**FIRST EMAIL**/Multiple Teams at One School

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Olde Bill

Doesn't 'over-sharing' of design (identical robots ... ) reduce the inventive/imaginative aspect and learning opportunities which I see as key elements of FIRST?

Not according to the judges of the 2007 Palmetto Regional. (1369's efforts with 1902, who were in Las Vegas at the time, received the Judges' Award for their approach to the collaboration, which resulted in a robot completed two weeks early. Nobody ever said that getting done early was bad--there is far more you can learn after fabrication is complete.)

Seasoned teams mentoring rookie team is fantastic but isn't there a limit to the amount of allowed collaboration to maintain a reasonably level playing field?

Not any year that I have been involved in FRC.

If memory serves me, at one time, parts manufactured for teams (material & labour) had to be included in the cost. If a student team member was there to watch and learn the labour cost could be excluded.

Not quite. From the 2007 manual:

Originally Posted by Section 8.3.4.4

The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the material processed further. Labor provided by team members and/or by a recognized team sponsor whose employees are members of the team does not have to be included. Note: it is in the best interests of the teams and FIRST to form relationships with as many organizations as possible. Teams are encouraged to be expansive in recruiting and including organizations in their team, as that exposes more people and organizations to FIRST. Recognizing supporting companies as sponsors of, and members in, the team is encouraged - even if the involvement of the sponsor is solely through the donation of fabrication labor.

Example: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop. The machine shop is not considered a team sponsor, but donates two hours of expended labor anyway. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00.

oExample: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that is a recognized sponsor of the team. The machinists are considered members of the team, so their labor costs do not apply. The total applicable cost for the part would be $10.00.

I can appreciate that in some situations (time, location, safety, ...) it is not possible for a student to be present, but, isn't simply displaying the 'manufacturer' as a sponsor a little overboard? Is this not similar to the COTS rule where (purchased) parts must be off-the-shelf and available to all teams?

I don't quite follow this one, so I can't quite rebut. Perhaps you could clarify things a bit?