition), but will force the teams to troubleshoot problems semi-independently, which will reduce a lot of the questions. If you don't have the resources, #1 and use a non-identical practice robot, say a modified older robot.

I'm not saying that this type of collaboration is against the rules; I'm pretty certain that it is not. I'm pointing out one place that you'll need to make sure you have an answer for any critics (and the past collaborating teams have had such an answer).

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by EricH

It would be counted as collaboration.

This is effectively how the various collaborations of the past have functioned. X teams meld into one, then produce X+Y robots, one per team and a practice one.

It should also be noted that you want to be careful how the team is split. While I'm not sure anybody would really ask (and most don't), it could be seen as one team building two robots and competing with two robots under two numbers, simply because the teams are so close (this would be the closest collaboration distance-wise that I'm aware of, and the only one where multiple teams shared a shop). There is a long-running rule about this (2011's <R10>). While this is not your intent, this is where most of the questions will probably come from/are coming from on the team, if they're asked. (And the general format, if asked, would be something to the effect of: How is this not one team?)

To that end, I would suggest three possible routes to take:
1) Single team. There is no one-school-per-team requirement. Build one robot and an identical practice robot.
2) Double team, collaboration, non-identical robots. See my above post for a short explanation.
3) Double team, collaboration, identical robots. Make sure that the teams are distinct apart from the design and building (this will help with the above-mentioned rule question).

If I was to recommend one of those three, I'd probably go with #2 if you have the combined resources to pull it off. It'll still allow many of the same benefits as a full collaboration (e.g., lots of spare parts for shared systems when you're at the same competition), but will force the teams to troubleshoot problems semi-independently, which will reduce a lot of the questions. If you don't have the resources, #1 and use a non-identical practice robot, say a modified older robot.

I'm not saying that this type of collaboration is against the rules; I'm pretty certain that it is not. I'm pointing out one place that you'll need to make sure you have an answer for any critics (and the past collaborating teams have had such an answer).

Those are the exact 3 routes that we came up with in 1 of our meetings. Route 1 is what we did in 2011, and it worked very well, plus we had the resources to build 2 identical robots. Route 2 is what we did in 2009/2010, and it worked but not very well. We want to bring back the second team, but dont want the major flaws from 2009/2010 again. Route 3 is the compromise i would like to make.

[Koko Ed]

Building a group of similar robots together seems more pragmatic than unethical to me. In particular inner city and close by rural teams that have limited resources of mentors students and facilities that could combine with other teams to make up for these lack of resources and build something that could actually be useful at competition instead of building a half functioning robot that spend most of it's time broken in the pits so they can pack up and leave on Saturday afternoon after alliance selection.
These teams should be encouraged to work together so they can get more out of the completion than just that. Otherwise why bother showing up if all your doing is coming to the event to be dismissed as a viable option? That's not fair to them and it's not fair to the other teams at the competition.

[pfreivald]

I don't see any issue whatsoever with however teams want to collaborate.

[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.

[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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

Route 2 is what we did in 2009/2010, and it worked but not very well.

I don't think you fully understand what I meant by Route 2.

Reread the post I made describing the 217/229 collaboration--that is what Route 2 is in essence. It's 2 robots with similar designs, but they're different in some significant way. In 217/229's case, tower placement on the base was one of the most obvious signs of a difference.

From what I understood in your post, you guys actually did "Route 4--two teams, same shop, no collaboration*", which is similar to what 254/1868 do these days. If I misunderstood you, then maybe you want to talk to Paul Copioli or JVN about both types of collaboration and see what they'd recommend (as they were both in the 217/229 collaboration and in the 217/148 collaboration).

Remember what question I said people would be asking if you did Route 3, and make sure that you have an answer ready.

*While collaboration/advice-giving can take place just due to two teams being in one shop, it isn't necessarily going to be intentional.

[Taylor]

Why identical robots? I wouldn't want a robot on my alliance that looks and behaves exactly like my robot. I'd rather have a robot that compliments mine. Perhaps the two teams can focus on different aspects of the game and excel at those, while sharing some common traits (duplicate parts can make fabrication and assembly easier and more efficient).

To answer your question directly, I will say it is not considered cheating. While I doubt people will get mad at you, some will think it a little unfair if both of your robots end up in the finals together (Same team or opposing teams).

I don't know about ethics, but if I were in your situation, I'd get to work on getting more sponsors so you have the materials to make 2 different robots. I know more people get the "driving" experience, but at the same time the rest of the team will only get half the experience.

It's like 2 teams designing 1 robot. Each person only gets half the work of the normal person, since there are 2 teams. Plus, it wouldn't be as fun!

I say if you can, get the money to get the extra resources to build two different robots. It's totally worth it in the end. In that scenario, the two teams act like two teams the whole build season, and it'll be even more fun to go against each other in matches to see which robot is better!

If you really want to share something in design with the other team, do what 254/1868 do, share a similar if not exact same drive train/base

Hope this helped! And remember, have fun with it!

[Brandon Holley]

I agree with most here, there's no real "ethical" issues with what you are proposing.

Honestly you can look at what other collaborations have been successful or you can dig hard enough and find some examples that weren't so successful. Whatever you decide, you have to make sure it will work for your team with your own resources.

Just make sure the decision you're making is for your team(s) best interest. Collaboration can still be a hot button issue for some people, so make sure you are listening to what others are saying, but ultimately making the choice for yourself. It seems like you have been collaborating in some way for a while already so you probably have some good experience on how collaboration could work/hurt your own team.

Good luck.

-Brando

[Joe Ross]

Here's an interesting thought exercise.

How many teams that collaborated won a world championship prior to collaborating? How many won a world championship during collaboration? How many won a world championship within 3 years after ending collaboration? Why?

[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.

[JesseK]

I'm with Kodo Ed on this one -- collaboration like this is a way to bring the cost of building a good robot down for teams who have the motivation but lack the resources. Instead of 2 teams going through the same bad iteration separately, only one team goes through it and thus between them some money is saved on parts. They can also partner up on shipping robot parts, wholesale purchases of aluminum, and travel to/from competition.

If both teams benefit from the collaboration, who are we to judge it? Sure, we may get our face stomped in by 2 teams instead of 1 team ... but in the end someone on those teams came up with the design and we would have lost to one of the teams anyways.