Corporations Build Robots

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

btw: anybody notice how none of the bigger teams have posted yet with the exception of 330?
(Eric gets some respect from me for his post.)

Whoa there; bold statement. First of all, this thread has barely even been on chiefdelphi, give it some more time.

I'm not even sure what your proposed solution is.... A report on what? It's entirely legal for mentors to design the robot.

And, like Cory said, why should they? The goal of FIRST is clearly defined, the means to that goal are not. Therefore, a team can do whatever they please within those means. Now, I doubt ANY team has an entirely mentor designed robot, and even if they did it doesn't mean the students didn't learn/be inspired.

This is kind of another version of mentor/student involvement, and complaining on chiefdelphi isn't going to change anything.

Really, no matter what you do, you can't change what other teams do. They aren't breaking any rules. You'll get much more enjoyment out of FIRST if you focus on what your team can do rather than if you focus on what you think is unfair.

[waialua359]

this is classic case of david vs. goliath.
life isnt fair. you just gotta be more creative and hard working when life isn't fair.
we are probably one of the most remote schools on the island of Oahu, HI. Up until this year, we had to deal with $$$$ costs just to compete, where the nearest competition was 2600 miles away, and pay hefty amounts of shipping for parts only available in the continental US.
It forced our team to dig deeper and work harder.
After 9 years, I would have never envisioned where we are at today in terms of sponsors, resources, and experience.
Do what your team feels is best to communicate and experience the meaning of FIRST. Whoever builds the robot on your team should be a meaningful experience for all.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

looks like FIRST needs it's onw MItchell Report... i'll just leave it at that

With all due respect ... this is entirely the wrong way to look at things.
FIRST has made it EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR over the years that there is no rule governing who builds how much of any FRC robot. The program is about inspiration and recognition, period. We're here to change the culture. There are plenty of rules to follow in FIRST, but this one does not exist. What you or I choose to use as a rule/guideline/method of inspiring during the build period with our own teams is a separate conversation. When we show up at competition we get to celebrate ALL team's creations and the effort put in, regardless of how any team got to that point. Wasting your time on being a skeptic about these things is time wasted that you could have used to inspire a student and change the culture. Namaste.

[Andy Baker]

The involvement of the adult and the sponsor in building the competition robot has been healthy debate on these message boards since they were started in 1998. As folks have said, there are many threads discussing this subject.

There are two that stick out in my mind...

1. This discussion started out as a presentation of a 2-speed shifting gearbox used by the TechnoKats Robotics Team. (this is the design that eventually launched the AM Shifter series of shifting transmissions) The discussion quickly turns into a discussion about engineer involvement. You'll read a post by me that could have been much more tactful.

2. This thread raises questions and discusses the merits of different types of teams (100% student designed and built, mix of adult and student, 100% adult designed and built). This thread is pretty long, and many people weighed in on the subject. We all learned a few things during that thread.

There's nothing wrong with bringing this discussion up again. FIRST is a unique thing... a special arrangement of teamwork, cooperation, and inspiration between students and adults, within and throughout all teams. New students and mentors enter into the FIRST community and they have questions and opinions about these things. To discuss corporation and mentor involvement is a good thing, even if opinions differ.

Enjoy,
Andy

[Nawaid Ladak]

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

By "shady" you mean????
Is this in reference to supposed "mentor-built" robots?
Is it possible these people have lives outside of CD?
Man, I hate to see distructive finger-pointing right before kickoff.

Andy points out there have been many conversations on this topic before, points to a few, and is very gracious in his word choice.

Read. Digest. Understand. Then read FIRSTs mission and reread the rule book from every year you can get your hands on.

[JaneYoung]

I posted last night right around post 4. By the time I finished writing my post, several had been added. I was a little concerned with the direction the thread was taking. Because I could not find the quotes I was looking for, I decided it was best to delete my post. It is good to see folks attempt to steer this thread into one of thoughtful discussion and away from insinuations and finger pointing.

This morning I found one of the posts. (I was looking for 2 particular quotes regarding the topic from wise mentors who both happen to come from the same team, FRC 234, Cyber Blue.) Mr. Ritchie provides an excellent perspective when approaching FIRST, Kick Off, and discussions like this.


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...6&postcount=38

I appreciate the whole post, the part below in bold (my emphasis) is valuable.

Our students value the education and experience the mentors have that they have yet to achieve. At that point they step back and observe how things are done by professionals.To have respect for the process you are in right now, respect the knowledge around you by using it to your full advantage. By having the engineers involved you bring in industry standards, project management, and fresh ideas.

Excellent food for thought, I won't need breakfast now.
Jane

[Doug G]

1) There are some robots built more by mentors than by students. For those of us who've been doing this for a while, we know it happens. But I don't think the number of these teams are as high as people may think.

2) Teams often look at a well sponsored team and make assumptions about the mentors/sponsors involvement. My team has been guilty of this in the past. We'd get frustrated because our robot might not perform as well as we'd hope, and then we'd see the well sponsored team kick butt in the competition and out of jealousy and envy, accusations would surface about "well at least students built OUR robot". Come to find out later that the well sponsored team had a lot of students involved in many different ways which led to their well-designed robot and performance.

3) For those few times when a mentor(s) has built most of the robot, the team doesn't always last very long. I know two teams in my area that started and then folded because it relied so heavily on the mentors. When the mentors changed jobs or positions, the team couldn't survive. SAD.

4) There are many ways for students to be inspired, working along side an engineer or engineers working along side students. Both work, FIRST has proven that. Get over it.

5) Ask anyone who has judged a competition, if they know which teams had mentors doing most of the work. They know and take it in consideration for certain awards. Don't set your team up to rely on success with the robot competition only. There are other awards that are very meaningful to a team, make sure YOUR team knows this. For the first 2-3 years our team worried mostly about getting the robot to perform well. In the subsequent years, we prepared more for different awards, how to talk to judges and our overall team presentation, and wouldn't you know it we started winning some of the other awards and take a lot of pride in that even though we have yet to win a competition.

Don't close this thread, it's good discussion and information that teams need to grapple with. I'd rather they grapple with it on a well moderated thread than make rumors worse elsewhere.

[aaeamdar]

First off, thanks to all who have replied and a further thanks to putting up with what may seem like a regurgitation of old arguments. That was not entirely my intention, though I may have stepped into a bit of a quagmire.

My intention was really to ask this question without shades of grey (which, of course, we all know is impossible, which I'll get to). When I originally wrote this post, the word "mentor" was not something that was at all in my head, frankly. This is because to me, mentor means a teacher who takes a special interest in students' development. I hope this isn't getting too much into the whole 'which is better debate', but I will say that I find it hard to be a true engineering mentor if you're not at least in some small way working with the students to build and/or design the robot. I'm not saying that I think teams that have engineers build the robot are bad, or that they aren't inspiring students.

What I was really thinking of is when ABC Corporation picks up the K.O.P., takes in back to their shop, and designs and builds a robot and then ships it. Now, there are shades of grey within this. For example, if the students watched the engineers build the robot, they probably got something out of it. And if one student tightened one bolt once, did the students have a meaningful role in building the robot? Whether you think student involvement is important or not, most would agree that this doesn't constitute terribly meaningful involvement. But really, I was talking about a situation where students have no significant roles in either designing or building the robot.

So, to summarize the rather lengthy point I was perhaps obtusely trying to make: I wasn't thinking of "mentor-built" robots, because I don't personally see them as "mentors" if they're not teaching the students and at least partly involving them in the design or build process.

One last point: though perhaps unwise, I did request personal opinions on the subject. Mostly so far I think we have been fairly reasonable to each other, and let's try to keep that up. Specifically, FreedomForce thinks that FIRST should change its rules and audit teams, and he's entitled to his opinion. I'd also point out that responding to someone saying "mentor run teams do not acheive the goals of FIRST" by saying "well, FIRST does not have a blueprint for how teams run" doesn't make too much sense (to me at least). The first person is suggesting (or seems to be suggesting) that FIRST should have such a blueprint. Responding by telling them that there is no blueprint is not much of a logical point.

Paul

P.S.: I am not at all talking about NEMOs. I just don't equate "this guy who built a robot for me" to engineering mentor.

[JamesBrown]

I have been on two teams in FIRST, my high school team had 1 teacher a couple Parents and 10 students, the team I mentor in college has about 24 college mentors about half a dozen professional engineers, 3 teachers and about 15 students. Needless to say there is alot more involvement by mentors on my college team.

My point is I have seen the system from both sides (neither team is completely mentor built but there is a great difference in mentor involvement in design and build) both teams have performed fairly well and have similar records over the last 3 or 4 years, one team has a good win loss record with no regional wins and the other has a regional championship and a regional finalist award, this shows both can be competitive.

The only thing that matters in this debate and in FIRST is that students on both teams joined the team looking to build a robot and left the team looking to become engineers. If the team inspires students then who cares how they do it. I know it is becoming a little cliche but FIRST is about building people, not building robots. Please only worry about how your team chooses to inspire, if you have a problem with your teams system then talk to the mentors about it otherwise enjoy your season while every one else enjoys theirs.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by FreedomForce

I think bigger was a wrong choice of words on my part. I should have said teams i consider a little "shady". I refuse to name any names because i know i would cause MAJOR problems. but I know a couple of people who have these lists, and apperently none of the people have posted from that list

I was saying bigger probally because when i look at that list, their sme strong teams on there

Sorry for the misunderstanding,

P.S. Finals+No Sleep=Poor Choice of Words

"shady" is also, probably, a poor choice of words as well.

First off, who really cares if a teams robot was built by the students, the mentors, or a company; as long as the students were inspired by the program?

FIRST is not about building robots, it's about inspiring the future. We, in 1824, try to do that with a "student designed, student built" structure. If another team inspires their studens by having the engineers/mentors design and build the robot, explaining the design process and reasoning behind the design, then they have succeded.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by BBnum3

What you are talking about has almost definitely happened, but very rarely and I would think more in the past than currently. I seem to remember some horror stories [...] where a team had to give their robot back to their sponsor at the end of the season to be dismantled because the company apparently didn't want their designs to be copied. I am not sure of the details of that situation, but it is an uncommon one.

I have heard this rumor as well. I have also seen previous years' robots in displays and at competitions from the accused teams, which seems to fly in the face of the aforementioned story. Ultimately, I dismiss these rumors as just that - rumors.

[AndyB]

Ok, I've had it.

FIRST is not about the robots. Lets get that out of the way. The point of FIRST is not to go out every spring and kick the crap out of a few aluminum and plywood based contraptions! The point of FIRST is to benefit from mentor interaction and learn in an environment that reflects the real engineering world.

Some teams may have mentors who help design. Some teams may have mentors that help build. Some teams may have mentors that do everything. The reasons: WE DON'T KNOW. So quit making the automatic assumptions that these mentors, WHO ARE HERE FOR YOUR BENEFIT, are telling kids to go sit in a corner. If there are teams out there like this, well then all you need to do is ask yourself 1 question: Why does it matter to you.

There are many ways to learn. Through trial and error by working through problems by yourself-- Through hands on work with supervision and advising from mentors-- And believe it or not, you can learn from watching as well.

So let me recap:
1.) FIRST is not about the robot
2.) FIRST is about learning
3.) There are multiple ways to learn

/vent

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by aaeamdar

One last point: though perhaps unwise, I did request personal opinions on the subject. Mostly so far I think we have been fairly reasonable to each other, and let's try to keep that up. Specifically, FreedomForce thinks that FIRST should change its rules and audit teams, and he's entitled to his opinion. I'd also point out that responding to someone saying "mentor run teams do not acheive the goals of FIRST" by saying "well, FIRST does not have a blueprint for how teams run" doesn't make too much sense (to me at least). The first person is suggesting (or seems to be suggesting) that FIRST should have such a blueprint. Responding by telling them that there is no blueprint is not much of a logical point.

I guess with this entire discussion there is a fundamental idea that have an entirely engineer built robot is bad and eliminates students from the process. I don't personally see what says that this is true, and I do not see where we have the high moral standing to come down on those said teams.

I don't believe an audit system is logistically possible, and I do not believe it is necessary either.

Why is an engineer built robot bad?
Why is an entirely student built robot good?
Where do we have the authority to make these evaluations of other teams?

I just don't understand where it is others place to make these judgments when they have no perspective on the teams inner workings nor how it came to be this way in said teams.

I have been on every style of team rich, poor, student led, mentor led, "engineer built". My thought is that they all worked to inspire at the end of the day. I think we lose perspective and think that this is only a competition of robot building. I wonder if we start thinking in terms of how many people of that FIRST team went to college, how many started their engineering job, and how many of those students are better off after the FIRST season is over. If we start to change this thought process I think that these discussions don't matter as much because they have missed the idea of FIRST when they are discussing this audit.

I wonder could our energy be better served elsewhere? Our time and energy are finite resources that should be used properly. I think that this audit process would be a waste of those things because ultimately it would NOT ensure anything except more paperwork for the already overworked mentors.

I hate to break it to everyone and hopefully people someday will be able to handle this notion that this competition isn't fair. It just isn't, I'm sorry. Just be content that you are doing what you THINK is best approach here in FIRST. You are losing your finite resource of time and energy worrying about what everyone else is doing.

[+()c|D]

I dont think that it is in the spirit of FIRST to have sponsors build the robot. Dont get me wrong, if thats what your team does then thats fine, but I think it is better for the team members who want to be Engineers if they are the one building and designing the robot. I hope that I will be an engineer one day, and coming from our student run Team 4 Element, I think I will do well in the workforce. The help of our members is what makes FIRST possible, but I just dont think that, if I had a choice, I would have a sponsor build my robot.