Robot Collaboration

[pras870]

Does anyone else think that this thread has run it's course, or is it just me?

[Ken Loyd]

Enough!

I first met Team 254 in a hanger at Moffet Field many years ago. I met Team 60 that same year at Nationals. Over the years I have enjoyed working with and playing against both teams.

I look forward to seeing if their idea works or not.

Ken Loyd
Team 64

PS Both of you had better watch out. We have a pretty good robot sitting out here in the desert.

[Greg Perkins]

Originally Posted by Ken Loyd

Enough!

I first met Team 254 in a hanger at Moffet Field many years ago. I met Team 60 that same year at Nationals. Over the years I have enjoyed working with and playing against both teams.

I look forward to seeing if their idea works or not.

Ken Loyd
Team 64

PS Both of you had better watch out. We have a pretty good robot sitting out here in the desert.

I know i have lots of respect for the teams. 254 was paired w/ us at nationals in 2002 when i was on 151. and team 60 is awesome in my book. although someone mentioned, why team up with another "veteran" team, instead of helping out an underfunded team? heck you could've gotten chairmans if you both did that.

I just think that FIRST should step in and make a judgement about it, and clear up some tattered edges. just put in perspective all of the BAE SYSTEMS teams up here in the northeast, you would have 8 teams exactly the same. and then if that happened other teams would have a hissy fit about it. so dont bash me for what i believe in, but when i first read it, i was like...um ok, so now we have 2 identical robots...when did this become fair.

[KenWittlief]

first off, its clear to me that these two teams dont think they have broken the rules, or done anything wrong, or they would never have gone down this path. they have put several months (apparently) into this collaboration idea, coming up with the idea before the kickoff meeting, when there was no Q&A forum to ask - the danger there is the longer you go nurturing your idea without getting an official judgement, the more you convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with it

and I suspect by the time of the kickoff they had already convinced themselves what they were doing was ok, so they did not trouble FIRST with the question.

Nobody here is accusing these two teams of deliberately setting out to cheat or bend the rules - you can believe what you are doing is good and right, but still be wrong. I think that is the case here.

Putting all other issues aside, I think KenW is just trying to address the issue of the letter of the rule, and that is, the robot can only use parts build by your own team, and parts that isn't built by your own team is limited by the $3500 rule. So, it is OK if you use parts not build by your own team, as long as they are within the $3500 limit. Otherwise it is against the rules.

this is NOT the problem I see with the rules - this is not a issue of who machined the parts or how much they cost.

The issue is that the rule I quoted several pages back clearly states that teams must fabricate and assemble ALL of their custom parts and assemblys after the kickoff meeting

Clearly each team must fabricate their OWN robot. Clearly you cant hire a professional design consulting team to come in and design and fabricate your subassemblies for you, then only bill you for the machining costs.

One team here designed and fabricated the drive trains, the other designed and fabricated the arm, and they bartered (traded) one for the other. That is a form of payment - not only for the machine shop time, but for the custom design of a subsystem intended specifically to play this years game.

The extreem extention of this, if it is allowed to stand: you will end up with small teams who have no resources signing up for 'design and fabricate' alliances in which several other teams design one subsystem each, then build 10 or 20 of them, and the smaller teams end up doing nothing but making buttons or tee shirts for the other 20 teams they allied with, or checking every teams kit of parts for missing components, or whatever trivial task they feel they can do because they have no engineers, money, machine shop or resources.

FIRST is hard. FIRST is suppose to be hard. If you dont have the mentors or resources to build a full custom robot then you have to make design tradeoff decisions and use some of the stuff FIRST gave you, the default transmissions, the default code, the default wheels.... That is a part of engineering - that is what has made this program so successful: it IS hard - it IS challenging - its the most difficult 6 weeks most students have ever experienced in their lives - and thats why they come back next year - they have been challenged to their maximum capacity and they LIKE what they found in themselves.

One last thing - I keep hearing people say how generous with their previous designs they are - everything is posted in white papers and they share all their designs. That is excellent, its great to raise the bar and then make your work public domain.

But please stop and consider that there are a lot of us out here who do not copy everything you do, who are not following in your wake saying thankyouthankyouthankyou we could not do this without you.

Some of us LIKE to brainstorm our own ideas, to come up with our own designs, to look at each year as a new challenge, and to put the students right smack in front of it. Sure we look at what other teams have posted in white papers and such, but if you could build your whole machine from other teams previous designs, then what is the point. Personally I dont think FIRST is intended to be program to train and inspire future machinist and welders.

The design is the thing.

I hope 60 and 254 can take a step back and see this, and understand why others are not only upset, but genuinely offended.

[Greg Perkins]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

...I hope 60 and 254 can take a step back and see this, and understand why others are not only upset, but genuinely offended.

*stands up and agrees with Ken* Great Job Ken nice way in general to post about the whole situation, and not to offend anyone!

[ejSabathia]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Clearly each team must fabricate their OWN robot. Clearly you cant hire a professional design consulting team to come in and design and fabricate your subassemblies for you, then only bill you for the machining costs.

One team here designed and fabricated the drive trains, the other designed and fabricated the arm, and they bartered (traded) one for the other. That is a form of payment - not only for the machine shop time, but for the custom design of a subsystem intended specifically to play this years game.

i wanted to clear up something that seems to have lost (but was clearly stated in the beginning of this thread) each team had a hand in the design of every part of the robot...the drive train was not designed by 254, built to 254 and shipped to 60. we spent the time designing together, and then distributed the load of fabrication. so there was no..."hey i'll trade you my drive train for your arm"

and as for us fabricating our "own" robot...yea we did...we spent the time to design...and then split up the work load among our team members.
~ej

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by collin234

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

i had an epiphany and i'd like to take a minute to appologize for some of the things i said in my post. i won't delete that post because i don't believe that re-writing the past is the answer...i'll just add to it. i was where i'm sure we all were last night...done with school, just got off work, tired, hungry and i had a headache. this isn't an excuse (ok i guess it kind of is) i just want to explain myself. anyways...here i go.

i appologize for my seeming priggishism (sorry, just learned that word and wanted to use it and saw golden opportunity). this isn't black and white...at all. i'm sorry i saw it that way. there is a lot of grey.

i do think that helping other teams is good, very good, and i guess if i look at this from a different angle i can see the fact that you all are helping each other. that's good.

you may ask if i agree with the fabrication...no...but the principles i do agree with.

i won't go into the "real world" because everyone's "real world" is different...i'll stick with my version of FIRST. FIRST (this is all FIRST to me) is as David Kelly said all about the I. without Inspiration this becomes a science fair (and we all know how Dean feels about that). i've been inspired in different ways along my journey in FIRST. without that "I" i wouldn't have a desk at Rolls-Royce and the opportunity of a lifetime as a high schooler. for me...a lot of that Inspiration comes because of the competition. for others...it must not.

a note to teams 60 and 254-i personally look forward to seeing you at competitions (60 in AZ) not because of the robot but because of the idea and how it could possibly pertain to the FIRST International Partners (FIPs) idea. i think (with a little tweaking) it could work. of course, we would need an official word from FIRST and we'd have to keep it legal...but i think there are possibilities.

as i said before...it's all about the I. and as long as the kids on teams 60 and 254 were "I"'d...congratulations.

again...kingman...come see me in Phoenix...i'll be looking for you guys to get more details.

p.s. thanks amanda.

[KenWittlief]

i wanted to clear up something that seems to have lost (but was clearly stated in the beginning of this thread) each team had a hand in the design of every part of the robot...the drive train was not designed by 254, built to 254 and shipped to 60. we spent the time designing together, and then distributed the load of fabrication. so there was no..."hey i'll trade you my drive train for your arm"

I dont see any problem with two teams deciding to join forces, esp if they are short on resources and mentors this year, to form one team and build one robot, and compete as one team.

but I dont want to be on the opposite side of the field against a robot that was designed by two teams (or more) against the bot we designed on our own. and I certainly dont want to be on the field opposite TWO robots in the elimination rounds that were designed together to BE a multi-team effort.

Surely you can see that pitting two againts one is not good sportsmanship - go back and read what Dennis posted on the 1st page of this thread - he said you guys decided you could build a better product working together than either team could by themselves

yes, exactly! which is not fair to the teams that build their bots by themselves. try to see this from the viewpoint of other teams, smaller teams, rookie teams who are going to end up getting trampled by your machines.

if you did not have the resources to create a drivetrain and an acquistion system this year, you could have used the default drivetrain that FIRST provided, like MANY other teams are doing this year - and if you did not have the resources to design a super acquision system this year you could have designed a simple ball pushing device like MANY other teams will be using this year.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by p0iZeN-254

and as for us fabricating our "own" robot...yea we did...we spent the time to design...and then split up the work load among our team members. ~ej

no it is not your "own" robot, it is yours and Kingman's robot....the fact that you have 2 or 4 makes no difference....you said it yourself you both had a hand in designing these robots....there are some serious double standards going on here.....

you have your own robot, but you didn't design it just yourselves.....you split the design and the workload up between two teams, by my calculations this makes this robot 1/2 yours

you all make minor adjustments and then claim they are different robots, but if one wins a design award the other team gets to feel as if they are a part of it.....

i don't want to seem mean or cruel, but from my viewpoint there are a lot of differing opinions within the teams....colleges, companies, and other organization work together to find things out (just like you did with the drive train over the summer) but you won't see two companies with the same knowledge and experience bring two identical products to market....sry just the way i feel....

[Yan Wang]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

FIRST is hard. FIRST is suppose to be hard. If you dont have the mentors or resources to build a full custom robot then you have to make design tradeoff decisions and use some of the stuff FIRST gave you, the default transmissions, the default code, the default wheels.... That is a part of engineering - that is what has made this program so successful: it IS hard - it IS challenging - its the most difficult 6 weeks most students have ever experienced in their lives - and thats why they come back next year - they have been challenged to their maximum capacity and they LIKE what they found in themselves.

I don't want to delve into the legality of the issue because that is under FIRST's jurisdiction. It makes me extremely curious as to what's being discussed right now.

However, I do want to agree with what Ken said above... FIRST is hard and one of the things I enjoy and get out of the program is a sense of pride from being unique. Last year, I was especially proud that my team decided to take on the task of stacking/protecting bins, an area of the game which was underrepresented. I won't give my opinion about collaboration, but I will say that I can't imagine having the identical robot as another team. That would ruin a lot of the fun for me. Being unique is awesome - that's why individual teams get rewarded through design and innovation awards.

[Ryan Albright]

WEll i am just going to keep my thoughts to myself i would just like to say a few things

i agree with ken he has hit the points that i think

One thing i would liek everyone to look at
We see this going on and i mean shure they built the same robot and it does mostly the same thing. But next year i mean what if teams join uop see the task and make two robots cover all the aspects of the game
example
Say next year my team 710 and like 108 team up to make two different robots that work together. we both go to the same regionals., maybe we wont be paired together in qualfication matches but what stops us from picking each other in elminations so if we seeded like 1st or 2nd we could pick 108 and wouldnt we be unstoppable cause our robots were made to work together.

I thought it was great that they worked on designs together but i think they crossed the line makin each others parts. IF my team only had to think about one thing (arm or drivetrain) would it make it alot easier. I mean that is like using only half your brain

Both these teams are looked up to in the FIRST community and i still look up to them i just wish they would of thought a little more about there descion to work together and how it would effect the rest of us

[Joel J]

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise. I have to wonder, though, if everyone uses gracious professionalism and what is in the "Spirit of FIRST" as a crutch for their arguments, then do they not see that they are defeating themselves? I mean, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the partnerships between 60 and 254 (I still have mixed feelings), but don't do so in a way that makes you look narrow-minded, because then yelling begins, and then all things after are unusable.

I've have seen discussions in the past that attempted to girdle a "controversial" topic, but failed miserably. After such failure, some well-known poster would submit a lengthy post stating why we should interact better as a community, and how we should allow discussions to grow. Many of the participants in the discussion would apologize to each other and the thread would be closed. One would think after such episodes that no more will happen, but thats often far from the truth. A few weeks later another controversy, or conflict of interest would arise and the cycle would repeat itself.

This thread has an interesting topic, one that should be discussed to a great extent. I would hate to see the mods have to close it because they start having flashbacks to other threads that ended with individuals having changed opinions about each other, and with teams hating each other. This thread is not there yet, so lets keep it that way.

I'd take this post as a quick and dirty history lesson on chiefdelphi discussions gone bad. The moral: think privately, then share openly your refined opinion. Readers should see the best of what you have to say, not just the first thing that comes to your mind.

[Ryan Albright]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise. I have to wonder, though, if everyone uses gracious professionalism and what is in the "Spirit of FIRST" as a crutch for their arguments, then do they not see that they are defeating themselves? I mean, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the partnerships between 60 and 254 (I still have mixed feelings), but don't do so in a way that makes you look narrow-minded, because then yelling begins, and then all things after are unusable.

I've have seen discussions in the past that attempted to girdle a "controversial" topic, but failed miserably. After such failure, some well-known poster would submit a lengthy post stating why we should interact better as a community, and how we should allow discussions to grow. Many of the participants in the discussion would apologize to each other and the thread would be closed. One would think after such episodes that no more will happen, but thats often far from the truth. A few weeks later another controversy, or conflict of interest would arise and the cycle would repeat itself.

This thread has an interesting topic, one that should be discussed to a great extent. I would hate to see the mods have to close it because they start having flashbacks to other threads that ended with individuals having changed opinions about each other, and with teams hating each other. This thread is not there yet, so lets keep it that way.

I'd take this post as a quick and dirty history lesson on chiefdelphi discussions gone bad. The moral: think privately, then share openly your refined opinion. Readers should see the best of what you have to say, not just the first thing that comes to your mind.

I agree totally wiht you thats what i did cause if i posted right when they said they were workign together i would had bad reputation. Please everyone think about what youpost before you post cause i would liek this thread to stay open to see were this goes

My thoughts up above our toned way down from what iw as thinking intitally

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Joel J.

Honestly, I believe that at the end of it all, no one will give this topic a second look if team 254 and 60 aren't very successful this year. If they do manage to do very well, then everyone will be on them saying they were able to do so well because of an "unfair advantage they created by working in tandem with another team." If they manage to do well as an alliance, then everyone will be extremely bitter and take things to the FIRST level. There, thats a sweeping generalization for you, success driven prosecution. Not only does the aforesaid highlight why we really care about the collaboration of these teams, but it also highlights a problem I have noticed in alot of places, including FIRST: everyone has a knack for acting in their best interest, but not for acting with the intent of finding the most suitable compromise.

while i agree with the rest of your post i have to show an opposite side to this. because Kingman and the Cheeseypoofs broght this up in such a dramatic fashion...i don't see it not becoming a national FIRST issue. to me, your argument is like saying steroids are bad because they make people better athletes. and if the people weren't better...we would't care. that isn't true. if the athletes weren't better kids wouldn't take them with such disregard for the future that they do...but steroids would still be incredibly harmfull. successful or not, 60 and 254 are hitting uncharted (good? bad? who knows?) territory in FIRST that will almost have to be addressed. i do, however, wish both teams the best of luck this season. it would be kind of interesting to see them against each other at nationals. it kind of (emphasize "kind of") reminds me of when 45 (another well recognized team) donated their 'toy'-robot (sorry...didn't have another word to use) to another team for use at a competition and wound up losing to it in a match. it'll be interesting.

[Matt D]

I finally decided to chime in on this issue. Since I am part of this "conspiricy to undermine the values of FIRST" [/sarcasm], I decided to tell a few details that people not involved in this would not know. This is not an attack on people or their arguements, but an attempt to straighten out a few facts.

The arm did not arrive in the mail at our lab pre-built. The pieces that needed to be machined/welded were done, but we assembled it and fixed it. Some people may say that this trains us to be factory assembly line workers. However, we helped design it, know how it works, and could put it together without instructions. Secondly, It did not work right after we assembled it. For example, We sheared the bolts holding the drive sprocket to the lower part of the arm, so we engineered a solution. "We" means the people in team 254's lab at that moment (about 8 students, 1 engineer and 2 college students. We then called Kingman and informed them of the problem, not the solution. That is just one example.

Some people have said that we (the students) are not as invloved in the design process. However, we had numerous hours of meetings discussing the design of the robot (for example, of the extensions for ball herding). We met on Monday and spent two hours discussing different solutions to the problem that we saw. We then compared our results with Kingman's results. Then on Tuesday, we spent another two hours deciding which design (of our two favorites from Monday) we liked best. Then, we called Kingman and it happened that we both agreed about the best solution to the problem (that we had room/weight/resources for). Again, this is but one example.

Another thing people are saying is that we should do this with a rookie team. We decided to collaborate with Kingman (and they with us) because we both felt that we had experiences to bring to the table. We do mentor rookie teams, and I am not saying that we do not learn from them. However, we feel that our strengths complement each other.

Thank you for all your feedback to our experiment. Please try not to attack something you do not know all the details about. However, continue to give your input, especially if you have something new to bring to the table.

Sorry for the long post. This is a complicated subject.