Robot Collaboration

[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.

[crazykid234]

I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!

[Krystine T.]

Originally Posted by crazykid234

I'm still confused as to why you chose to partner with each other, as you seem to have had a excellent relationship with each other already, so in the spirit of FIRST, why not help a rookie team? This might become the norm,(partnering with rookie teams) for years to follow, but I'm concerned we're just going to start a spontaneous replication of teams that have already excisted. Part of what makes FIRST so great to me, is the evolution of teams from, what six years ago? It is amazing to see how great teams have become is that short amount of time. Who knows? maybe this collaboration thing will be the best thing that has happened to FIRST, but we need to be careful on how far we go, to make sure this doesn't get ridiculous

By the way Stud Man, thnx for posting at the exact same time, These two posts are possibly the closest posts ever!!

Both Team 60 and 254 are helping rookie teams. And both teams are more then willing to help anyone who asks. I am a student on team 60 and our team loves good competition, we also love to "raise the bar". We didnt build identical robots to beat down other teams or garuante ourselves a win...there is no point in that. We did not expect everyone to like this idea of collaberation but we did expect everyone to think about FIRST in a different perspective. Our goal was to learn more...by putting in our ideas and adding ideas from other teams.

[Karthik]

Right now there are lots of questions about the legality of this collaboration, especially in terms of the cost accounting. A question for teams 60 & 254; Did any representative from either of your teams ask FIRST about whether your partnership was allowed? I'm sure you guys realized that this was a gray area, so I am assuming you took care of this.

I'm curious as to what FIRST must have said.

Every season needs a couple of controversies, I guess this is the first one.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by kat

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

I cannot disagree more with your statements. If I KNOW I am going to make 4 of something, I can think about it as I design it and as I make it. For example, it may not be worth making a jig if I am going to make 1 but if I am going to make 4 -- it probably will be, possibly saving me huge amounts of time per part.

In short, I suppose that on average you can make 4 of something in 2-3 times the time it takes to make 1. Even if we take the high number of 3, then assuming each team shares the load equally, then each team only had to do 87.5% of the work they would have had to do had they made the parts themselves.

12.5% may not seem like much of a savings but that is almost another week of time saved during the 6 week build cycle.

Joe J.

[Eric Bareiss]

There a few issues that are being addressed here that I think some people are taking in the wrong direction.

Sharing the build load: Both teams are still going to spend all six weeks building, it's not like they finished early. They spent just as much time building as everyone else.

What if they both win both of their regionals: Well they probably would have done it anyway, not like it hasn't happened before.

This is not something that we can all just dismiss as wrong because we didn't think of it. I think everyone needs to kick-back relax and really think before you bad mouth these teams. Put yourself in their position. What if another team apporoached you to do this, what would you say?

Before you can say that they didn't work as hard or they cheated, I say try it, walk a mile in their shoes. Maybe you'll change your mind. I know I'm looking forward to trying this next year.

[KenWittlief]

What if another team apporoached you to do this, what would you say?

No. Due to the intent of the rules of the game as I posted above.

and besides, building the whole machine with your own team is half the fun.

[Joe3]

Originally Posted by Eric Bareiss

Sharing the build load: Both teams are still going to spend all six weeks building, it's not like they finished early. They spent just as much time building as everyone else.
Before you can say that they didn't work as hard or they cheated, I say try it, walk a mile in their shoes. Maybe you'll change your mind. I know I'm looking forward to trying this next year.

I have thought about this topic all day and gone back and forth on it. But in the end, my gut tells me that collaboration to this extent is bad.

This first statement is the one thing that I dislike about this collaboration. I think that strategy discussion, and sharing of discussion between teams is a great thing, especially between a veteran and a younger team. But the fact is, that these two teams each had about 4 weeks to design and build 1/2 of a robot. If you had 4 weeks to build just a drivetrain, or just an arm, and could focus all of your resources on that, imagine what many teams could accomplish. That would be a tremendous advantage. Collaboration is good, and does build communication skills, and an appreciation for a corporate atmosphere, but to this extent, I think it is against what we are trying to do.

[Aignam]

While the FIRST experience is based on Gracious Professionalism and inspiration, and I have no doubt that each and every member of teams 60 and 254 have been somehow enlightened or otherwise inspired by their building experience, much like every other FIRST team, I believe that other aspects are key, chief among those being team-building. The members of an individual FIRST team, who go through all of the ups and downs of build alongside each other, will perhaps benefit in ways that the members of collaborating teams wouldn't. But then again, I am neither a member of team 60 nor team 254, so my opinion is relatively inconsequential. Just a slight comparison, though: Corporate outsourcing.

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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.

Joe J.

Just as a reference, I found this part in the rule book:

Under section 5.3.2.2

The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the material processed further. Team member processing labor is not included. Example: A team purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that donates its 2 hours of expended labor. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00. Exception Examples: If the team members themselves did the actual machining, there would be no associated labor cost. If the machine shop
were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply.


Under this rule, I would say that any parts made by team 60 on the 254 robot should not count as "if the team members themselves did the actual machining", unless they are now considered one team.

[JVN]

I'm going to refrain from posting my opinion until I think about this more.
I urge others to do the same.

As to the legality of this:
We'll have to wait and see. I'm sure, given the discussion, some "official" ruling will be made. Although... I ask: would anyone WANT to deny these 2 beloved and respected teams entry into this game?

My interpretation(s):
-Yes there is enough grey area that 254 and 60 should OF COURSE be allowed to compete this year, as shown.
-Yes Laron can be 254's sponsor, even if they have never been listed thus far. Therefore: All parts made by 60 are allowable on 254's robot.
-Heck... Team 60 can be sponsored by "Team 254" and Team 254 can be sponsored by "Team 60"...

This may change for 2005, it may not.
There is enough grey here that this seems legal for 2004.


Obviously both teams benefitted from this.
The students on these teams benefitted from this.
The FIRST community will likely benefit from this... it will definitely be the start of something.

These are just my interpretations on the "legality" of this.
Nothing official here.
Keep that in mind.

Opinions to come later,
JVN