[moderated] pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!

[Bharat Nain]

Um, WOW! Nice job NiagaraFIRST. I really like the design.

[KenWittlief]

Now I have to drive all the way from rochester NY to the toronto regional to see this for myself.

Excellent multi-team effort!

[Elgin Clock]

OK, fine.. I have no problem being the first one to say this.

Why are 3 teams still (in their 2nd year in FIRST) making one of the same robot.

I can see doing this your first year (a whole 3 team learning process, and what not, strange as it may be) but to continue this tradition in your second year??

When do you say it's enough, and let each team branch out on their own and make a different robot.

I once hear either Dean or Woodie say of the FIRST competition a while back something to the effect of "It's amazing; we have (x amount) of teams competing and no 2 robots are exactly alike."

I think that was (at one time) the key to the whole competition. You can see the uniqeness in everybody's design.

Now, we have "stock" robots which will add a bit of genericness to the overall competition.

Sure, you may win a teamwork award or something, and sure, you may be inspiring to some extent, but I don't think these teams are reaching their full potential to create future engineers, and "outside the box" thinkers.

Idk.. maybe I'm off base here, but that's just my opinion.

As for the design(s) I like it. It's simple, and to the point.
Albeit the same design for 3 teams, good luck to each of you individually at your events.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

I once hear either Dean or Woodie say of the FIRST competition a while back something to the effect of "It's amazing; we have (x amount) of teams competing and no 2 robots are exactly alike."(...)

Sure, you may win a teamwork award or something, and sure, you may be inspiring to some extent, but I don't think these teams are reaching their full potential to create future engineers, and "outside the box" thinkers.

We started the year with about 40 interested students, and ended up with about 20 active. Most of the students who left were more interested in building robots than in doing other things like PR, fund-raising, or the animation competition. With so many hands and so few design-and-build tasks available, they were bored. We have discussed starting a new team just so more students can be hands-on in the design and building process. I don't see students being happy building carbon-copy robots, and am curious as to how it worked in the Niagara teams.

[Joe J.]

I was thinking what Elgin and Rick said. I mean, I can see the advantages of having carbon copy robots; spare parts are easy to come by if your in a pinch.

But as for the robots themselves they look great.

[Ryan Dognaux]

The robots look great. If they're anything like last years then all of them will be great competitors.

The issue about collaboration and building copies of robots has been debated and really there isn't a right answer to any of it. There are advantages and disadvantages. 3 teams will have bonded and formed a close knit relationship among each other. They'll all have the same robot and so they can all troubleshoot them for problems. 3 teams = 3 times the power working on one robot.

However, they do lose that sort of robot individualism that makes each team unique. Either way, I'm glad to see them as a part of FIRST and a part of this year's competition. Good luck to all three teams!

[Zoheb N]

those are some fantastic bots... i wonder which one would win against each other

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

For everyone saying that this is an "awesome" and great idea, and how great their robots are, I think you're out of your mind. First is about high-schoolers, and kids getting involved in engineering by designing and building their robots. I guarantee that the students and kids on these teams didn't build those robots. And building is not simple assembling parts that NiagaraFIRST sent them. 3 teams having the exact same robot sponsored by NiagaraFIRST, I'm sure we can tell who actually built the robot here.


You can find this right on the "About FIRST" page on the usfirst.org site. Teams are supposed to consist of students and kids building the robot assisted by mentors. Not assembling a box of parts sent by their sponsor that's already been duplicated and built by 2 other teams.

I don't see how this is a good idea at all. It completely ruins the FIRST spirit, and takes all the creativity out of the largest part in the Robot season, build phase. This is probably one of the worst examples of gracious professionalism I've seen in my few years involved in FIRST.

Stop selling out to your sponsors, and try creating your own robot for once.

You're beating a dead horse to be honest. This subject has been debated over and over again, this isn't the time or place to bring it up again.

And I will reiterate - Just because a robot looks good and just because it is very well made does not mean that students were not involved in creating it. It makes me SICK when people go ahead and judge a team - in this case, 3 teams - without even the slightest clue as to how that team(s) runs and operates.

Stop judging teams at the first sight of their robot and try have a little decency for once.

[Don Wright]

And building is not simple assembling parts that NiagaraFIRST sent them. 3 teams having the exact same robot sponsored by NiagaraFIRST, I'm sure we can tell who actually built the robot here.

Do you know that this is what happened?

[Jay Trzaskos]

Karthik, do all three teams share the same engineers and machining capabilities? can you give us some insight before this gets out of hand? Thanks.

[Don Wright]

Personally, I don't care about this assumptionative (made up word by me) discussion going on here. It's quite silly.

What I do want are some specifics!!! Come on Karthik! Spill the beans on the designs. I want to know what we are up against (or with) at GLR in a week and two days!!!

[DjAlamose]

Rothy,
Let me begin by saying you are making way too many assumptions.

1) Before you post please get your facts straight.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

Well it's pretty obvious. All sponsored by the same sponsor, all the same robot? Gee, look where the evidence points. 3 Teams, 1 robot. So you're saying these 3 teams came together, the students designed the robot, and they produced it for those 3 teams? I dont think so.

Niagara FIRST is not a sponsor, it is a collection of three teams (1114. 1503, 1680) that decided to get together and build their robots with each other.

2) Saying that a robot was not student designed is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

I guarantee that the students and kids on these teams didn't build those robots. And building is not simple assembling parts that NiagaraFIRST sent them.

You do not know what happened on that team. I agree with you that FIRST is all about students learning about engineering. BUT you cannot make assumptions and then go say that you didn’t.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

The argument is not about sponsors building their robot

It sure looked like it…

3) Your whole schpeal about their design getting recognition is invalid.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

What if one of these robots gets top 8, and they get to pick alliance. Odds are they're going to pick the same design'd robot if it's capiable of getting in top 8. This is just creating an unfair advantage for your design of winning.

It’s not about getting recognition for your design. It is about joining with other teams to get more ideas to have a better design to begin with. Yes it is nice to get recognition for your design, but that’s not the whole point. It is very hard to keep a single team organized, let alone a culmination of three teams. The design process is all about finding the best design before you go out and make it. If you have more people working on the design, and separate designs, then you are bound to find the best deign possible. More hands equals more work.
Also it is not just the design that makes a team win. It also has to do with the drivers and their alliance. Strategy, luck, programming, driver skill, human player; these are all things that affect the outcome of a match, not just the robot design.

4) Bad for creativity? I beg to differ.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

Okay, so I get the point the 3 teams came together and designed the robot, and produced exact copies for all 3 teams. I still think that's a horrible example of creativity and representing the FIRST spirit.

The fact that a team, or three teams for that matter, decided to get together is a good example of creativity. We have never thought of doing this. In the real world there are many times when people seek help with designing things. Especially in the industrial world were there are many design firms. If a company has a part they want to make in an automated fashion, they send out a bid to design firms and the firms all come up with their own way to solve the problem. But in the end the company only chooses one. This is the same scenario.

5) I must be out of my mind.

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

For everyone saying that this is an "awesome" and great idea, and how great their robots are, I think you're out of your mind.

I see a really good set of robots that look like they could do very well at competition. The design looks simple and effective with a lot of capability. Attention was paid during the design process because these robots have a high shooting height, probably to clear the top of other robots. I would be scared if I was against all three of these robots. They look like formidable fighting machines.


If you want to go and slander other teams on information you can’t be certain of, then fine, be the person that is always there nagging and saying negative things. But you must learn to look past a picture and see how this has changed people. I bet every kid on those three teams now knows more about engineering than they ever did. Even sitting there looking at what is going on you learn things. Humans and animals learn through imitation and imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. I see nothing wrong with what is going on and I applaud Karthik for what he has done with Niagara FIRST.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

Personally, I don't care about this assumptionative (made up word by me) discussion going on here. It's quite silly.

What I do want are some specifics!!! Come on Karthik! Spill the beans on the designs. I want to know what we are up against (or with) at GLR in a week and two days!!!

And yes come on I want to know all about these bad boys (or are they girls?)

[Swan217]

All

FYI - http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=collaboration
Thread beating to death Collaboration.

I am quite interested in hearing from Karthik (or anyone else, for that matter) on how collaboration works between three teams, and how they all came up with the same design. In contrast, when 217 and 229 collaborated, it was only partially (Only the towers/arms were the same). 60/254 made the same robot, but from the discussion surrounding it, I gathered that individual components were designed/manufactured between the two due to lack of resources. I assume that the Niagara triplets all use the same manufacturing area? In which case, how was design split up?

Having been involved in this argument before, I am reserving judgement until I hear the entire story from the horse's mouth (Not to imply that anyone in Canada is a horse )

[Chris Sturrock]

Guys Guys Guys! Calm down! I can offer my best explanation.

We are all sponsored by GM, and we all share engineers, but we also have our own sponsors as well.

for example, Fort Erie had a sponsor who has a great CNC setup with a 16 foot bed. they got us our towers made. they also got us our drivetrain materials. We worked on all the little things, shafts, spacers, and all the little important things, because we have a good shop. Simcoe worked on the shooter and making the machine work. We all got together and put our robots together and helped each other.

I dont know where you guys get the idea that we are all mentor built, we are about 50/50 and we believe thats the way it should be.

and to CatchRothy22: NiagaraFIRST is just the name we have given ourselves. not a company.

[Karthik1]

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

Apologies about the assumptions on Engineer built robots, but I still think it's unfair how 3 teams have the same robot design. It's a good idea for you guys, but on the other end I think it's alittle unfair.

Good luck on the 2006 robot season.

How is it unfair? Everyone has the option to collaborate with other teams. If you want to build three identical robots, then you can, no one is stopping you.