Sub Contracted, Eh?

[archiver]

Posted by Scott Vierstra.

Engineer on team #128, Cold Fusion (TOGA PARTY), from Grandview Heights and American Electric Power.

Posted on 3/22/2000 6:51 AM MST


In Reply to: #3 Chief Delphi Builds Its Robot posted by Joe Johnson on 3/20/2000 9:55 PM MST:



:I agree that engineers do not often have the opportunity to run equipment and machinery, but this is mostly due to the economic impact and the relative cost of engineering services. However, there are a lot of engineers who without the experience or with limited experience of getting their hands dirty struggle to truly understand how things work. By excluding students fromany part of the building phase of the FIRST competition, it is my opinion that they are robbed of a very valuable aspect of the overall process and an appreciation for the artistry of building things. I've felt that the purpose of FIRST was to introduce high school students to technically oriented fields, including being machinists, welders, mechanics, electricians, technicians, etc. An engineer without the support and valuable input from these other related fields would have a very lonely and unproductive existence.
I was fortunate to have experienced Woody's Introductory Design Course at MIT, and I remember that one of the neat aspects of that competition, as well as FIRST, was the attempt to start with a level playing field. Winning the competition is nice, but at what price? If we place too much emphasis on winning the competition, we take away some of what it's all about for the rest of the competitors. Only one team can win the competition, but all can be winners. When a group of students who join a FIRST team with little experience, find that they can actually build a robot themselves in just 6 weeks time and have it survive the rigors of competition, they have truly learned something about technology and themselves. They realize that given the kind of resources that some teams have at their disposal, they can easily make an impact in this world. More importantly, they have pushed themselves to levels they previously thought they were not capable of. They go away with the knowledge that they can exceed their own expectations and overcome obstacles in the process.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that the engineers play a vital roll in guiding the students, helping them to avoid pitfalls, and providing some level of assurance that the robot will do what it was intended to do. Chief Delphi is to be commended on their continued success in developing sound designs and competitive robots. I simply think that the students gain more by owning more of the process and doing the work. With team Cold Fusion (TOGA PARTY), we are fortunate to be able to start early in the fall and can develop student skills as welders, electricians, programers, etc. allowing them to feel more comfortable in applying these skills in the robot building phase.
Good Luck to All at Nationals

: Having defended the right of a team to totally farm out their design, this is not what the Chief Delphi team does.

: We do work on the robot. Quite a lot actually.

: Cutting, drilling, tapping, dremelling, wiring, bending, shearing, assembling, bolting, bleeding, etc.

: These are just a few of the 'ing' words that we did a lot of.

: Why? When Chief Delphi is obviously able to hire out the entire process or even to build several robots while we are at it (sarcasm alert ;-)

: Because it is part of the inspiration process in our opinion.

: We do plenty of work on that machine (We in this case being engineers, students and teachers).

: If it is not enough to suit some teams or if the balance of what is done by this group or that group does not match the ratio set by your team's internal standards. What can I say?

: We are trying to inspire our students using our best judgement.

: I find it singularly uninspiring that some teams come to competition with robots that cannot drive, move their arms or do much of anything. Many times this is done in the name of inspiring students by letting them design and build XXX% of the robot.

: Am I to complain that this is a great unfairness to other teams and should not be allowed?

: I think not.

: FIRST has not made a rule about what percentage of a robot must be built by any one group (including so-called sub-contractors).

: FIRST has (wisely, in my opinion) allowed teams to use their best judgement about what balance is best to maximize the inspirational aspect of their FIRST programs.

: I think this is part of the richness of FIRST and what makes it such a dynamic community.

: Joe J.

: P.S. As to rumors that Chief Delphi has built more than one robot. This is totally false. In my rookie year, I strongly advocated this strategy as a means of gaining drive time. It was a total and complete failure. I swore that we would never again waste such energy chasing down a 2nd robot that never did manage to get completed. It is a vow that I repeat often. In my opinion these are the keys to success:
: Make ONE robot.
: Pick a strategy early.
: Design it in CAD before you cut ANYTHING.
: Pull the all nighters in week 4 to finish it early rather than in week 5 to put it in the box.
: Give your drivers time behind the wheel.

: Building multiple robots hurts many of these efforts and only potentially helps the last one.
: Overall, I feel strongly that it is a huge net loss to build more than one robot.