Robot Collaboration

[phrozen solyd]

Maybe I was unclear when i described the work done by each team in my previous post. Although Team 60 and 254 each machined half of the robot, both teams worked together in forming a single design that satisfied everyone, not "we make one part, you make the other, then we'll stick em together". It took us over 1/3 of the build season to finally come up with the design that united the interests of both teams.

Collaboration may make some facets of the program easier, but it brings out unique challenges as well.

This type of collaboration does not decrease competition at all. It is highly unlikely that both 60 and 254 will be in the same division at Nats (though we would enjoy working with them), so wouldn't a match between our teams become extremely competitive, coming down to driver skill and strategy? There are so many other factors other than robot design that can come into play.

Locking this thread would deprive everyone from finding more about our partnership, and both Team 60 and 254 are happy to keep providing information.

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by JosephM

You know, I'll put 'my ego on the shelf' and just say lets lock this thread. It's going to get ulgy, and it's already happening. It's best for all parties involved just to lock this thread. This is going to be collusion all over again.

If this forum is as amazing as I think it is, I think it can handle some intelligent discussion about a new idea that's never been done before at this level.

Putting aside all the messages that's saying "this is cheating and unfair", I think there are some important points from both side. It is VERY IMPORTANT that at this point on none of you get emotional about this topic, IF you want to have a constructive discussion about this. Do NOT let your emotion take control of you. Think for 15 mins before you post.

Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.


There are probably more important points, so remind us of your points if you wish to address your concern further.

Now, let's build a good discussion on top of those sides. I ask that everyone read the entire thread before they post. I will be watching out for messages that claim "I didn't have time to read the message but I feel like posting anyway".

I will be truly disappointed if you guys can't handle a constructive discussion in the most intense time of the build period.

[BionicAlumni]

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

Now. Important points from each side:

1. By working together both teams have learned something they never would've if they worked alone, and that is, the values of partnership, and learning to work with a new process.

2. It is not as easy as you think to design a robot together.

On the other hand:

1. Joe J. addressed his concern of many powerful teams working may tilt the playing field in their favor.

2. Matt Adams addressed his concern of this collaboration with the spirit of the $3500 limit rule.

I found out about the alliance between 254 and 60 about 3 weeks ago. When I first heard about it I was skeptical to say the least. My first question was the same as Matt Adams. How would this be accounted far as the 3500 dollars that can be spent? This was answer by the fact that Laron is sponsoring the cheesy poofs. If this is valid answer, I am not sure, but it is an answer to the question none the less. I guess you just have to read between the lines of each and every rule.

Now my next question is exactly the one that Joe J. proposed. What keeps companies and teams like Delphi, Ford, NASA, and GM from sending the same robot on the field with 16 different team numbers? Right now I would say it isn't possible for 16 teams to come together and design 1 robot to suit the needs of all 16 teams, but last year I would have said it wasn't even possible for 2 teams to do it. Especially teams as far away as 60 and 254. So where does that leave the future of FIRST? A regional comp with 64 teams entered but only 10 different robots? That isn't something I personally would like to see happen.

I know for a fact that both team 60 and team 254 have nothing but the best intentions for the students on the team and for this partnership. I think that for these teams it’s a great idea, but the idea can be taken to a different extreme and that is the scenario I don't want to see.

I guess all I can say is congratulations to both teams taking first to a different level weather it be a better or worse place.

[OneAngryDaisy]

At first sight I became rather angry, because hey, it just didnt seem fair. Two elite teams combining. Most teams didn't even make a robot that could stay with their previous bots, and here they are sharing their expertise. It's just plain unfair..

Then when i tried to derive all of the reasons why this is uncool I suddenly hit a rut- there are none, other than the point that they're already 2 elite teams colloborating. And it's not like they live next door to eachother, its pretty far away.. How did you guys do it? video conferences? I'm dying to know.

I bet FIRST bans this kind of interaction soon in the future, or at least limits it. Why? I can just see several powerhouses building undefeatable robots, and then the finals at the Championship Event yielding several look-alikes. This is not what FIRST is about. A single function, maybe, but not an entire robot. (yea, i know there are several differences, but basically the two bots are twins)



It also dissapoints me somewhat. I always look forward to seeing what the oldest teams have made. But now there's one less robot to look forward to.

[David Kelly]

I really dont know what all this hype is all about. What is FIRST? FIRST is: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. The way I'm INSPIRED may not be the way you are INSPIRED. Does that mean that if a team decides to build their robot in a different way than you build yours make it wrong? No way! I saw a post above that said that it isnt nearly as fun for the teams when they build this way. How do you know that? Your team hasnt tried building your robot like this so you dont know. I keep reading this over and over and all the other topics in the hundreds of other threads saying how "if you dont make your robot like ours, then you are wrong". Everyone is INSPIRED differently. At one time I had the same argumements as a bunch of you folk, but I have since changed my mind to not worry about how other teams decide to run thier teams and build their robots. Different is not wrong, different is.... different.

I know i keep saying it but FIRST is all about INSPIRATION.




After I posted this, I saw what Amanda Morrison posted. I agree with you Amanda all the way.

[Stephen Kowski]

I hate to be an i told you so but it is apparent to me it has occurred once again that hopefully it won't turn out for the worse as in truck town thunder's case.....someone asked why do you or do you not share your design during the build season?.....this thread case & point....

as far as the design sharing goes i like it, identical robot production im not completely for....frankly im not interested in the communication aspect of it....i communicate fine with heatwave and other teams in florida bouncing ideas off them and vice versa....i don't go and outsource my work to heatwave or anyone else. I don't believe anyone on either of the two teams was thinking of the 3500 limit in the manner described on this thread because that rule operates in such a grey area, but i also do not believe they were trying to subvert any of the rules....one or two subsystem collaboration i see as ok, but the robots are twins (and please don't hand me that story about programming and minor modification you contradict yourself by saying if one wins a design award the other team takes pride in it...they are either seperate designs or the same, in this situation you can't have it both ways or you are just lying to yourself)

great idea, but maybe taken a bit too far....hopefully this can be allowed in this one particular case (so that these teams that did put a good # of hours of work into this can compete), but FIRST should wiegh in on it (on either side) for future situations....you want to ask yourself should a sponsor be allowed to dump super machining time into their robots & make 16 chief delphis therefore increasing their overall chances of winning? i don't think so, but that is up to FIRST to decide

basically i sum it all up this way: this year let this go, but it should be addressed for the future situations and make a more clear defintion of sponsor so there is no confusion (do the have to be in the name? do they have to be on the shirt? are they a sponsor if they give you a huge discount on their stuff?)

[SteveK254]

Team 254 wishes to thank everyone for their comments in regards to our collaboration with Team 60. Even though we made this venture with the best intensions in mind (our students), it seems that some have issue with our choices. We have open minds and have noted each and every recommendation/concern.

Our teams (60 and 254) encourage, and are interested in, all thoughts about the “concept” of collaboration, and felt it would be a great concept for FIRST teams to analyze more this season. Most have given respectful, open minded, and well thought out opinions on both sides of the discussion – some love how we are working together, some are troubled by it and fear “possible” ramifications down the road, and many are somewhere in between. We have planned all along to document our experiment, to share the positive aspects and difficult aspects with the entire FIRST community at the conclusion of the season, and look forward to continued input from our many friends in the FIRST community.

When looking at some posts of those assigned the “con” side of the proposed “debate” – we realize that many statements have been for neither discussion nor debate, rather they have been statements of assumption, attack and accusation that unfairly slander our teams. As all our actions and intentions have been within the exiting FIRST rules, it troubles us that these people have used words like “cheat”, “broken rules”, and have implied our teams have “not been straight” about our goals. This is not only hurtful to us mentors, but more importantly to our students. Statements like these show very little knowledge of our teams, are unfounded, unfair, and ungracious – and clearly show us that continuing a “debate” would mean we would either need to lower ourselves to that level or defend ourselves against baseless and incorrect claims. As we have already lost valuable time this week, and there is only one week left before the ship date, we feel it’s in the best interest of all to dedicate their time and effort to their team members and the challenges in front of them. As FIRST will have the final word on this, I don't see any advantage of participating in this debate. We look forward to FIRST's guidance and will comply with their ruling.

What makes this thread even more intriguing, is that all of it is speculation at this point, as neither of our robots have even worked or competed yet. We would hope people and teams would reserve judgment until they see what may or may not result from our collaboration. It appears that FIRST may have provided all of us with one of the best games yet, and the upcoming season should be fun and exciting for all. As usual, we look forward to seeing and working with all of you at any events we attend. Best of luck to every team in the 2004 season – we wish you all a great experience.

[Jon Anderson]

I can't say that I am total against or for this idea. It's just another way for people to build/think. If this how teams really want their robot to be made then by all means go for it.

However, I won't be surprised if there is some type of restriction or ban on this for later years.