Collaborations

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Stuart

the only ones who are hurt by this is the teams that collaborate. . how inspirational can it be to not build and design your own robot . . I dont think that its against the rules or should be illegal . . but if you want to build the same robot as another team why not save the 6k registration and just join up with that team?

anyway thats my take on it

definatly i agree

[Tetraman]

I enjoyed the "Division by Chicken" project that Division by Zero and the Thunder Chickens did last year...they took a similar path, but both robots were different. If more teams did that, it would be nice because you get more team on team interaction beyond the competition.

The teams that do this might have their own reasons. It could be that the mother team makes a design and the sister or rookie team builds off of that design to help get them into how to actually build a robot when it comes to next year.

It gets your team noticed too. If it wasn't this big of a hoo-ha I'd see if our team could team up with another team.

[Drew]

[quote=Don Wright]It goes further than similiar... Just look around on CD for a few minutes...
QUOTE]


undoubtably it does go further than similiar because the teams from canada.... (sorry if im not precise because i dont know the numbers off hand) somewhere in the thousands have three or four identical robots.

[thoughtful]

First of all this topic has been discussed all around CD.

I dont know about many cloned teams, but i know of the Triplets from Niagara FIRST. They collaborate on they collaborate on everything but the competition(meaning once they are on the field they will all play their hearts out). 1114 in 2005 took two other teams under their wing in order to promote FIRST in a region where they were the lone team. On the field they are a very GP team and matches between triplets are always fun. I dont see anything wrong with this. Although they might gain some advantages, it takes a lot of effort and energy to manage one team let alone work together with three. Many first teams might have to do this in the future in order to cope with lower fund raising money and human capital.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by thoughtful

First of all this topic has been discussed all around CD.

I dont know about many cloned teams, but i know of the Triplets from Niagara FIRST. They collaborate on they collaborate on everything but the competition(meaning once they are on the field they will all play their hearts out). 1114 in 2005 took two other teams under their wing in order to promote FIRST in a region where they were the lone team. On the field they are a very GP team and matches between triplets are always fun. I dont see anything wrong with this. Although they might gain some advantages, it takes a lot of effort and energy to manage one team let alone work together with three. Many first teams might have to do this in the future in order to cope with lower fund raising money and human capital.

this being the only good thing that i can see with the topic, im not trying to criticize the topic of sister teams because its a great thing to help out a team but why with identical robotics, Why not help them design their own idea instead of guiding them twords an alike competition. It always excites me at competitions when new robots come forth and i like to see their designs, it really shows how critically they were thinking to the point that even a wooden robot can win a competition. Its not exactly how good the robot is its how good you compete with it thats what wins the hearts of people. you try, try, try again. Although i love seeing teams that may be rookies or newer teams up there at the top of the rankings i would feel so much more accomplished if i said We built it, We competed, We conquered. rather than, they built it (helped us with the idea) we competed, we conquered (with their help). it does show great enthusiasm on GP and chairmans awards

[Tristan Lall]

First, read the rules.

That should be the first step in any FIRST endeavour. In fact, the rules don't prohibit the exchange of designs. And if a team decides that it will release its design to the FIRST community at large, what's unfair about making use of it? And further, if two or more teams decide that they want to use similar designs, once again, the rules do not prohibit it.

More to the point, I suspect, you've offered very shaky justification for your position—you imply that teams "cant figure out how to do this game so lets wait until another team gets an idea and let them give us the fabrication idea's parts, and help [sic]". Maybe for the most complacent of teams, that's the case. But for most of the collaborative designs that I've come across, the design is the result of a partnership, and not of one team doing all the work while its partners merely clone the end result.

Also, the analogy of a business is not appropriate, because it a FIRST team will often want to allow you access to their design. In business, that sort of thing is the exception; in FIRST it is commonplace. For this reason, you can't expect that a team will necessarily attempt to protect its designs, as if they were the trade secrets of a business. (In some cases, teams keep designs secret to maintain a competitive advantage; in others, they give freely. There is no rule on this matter either.)

It's insane to consider it unfair, since neither you nor anyone else has been wronged, and the neither the rules nor the unwritten conventions have been breached.

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

First, read the rules.

That should be the first step in any FIRST endeavour. In fact, the rules don't prohibit the exchange of designs. And if a team decides that it will release its design to the FIRST community at large, what's unfair about making use of it? And further, if two or more teams decide that they want to use similar designs, once again, the rules do not prohibit it.

More to the point, I suspect, you've offered very shaky justification for your position—you imply that teams "cant figure out how to do this game so lets wait until another team gets an idea and let them give us the fabrication idea's parts, and help [sic]". Maybe for the most complacent of teams, that's the case. But for most of the collaborative designs that I've come across, the design is the result of a partnership, and not of one team doing all the work while its partners merely clone the end result.

Also, the analogy of a business is not appropriate, because it a FIRST team will often want to allow you access to their design. In business, that sort of thing is the exception; in FIRST it is commonplace. For this reason, you can't expect that a team will necessarily attempt to protect its designs, as if they were the trade secrets of a business. (In some cases, teams keep designs secret to maintain a competitive advantage; in others, they give freely. There is no rule on this matter either.)

i made sure that I implied that no rules were being broken because i know for a fact that none were. But definatly I agree with almost everything you say and i am not taking away anything that these teams have done i kinda feel that what i said now may have resulted with many diffrent range of emotions. I myself just love to see what teams can do on their own with or without the guidance of another team. You all have helped me come to understand how this is a good thing but maybe bad or unfair at times. I dont disagree with anything though.

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Drew

There is no creativity in these bots but the original designs. Its almost like, We cant figure out how to do this game so lets wait until another team gets an idea and let them give us the fabrication idea's parts, and help.

It's unfair to assume that teams with brother/sister/clone bots just couldn't figure out what they wanted to do, so they jumped onboard with a team that did. Do you know how the NiagraFIRST teams collaborate? How about the backstory of teams #70 and #494?

At the Milwaukee regional, I was curious about these two teams, as 70 was a pretty low number and I'd never heard of the "More Martians" before. So I asked a mentor for the teams about it and he filled me in. Bottom line: the Martians (494) did a pretty cool thing for a fellow team at their high school that was going under.

Originally Posted by Drew

Why is this, It kind of seems unfair.

Dean Kamen has said it numerous times - FIRST isn't supposed to be "fair".

• It isn't "fair" that Team XXX has a $100,000 budget, while Team YYY has $7,000 and Team ZZZ has $35,000.
• It isn't "fair" that Team XXX has a full machine shop at their disposal, while Team YYY has only handtools and a bansaw and Team ZZZ has only a machine shop to make parts for them - that they can't use.
• It isn't "fair" that Team XXX has 25 professional engineers and 15 high school students, while Team YYY has 30 high school students and 10 college mentors, and Team ZZZ has 5 professional mentors, 5 parents and 10 students.
• It isn't "fair" that the professionals on Team XXX build the robot, while the college students on Team YYY build theres, and the students on Team ZZZ do all their team's work.

But that's the way FIRST is supposed to work - as a microcosm of the "real world", and in the real world things aren't always fair. That's part of the challenge.

Originally Posted by Stuart

how inspirational can it be to not build and design your own robot

Who's to say what inspires someone and what doesn't? I could only be inspired by watching someone build a robot, while you could only be inspired by building it yourself. I could be inspired by playing music, while you could be inspired by listening to it. Inspiration is a funny thing, because people become inspired about the same things, in totally opposite ways.

I think everyone who's questioning these teams should talk to them about how they went through the design and fabrication process - you might just learn something yourself.

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Katie Reynolds

At the Milwaukee regional, I was curious about these two teams, as 70 was a pretty low number and I'd never heard of the "More Martians" before. So I asked a mentor for the teams about it and he filled me in. Bottom line: the Martians (494) did a pretty cool thing for a fellow team at their high school that was going under.

Actually, wasn't it that the mentors and students felt that the team got too big to accomplish their goals and inspire students the way they wanted to so they split into two teams? In order to prevent confusion as a "rookie" (since it is the same school/corporation sponsorship) they were given a low number that is no longer used.

As for how they did it, what I understood was that they had a single common design, but built the robot totally separately as two separate team. At least, this is what the lady in the pit for Team 70 told me in Cleveland.

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

Actually, wasn't it that the mentors and students felt that the team got too big to accomplish their goals and inspire students the way they wanted to so they split into two teams? In order to prevent confusion as a "rookie" (since it is the same school/corporation sponsorship) they were given a low number that is no longer used.

As for how they did it, what I understood was that they had a single common design, but built the robot totally separately as two separate team. At least, this is what the lady in the pit for Team 70 told me in Cleveland.

Not so sure on that one

From what I have learned, team 70 was almost on the verge of becoming non existent. The Martians stepped in to help them out. I also believe that a new sponsor was found for them, but the original school remained (causing the name change). This is form what I have learned, do not quote me on it, I’m not 100% sure.

Also, looking at the robots it has to be a collaborative effort, they are the exact same robot. I don't mind it at all but, They just have to be the exact same robot (look a few post to see a pic of them)

But seriously, this is a dead topic. Its been discussed over and over. But I can't help but add my 2 cents.

Team 9998 and 9999 are in a collaboration:
Team 9998 has 10 mentors and 30 students with a well off team and plent of funding.
Team 9999 has 1 Teachers, 10 students and is sponsored by a local company with not much help.

This is usually where these collaborations stem from. It is NOT to have a better design and it is not all about winning the competition. It is about helping another team with less fortunate circumstances learn more about engineering and technology than they would have on their own.

Originally Posted by Karthik

the reason we collaborate is not to build a better robot. Trust me, we'd be better off build a single bot. The reason we collaborate, is because it's the most efficient way to get more students exposed to FIRST. We simply don't have the resources, sponsors and mentors to support 3 separate FRC teams in our area.

As Karthik said, they would be better off not collaborating. They only do this inspire more people about FIRST and its message. With the Martians, I can see that they did the same thing, helping team 70 who was reformed become a stronger team by helping them through the process and showing them how it can be done. Remember, FIRST is not about the competition, it is about inspiring young people to peruse careers in Engineering, Science and Technology. The competition is just a perk and a way of seeing your work in action. Put inspiration before competition.

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

Actually, wasn't it that the mentors and students felt that the team got too big to accomplish their goals and inspire students the way they wanted to so they split into two teams? In order to prevent confusion as a "rookie" (since it is the same school/corporation sponsorship) they were given a low number that is no longer used.

As for how they did it, what I understood was that they had a single common design, but built the robot totally separately as two separate team. At least, this is what the lady in the pit for Team 70 told me in Cleveland.

From what the mentor who talked to me said, Teams 70 and 494 are from the same high school, and Team 70 was losing their sponsorship and was "going down". Team 494 stepped in and adopted them, and helped them out. The two teams worked together and created one design that both teams, seperately, made a reality.

On their FIRST page, it says Team 70's rookie year as 1998 - as far as I know, FIRST has never reassigned old numbers. Can anyone confirm this?

[DjAlamose]

Originally Posted by Katie Reynolds

From what the mentor who talked to me said, Teams 70 and 494 are from the same high school, and Team 70 was losing their sponsorship and was "going down". Team 494 stepped in and adopted them, and helped them out. The two teams worked together and created one design that both teams, seperately, made a reality.

On their FIRST page, it says Team 70's rookie year as 1998 - as far as I know, FIRST has never reassigned old numbers. Can anyone confirm this?

I dont know the exact year but they stoped reusing numbers about 10 years ago. The only way a team get get a low number is if it allready has that number. They will not reassign a number. This way the veterans can keep better track of famous teams and we can see who the rookies are.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Katie Reynolds

...as far as I know, FIRST has never reassigned old numbers. Can anyone confirm this?

I don't know whether there was a "Team 4" in the distant past, but High Tech High got that number this year. The past couple of years, High Tech High was Team 22, having moved from Chatsworth High. This year Chatsworth revived their team, so High Tech High had to register under a different number. Since High Tech High was clearly not a rookie team, FIRST allowed High Tech High to select an unused (or retired) team number. As sure as 2+2=4, Team 4 was selected.

As many know, there is a collaboration between Team 980 and Team 4 this year. Team 980 lost it's space to build robots and graduated or otherwise lost several key student members. Team 4 has excellent space, some very nice machine shop facilities and an army of eager students. Since Team 980 was "mentor-rich" and Team 4 needed engineering mentors, the fit seems natural. The collaboration has worked very well, as witnessed in the SoCal regional. The Team 4 students have learned a great deal about designs, problem-solving and exploring trade space guided by the Team 980 engineers. Those who might have stopped by the Team 980 and Team 4 pits last weekend, would have seen Team 4 students working furiously on their robot, with the Team 980 mentors close at hand to provide advice and tools.