Robot Collaboration

[Shawn60]

Time spent making parts for each team - 6 weeks
Cost for materials to make parts for each team - doubled
Time spent redesigning the robot so each team is satified - 2 weeks
Buidling better peopel and creating stonger realationships -PRICELESS

As to all of the questions that have arrisen - GREAT!!! YEs!!!

As I tell my students

"There are no easy answers... only complicated and never ending questions."

Shawn

[Collin Fultz]

if this collaboration is the greatest thing since sliced bread then why even have the robot COMPETITION at all? shouldn't we all just get together and try to come up with one really great robot idea that is simply awesome? wouldn't that just be the greatest? no. competition makes America what it is. competition between teams, companies, democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives...without competition nothing ever really gets better. without competition healthcare doesn't get faster and cheaper, cars don't get better gas mileage, and things progress much more slowly than before. I hope...no, I PRAY...that Cyber Blue never, never, never NEVER goes to this idea. Cooperation is one thing, so is helping a team at a competition, or mentoring them, or posting a white paper, or showing pictures, or this or that... but the bottom line is building two identicle robots is not the same as these things and therefore should not be compared to them...come on

[Matt Adams]

Could someone please address how rule 5.3.2.2 would apply to this situation? Joel brought up this concern earlier... I haven't seen a response from either team. I'm just curious about the billing rate that's appropriate.

461 has always used $50 / hr for any CNC work we've had done, but I don't know a fair rate for a typical machinist.

I'm just curious how this will all pan out... it'll be interesting to say the least. I'm not nearly as concerned about having two identical designs as I am about the whole idea of, "I'll build two of this and you build two of that, and we'll switch." It's much faster to build 2 of 1 part than 1 of 2 parts.

I know at Purdue, discussions over homework assignments is encouraged. However, writting out problem #1 twice, and having a friend write out problem #2 twice, followed by a switch of assignements doesn't fully teach either party the material in the problem they didn't do. In my mind, this homework example parallels this collaboration somewhat close.

However, I'm a little divided to be honest. It seems like this is taking something a bit too far. What that "something" is... I can't place my finger on... so apon the fence I sit, watching it unravel.

Good luck to everybody!

Matt

[Joel Glidden]

It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.

[Venkatesh]

Teams 60 and 254 collaborating? Amazing idea, whoever thought up that idea deserves much kudos.

Seriously, if I happen to be at a regional where either (or both) teams 60 and 254 are, I will give everybody on those team one cookie. (or a prize of equal value)

This is an excellent idea, and if FIRST indicates it is happy with partnerships like this, I hope to see more of these in the future. The idea that two teams, who compete with each other, are willing to help each other not only with little bits of ideas and advice, but by forming a full-fledged alliance, is excellent. This should be plastered somewhere in an introduction video.

So anyway, what do you guys on 60 and 254 think of Oreos?

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Joel Glidden

It's not just the machining time. The real biggie is the design work. What do you think it would cost on the open market to hire an engineering firm to design an arm that satisfies all of the applicable constraints and fulfils all of the applicable functional requirements? I doubt it could be done for less than $3500, and that's just to get it designed!

That having been said, I have no problem with this concept as long as the financials are straight. Any team can hire outside engineering and machining. That's exactly what's happened here w/ 60 and 254. They just happened to negotiate a really outstanding price. The $3500 limit keeps it fair.

The difference is that the rules don't specifically call out requirement for accounting for engineering or design done by non-team members while they DO specifically require that non-team labor in making parts be counted against the $3500 limit.

The way I read the rules, there is no way that $3500 limit does not apply. BUT... ...is this the spirit of the rule? I don't think the rules were intended to prevent this type of labor sharing among teams.

As a practical matter, there is zero chance that FIRST is going to disqualify either team 60 or team 254... ...so for 2004 at least this practice is going to be allowed.

I think that FIRST is going to get an earful in the off season about this, especially if Kingman and Cheesy Poofs keep up that habit they have of winning regionals and placing high at the Championships.

Deciding what the rules should be next year is going to put Dean's statements about FIRST being for engineers not lawyers to the test...


Joe J.

[Krystine T.]

I would just like to bring up one point...the build load did not decrease.

Yes it is true that we only made 1/2 of the robot ...but we made 4 robots... After school, work, and homeowrk, team 60 and 254 put in alot of very long nights. Every part that was made took quadruple the amount of time. Often it took hours or even days for that matter to finish a certan part...and several times we had to go back to the drawing board and re-design new mechanisms.
I hope that everyone realizes that there is more then one way to go about building robots. The students on team 60 and 254 have learned 4 times over the difficulties and challenges that robotics teams face.
I have realized the importance of communication. The students on our teams will walk away with a new lesson in life. They will walk away knowing that they will face challenges greater then themsleves, and they will know that working on a team will bring up new challenges and new ideas, and give them knowledge that they never thought possible

[Jessica Boucher]

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots -- one to ship and one to program autonomous mode with while you wait to compete at the regionals and championships. This is a serious problem for FIRST in the long run (more serious than the topic of this thread, imho), but it is off topic for this already overheated thread.

So, they had to build 4 of each so that both Team 60 and Team 254 can have an extra autonomy robot (for who among us reading this deeply into this thread can seriously doubt that both teams are serious about maximizing their chances of placing well in the robot competition -- whether they "put their ego's aside" or not... -- sorry Glenn, it was too easy).

Joe J.

[Jessica Boucher]

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

I know, I was more-so asking because "we had to build 4 robots" to me isn't a valid excuse.

[OneAngryDaisy]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Because of AUTONOMOUS silly!

Autonomy is forcing every team I know that is serious about trying to maximize there chances of doing well in the robot competition to build 2 robots -- one to ship and one to program autonomous mode with while you wait to compete at the regionals and championships. This is a serious problem for FIRST in the long run (more serious than the topic of this thread, imho), but it is off topic for this already overheated thread.

So, they had to build 4 of each so that both Team 60 and Team 254 can have an extra autonomy robot (for who among us reading this deeply into this thread can seriously doubt that both teams are serious about maximizing their chances of placing well in the robot competition -- whether they "put their ego's aside" or not... -- sorry Glenn, it was too easy).

Joe J.

I really have to disagree with the bolded segment- we are serious about doing well in this competition, but there is no way we could build 2 robots. First of all, we would not be able to afford two of every part, considering we are using almost every motor. Buying an additional OI, a bunch of spikes and victors, and all the other parts for our robot is just simply not possible. But hey, we still showed up all day on friday, saturday, sunday, and monday, 50+ hours in total over the weekend.

Keep in mind we are a veteran team with access to a full machine shop (tech center alliance), chances are if we can't make a second robot then the majority of other teams can't as well..


I can tell you we would LOVE to have a second daisy to practice autonomous with. The fact is, we can't do that. Last year we seeded 4th in Galileo and won it all even after only having one robot, thanks to our programmer spending hours on perfecting his gyro. I applaud all of the teams that can achieve this, but we're thrilled to just finish our one robot.

[Eric Bareiss]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Quick question: Why 4, when you only needed 2?

One practice bot and one competition bot per team.

[KenWittlief]

Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.

[Krystine T.]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Im afraid these two teams have really opened up a can of worms here.

The rules state that all assemblies and mechanisms on your robot must either be designed and built by your team, or be parts that are commercially available off the shelf to all teams.

If I understand what these two teams have done, one designed and built the drivetrain and the other designed and built the upper chassis, arm....

I think if the judges hold these two teams to the spirit and intent of the rules, one is going to have nothing but a drivetrain and the other will have nothing but the upper chassis

because, if they are honest, when asked "did your team design and build this part of the robot?" they will have to answer no - and when asked, is this mechanism available commercially off the shelf? the answer is no

then the inspectors will be forced to say, Im sorry but you cant use that part on your robot.

I dont see any way around this.

you can agrue about the words design and build and try to estimate machine shop costs and all that, but the intent of the rules is clear - each team is suppose to design and build there entire machine by themselves. You cant subcontract half your robot design to anyone else, including other teams.

both teams worked together to design the bot, both teams shared the work load

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by kat

both teams worked together to design the bot, both teams shared the work load

thats not what members from both teams are saying on page one of this thread - the 2nd post on the 1st page says each team built half the bot.

The only way I can see to get out of this would be for the two teams to combine as one. If you are going to separate regionals that are not on the same weekend, you could both be team 60

and if you make it to the championship, you would have to be one team or the other, but not both.

And only play with one of the two teams robots.