[moderated] pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by Karthik1

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.

correct, just imagine all NY teams have one bot and all MI teams have another. that'd be crazy!

/back to the point of the thread.

[meaubry]

Okay - with respect to everyone that has posted - take a deep breath and slow down the argument a bit.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and that is all they have at this point) and we hope that they can be presented in a manner in which doesn't incite problems.
As pointed out by others - this topic has been discussed in depth on other threads from other years. Let's not re-hash that all over again here.
Please respond respectfully to each other and as "grandma said - if you don't have anything nice to say - don't say anything!
Thanks -
Mike Aubry

[Kate00]

I read through this thread with incredulity. How could a community such as FIRST which preaches such values of gracious professionalism just jump on NiagaraFIRST like this? Not only are they powerhouse teams who do a LOT of work to get to where they do, they are the epitomy of gracious professionalism and dignity. What they have done for FIRST in Canada, and for other teams is incredible.

Earlier in the season, my team was having problems finding parts, and some of the ones we ordered got held up at the border. We asked team 1114 for help, and they donated tread and wheel sprockets to us, driving all the way from St. Catherines to Oakville to drop it off. For this I thank them. I know that we are not the only team they have helped out. At competition, they are always incredibly graciously professional, and always follow the rules to the letter.

I have no idea how the internal workings of these teams work, but they seem to have had no problem in INSPIRING their students and getting RECOGNITION for the program. Isn't that the point, not whose robot preforms well on the field or what they look like or how many teams are involved? Isn't it not about the robot? These are incredible machines, Karthik, congratulations, and I hope to see you at Waterloo and Greater Toronto.

[Mike Nawrot]

On behalf of Phill (catchrothy) I apologize, he made too many assumptions. I personally am a little disgraced by the Co-op between these three teams, because here on team 11, we believe that a bad robot with no adult design input is much better than a good robot with no student input. I am not saying niagraFIRST students had no input, because they clearly had some form, but i believe that the mentors are there to challenge the students mind by asking questions the students must think about hard and long before giving an answer. Our leadership always wants a good robot, but they ask us what we want our robot to do, and then ask us why we think that, and when the students come to a majority for a single strategy, we keep it. Afterwords, it is in our hands to design the robot. The mentors work FOR us, when we come up with a design, they help us solve details by offering ideas. They help us learn HOW to make the parts of the robot, not how to DESIGN it. I am not accusing these three teams of not designing their own robots. We CADD our own things, all CADD'd by students, then send the drawings to our local county college, or one of our teammate's basements to have it CNC'd. We then assemble it, and if there is a part that is not made, our mentors point it out and we make it. Not to say these three teams don't do so. Its about time i get to the point: disagreements are unavoidable. there is no such thing as the perfect robot. Everyone has a different view on how to do things. I personally think that the Co-op could've resulted in similar ideas (IE high shooter, same abilities) but i think that every robot should have a different solution.... seriously.. if you have to design something.. and its the same amount of material as the other robot..... then you can easily CAD something different and send the CAD over to the source of all your heavy machining. The robots would do the same things in the end, but the way they do them may be different. Essentially, it's like one giant team, which is great, because we have a fairly large team ourselves, but everyone wants to build a robot. It'd get crowded, sure, but thats the point where i think that they should go in the direction that RAGE went. Two robots (or in this case 3) for one team, using them as spares. Its all one team in the long run, but if something breaks they have a back up. Its not three teams competing with the same robot that way. its one team with two spare robots, which would not call any attention to it. But having the idea of having three teams with the same exact potential is... its just unfathomable. I'm not saying the design of these robots was easy. Honestly, i think the robots themselves a very impressive. But i want to compare this to the real world. Take any industry you want. Three companies/firms need to come up with a product to do the same thing. They work together and come up with the same result. they market the end product under a different name, but they go for the same price and work exactly the same. which one do you buy? i think that the idea of three teams with the same robot isn't bad when it comes to learning how to construct it and design it.... its just a bad end result..... and after all this rambling (which is all it really comes down to) I'd just like to state that i have no stance on this. i like the robot, and i know students took part in it. But the fact that they acted as one team and want to compete as three others goes against my FIRST morals. What's done is done, but i recommend forming one team with three robots next year. Our team founder/current mentor found this picture... and the look on his face could only be described as the deepest disappointment. As a team that worked with another school to help them get started, we know that cooperation between teams really helps, and we've helped that team when they had problems, but we never designed their robot with them. There is a fine line between one team helping and three separate teams. i think you blurred it to make something no one has ever seen. My point is really just to let people have their opinions, and that there were better ways to go about this. Nice robots, good luck, and i hope that we see more great robots in the future.

Sincerely,
Mike

note: I know the people involved in the NiagraFIRSTteams are amazing people.... but three teams may be a little excessive for what they need to do.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by Mike Nawrot

here on team 11

That's great for Team 11, but this thread isn't about you. I'd venture to say that (GASP!) every FIRST team is run differently.

Furthermore, I was actually impressed this year with the amount of GP on these boards, the encouragement given to designs and teams, and the questions some of the students are asking about other bots to learn more about them... until I read this thread. Is this really an argument worth getting worked up? Don't you think the kids on these teams would be hurt by you making assumptions about their sponsors, mentors, and the students themselves?

Are we really that close-minded that we have to insult other teams that deviate from what we percieve to be right? Giving an opinion and insulting someone are far from each other. Graciousness isn't just sharing your crayons in kindergarten. It's also about encouragement and growth, especially in this program.

A little note for everyone: If you want to rant collaboration, mentor involvement, or any other topic on here, don't disgrace one team by attempting to call them out. There's a handful of collaboration (or mentor involvement, or whatever) threads that serve the same purpose. If you aren't familiar with the ChiefDelphi boards, I'm sure a moderator would be happy to show you around.

[Mike Nawrot]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

That's great for Team 11, but this thread isn't about you. I'd venture to say that (GASP!) every FIRST team is run differently.

Furthermore, I was actually impressed this year with the amount of GP on these boards, the encouragement given to designs and teams, and the questions some of the students are asking about other bots to learn more about them... until I read this thread. Is this really an argument worth getting worked up? Don't you think the kids on these teams would be hurt by you making assumptions about their sponsors, mentors, and the students themselves?

Are we really that close-minded that we have to insult other teams that deviate from what we percieve to be right? Giving an opinion and insulting someone are far from each other. Graciousness isn't just sharing your crayons in kindergarten. It's also about encouragement and growth, especially in this program.

A little note for everyone: If you want to rant collaboration, mentor involvement, or any other topic on here, don't disgrace one team by attempting to call them out. There's a handful of collaboration (or mentor involvement, or whatever) threads that serve the same purpose. If you aren't familiar with the ChiefDelphi boards, I'm sure a moderator would be happy to show you around.

i do not want to start an argument, and I'm approaching this with no bias toward any team. I would like to reiterate that i realize the hard work these student put into the robot. If you read my entire post, through the excessive rambling that occurred, you will, in fact, notice that i had quite a few positive views on this whole situation. I am not taking sides, and I believe (yes, I, as in my personal opinion, not necessarily correct) that these STUDENTS (yes, these are student built robots) did an amazing job this year, but the three way Co-op COULD"VE been settled with one large team. Notice, the could've, not should've. if i said should've, I'm sorry, i can be pretty stupid sometimes. If anything, i was trying to provide a slightly more relaxed view on this, and the point of stating how our team operates was merely an attempt at showing that there is no right or wrong way. the only wrong way is sponsor designed, which is not what these robots are, so i think there is nothing to say about this. I was never trying to make this about us, by the way, but that is not the point. I am agreeing with what Ms. Morrison said, every team is run differently. We should let these teams be, we've all stated our opinions, and we should not start personal vendettas. This should be a friendly environment. We all learned something this year, and it doesn't really matter what everyone else learned, considering we all pretty much learned the same concepts. And I'm sure that we will all gain some sort of technical knowledge when we look at either one of these robots. thats the reason we're here.

[jgannon]

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.

Before things get too far out of hand here, how can you make the assumption that these robots are not student-built? My understanding is that NiagaraFIRST is not a company, but rather a name for a group of three high school teams. So, if NiagaraFIRST is making parts and building robots, then that would be a good thing. Would you make the same accusation of 217/229, or 254/22, or 254/60? Using the same jointly-designed plans doesn't mean that everyone isn't making their own parts. I don't know any better than you do what the actual situation is, but it would probably be better to not make assumptions.

(2c)

[Rich Kressly]

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. 3 teams having the exact same robot sponsored by NiagaraFIRST, I'm sure we can tell who actually built the robot here. I don't see how this is a good idea at all. It completely ruins the FIRST spirit ... 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.

Well PJ, since you're so sure of yourself, I'd like you to meet Peter Diakow, Grade 12, from Team 1114 and NiagaraFIRST. He's actually building the hopper of a 2006 NiagaraFIRST robot.

Oh, why does some rookie team mentor from PA give a crap about this? Well, it seems as though Team 1712 was having difficulty figuring out how to marry that big CIM with a roller system because of limited resources. So I'm discussing this online with Karthik and he says, "Dude, why don't we make you a shaft adapter." So NiagaraFIRST's and 1114's own Peter Diakow took time out from BUILDING their robot(s) about 8 pm one night, so he could help 1712 in PA. Then Karthik brought the STUDENT-done work to us in DE where we met up at a Vex event. The kids on 1712 were so elated, they wrote 1114 a long letter for the incredible act of gracious professionalism. See 1712's tribute here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=44048

Just because this isn't how you do business, don't make assumptions about others - EVER. Would my team collaborate like this? Probably not, but that's a team decision. In this case, when you talk about collaboration you are taking shots at 229, 217, 60, 254, the Niagara teams and some of the most storied names in FIRST that go along with these numbers. You know, these are the same names that brought us the kit gearbox and other incredible acts of gracious professionalism.

Take a step back and decide how gracious it is to accuse someone in a public forum without knowing all of the facts. You now have a chance to make things right. Take the opportunity. Namaste.

[Mike Nawrot]

In response to this..... i'd like to say that Phill has jumped to conclusions. and he is in his place to apologize..... so, from a teammate/friend, phill, you have already apologized once, but i think you need to apologize to a greater extent.... these teams worked hard, whether or not we like the fact that the robots are the same.

[Lisa Perez]

At any rate, those are some very nicely designed 'bots... 10 days 'til we meet...

[Swan217]

Aww Karthik, they look just like you...

Watch out for sibling rivalry.

[Rich Kressly]

Congrats to the crew North of the border.

[Conor Ryan]

So...who gets to practice with the practice robot first?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

What's the thickeness of the plastic guarding the shooter and for the hopper?

[Matt]

Great job guys they look amazing.