Team 217 - Thunderchickens

[babycakes]

Its completely the opposite of what FIRST is about.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Its completely the opposite of what FIRST is about.

I will challenge you to find anything in the rules or the speeches of Dean or Woodie that suggest that FIRST is about learning to use a drill or a mill or a press or a break.

FIRST is about inspiring students, and if we can tech them some things along the way that's a fantastic bonus.

Team 217 has developed a build season process that allows them to maximize the time they spend on prototyping, design, and iteration by minimizing fabrication time. They do this by using construction techniques that best align with the capabilities of their sponsors. I hardly see how any of this goes against what FIRST is about. Their team has optimized their process to spend the maximum amount of time working on solving the problems presented by the game.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're jealous. I know I am. Team 217 (and the rest of Team IFI, who use similar methods) are teams that I strive to emulate. What makes them even better is they aren't trying to stop you from emulating them, in fact they are actively encouraging it by doing their best to share their design process with the rest of the FRC community.

I always say the same thing to people that say that students don't do design work on team so-and-so, go talk to them. Walk into the team's pit and ask the students about the machine, you may be surprised by how much they're able to tell you.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Its completely the opposite of what FIRST is about.

Wrong.
Dead wrong.
Find me ANY piece of literature or soundbite from FIRST's founder, FIRST's national advisors (Lavery, Flowers, Wilczynski, etc), FIRST's Board of Directors, anywhere on the FIRST website or in FIRST produced marketing materials, etc. that supports your claim.

And you're dead wrong on the machined in TX and riveting things together part, too. There's MORE problem solving going on here among students than you'll EVER know. Do you have ANY clue how hard these students on these teams work at prototyping, building, testing, then CADDING into the wee hours of the morning to actually engineer an elegant final product?

Your version of what FIRST is about is exactly that, your version. If your team decides to build robots differently, then so be it, but why should that mean another team is "wrong"?

And how on earth could you call a team "overrated" that performs the way it does every year? Astounding...

(insert long-breathless rant about the meaning of FIRST here).

Go spend a year with a team, then spout off about them like you know what you're saying. Until then, you'll have to consider that your conjecture might be harmful and potentially slanderous.

namaste.

[harleywhite]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Its completely the opposite of what FIRST is about.

I'm pretty sure FIRST isn't about trash talking teams, but that doesn't seem to bother you too much.

I don't really know what you thought would be accomplished by coming on CD and making statements like the ones you made. It is really unbelievably ridiculous and childish.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Its completely the opposite of what FIRST is about.

Isn't your cowardly approach to bashing 217 completely against what FIRST is about?

217 has one of the most amazing programs in FIRST. As stated earlier, it's not about how you make your robot or what you make it out of, it's what you learn from the experience.

-Nick

[Rob]

When I read through this thread it strikes me that this is not about an individual person upset about an individual team. To me this is more about something that is a part of the culture fo FIRST - people being upset about the disparity between "Have not" teams and "Have lots" teams.

Every year "Have lots" teams dominate the awards and eliminations and "Have not" teams may sneak in an award or finals appearance here and there.

There are tons of threads on CD on the topics of mentor vs. student built, well funded vs. poorly funded, collaboration and other topics that surround this issue. In my mind this is a part of the culture of FIRST that teams on both sides of the coin have to accept and make the most of.

I am certain that there will never be true parity in FIRST, but I have never seen an indication that competitive parity is a goal of the organization. FIRST is around to inspire students by linking them up with mentors, role models and heroes from the fields of science and technology (and others!)

I would suggest that if you see yourself as a "Have not" and are feeling frustrated about it that you try and work with some people from the "Have lots" teams. I am sure you will find that they are open to helping and that they have quite a bit to share that can start you on the path to improving yourself and your team. These superstar teams are inspirational and most are ready to share what got them to where they are.

Rob

[Paul Copioli]

I was not going to post in this thread, but I have decided to just clear up some facts (some of which are in other posts on CD).

I will not respond to babycakes as I know who you are (gotta love technology) and will have an independent conversation with you when I am in Michigan this weekend.

Regarding our "outsourcing" to Texas -

From 2000 to 2004 our team had the Ford Van Dyke Transmission plant millwrights at our disposal. We could get machining, welding, etc. completed by them and we were not allowed to do it ourselves. We adapted our team workflow based around these limitations focusing on design, assembly, prototyping, and testing (why we usually use PVC in creative ways).

In 2004, the plant decided it would no longer provide these services, but allowed us to do it ourselves in our team room. As such, we purchased the mini lathe and mill you see in our pit at competitions. We also purchased two more lathes to use during build season. In addition, we had a student whose father ran a sheet metal shop in Michigan who offered to donate sheet metal parts if we made them in CAD and sent the solid models directly to them. I had no idea how to design sheet metal parts so I decided to ask around and learn about the process. I proceeded to teach the students who do design (about 12 each year) and we started our first robot made almost entirely from sheet metal (note, no TX yet).

2005 was a carbon copy of 2004, except JVN (then a College senior at Clarkson University) and I decided to give collaboration a try. 217 made the sheet metal for team 229 and 229 made some parts for 217. In addition, we had about 15 ThunderChicken students who learned how to use the mill and lathe. In 2005, 80% of our turned parts were manufactured by team 217 students. The sheet metal was made by the same Manufacturer as 2004.

In 2006, the company who made our sheet metal went out of business so we were back at square one from that standpoint. Coincidentally, JVN started working at this small company called IFI who just had built their own sheet metal shop 2 years prior. Since John had decided to take the year off in FIRST, I asked him if IFI was willing to make the sheet metal for team 217 if we designed it. He got with the two owners of IFI and they agreed. We have not turned back since.

On team 217 we usually have about 35 to 50 students. The majority of them work on the robot. A few of them are dedicated to our PR team. about 12 students are involved with design and the rest do prototyping. We prototype everything.

With every aspect of our team we try to keep it 50% student - 50% mentor. Since the sheet metal is manufactured by our sponsor, we make sure that the students are the ones touching the robot in most cases. Occasionally, the students will ask for mentor help; but that is up to the students. We spend a great deal of effort to make sure all aspects of our team are 50 - 50 as that is part of our basic philosophy.

If anyone is curious as to how our team operates, please do not hesitate to ask any one of us. we will be more than happy to explain the what and the why. You may not agree, but that doesn't mean we are not inspiring our students.

In any case, I hope babycakes looks me up at Troy this weekend as I really do want to clear this up.

Paul

[Nathan Streeter]

Getting back to the original point of this thread... 217 has an incredible robot and would be a valuable part of every alliance, with or without 469. In my opinion 217 is one of the best 5 robots out there - I realize that about 500-600 teams have yet to be seen, but 217 is very impressive regardless!

[Alex Cormier]

217 is amazing, simply put.

I one day wish my team could be as amazing as them and many other teams in FIRST. I also hope to learn how to use sheet metal as they, 148, and many others do. That is what FIRST is all about, gaining resources, friends, knowledge, employment and a better feeling for one-self. In the end, if there is one team that 99.5% (other .5% is the Thunder chickens ) of the people in FIRST should try to be, it is team 217 - The Thunder Chickens.

[JaneYoung]

There's always a lot of team dynamics involved in running a FRC team. That's part of the fun of it and part of the challenge.

Being one of the consistently successful teams who are consistently labeled as being: elite, the best, powerhouse, and dominant - is flattering, truthful, and perhaps, burdensome. For students who enter a team that has such a high standard and such a remarkable reputation (not just in their community, but in the FIRST community), must create challenges for that team. Keeping it fresh, striving, understanding that those who have gone before have helped build up the strength of the reputation and those that follow, continue to shore it up and build on it - or that is the hope.

In my opinion, that takes a lot of work. A lot of effort on the part of the mentors and the veteran students - to impart the values, the heritage, the legacy - and the respect of and for the team. Just as in any team, not everyone gets that at the same time. Some of the team dynamics and challenges are different and some are the same, including the awesomeness, talent, and enthusiasm found in the students in every FRC team.

Managing success can be as challenging as overcoming failure. Both take work, effort, and commitment. We should never shortchange these teams who serve as role models and will help shape the future of FIRST, because of our own petty jealousies or narrowed thinking.

Jane

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Managing success can be as challenging as overcoming failure. Both take work, effort, and commitment. We should never shortchange these teams who serve as role models and will help shape the future of FIRST, because of our own petty jealousies or narrowed thinking.

Jane

This is absolutely the best thing I have read on this site in years. Thank You Jane

Thunderchickens have no reason to be defensive. We are a young team (4th year) and have had the privledge of being beat by them in St. Louis. They taught us a lot and made us better in the process. Dean has expresed his feelings before on this subject and the thunderchickens are using a very acceptable model. It may not be the model you or I use 100% and that is fine too. We can all get there using different roads.

[Enigma's puzzle]

Shop Class is for machine operators, and CADing and sending it to a shop is for Engineers. I think they are actually learning more, including a more true version of the engineering process. No engineer is going to go into the workplace and tell a bunch of guys on the drill press how to make it, but instead the ThunderChickens are getting valuable hands on experience about designing, material strengths, tolerances, prototyping, etc. I can bet one of my students never learned a thing about tolerances by working our drill press.

And after they get their personally designed parts back, I'm sure they catch up pretty fast when making the slight modifications that most of our students make to make it better.

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

Shop Class is for machine operators, and CADing and sending it to a shop is for Engineers. I think they are actually learning more, including a more true version of the engineering process. No engineer is going to go into the workplace and tell a bunch of guys on the drill press how to make it, but instead the ThunderChickens are getting valuable hands on experience about designing, material strengths, tolerances, prototyping, etc. I can bet one of my students never learned a thing about tolerances by working our drill press.

And after they get their personally designed parts back, I'm sure they catch up pretty fast when making the slight modifications that most of our students make to make it better.

I have more concern about your comments than any other posted here. Shop class as you call it, is for engineers too. You can not design it if you do not know how it is built. You are missing one of the big reasons we are here.

You say: "No engineer is going to go into the workplace and tell a bunch of guys on the drill press how to make it". Again you are wrong, ever hear of time and motion or quallity control? That's engineers telling people on the drill press how to do their job better.

hmmm..... or robotics kids are learning about tolerancing while using the drill press. One of us is missing something.

Sorry for changing the subject, but I feel much better now.

Thunderchickens rock!

[ExTexan]

Freedom of Speech is a tricky thing.

Unless you vigorously defend the rights of others to express opinions that you disagree with then there is no Freedom of Speech.

That said, we all should have the right to express our opinions and the tricky thing is where the line is drawn as to those opinions being untrue or offending, degrading, or otherwise harming others.

I'm with post 37: "can a moderator please close this thread before it turns really nasty?"

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by ExTexan

Freedom of Speech is a tricky thing.

Unless you vigorously defend the rights of others to express opinions that you disagree with then there is no Freedom of Speech.

That said, we all should have the right to express our opinions and the tricky thing is where the line is drawn as to those opinions being untrue or offending, degrading, or otherwise harming others.

I'm with post 37: "can a moderator please close this thread before it turns really nasty?"

You came very close to quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall here (often misattributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I LOVED the story from Andy in 1999. That just goes to show how you too can be like the Chickens, if you're willing to work at it. Teams that think the "have's" like 1114, 217, 148, 254, 67, 111, et al. just have things handed to them are sorely mistaken. They work hard, and they deserve what they get, even if it is frustrating to the rest of us striving to be like them.