Many people have asked me why we decided to do a collaboration this year. It seems like a fair question, as it seems to be still a mildly hot topic. I must admit if you read my collaboration posts from when this became a hot topic back in the 60/254 days I was mildly condescending towards the idea. I was under the impression that It was unfair to many of those involved, I believed it was unfair to the FIRST community, I believed it was unfair to competition.
That being said, I thought it was unfair until I realized that this program was only mildly about the physical competition itself. Both 1902 and 1369 are respectable teams, with respectable people, and respectable ideals. We both strive to work hard in all areas of FIRST, demonstrations, outreach, fund raising. Not being able to speak the behalf of 1369 but only my team I know that we do everything in our power to help strengthen those around us so that our Area is improved because of this.
But I guess to stay on topic why did we choose to collaborate, and more specifically why did we choose to collaborate with a veteran team? The answer for me is actually quite simple but three fold. First and foremost, 1902 is still a young team, we are a second year team and we do a lot, we may not look like a second year team but we are just that. There are 20 students on our team and 2 mechanical mentors, both of which are in college, the oldest being me and only Junior in standing. Not being sponsored by any schools we still do not have a home location. We still build in my garage and tho we did raise money for more than just a Chop saw, drill press and hand tools this year, we are still what would be considered very under developed in machine capabilities. Our students are brilliant and resourceful, eager to learn and work hard. But when it comes down to it, often their ideas may super seed our capabilities, and its extraordinarily difficult to see the best design cut out because its just not possible for us to complete. 1902 was very successful in its rookie year, and I wanted to see the same excitement out of our students as we did last year, and in that our team decided that a real world style collaboration would be help to conquer our lack of resources.
The second reason can be seen all across Delphi, there is a lack of competitiveness this year. FIRST has put such an emphasis on growth it often seems like no one is tending to the growing pains. More and more respectable teams seem to be dropping off the radar, certainly faster than new super teams are springing up. This years challenge may have been more difficult but regardless across the nation there is a trend occurring. We’ve seen this problem and have become dedicated to sustaining our local teams more than raising new ones. Rookie teams will still pop up and thats great and too be encouraged, but we want to see many Veteran teams be able to help them, and not need help themselves. One of the biggest gripes people have with this years game is the random match algorithm. Teams say " Number has nothing to do with quality of the robot, if your a low number it does not mean your better than a middle or high number. " This is 100% accurate but this I also believe is a problem. This should not be the case. The low numbers and middle numbers should, in the majority, be better with only a few exceptions. Veteran teams should be exactly that " Veteran " but often times teams are just numbers with no experience. This dedication to sustaining teams or helping veteran teams grow so they can better impact their communities is important. What better way to inspire and impress people than to show them something that people say “WOW! You helped build that?” If you have 5 minutes to get someone interested in FIRST a well built robot as an example is the best tool.
Lastly, for the team this was about real world experience. Every year Dean, or Woody, or Dave steps up to the podium and says " This competition is the only competition where students get to work hands on with professionals to get an idea of what the real world is like. " If you don’t take advantage of this, I personally believe its foolish. Now I realize everyone is not lucky enough to have professionals on their team, mechanically speaking neither 1902 nor 1369 has a professional engineer. But as far as establishing time lines, learning about the design process, dependability, responsibility to make deadlines or the discipline of someone else relying on you is extraordinarily important. The knowledge that what you design has to be reliable and dependable and time friendly and cost effective is lesson thats extremely emphasized in a collaboration. A phrase we came up with this year was “Simplicity in Design, Reliability in Function.” This simple design mantra teaches all those involved something that often gets over looked. The argument can be made " You should learn that on a single team anyways, " but the fact of the matter is that in collaboration this point is emphasized. If you don’t follow these rules, you don’t only let your own team down, you let your partner down, and in a way you let FIRST down.
Four years ago, I made the argument that it was pointless to see two Identical robots at competition that I’d feel cheated out of my experience learning from your teams. Now I make the counter. Show me two Identical robots that I can learn good engineering practice from, that will WOW their respective communities, and that raises the level of their respective competitions, and I’ll applaud their effort to inspire and to strive towards the goals of FIRST.
P.s. To answer some of the posed questions. Gary all costs were accounted for in the collaborative effort. Machine shops that were used were approached as sponsoring both teams, and all costs incurred were accounted for. Many of the efforts in assembly were taken on by both teams collectively and design was a collaborative effort. All mentors involved with the construction process acted as mentors for both teams in respect to the learning/build process in design, fabrication, and assembly.
P.P.S. Mr. Van, To be honest tho awards are nice, they are not what drives 1902 in competition. It wasn’t really in the consideration during the talks, however, through a slight miscommunication 1902 and 1369 will not attend the same competition. So this should be a none factor, however, If you are extending that if a component was not completely designed or fabricated by teams then I guess Andy Baker should win half the design quality awards out there. These collaborations, or usage of like designs are not intended to skew competition but to enhance. Most of these awards about final product and not design process. We do not hide the fact that we collaborated at competition, just as we don’t hide the fact that we purchased Andy Mark performance wheels or 2 speed transmissions. If the judges feel it necessary to score us lower based on the fact that our Robot is not completely unique that is there perogative and that is fine within the realm of the competition. Tho neither 1369 nor 1902 has won an engineering based award yet it does not make our accomplishment any less impressive. A combined 18 out 22 attempted autonomous caps, or 0 matches missed due to mechanical difficulties through 2 competitions, that is rewarding enough. Our collaboration has helped tons of teams and hopefully soon the presentation of our autonomous code will be available to all. I imagine all those who use bits and pieces from our autonomous code should also not be eligible for awards either. :rolleyes: Many designs are not 100% your own, such is a fact of life, and of competition, the teams collaborative accomplishments however are not any less impressive.