The Triplet Challenge

[Lil' Lavery]

I shall use this post to offer partial points, opinions, and empirical data, as my own stance on this is somewhat divided. What I will say is that I prefer partial collaboration, such as 217/229 sharing arm/tower designs but creating individual drivetrains to total collaboration.

Not counting the BAE Regional (Award sheet wasn't up) or the Israeli regional (all teams are >1000), there were 39 regional wins (not winners) by teams numbered >1000 this year. That is more than 1/3 of the regional wins. Perhaps collaboration isn't essential to creating a winning team. Although, many of these teams most likely did have some level of collaborative effort. Also consider that 6 of these 39 wins are from 1114 and 1503.

While the % of growth may be little, the number of teams created is relatively high during the past few years. I beleive it was 2003 that we saw the first 4-digit teams. In 2007 we will have teams with #s >2000. Although how many of these teams have dropped out during this span is also a concern, as voiced by Stephen and John.

Here is my father's example of "off the field" success, plain and simple to be used as simple data. 116 is an 11 year veteran team. We have yet to win a regional event, or even an off-season event. The furthest we have ever advanced in a regional is the semi-finals (2001 and 2004). We have only made the elimination rounds 3 times during the alliance era (2001 VCU, 2004 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) at a regional competition. We have been seeded last once at a regional (2003 VCU) and twice at off-season events (2005 IRI, 2005 Capital Clash). Our highest seed ever at a regional was #4 (2001 VCU) and #2 (2004 York Summer Frenzy) at an off-season. We have twice been an alliance captain at regionals (2001 VCU, 2006 Peachtree) and once at an off-season (2004 York Summer Frenzy). We did not win a single award until 2003, where we won the Lonestar Autodesk Award for Visualization. In 2003 there were 3 members working on our animation team. In 2004 there were 11 (beleive that was the number, not positive) and we won the Autodesk Visualization Award twice (VCU and Annapolis). In 2005 there were >20 members on the animation team and we won our only regional event in Annapolis. In 2006 there were once again around 20 (slightly less) members on the animation team and we won the AVA in VCU, and lost to 1414 in Peachtree. In 2005 we spawned a FVC pilot team, FVC 18. FVC 18 had 6 student members and 2 mentors in 2005, and went on to win the FVC pilot event in Atlanta, and were nominees for 2 other awards, including the Vex Challenge Award (FVC's Chairman's). In 2006 FVC 18 had 5 student members, 1 adult mentor, and 1 student mentor. FVC 18 would be finalists at the Duluth regional, and win the Amaze award and top rated Autonomous award.
While that shows 116's limited "on-field success", 116 has had much other success. We developed one of the first shifting gearboxes in FIRST capable of being manufactured with lesser equipped machine shops. 116's "control box" design has enjoyed wide spread popularity over the last two years, and has been part of winning 2 technical awards (2005 Chesepeake Xerox Creativity Award, and 2006 Peachtree Innovation in Control Award, our awesome auto mode helped that). Our 2005 drivetrain, the "cambered holonomic drive", has been called the most innovative drivetrain in FIRST and was part of winning our 2005 Xerox Creativity Award. Multiple teams around FIRST have adopted both 116's shifting gearbox and our control box in part or in whole, and often have improved further upon them (and many may still adopt the cambered holonomic drive in games that better suit it than Aim High). We have also gain tremendous community prestige. We have done extensive outreach to the community through many different mediums. From schools, to community events, to businesses and restaraunts, and even yard sales. Many event organizers even request our presence now (from Herndon Festival, one Parade magazine's top 10 rated town fairs, to the NASA/VCU regional).
Can a collaborative team enjoy off-field sucess as well as on-field sucess? Most certainly, and from what I have heard about the Triplets, they definately do. But is on-field sucess truly necessary to keeping a team alive?

Collaboration does not have to be total. You could collaborate on something much smaller, such an individual robot components, or sub-systems. You could also help out "pre-rookies" and virtual teams design bots, or understand and use your practice bot, at off-season events, and let them design their own for their actual rookie year competition. 341's Team in a Box is another terrific example of how to help rookie teams. Countless other methods exist, and I think each specific team needs to find the one that best suits them.

Explosive growth is not always good either. When funds/sponsors/community interest does not exist, it isn't always a good idea to start more teams. Rather you should work to create these interests, but there are other means than making a winning team. A winning team is guaranteed to spark interest, just like a losing one isnt guaranteed not to. For example, 64, who played on Einstein in 2005, did not compete in 2006. Another example is the struggles many Richmond area teams have when trying to find sponsors. Because of the large amount of Richmond area teams, it is hard for all the teams to receive adequate funding due to teams competiting for the same sponsors. When Computer Assossiates stopped funding teams after only a single year in the Northern Virginia area, many could not continue on for more than 1 or 2 years more (although some, such as 612, 614, and 623 have survived and are excelling).


/sorry about the long winded post