[moderated] pic: The 2006 NiagaraFIRST Triplets!

[Matt Adams]

Karthik:

I know that we haven't talked much on these forums, and I'm not nearly as regular of a poster as I once was, so to be clear the "tone" of the post that follows, it's meant to moderately inquisitive, challenging, but first and foremost respectful. I think I sit with a small(er) but sizeable group of people that see the picture of 3 identical robots and it sort of makes them squirm in their chair for reasons the can't define. Many don't see this as 'good' or 'bad' but just different, and they're still trying to make out their thoughts. Anyway, here are some questions.

Originally Posted by Karthik

Trust me, we'd be better off build a single bot.

I think it's that sentance that has me confused and what prompted me to post. Why would you be better off? What are some of the drawbacks you had to weigh when deciding to build 3 of the same robot?

Originally Posted by Karthik

We simply don't have the resources, sponsors and mentors to support 3 seperate FRC teams in our area.

I think that this, if I may speak for others, is where a lot aforementioned squirming comes from. Anyone who goes to a FRC regional has seen the full spectrum of teams working with a wide variety of machining capabilities, mentor assistance and funding. The 3 NiagaraFIRST machines are obviously beautiful - they appear well designed and manufactured. I think that some believe these three teams, with a third of the resources, could create a less beautiful, albeit functioning, robot. I don't know enough about your teams to make a guess, but since some teams function without engineering help and hardly any machining capabilities, I'm sure these three teams could get SOMETHING moving around... but see my next thoughts below.

Originally Posted by Karthik

You see, the reason we collaborate is not to build a better robot.

I don't think this is true, but at the same time, I don't think you're trying to be deceptive - it's likely a miscommunication. If I can take an educated guess about part the motivation to collaborate, it's because the leaders of these organizations probably had a discussion and realized that if these three teams were functioning independently, they would admittedly have robots, but to put it nicely, very sickly looking, bare bones robots. I think that 'better' in the way you spoke before and having 'resources, sponsors and mentors' are very much related. You collaborated to have better robots - but not to create an all dominating force with an unfair advantage. Am I wrong?

My personal opinion is under-mentored teams that build poor-performing, unreliable robots are, generally (exceptions exist), not particularly inspiring. I think there are many who understand this point (but may not agree it).

And of course, I think we can all acknowledge that under-inspired teams are fundamentally something we want to improve!

I would like to hear more of NiagaraFIRST's thoughts on these sort of topics, if you'd be willing, to maybe further help the FIRST community understand a bit more about the process your teams had to go through when thinking about collaborating for another year.

Thanks, and good luck this year!

Matt