[moderated] pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!

[FourPenguins]

I'm not going to judge here (more than I can help) but as much as the collaboration thing is great and is an excellent show of gracious professionalism, I don't entirely understand why you would do this.

Originally Posted by Holtzman

Yes, but at this time, neither 1503 nor 1680 has the design or the programming resources to design and program their own competitive robots. It is for this reason that they are still a part of the collaboration. Perhaps in the future, when they have established more of their own resources, they will be able to venture off on their own.

The only question I have for you on this point (and in this thread really) is why you don't just function as separate team who share machining/mentor resources. The only reason I ask this is because in my experience, the larger the organization (and yours is obviously rather large) the more problems you encounter and the less fun everyone has. (I can tell you that there have been times on MORT that I've thought, "Now if only we had only these 15 kids and these three mentors...")
But the bottom line is that they're great bots and I applaud your engineering and machining talent, all three of you.
//edited 2-28

[Holtzman]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Norris

I am interested in knowing how fast your ball lift mechanism is into the shooter. You said that you took 1 stage out of the globe's gearbox, how much faster does that make it?

We took a 5:1 stage out of the Globe Planetary. With the conveyor system were using that translates to about 21 inches a second, or about 3 balls a second.

[Not2B]

Part 1 - Those look cool! It's similar to our design, just much more SMOOTH! Can't wait to see one/two/three - (not sure how many will be where I'll be.)

Part 2 - So... they pick a different engineering challange from most of us. Most teams have the challange of designing a robot alone... sealed off from the rest of the FIRST world. But we only have to make one bracket. One hopper. So we try some stuff out, make a prototype, get one working. Yeah for us. THEY have to get each part documented with enough info to make several copies. That's an engineering lesson on it's own. It's not bad/good - it's different. Just like Battlebots IQ - which is more of a durablity and materials selection type of engineering activity. In other words, a big SO WHAT!

Part 3 - I love having the triplets in FIRST! It's something different. Something we all know about. We all know 71 kicks butt. We all know that we have a team named for a south part snack food. And we have those wacky triplets, like the Del Rubio Triplets - but in robot form. It's just great.

Part 4 - Once upon a time I would have been upset about this - I was upset about engineer built machines, about teams building practice robots, blah blah blah... but after about 2-3 years, I started to come around. And after 5 years, I've come to realize the errors of my ways. It doesn't matter. Did YOUR team inspire students? Did YOUR actions help someone out? Don't feel too bad, everyone will get it in their own way and in their own time.

[Wetzel]

Matt and Andy, I share some of your feelings. It is different and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it yet. When I first saw the picture I was amazed. Holy cow 4 of the same pretty robots!
Then I thought about it some and realized that three teams worked together to develop and construct the same idea. Amazed again at the level of coordination to get that many high school students and mentors to work together to down select to the same idea and then build it.
But something just felt odd. I dunno, but I think it is just change takes a bit to get used to but I think I like it.

C’est la vie.

Wetzel
PS: This makes me want even more to do a build season with a 'powerhouse' team to steal their secretes.

[Derek Bessette]

First off , I would like to thank everyone for their praise, comments, suggestions and questions. I think our three team collaboration is somewhat unique in the FIRST community. I welcome all constructive criticism and thank those who have not made assumptions and attacked the way we do things here at NiagaraFIRST.org.

I'm actually quite happy this thread has become a moderated debate over collaboration. This type of conversation is very healthy for the FIRST community and very helpful to us at NiagaraFIRST.org. We are always looking for ways to make the experience for our student's better.

I think Karthik has answered most of the questions regarding how we manage our teams. I'm just going to add a few comments regarding the advantages and disadvantages of our collaboration.

I'm the lead GM mentor for team 1114. I have been involved with this team from the beginning. As Karthik said, as a single team I think we would be stronger than as a triplet. As a team we have been able to tap into a lot of resources in the Niagara area to get a lot of our metal and some parts donated as well as getting some of our harder machining done. These advantages are now passed on to three teams instead of one. Westlane and Fort Erie are starting to find their own resources which may help them break away from the collaboration eventually.

One advantage of a collaboration is with these resources. When Westlane finds someone to sponsor the decals for their robot, they get decals for all of the robot. When Fort Erie finds someone to get spare batteries donated, we all get free batteries. This same advantage is present with machining and fabricating. Westlane has a CNC lathe, Simcoe does not. Simcoe bought a CNC mill this year to match the one Westlane has had for some time. The Westlane Lead teacher mentor was able to come to Simcoe to help our expert grade 9 CNC mill programmer/operator. Each school is better at making some things compared to others. We use these strengths to help all of our teams succeed.

We also gain an advantage by learning from each others mistakes and improvements. We can pass lessons learned to each of the teams. Of course on the same note, when a design doesn't work out we usually end up with a lot of useless parts that took a long time to make. I challenge someone to print off our first teaser pic and try to find all of those parts on any of the robots. At least 75% of that stuff is now obsolete.

One of the biggest disadvantages is keeping the team organized and on track. We have to be very careful to document all of our drawings correctly and keep everyone up to date on changes. Although this problem hurts us as a team it is a very good learning experience for the kids. They learn how important it is to have good drawings and to communicate any changes.

Another disadvantage is the politics. There are a lot more people on three teams compared to on one. There are more personalities to deal with and a lot of different opinions on what the robot would look like and do. The brainstorming session at the start of the season helps with this a lot. We are able to get together and vote on the best ideas and always come up with a robot that incorporates ideas from all teams.

Also we won a lot more technical award last year than we had in the past. I believe this has to do with the fact that we had 3 identical robots. How do you pick which one to give it to?

By far the biggest advantage is that we can get to more students with less money and people. We can build three inspirational robots with fewer mentors and less money. A lot of people ask: Why not merge into one team with one robot? or Why not build 3 lesser quality robots?

For the first question I would answer: "Because, there is nothing more inspiring than competing with a robot that you built." Each school can get more involved with their own robot at competition because we are dealing with three smaller groups. I would find it very difficult to find productive and inspiring things to do for 80 kids with only one robot.

For the second robot I would say: "Competitive robots are inspirational robots." We could build three different robots. But they would all be less competitive and well engineered. I think our students are plenty inspired when the see what they've built, even though there are two more just like it.

Andy - Great points! I agree that having triplets in a regional might make it somewhat less interesting to watch. However, I will point out that it is definitely not less interesting for the kids that get to play the game with their own competitive robot. Each team has tremendous pride in their robot and they fight very hard, especially when they are against one of the other triplets. If I thought we had the time and resources to be able to put out three quality robots then we could have the best of both worlds. At some point I hope we can get there.

You also asked when we thought it gets out of control. I think we are at the limit now. I would find it very difficult to go to four teams with identical robots. We are getting another school in the area started with some of our kit materials that we haven't used over the years. They are going to build a robot using this years rules for the off-season competition in Wonderland. This will give them a chance to learn the heartaches of FIRST at a much more relaxed pace. They will have a lot of the advantages of being in NiagaraFIRST without having the same robot. We'll see how it works out.

I want to again thank everyone for turning this thread around. I understand how teams might be confused, disappointed, and even upset at the way we do things. I hope everyone can stay constructive in their criticism.

One thing you'll notice about our team. We are always improving. Whether it's the robot or the way we manage our team. Thanks to those out there who are trying to help us get better.

If anyone has any more question regarding our collaboration please feel free to ask. Try and be specific or you might end up with another novel like this one!


I almost forgot the biggest advantage of all!

Three times as many people get to hear me and Karthik sing at 2 am!

Karthik - Did you ever know that your my hero? You are the wind beneath my wings!

[KVermilion]

Guys... why are you arguing?

Attack of the Clones was undisputably the worst Star Wars movie ever.

Enough said.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Derek Bessette

You also asked when we thought it gets out of control. I think we are at the limit now. I would find it very difficult to go to four teams with identical robots. We are getting another school in the area started with some of our kit materials that we haven't used over the years. They are going to build a robot using this years rules for the off-season competition in Wonderland. This will give them a chance to learn the heartaches of FIRST at a much more relaxed pace. They will have a lot of the advantages of being in NiagaraFIRST without having the same robot. We'll see how it works out.

I think this is the most important aspect of the partnership. That it is NOT cast in concrete for all time, but that it is part of an evolution. And that it is not envisioned as uber-alliance. That is my biggest concern with alliances - that they grow to encompass too many teams. We don't want to see alliances with 10 or more teams dominating a regional.

Do the triplets always compete in the same regionals? Perhaps because of your location Toronto and Waterloo make the most sense; but do you consciously choose to be at the regionals together?

Perhaps in a year or two there will be two sets of two teams, making two sets of "twin" robots. 1114 can collaborate with the new team, 1503 and 1680 can collaborate together. Or whatever works for the situation. In a later year, another team can be added to a partnership to create another "triplet" - which can then divide and spawn off another partnership in a few years.

1188 came into existance by being mentored by 65 a few years ago. Then we struck off on our own as rookies (the same year 1114 were rookies). We didn't organize as two teams during the initial mentorship, because there weren't enough students associated with what became 1188 to make it work. Or because no one thought of doing it.

Last year 1188 mentored a student from another HS in the area - it was going to be more, but only he was interested enough to join. This year he moved to another school that has a team, so there was no one left from his original school left to participate. There is another school in our area that I would love to become involved in FIRST. I have broadly thought out a possible long-term relationship, involving both FIRST and the local OCCRA competition in the Fall - it's still so nebulous that I haven't even discussed it with our main mentor. Perhaps dual-designed FIRST robots would be an option if that partnership comes to pass. This year wasn't the year to pursue it, as we have so much on our plate with our association with South Africa.

I was initially against this concept, but can see how it can work in the right circumstances. If it serves to get more students involved in FIRST than would otherwise be possible, it is a good thing.

[CatchRothy22]

Alright, i stopped reading the posts after about page 3 because they're just all the same points arguing against me.

I jumped to conclusions, a bit too quickly. Sorry about that. When i saw that picture i just thought a company sponsored 3 teams, built them, and just sent them out. Made a false assumption, made an $@#$@#$@# out of myself, oops. Apologies to the teams and NiagraFIRST. And to MORT for making us look like morons.

[Spikey]

Part of me is really excited to see three identical robots, however part of me is not.

I like the idea, its a great way to mentor teams and teach cooperation, but to a point their should be separation. I wonder what people would think if all the BMS teams came to the New Jersey regional with identical robots. (5-6 teams)

Making three identical robots one year is a great idea, making three identical robots 2 years in a row leaves me with questions. It will still be great for these teams to share resources, but why not share the resources to make three different robots? That way the great aspects of collaboration can remain (sharing resources, mentoring others, offering help) while creating an individual robot that each team could be proud of.

Although I personally cannot put myself in the situation that these teams are in. My team was lucky enough to have a machine shop and adequate funds to independently build a robot. Maybe there is a different mindset when teams work together like this, I don't honestly know, all I can say is from my point of view I would like my team to work with others, but not build identical robots.

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by GaryV1188

Do the triplets always compete in the same regionals? Perhaps because of your location Toronto and Waterloo make the most sense; but do you consciously choose to be at the regionals together?

Perhaps in a year or two there will be two sets of two teams, making two sets of "twin" robots. 1114 can collaborate with the new team, 1503 and 1680 can collaborate together. Or whatever works for the situation. In a later year, another team can be added to a partnership to create another "triplet" - which can then divide and spawn off another partnership in a few years.

The triplets are competing in the same regionals. This helps us to save travel costs and reduce the amount of planning required. Also, it is very difficult to have the mentors travel to all different regionals in different weeks.

As for the question of growth within our community. We still feel there is an opportunity to have up to about 6 teams in our area (we also have students from other schools who participate on our teams). I don't envision there will ever be 6 identical robots at a regional. I do however for see a very strong collaborative effort between all teams to make the student's and mentor's experience more rewarding. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

[Mike]

Karthik, you stated that all three bots will eventually get cameras on them. What does your bots do with the camera data? It doesn't look like there are independent turrets on the bot, so do they move the entire bot? I like programming details

Nice bots, I also notice you have a full field set up. What kind of facilities do you have?

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by CatchRothy22

Alright, i stopped reading the posts after about page 3 because they're just all the same points arguing against me.

I jumped to conclusions, a bit too quickly. Sorry about that. When i saw that picture i just thought a company sponsored 3 teams, built them, and just sent them out. Made a false assumption, made an $@#$@#$@# out of myself, oops. Apologies to the teams and NiagraFIRST. And to MORT for making us look like morons.

Thank you PJ, it honestly takes guts to step up and admit a mistake, especially one that is inflammatory. I send along my appreciation to you and to Team 11 for helping to get things back on track here. Please know, we aren't "arguing against you" as this is not a personal issue. It's about approprite public conduct and always keeping the big FIRST picture in mind. I'll most likely talk more about that in another thread, but as for the insight into the Niagara collaboration and detailed robot information, thank you all for helping us to learn!

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by Mike

Karthik, you stated that all three bots will eventually get cameras on them. What does your bots do with the camera data? It doesn't look like there are independent turrets on the bot, so do they move the entire bot? I like programming details

Nice bots, I also notice you have a full field set up. What kind of facilities do you have?

The camera might eventually be used aim the balls by turning the drive base. The Westlane team has spent a lot of time working with the camera to get it to do this very thing. It's not there yet, but it's close. Once we get a few other changes done in the next fix-it window we will give it another go.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Mike

Nice bots, I also notice you have a full field set up. What kind of facilities do you have?

We are very lucky to have a full practice facility. Due to an aging population in the Niagara Region, there have been numerous school closings. As a result the school board has a few empty schools. They've given us keys to the school (Lakebreeze ES, otherwise known as "the breeze"), and we build our playing field in the gymnasium. Since our team is in possession of the school, we have no restrictions on how late we can be there. So our teams are often practicing into the wee hours of the morning. Also, the school board uses "the breeze" for storage of high jump mats, so it's a great place to nap.

[doubleslash]

I'd have to say right up front that I don't necessarily agree with collaboration, but only one specific part, which is the one that makes it inherently unfair: the fact that collaborating teams get to bring three of the same robots to the same competition.

I agree that working together will produce a stronger bot, I've had year after year of schoolteachers that constantly teach us the power of teamwork. But you have to think of the inherent unfairness of multiple teams building the exact same robot and attending the same competition in terms of utility. I highly doubt that even if some teams don't have the mentors, the facilities, the programmers, etc, that they won't have the drivers and human players to make their collaborated clone robot succeed at a competition. Having three teams with three robots is basically commensurate to one team cloning themselves in order to increase their chances in the competition three times.

A second problem is a repeat of what someone else noted, that if one team gets into the top 8, they will often pick teams they are collaborating with to join their alliance. I personally saw this happening at SVR last year, and believe that every team that gets picked by their collaborating partners is another team that could have gotten picked but didn't.

If you think of the teams as a black box interface, it doesn't matter to me how a robot gets built, by how many people with so many facilities and so many mentors, as long as they follow a basic rule that I think FIRST should adopt: "One team, one robot, one competition." If there's one robot being made, regardless of the teams behind it, only one robot is put in a box and loaded into the truck on the ship date, only one robot shows up at the competition.

I realize that this is rather difficult since the teams are still distinct (often geographically, by school), but I can't see how they would fail to manage if they could build a robot together why they couldn't see it at the competition together.

The best way for FIRST to go about making this happen, in my opinion, are a new set of rules to "level the playing field" - as they said when they introduced the Fix-it Window - a rule that allows teams to declare themselves as collaborating, who therefore are from then on, considered to be one team in the eyes of FIRST, the competition organizers, and their computer systems.

Example: instead of Team X, Team Y, and Team Z showing up at a regional with three robots, which are all the same, Team X, Team Y, and Team Z declare themselves as a collaborating team (probably sometime before the kickoff?) so that in the eyes of FIRST, they aren't Team X, Team Y, and Team Z anymore, they're "Team X, Y, and Z" now. This avoids the trouble that would occur if teams that collaborated were forced to register a new team, so that teams would constantly be registered and abandoned as collaboration partners changed. Instead, the FIRST system simply creates a meta-team that consists of multiple collaborating teams. That one team brings their one robot to the one regional. That one team plays with their strong robot. There are no other teams with the same strong robot going on in the background and tripling their chances of succeeding. And when that one team gets into the top 8, they can pick other strong teams that otherwise might not have been picked. "One team, one robot, one competition."

Again, I must repeat, that I do agree that collaborating produces stronger robots. But at the same time I see an inherent problem with this that takes advantage of what I might dare call a loophole in the FIRST system. I've suggested a way to remedy this. If anyone has further ideas on why my ideas don't work or aren't plausible (<- this is the one I'm looking out for), other ways FIRST could improve their system (or whether it really needs "improving"), please post them.