Robot Collaboration

[Joel Glidden]

It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.

[Glenn]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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.

1. Do you think you could build 16 identical robots with 16 teams?

2. This collaboration has everything to do with winning. We will have won before the first regional begins by learning how to work together in a long distance partnership by paving the way for teams to think out side the box, sharing information to help everyone.

Winning a Regional or the National Championship is nice but it doesn’t compare to working as a team to develop a new process to build a better product.

How many teams are willing to share all of there current years ideas to include drawings pictures discussion anything? Team 60 and 254 will and do.

3. Do you think it is easier for two teams to build the same robot or each building their own? The answer is it is much harder to build identical robots.

You have to take your ego and put it on the shelf. You have to listen more than you talk. You must be willing to compromise, only if you use the best of everyone’s ideas will the project be a success. In our case we had to deal with shipping and a lag in getting the parts you needed. There are many other obstacles to over come as well.

Will we have a better product in the end? We hope so.

Have our teams learned some valuable real life lessons? Absolutely!

[Venkatesh]

Teams 60 and 254 collaborating? Amazing idea, whoever thought up that idea deserves much kudos.

Seriously, if I happen to be at a regional where either (or both) teams 60 and 254 are, I will give everybody on those team one cookie. (or a prize of equal value)

This is an excellent idea, and if FIRST indicates it is happy with partnerships like this, I hope to see more of these in the future. The idea that two teams, who compete with each other, are willing to help each other not only with little bits of ideas and advice, but by forming a full-fledged alliance, is excellent. This should be plastered somewhere in an introduction video.

So anyway, what do you guys on 60 and 254 think of Oreos?

[Jon Anderson]

I can't say that I am total against or for this idea. It's just another way for people to build/think. If this how teams really want their robot to be made then by all means go for it.

However, I won't be surprised if there is some type of restriction or ban on this for later years.

[NateBot16]

I have mixed feelings about this. I see how it builds relationships and everything, but you already had a great relationship. This is taking it to a whole new level.

However, I feel that this is unfair to a lot of teams. Splitting up the work between two teams who do not have any trouble with resources is just not right. My team would kill to have the resources your teams have. I think this is just limiting creativity and making FIRST a little more sterile.

Awesome work!!! I’m thrilled to see this actually happen. In the real world companies will in fact work together on projects to make something bigger and better. I’m sure this experience inspired your students and hopefully everyone in FIRST will be inspired too. There is nothing ungracious or there is no cheating here. The only thing that is unprofessional and ungracious that I've seen while reading this thread is the people that go and bash these two quality and great teams as cheaters and ungracious. What they did might have been a little unpractical and surprising, but it's not cheating. Remember Galileo's ideas were bashed by the public when they were first released, but they are now widely accepted for the most part. Nobody is stopping any of you from trying this, so why don't you go and try it yourself before you judge. It could be a good learning experience. Congrats to 254 and 60 on their nice work and I hope to compete along side or against you in Atlanta.

-D.J.

[Matt Adams]

My one and only qualm is about how this will work with the $3,500 limit.

1. There has obviously been some machining done by other teams.

2. This machining needs to be billed out at a reasonable cost.

I don't see how it can be honestly billed out at a reasonable rate to both teams, and stay within the $3,500 limit.


If it can be done within the rules, I'm all for it.

However, simple algebra says that any reasonable amount of outside machining time at a reasonable (or even very generous) rate will add up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly.

I don't see how it can be done, but I sincerely hope that I'll be proved wrong. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to need an official ruling on this from FIRST. I'd assume that someone from one of the teams has already asked FIRST about it before venturing too far.

What ruling did they give you?

If you haven't asked... I propose this goes up on the Q&A in section 5.3

Good luck everyone!

Matt

[Joe Matt]

You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.

[phrozen solyd]

Maybe I was unclear when i described the work done by each team in my previous post. Although Team 60 and 254 each machined half of the robot, both teams worked together in forming a single design that satisfied everyone, not "we make one part, you make the other, then we'll stick em together". It took us over 1/3 of the build season to finally come up with the design that united the interests of both teams.

Collaboration may make some facets of the program easier, but it brings out unique challenges as well.

This type of collaboration does not decrease competition at all. It is highly unlikely that both 60 and 254 will be in the same division at Nats (though we would enjoy working with them), so wouldn't a match between our teams become extremely competitive, coming down to driver skill and strategy? There are so many other factors other than robot design that can come into play.

Locking this thread would deprive everyone from finding more about our partnership, and both Team 60 and 254 are happy to keep providing information.

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by JosephM

You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.

If this forum is as amazing as I think it is, I think it can handle some intelligent discussion about a new idea that's never been done before at this level.

Putting aside all the messages that's saying "this is cheating and unfair", I think there are some important points from both side. It is VERY IMPORTANT that at this point on none of you get emotional about this topic, IF you want to have a constructive discussion about this. Do NOT let your emotion take control of you. Think for 15 mins before you post.

Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.


There are probably more important points, so remind us of your points if you wish to address your concern further.

Now, let's build a good discussion on top of those sides. I ask that everyone read the entire thread before they post. I will be watching out for messages that claim "I didn't have time to read the message but I feel like posting anyway".

I will be truly disappointed if you guys can't handle a constructive discussion in the most intense time of the build period.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

My one and only qualm is about how this will work with the $3,500 limit.

1. There has obviously been some machining done by other teams.

2. This machining needs to be billed out at a reasonable cost.

I don't see how it can be honestly billed out at a reasonable rate to both teams, and stay within the $3,500 limit.


If it can be done within the rules, I'm all for it.

However, simple algebra says that any reasonable amount of outside machining time at a reasonable (or even very generous) rate will add up to tens of thousands of dollars very quickly.

I don't see how it can be done, but I sincerely hope that I'll be proved wrong. I hate to say it, but I think we're going to need an official ruling on this from FIRST. I'd assume that someone from one of the teams has already asked FIRST about it before venturing too far.

What ruling did they give you?

If you haven't asked... I propose this goes up on the Q&A in section 5.3

Good luck everyone!

Matt

5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
"If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply."


Laron Engineering, the machine shop that sponsors Kingman, is also part of our team.


"Shipping costs of Non-Kit items are not counted."

Our shipping costs between the two teams are not counted.

[Jessica Boucher]

I think this is a valid discussion, so just keep it calm

[OneAngryDaisy]

At first sight I became rather angry, because hey, it just didnt seem fair. Two elite teams combining. Most teams didn't even make a robot that could stay with their previous bots, and here they are sharing their expertise. It's just plain unfair..

Then when i tried to derive all of the reasons why this is uncool I suddenly hit a rut- there are none, other than the point that they're already 2 elite teams colloborating. And it's not like they live next door to eachother, its pretty far away.. How did you guys do it? video conferences? I'm dying to know.

I bet FIRST bans this kind of interaction soon in the future, or at least limits it. Why? I can just see several powerhouses building undefeatable robots, and then the finals at the Championship Event yielding several look-alikes. This is not what FIRST is about. A single function, maybe, but not an entire robot. (yea, i know there are several differences, but basically the two bots are twins)



It also dissapoints me somewhat. I always look forward to seeing what the oldest teams have made. But now there's one less robot to look forward to.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Matt D

5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
"If the machine shop were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply."

Laron Engineering, the machine shop that sponsors Kingman, is also part of our team.

Matt,

Sometimes it's hard to determine who is a sponsor and who is not, especially as far as this rule goes. However, Laron Engineering is not listed as a sponsor for your team, currently. Your sponsors, according to FIRST, are NASA Ames Research Center, Unity Care Group, and Line-X. Your website isn't working right now, but before it went down, it didn't have any mention of Laron Engineering either. Thus, I think that you would have a hard time proving that Laron is a sponsor.

Needless to say, I'm quite excited about the opportunities that this afforded the two teams.

[Venkatesh]

Once again, hats off to 60 and 254 for an excellent idea.

I have seen people find objections to having cooperation of this kind between teams. People were talking about how unfair FIRST would be if there were alliances of great teams, creating robots which would be unbeatable. People have also mentioned the fact that both teams will have done only "half the work".

I will speak now from experience. Building a robot is child's play compared to creating a consensus between people. Especially smart people who know how to create things, know what they are capable of. It has been said that invention is a human art, compromise a divine one. Pride in ideas is a very remarkable factor, as are logistics. If 60 and 254 were able to make sure nobody was silenced during the creation of this alliance, then all power to them. Especially to those who were directly behind this idea - does becoming a diplomat sound like a good career?

There is no such thing as an unbeatable robot. Teams with experience and resources will seem invincible to those who don't have the same resources. It has been said that FIRST isn't fair. I think that statement itself is unnecessary. If FIRST was a competetion of equals, where would the motivation to build an incredibly slick robot come from? I wasn't at many competetions last year, but 25's robot (at J&J) sticks out in my mind as having been very well done. If all the robots present were of equal calibre, strategy and teams would be unnecessary. And just look at 25 at PARC. They were not invincible, just very good.

I know that sometimes alliances between competetors can create improper situations. However I have enough trust in all of the students, mentors, etc. participating in FIRST to recognize such problems and ward them off. After all, bitterness takes all the fun out of wiring.