Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[Bongle]

First, my answer: I have no problem with collaboration (ethical or otherwise). Personally though, I'd build 1 robot and a practice robot if I had the resources to build and enter 2 teams. You can use the leftover entry fees for either another regional for the single bot, or for tools/computers/travel.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a large fraction of the responses you'll get on CD (especially this time of year) are mentors, people from successful teams, and people who have seen and accepted many different ways to organize teams. I bet if you compared the success rate of the teams of the responders here to the set of FRC teams at large, you'd find a large difference. Similarly, there is probably a big difference between the opinions here and in the FRC community at large - For my first couple years in FRC, I was not a fan of teams with heavy mentor involvement, teams with lots of money, teams that collaborated, etc. I've gradually come around on most of those topics (as happens when you become a mentor and still need to justify your continued involvement), but there'll be no small fraction of participants at your regionals who will hold opinions very different from the majority of this thread.

[NickE]

Collaboration can be found in many forms and there is no set right or wrong way to do it. There's nothing wrong with taking suggestions but be sure not to let other people tell you how your team should be run. In the end, what outsiders think of your team's structure is unimportant.

[Thad House]

So I'm going to state my opinion on how this worked out.

We went with the building 2 identical robots for the 2 teams. During build season this worked out pretty well. Everyone was working great and both robots were completed on time, which had never happened before. The only main issue involved programming. We had one team(2898) doing C++ and 1510 was using LabVIEW. As the end of build season approached, the C++ code had fallen pretty far behind, and we decided to use the 1510 LabVIEW code on both robots.

As soon as competition hit, all hell broke loose. There were some changed that I and my co-driver wanted made in the controls. The programmer didnt want to change them, and didnt want us to change them either. This created a huge fight at our first competition, until the code was completely changed for the our team for our second regional up in Seattle. This split the team in a VERY bad way. This part could have been resolved fairly easily, and I would still recommend working this way again if not for the 2nd, Much more major issue.

Only 2898 got the chance to go to worlds, because they pre-registered. Neither team won their way. But some people on 1510 still felt they had built that robot and wanted the privilege of being on drive team and pit crews. Our coach earlier in the year said the teams were separate after build season and would not be combined. But then he went and moved 2 people from 1510 over to 2898 for worlds without the teams approval. This caused major havoc on the team, and if anyone was around our pit on friday night would know how bad it really was. Student from 2898, including me, were shoved out of the pit to make room for the other 2 members.

Ego's hit some of the people VERY hard, and many students feelings were very hurt, including mine.

I have not talked to the people that shoved me out of the pits much since worlds, and am having a difficult time deciding it will be possible for me to return to the teams to mentor next year, as those 2 students are the captains of the teams next year. Also there are 3 other students planning on moving to another team, which is a rookie team. That is where I plan on mentoring as well.

[pfreivald]

I don't think the issue there is two identical robots...

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't think the issue there is two identical robots...

Aye, the issue is more in tune with cooperation between two teams.

@sst, I don't know if you wanted to just get it off your chest, or if you're actually looking for a discussion, but there are threads that go into a cooperation between teams and building twins. I'd recommending reading up on those.

- Sunny G.

[Kimmeh]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't think the issue there is two identical robots...

Not completely. The way I see it, the members of both 1510 and 2898 were involved in building the robot(s). Some of the students of 1510 felt that it was "unfair" that 2898 got to go to the Championships, while they didn't, because they were involved in building 2898's robot. However, everyone knew that once build season was over, they were separate teams again. The issue later becomes that a coach moved two students from 1506 to 2898, seemingly without talking to anyone else about it.


I don't think this situation would have happened if each team had built a separate robot.

Originally Posted by sst.thad

Ego's hit some of the people VERY hard, and many students feelings were very hurt, including mine.

I have not talked to the people that shoved me out of the pits much since worlds, and am having a difficult time deciding it will be possible for me to return to the teams to mentor next year, as those 2 students are the captains of the teams next year.

As someone who went though something similar, I highly suggest you talk about it with the coach and the students involved (and a "neutral third party"). I feel that you deserve an explanation. You may not get an apology but you may walk out with a better understand of why things happened the way they did.

From personal experience, this may not completely repair your relationship with the people involved, but you're at least taking steps to address the elephant in the room and get the issue out in the open.



Feel free to PM me if you'd like more information about my experiences and how I handled it.

[Astrokid248]

There's two solutions to this problem: create a district team of both high schools (elimate one team number) or find the funding to get the magnet school a different shop. The former is more cost efficient, the latter inspired more students. But after reading this thread, I believe that two teams in one shop isn't something that works.

Originally Posted by ttldomination

Aye, the issue is more in tune with cooperation between two teams.

@sst, I don't know if you wanted to just get it off your chest, or if you're actually looking for a discussion, but there are threads that go into a cooperation between teams and building twins. I'd recommending reading up on those.

- Sunny G.

This thread was about sst's team's decision. He revived it to update everyone on whether the decision was a good one or not. This is exactly where he should be posting.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

There's two solutions to this problem: create a district team of both high schools (elimate one team number) or find the funding to get the magnet school a different shop. The former is more cost efficient, the latter inspired more students. But after reading this thread, I believe that two teams in one shop isn't something that works.

I dont think two teams in one shop can't work. In fact my team has been building our robots in team 3130's shop for a few years now. We helped them start there team and they let us use their tools and space. The relationship has been beneficial to both teams through the years. The big difference is that we build two distinct robots designed by each team, no group discussion on how the robot should work/look. The issue here is that members of 1506 feel like they built that robot and deserve to go to worlds. I am in favor of collaboration, as in sharing resources, but i believe teams should design their own robots. From what ive read this would have solved a great deal of 2898 and 1506's problems. Just my 0.02$ take it or leave it.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't think the issue there is two identical robots...

Agreed, that one sounds like more of a problem in communication among teams, agreements made prior to the season, as well as decisions made without consultation of the whole team.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

...Ego's hit some of the people VERY hard, and many students feelings were very hurt, including mine.

I have not talked to the people that shoved me out of the pits much since worlds, and am having a difficult time deciding it will be possible for me to return to the teams to mentor next year, as those 2 students are the captains of the teams next year. Also there are 3 other students planning on moving to another team, which is a rookie team. That is where I plan on mentoring as well...

I do not recommend students come back as mentors especially their first year out. Especially if you are harboring grudges/hurt feelings. I am making these assumptions as I notice that you have "mentor" in your title block, and yet were a driver this year (and thus must be a student).
************************************************** *******
Chain of command and decision authority are often a difficult aspects for many teams. I know our team still has issues with this from time to time even with years and years of experience.

I am going to make some comments that sst.thad may take offense to. These are not meant to be offensive, but merely to showcase some holes in the strategic or organizational process of forming the coop. I initially was just going to send this in PM, but feel that it may be beneficial for discussion.

#1. While the drivers may have wanted different programming, I have seen many teams loose matches due to tweaking the code without time to fully vet the changes. As a driver, I am sure you were frustrated with something not behaving as you want, but if the programmer has the authority on code, then you you need to accept that. If the drive team has authority, then the programmer needs to accept that. If there is no clear authority, then you have the situation you eluded to. On my team the coach/lead mentor has the ultimate authority.

#2. You said that "our coach" said the teams would be seperate after build season, but was that the other teams understanding? They may have been operating under a different set of assumptions. Were those clearly communicated? Possible assumptions they were operating on could be:
We are in this together!
If one team qualifies (via winning), then it is their right to compete alone, but if it is a purchased spot, then "we" should get to compete as it is the "fair" thing for us and them...

*************************
Partnerships can be very difficult. Laying out and discussing expectations up front can help you deal with situations later. As you are likely going to college, you will have a roommate if you are living in the dorms. Most schools provide a "discussion" sheet of items to discuss. MAKE SURE YOU DISCUSS EACH AND EVERY ITEM. While you might think it is a no brainer to "not share clothes" your roommate may come from a family where that is common practice and thus expecting it. While you might think sharing food is perfectly acceptable, your roommate may find it a objectionable. When lights can be on. When you can work on your computer. Having friends over. There are literally hundreds of things you need to discuss in order to not get into inreoncileable fight later in the year.

The same is true for doing a robotics partnership. If the two teams compete at the same event, and have identical robots, who gets to apply for which awards (or does it even matter)? Is the other team expecting you to pick them, or are they wanting to be in seperate alliances so as to "double the likelihood of winning"? If parts break, who gets the spares?

Partnerships can be very tough. Hurt feelings usually occur at the intersection of unmet and unstated expectations. When dealing with a partnership, try to remove "expectations" and replace them with "agreements". Partnerships can be done in such a way as to require around 1/2 as much work for some items, but they often require more than 2x as much communication.

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

There's two solutions to this problem: create a district team of both high schools (elimate one team number) or find the funding to get the magnet school a different shop. The former is more cost efficient, the latter inspired more students. But after reading this thread, I believe that two teams in one shop isn't something that works.

I disagree. We worked largely over at 103's facility (they have a machine shop and a full field to practice on). Our robots are nearly identical with a few small differences (we have the flashlight, they have a laser; they have a bridge manipulator, we wheelie onto the bridge; we both use different wheels). I have never witnessed any conflicts surrounding one team's success over another's and the students from both teams are now good friends and the mentors work well together. We help each other out at competitions when one of the robots breaks down and I find myself rooting for them just as much as I do for my own team. The only tough matches are when we have to play each other, but, even then, it's a friendly rivalry and there are never any hard feelings.

In terms of actual workload during the build season, 103's mentors tend to lead the fabrication of parts with assistance from students from both teams. 25 led the software end of things and the code for each robot is nearly identical.

I think it's important to look at the dynamics between the individuals on the team. There are many teams that have successfully collaborated and built identical robots. Take a look at 254/968 or the old Canadian triplets of 1114, 1503, and 1680 or the example I just presented of 25/103 as well as the number of other teams who are able to pull it off.

Also remember that working together in a shop doesn't necessarily mean building identical bots. You can share resources but you don't have to share the same design.

[akoscielski3]

I have many opinions on this, but I have to say, the Coach should not have let those students be apart of the team going. (As long as it was clearly expressed).

I know many teams have done Identical Robots but I think that it was more of two (or three ) completely different teams joined together. It seams that this was a signle team at one point, and then they became two differnet teams? (I dont mean for this season I mean for the teams existance). Would 48 and 3139 be able to shine a light into how they did it this year? Even though the robots werent Perfectly Identical.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

Would 48 and 3139 be able to shine a light into how they did it this year? Even though the robots werent Perfectly Identical.

For the past two seasons, 48 Delphi E.L.I.T.E. (Warren G. Harding High School) and 3193 Falco Tech (Austintown Fitch High School) have independently built robots from the same shared robot design. The only common person "shared" between both teams in the 48/3193 collaboration is one of 3193's founders, Mike Mellott, who is also 48's long-time CAD design lead mentor. Fitch is his alma mater. He retains membership on both teams, which is good, as we are still attempting to bolster our CAD mentor/student ranks such that we wouldn't experience such a big dropoff in capability should he elect/need to become a part of 3193 full-time. There are many new hires running around here at Delphi....we're going to eventually snag some of them for the team, I swear.....

Both teams are encouraged to contribute freely to the design, combining forces during early design meetings. Once the base design is locked in, both teams seek to be as independent during our robot builds and operations at competitions as possible. Quite truthfully, few on 48 saw any of 3193's robot until our first event, and vice versa. When we're at the same events, we do help each other out during emergencies and such.

Both teams are free to customize their robots independently throughout the season. 48 developed a bridge tender inspired by 2614, along with a simple stinger, while 3193 kept the original concept of using the tilting arm as the bridge tender.

3193 does not yet possess access to the same kind of tech sponsors and shop resources as 48, nor do they have the same practice space, although they are working hard and fast to acquire such things. In the meantime, 48 shares extra sponsor machining capacity - waterjet, CNC, etc. - stuff we cannot do in-house - as well as other tech resources so they may have a better competitive experience.

We split part fabrication duties, with 3193 handling more of their fabrication workload in 2012 than in 2011 - a very positive trend that will continue as they add more mentors, sponsors, and resources to their program.

One of the most important benefits of the collaboration is our ability now to create a third, shared practice robot. This has been absolutely ESSENTIAL to our success the past few years. 3193 would certainly not have the resources to build one working separately from us, and with Mike mentoring both teams, 48 would also be very stressed to construct a practice bot alone if 3193 had a totally different design.

Both teams seem to have gotten along well. 48 has been more successful on the field than 3193 the past two years, but the people of Falco Tech realize that many factors other than just the robot play a part in that. It was fun being on the same alliance at Queen City, which led to 3193's first ever on-field trophy. It was also very neat (and unexpected) to see 3193 win the Queen City GM Industrial Design Award. We have felt that bringing the same robot design to the same event might hinder each team's ability to pursue such awards, but in that case, it wasn't an issue.

Will we continue this collaboration forever? Likely not, but for now, it makes perfect sense for both teams - a situation where more can be achieved by working together than by working separately.

Regardless of the design collaboration, 48 and 3193 will continue to be members of our NEOFRA group, which includes 379 and 2010. NEOFRA (it's a pain to type it out - look in the sig) is built upon many of the same collaborative concepts used within the more intense 48/3193 partnership. Again, we are all better off working together throughout the year than working separately, and we have a heck of a lot more fun doing it.

[Astrokid248]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

I disagree. We worked largely over at 103's facility (they have a machine shop and a full field to practice on). Our robots are nearly identical with a few small differences (we have the flashlight, they have a laser; they have a bridge manipulator, we wheelie onto the bridge; we both use different wheels). I have never witnessed any conflicts surrounding one team's success over another's and the students from both teams are now good friends and the mentors work well together. We help each other out at competitions when one of the robots breaks down and I find myself rooting for them just as much as I do for my own team. The only tough matches are when we have to play each other, but, even then, it's a friendly rivalry and there are never any hard feelings.

In terms of actual workload during the build season, 103's mentors tend to lead the fabrication of parts with assistance from students from both teams. 25 led the software end of things and the code for each robot is nearly identical.

I think it's important to look at the dynamics between the individuals on the team. There are many teams that have successfully collaborated and built identical robots. Take a look at 254/968 or the old Canadian triplets of 1114, 1503, and 1680 or the example I just presented of 25/103 as well as the number of other teams who are able to pull it off.

Also remember that working together in a shop doesn't necessarily mean building identical bots. You can share resources but you don't have to share the same design.

What lead to the decision to build the same robot? (I have an opinion on this, but I will reserve it until I feel more informed, and of course my opinion may change.)

Originally Posted by Boe

I dont think two teams in one shop can't work. In fact my team has been building our robots in team 3130's shop for a few years now. We helped them start there team and they let us use their tools and space. The relationship has been beneficial to both teams through the years. The big difference is that we build two distinct robots designed by each team, no group discussion on how the robot should work/look. The issue here is that members of 1506 feel like they built that robot and deserve to go to worlds. I am in favor of collaboration, as in sharing resources, but i believe teams should design their own robots. From what ive read this would have solved a great deal of 2898 and 1506's problems. Just my 0.02$ take it or leave it.

Do you guys partition the shop? Or do you just agree to not look at each other's robots?

[Alexa Stott]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

What lead to the decision to build the same robot? (I have an opinion on this, but I will reserve it until I feel more informed, and of course my opinion may change.)

A lot of it had to do with our main sponsor, BMS, decreasing the amount of support we got. At one point, we had 5-6 technical mentors from there and access to their machine shop. As the years went on, many of those mentors retired or were unable to devote as much time to the team. With the economic situation being what it is, BMS itself also had to scale back much of its support for the team. We were able to snag some of the smaller machines and tools from their shop but our school simply does not have the space for us to have everything we need. We were able to get by almost entirely with their support for over 10 years and we found ourselves in a difficult situation. (It is worth mentioning that one of the BMS guys is still involved with the team, especially the design process).

We've worked closely with 103 for years and have used their facility before. They have a much larger machine shop/work area with plenty of space and a few other classrooms to use. This is in addition to their "barn" that was built for the team that houses a full field. They also have a great sponsor in Day Tool who provides them with the machining capabilities and they graciously extended their support to us when the situation at BMS changed.

There had always been talk of building twins or ramping up our collaboration, especially as we started spending more time out at their school (about a 45 minute drive from ours). Our mentors have always remained in close contact throughout the build season and, as I said, the less support we received from BMS, the more time we spent working with 103.

There's just always been a really good relationship between the teams from the mentors down to the students and as we shared our resources more and more, it really just made sense.