Robot Collaboration

[Joe Johnson]

I am still thinking it over, but my first impression is that generally I don't like it. I know there are some "real world" parallels, but I don't think they really are that close of a comparison.

I know that Team Ford has made some steps toward collaboration and coordination of chassis. I suppose other have done similar things to one extent or another.

Here is the nub of my concern: What would people think of all 16 Delphi teams having the machine that the Chief Delphi Team is making this year (or the Delphi Knights, or the TechnoKats, or whatever)?

CEO's love to have winning teams. We all (including CEO's) know that there is a huge luck factor in winning the Championship. Having 16 chances to win is better than having just one.

I worry that the pressure to win may increase if this type of collaboration becomes more common -- up to this point, we have always been able to say that TOO close of coordination was out of the bounds of fairness... ...but perhaps not.

Beyond this, I am not sure that it is good for FIRST to have 16 Chief Delphi robots out in the wild ;-)

It could be a strange new world we are entering.

Joe J.

[Scott Ritchie]

Boy this is a rough one. On one hand I love the working together and the camaraderie that has been formed here. I like the sharing of ideas and the fact that not only one team agreed on an idea but two, Wow.

On the other hand I like the fact that we made something that is unique to our team and when we are looked at by our friends and foes we try to make them say "I would have never thought of that". I don't see where this adds to the challenge of developing a concept except in a communication type of way. Part of our teams mission is to uninvent the cookie cutter and I think your teams have made a better cookie cutter. Is that good or bad I have no idea.

This type of thing is what I think makes FIRST an incredible competition field. Since I haven't checked could you build a robot from the white papers on this forum? If you could then what’s the problem of two teams going together. I think this idea will spark the most criticism from us Midwesterners since we are the more competition driven group. This whole debate has a very funny Republican / Democrat tone to it if you read it with a slight slant.

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by Jason Kixmiller

I agree that FIRST is intended to help spread and increase engineering knowledge, but the idea of two established teams sharing an identical design seems to have skewed the concept. I feel personally that FIRST should be about each individual team sharing the work load and the joys and the pains that come along with engineering and manufacturing its own unique design. While the idea of developing partnerships and friendships among colleagues and potential opponents is novel and advantageous, I feel that the fabrication, design, and communication that occurs as a single team creates and competes with its own robot cannot and should not be replaced.

This is partially my reasoning on it.

Giving each other design tips is great. Designing two identical robots where on team produces double of one part and the other team build the other is part is where it crosses the line for me.

I love to see the innovation that each team has separately.

I could see this happening nationwide in order to make everyone more efficient and competitve. Can you imagine going to a regional where there are 50 teams but only 25 robots, just doubled? Especially since FIRST has been trying to get more media coverage to bring more people in. Can you imagine what someone might think watching this event where they watch identical robots competing with identical strategies? I would think it was dull and unimaginative.

I've already touched on this subject of sort when talking about with holding secrets, not that secrets should be withheld but in that FIRST is awesome because the robots are unique.

We should make one plan for every robot and everyone can make the same robot that does everything and is in the limit of the rules and this would give rookies a level playing field. The whole competition could be based on the best strategy.

I think collaboration is great, mass production goes against what FIRST is about. I urge other teams not to repeat this in the coming years. Build partnerships but don't build each other robot. My econ teacher has went over how trading is good for everyone, but in this case I think it hurts FIRST.

Next year I would urge both 60 and 254 to use each other as sounding boards for design ideas and use each other for machining capabilities. But don't split the workload on one robot design and then just double it. But that is only my opinion. I'd like to hear what everyone think about this one.

Yeah Scott, I can see that one. We are competition-driven in Kansas.

And Joe, Please don't let any collaboration of this nature happen with delphi teams. I'm already starting to get scared. Many teams won't have the resources to compete effectively if team with resources enough begin to collaborate and double their resources. I could see some pretty powerful hard to beat collaboration happening.

As a future note, may I ask that any future collaborators only collaborate with teams that go to a different regional. <edit out>You could build complimenting robots that you make a deal that if one make the top eight the other makes the alliance and they work perfectly together. Hey, I should do that. </edit out>

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Congratulations on pioneering an amazing new way of approaching our competition. I have a feeling that a few years from now your two teams will be the answer to a FIRST trivia question. "Which two teams were the first to build the same robot?" Next year I'm sure many other teams will follow suit.

Too late. The answer is 254 and I think 253, the Bay City Bombers (who no longer exist) in 1999 at the first Sillicon Valley Regional. So this is not new territory for the Cheesy Poofs, just the distance has changed. BTW it should be noted that 60 and 254 won't be at the same competition until Nationals.

[Travis Covington]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

Too late. The answer is 254 and I think 253, the Bay City Bombers (who no longer exist) in 1999 at the first Sillicon Valley Regional. So this is not new territory for the Cheesy Poofs, just the distance has changed. BTW it should be noted that 60 and 254 won't be at the same competition until Nationals.

I believe it was team 252. But yes, that year their robots were almost identical and placed first and second overall at the regional competition. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Phil_Lutz]

Collaboration is Great!
Kudos to you.
I "real" life, several teams need to interact and share for the betterment of the business as a whole.

Well done.

[Jessica Boucher]

That's a pretty scary but brilliant idea, in my personal opinion. So which one of you gets the credit for it?

Call me jaded, but FIRSTers are driven by awards and recognition. It's in our blood (though we don't like to admit it). What happens when both of you go after the same angle on your Chairman's application? Unless the rules change, only one of you can get the credit for it.

True, if any team was to break the glass ceiling of "no teams beyond 200 have ever won the Chairmans Award", it would be 254...they definitely mirror the resources and support of a pre-200 team. But if one of you wins with it, the other team needs to find another angle to take next year, because that idea is now "old hat" to the judges. And knowing FIRST teams (for the most part), once an idea is recognized, all development on it ceases - because it has served its purpose.

I think inter-team partnerships are great...I used to do it myself. But just as in those old movies with the business partner running off with all the money, things like that happen today, and a team who you thought you knew may not be one who you knew at all. And no, I'm not saying that against either of you in particular, you both are outstanding teams, I'm saying it because you just need to be sure you trust the team you're collaborating with.

As for the collaboration aspect, I honestly would be terrified if all 16 Delphi teams had the same game design (or any multiple of teams, for that matter...I'm not just picking on Delphi ). Especially with their game experience, if everyone did this, it would stifle the rookie retention rate. I can absolutley see it turning into leagues of teams that "acquire" younger teams into their pipeline or shutting out teams that they didn't like. And I honestly don't want to see Dean take up an SEC role.

Please don't get all upset about my viewpoint - it is only a viewpoint, and its not an angry one, just something from an old FIRSTer who's been through the trials and tribulations of collaboration and who cares about both of your teams.

[Amanda M]

There are a few points here that need to be clarified.

First -- Yes, we did collaborate, and make the same robot. However, it is NOT the exact same robot. Each of our teams made small adjustments that the other did not. The robot is wired differently, and we will have different programs. We can't wait to see the Poofs at Nats and see what it comes down to. Who will win? Only strategy and driver skill will seperate us.

Second -- I cannot think of a team that we could trust any more than the Cheesy Poofs. When they submit their Chairman's Award entry, I hope that they include our alliance. And we will do the same. I think that people are missing the point that we are acting as one team. If the Cheesy Poofs win an award for design, or for performance, or any other award, we can feel that we share it. We each worked on the other's robots, and we are each equally part of the alliance.


On team 60, we're so close that we've become family. (Advisors, Machinists, Students, and Parents included) We've done so much together, that it is practically impossible not to be so close.
We wanted to work with 254, who we consider an extended group of our family to show everyone what kind of collaboration is possible, when you're NOT worrying about "yourself" and "your own team's awards". Now we're working together to worry about "us" and "our team's achievements".

Amanda M

[Jessica Boucher]

But you're not the same team. If you want to be considered as one team, then merge and register under the same number. I personally think that would be an innovative idea....teams working from different states to produce one robot...it seems to be more of what you both are going after. But until you merge, you are still in the competition's eyes as two separate teams, walking a fine line hand in hand.

Sometimes things may start out good, but then something happens that compromises that relationship. I've seen it happen too many times to think it won't happen this time, no matter how good you say your relationship is....and that's what I'm worried about...and it's something you both need to think about.

[Greg Perkins]

im split on the idea...


i do like the idea that teams are forming together, and cooperating.


however...

i dont think its right to do what 60 and 254 did. i mean its kinda cheap. yuo have one team design half the robot, and the other team do the other half. there are teams who are running themselves ragged trying to accomplish a goal. the whole concept of FIRST is to have unique designs. and gauranteed, its a good way to promote first's unity. its bad that the two teams only have to do half the work. its kinda unfair, but what can you do, disqualify them? no because they broke no rule. however, i think it a kick to the chest for some teams. just my 2cents worth.

[badbugs]

Well done Team 60 & 254! I think what you have done is great. Having worked on projects that require input, collaboration, agreement and shared work from different locations on the map, I can honestly say this is no easy feat! Anyone that thinks of this as a "shortcut" is missing the entire picture. You have added a layer of complexity to an already complex, stress-filled project. The end results.... I'm sure 2 awesome robots, but more importantly, students that may tackle future projects/problems with a better understanding of cooperation and working towards a common goal. And in my opinion we can't get enough of those students in the work force fast enough!

[Dorsk65]

Thanks for working with another team, I really support this. Our team was planning on either working with another team or having their students become a part of ours, but the plans fell through for one reason or another. Doing this is really displaying the spirit of FIRST, so keep up the good work.

And now for the rest of the message: That is one sweet robot. I can't wait to see it work (Could we get some video?). So here's to you Team 254 and Team 60, that is a very nice job. I just want to know how the big arm thingy works, cause all I can see right now just shows that it's probably very crazy.

PS:Nice shop, I wish our team would, dare I say it, organize...

[Shawn60]

Time spent making parts for each team - 6 weeks
Cost for materials to make parts for each team - doubled
Time spent redesigning the robot so each team is satified - 2 weeks
Buidling better peopel and creating stonger realationships -PRICELESS

As to all of the questions that have arrisen - GREAT!!! YEs!!!

As I tell my students

"There are no easy answers... only complicated and never ending questions."

Shawn

[Collin Fultz]

if this collaboration is the greatest thing since sliced bread then why even have the robot COMPETITION at all? shouldn't we all just get together and try to come up with one really great robot idea that is simply awesome? wouldn't that just be the greatest? no. competition makes America what it is. competition between teams, companies, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives...without competition nothing ever really gets better. without competition healthcare doesn't get faster and cheaper, cars don't get better gas mileage, and things progress much more slowly than before. I hope...no, I PRAY...that Cyber Blue never, never, never NEVER goes to this idea. Cooperation is one thing, so is helping a team at a competition, or mentoring them, or posting a white paper, or showing pictures, or this or that... but the bottom line is building two identicle robots is not the same as these things and therefore should not be compared to them...come on

[Matt Adams]

Could someone please address how rule 5.3.2.2 would apply to this situation? Joel brought up this concern earlier... I haven't seen a response from either team. I'm just curious about the billing rate that's appropriate.

461 has always used $50 / hr for any CNC work we've had done, but I don't know a fair rate for a typical machinist.

I'm just curious how this will all pan out... it'll be interesting to say the least. I'm not nearly as concerned about having two identical designs as I am about the whole idea of, "I'll build two of this and you build two of that, and we'll switch." It's much faster to build 2 of 1 part than 1 of 2 parts.

I know at Purdue, discussions over homework assignments is encouraged. However, writting out problem #1 twice, and having a friend write out problem #2 twice, followed by a switch of assignements doesn't fully teach either party the material in the problem they didn't do. In my mind, this homework example parallels this collaboration somewhat close.

However, I'm a little divided to be honest. It seems like this is taking something a bit too far. What that "something" is... I can't place my finger on... so apon the fence I sit, watching it unravel.

Good luck to everybody!

Matt