Robot Collaboration

[Dan Richardson]

I've been involved in FIRST for a short few years. Over these years I've come ucostum to as soon as I get to nationals ( which is all 4 years ) I've run over to team 60 and 254 ( and a few others ) robots to check out how they individually solved each problem. What unique devices they may be using, and why they may have chosen to go with a certain solution. Each robot has been unique in its own way. Whether it be a little vast differences or very small all have been different. I've found one of the biggest learning experiences for me ( and funnest to say the least ) is when I get a break from the buzz of competion to just walk around and look at the other bots. To talk to those teams and see why they went a certain way, or put this nut here or this nut there. TO really figure out how things work. Now I have have 1 less team to visit and figure out how they did it.

You see the learning experience doesn't stop during construction. It goes on to competition or to everyone who looks at a picture on delphi, who studies the bot and says I like how they did this or I woulda changed this a bit. So in a way I feel a bit cheated. My learning experience may have been curved because of something like this. The very fact that now 2 power houses of teams have joined up somewhat dissapoints me, that FIRST now gets 1 for the price of 2. It is not that I'm upset with 60 or 254, I am just concerned. I do believe that now that they have done it, they have crossed that rubicon, if something is not done to stop it, what is to say that all 950 teams collaborate with each other where we only produce 425 robots.. what if it goes beyond there.. 3 or 4 or 5 teams start joining together and making things simpler. You see you drastically curve everything you create a blan game with no creativity. If FIRST wanted identical robots, if they had inteded this, they would have sent us parts that snap together and said here use this.. but only use this.. use nothing else.

I can understand what you mean about collaborating for a real world experience, however I'm somewhat confused where that example would fit. I'm not well aquainted with any situation where 2 companies involved in heavy competition would work together to create identical products. Thats like a Microsoft and Apple joining together to create 1 os and only selling that 1 os. This infact is called Collusion and is illegal in the United States because in all examples it reduces competition.

I'm not really upset with these teams. I don't believe they had bad intentions. I don't believe they believed it would give them a competitive edge because if won't. Infact if their bots are good they may even have to compete against each other in the finals.

Now I still don't believe it was right, the time and energy spent here could have been more justifiably been given to 2 different rookie teams without the resources of 254 and 60. Four teams would have been effected for the better.. wrather than 2 teams.

I'm dissapointed, but not angry. I think it was the right idea, just gone to far. It is my belief helping each other is great, but building half of each others robot for each other is not the way to go. Sharring drive trains designs and one or the other team perfecting them in different ways, good. Building the others for them, not good.

Not everyone will view this as good or bad. It is surely a new undiscovered avenue. I still await whether or not FIRST will release a statement. But it is my ernhest hope that the rest of FIRST does not venture down this avenue.

Dan

/edit sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes was in a hurry