Limited Vs. Large funds?

FIRST General Forum
1

Well I have some things to say and I do not mean to offend anybody. I just think that it is almost unfair that some teams that are funded by big compines like NASA and Lockeed have a lot of money to blow on their robot and also have pro-engineers to help them build it. A smaller team like mine who can barley get the $5K to enter and is very very lucky to get any help from an engineer. I think that FIRST should consider maby putting a limit on how much you can spend on certain materials and parts. I read in one forum that one team had the time and money to make 2 identical bots. Hey don’t get me wrong I loved building the bot and competing at VCU! All I’m saying is that some regulation of funds should be considered by FIRST.

How dose everybody else feel about this??

P.S.
Sorry if I have made anybody upset

Michael D.
Team 602

2

I think that the goal of FIRST is to inspire us, the students, about science and technology. Being able to work with mechnical and electrical engineers in this project together is an awesome experiance for any High School student. Instead of limiting how much help and support that big companies can give to FIRST teams, I think we need to get as many sponsors on board as we can. While the competition is the really cool part, it probably isn’t fair at all - every team has different resources. The competition is just what we and the engineers/teachers/sponsors work on together. I think the goal of most teams should be to inspire the students, and not totally focused on just winning the competition. Winning is just the icing on the cake.

Well, that’s my $0.02, hope that makes sense…

3

First off, a similar thread… http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2648

Gives you something to do in the offseason.
I am at Herndon and we are fairly comfortable moneywise with NASA sponsering us. I have wished to go out and do more fundraising localy, not major donations, but little ones from around town.
A suggestion for a fundraiser to get you started: a raffle/auction type thing. You could trygoing to the stores at Dulles Town Center (a local mall for the nonlocals reading this;) ) and get see what they would be willing to give you, and then raffle/auction those items off. 668 did this. There are many ways out there to raise money.
I also think that there are many issues with regulation of funds. What is spend during the offseason, does that count? If it is just for what goes on the bot, that wouldn’t prevent the extra bot.
I say kudos for you for competing on a shoestring budget, and see if you can’t raise some money in teh offseason.
Anyone else have some good examples on how to raise money?

4

*Originally posted by Mikeman602 *
**Well I have some things to say and I do not mean to offend anybody. I just think that it is almost unfair that some teams that are funded by big compines like NASA and Lockeed have a lot of money to blow on their robot and also have pro-engineers to help them build it. A smaller team like mine who can barley get the $5K to enter and is very very lucky to get any help from an engineer. I think that FIRST should consider maby putting a limit on how much you can spend on certain materials and parts. I read in one forum that one team had the time and money to make 2 identical bots. Hey don’t get me wrong I loved building the bot and competing at VCU! All I’m saying is that some regulation of funds should be considered by FIRST.

How dose everybody else feel about this??

P.S.
Sorry if I have made anybody upset

Michael D.
Team 602 **

Well, there are two responses to this, and I will try to give them both because I’m really not sure where I stand myself.

RESPONSE #1: Tough…no one said that life is fair, or that everyone is guarenteed the same things in life. (Even opportunity will never be equal as money will open alot of doors) The FIRST competition is a reflection of the way life is, and it is a place for all of us to see this issue, and learn to live/deal with it. (and to go off and find better/more sponsors)

RESPONSE #2: While the above is certainly true, since FIRST imposes all sorts of other rules in order to “level the playing field”, this seems like the next logical place to impose something for the same reason. Perhaps awards might be tied to the total cost of the robot…parts and fabrication costs. Perhaps there are different classes that are limitted by amount of money spent…with the highest prizes going to those getting some number of points and spending less. (encouraging teams to spend less)

As you can see, even both of my responses do not limit the money spent…with even the 2nd one simply handing out a carrot encouraging teams to spend less by making money spent a part of the scoring equation.
(I’m not one for “forcing” everyone to be equal as I believe you lose creativity and the loss of one of the animal worlds great motivators…GREED!)

I’m really not sure which way this needs to go. I agree that while “money does not make the world go around… it sure greases the wheel”…and while money does NOT equate to points, it sure does provide alot of opportunity and options generally enlarging the “choices” availible to the team. (as it does in life in general)

It might simply come down to whether you are a capitalist or a communist …who knows. (consoder that while communism might look good on paper, but I’m not sure communism has ever been proven to work in practice)

-Quentin

5

Competing in FIRST is more like competing in the NFL than the soapbox derby. I am impressed by your ability to persevere and field a team with limited money and engineering support. On the other hand, I don’t think because some teams are currently working on a shoestring budget that FIRST should limit the funding for all teams. The better scenario would be for FIRST and the FIRST community of teams and sponsors to find ways to help under-supported teams achieve a higher level of engineering and monetary support, both in and out of their local area. As for engineering support, many teams already welcome questions and requests for help and respond with detailed drawings, code snippets and strategy suggestions. Perhaps FIRST and others could also start a fund for teams with limited support and provide further assistance in finding engineering sponsors for teams. Sort of a welfare plan (no negative connotation intended) for robotics teams to help them get on their feet. I guess this is a little like what NASA is already doing by co-sponsoring so many teams.

We all want a level playing field, but I believe the level should be a high one - not one cut down to the least common denominator.

6

I have a feeling that this issue will be debated untill the end of time around FIRST areas.

But The great thing about FIRST is that sometimes the teams with money still get there butts kicked by the under funded underdogs.

Our sponser BAE Systems is a great sponser and gives us lots of support. But still my First year on the team we came in 31 outta 33 (2000) at the UTC regional. Getting killed by some underfunded teams with a lotta heart.

Last year is another great example, while doing demos at the Boston musuem of science last year i had a chance to talk with the Northeastern Team lead (Team 125 National Champs Last year) Who get almost no funding or support from the college and they were the National Champs.

So i agree that FIRST might not be fair, but i still believe that anyone can win.

Chris
Team 151 The Wildcards

7

Well I do relize that life is unfair and unequal. I realy should not complain too much because we did get picked for the finals and would have made it all the way to the final round had it not been for or breaking wheel hubs that we tried to replace during the semi-final (sorry to our alliance partners teams 7 and 435). But I do agree that rather than limiting funds that FRIST should help low budget teams raise money. Well I think that my question/rant whatever you want to call it has been answered thanks!

On another note if you guys would like to see our bot I have posted pictures of it. We are team 602 (incase you didn’t know that already :smiley: )

Michael D.
Team 602

8

*Originally posted by JHBurch *
**Competing in FIRST is more like competing in the NFL than the soapbox derby. I am impressed by your ability to persevere and field a team with limited money and engineering support. On the other hand, I don’t think because some teams are currently working on a shoestring budget that FIRST should limit the funding for all teams. The better scenario would be for FIRST and the FIRST community of teams and sponsors to find ways to help under-supported teams achieve a higher level of engineering and monetary support, both in and out of their local area. As for engineering support, many teams already welcome questions and requests for help and respond with detailed drawings, code snippets and strategy suggestions. Perhaps FIRST and others could also start a fund for teams with limited support and provide further assistance in finding engineering sponsors for teams. Sort of a welfare plan (no negative connotation intended) for robotics teams to help them get on their feet. I guess this is a little like what NASA is already doing by co-sponsoring so many teams.

We all want a level playing field, but I believe the level should be a high one - not one cut down to the least common denominator. **

I didn’t mean to suggest that teams be TOLD to spend less…rather, a part of the point system relates to the cost spent. (less being better) This could be justified by saying that it is a measurement of Engineering Efficiency. (how much goodness you get per dollar spent, which is actually a really important factor in the real world…I think Nasa would even agree with that these days since they get more landers per billion $)

I am not in favor of a Welfare concept…because I think it actually makes the teams with marginal means the real losers. Those with nothing get subsidized and while they get the minimal subsidy (low standard of living), it costs them zero effort to get that. Those with money always live large…but their effort raising money is also low. (both of the above need only think about putting effort into design…neither needs to worry about the effort of raising money) The teams with marginal means probably do not qualify for a subsidy, AND probably work hard for every dollar they do raise. They have the hardest job because not only do they need to do the work on the robot (and other jobs), but they need to work to raise the cash needed to fund the whole effort.

I certainly do NOT want a situation where we take money from the rich teams in order to subsidize the less fortunate teams. What would that entail, taking the entry feed from $5000 to $10,000 in order to redistribute the wealth??!! (and lose 10% of it all in the “cost” of redistribution?)

Oh well…such is life,
-Quentin

9

we built two identical robots, it wasn’t that expensive, we mostly used parts from previous robots. it just took alot of time. we don’t have major sponsors like GM, NASA, or Ford. verizon sponsored us last year, but not this year. we mostly have local businesses. how much do these teams get from nasa anyway? we fundraise like theirs no tomorrow. last year we went to nationals down in florida and we had to take a bus back because of a shortage of money.

candy bar: $1 entrance fee: $5,000 22 hour bus ride: hell

10

While there will always be some form of disparity between the big money teams and the smaller underfunded teams, it doesnt neccesarily mean the smaller team cannot win. Being a large team with a large multinational corporation behind you comes with its own problems. For example, I will use our team. We build our robot at Motorola. This means we get access to their excellent facilities, but it also means we need to make ID badges for all students, be escorted at all times by a Motorola employee, are only able to access the robot when engineers are able to get away from their very demanding jobs, etc. the bureacracy involved with accomplishing simple tasks in a large corporation can be amazing. Do not think teams with large corporate sponsors are handed their robots on a silver plater. FIRST is not about building the biggest most expensive robot money can buy, thats what battlebots is for. Both teams rich and poor should still have the same goal of learning, team spirit, and inspiration. Once again I will use my own team as an example. We could probably hand the engineers at Motorola the rules to the competition and a budget, come back in 6 weeks and pick up our robot. The talented engineers at Motorola would no doubt build an en exellent robot capable of doing quite well. We may even win the competition, but as a FIRST team, we have accomplished nothing. Instead the engineers work side by side with us, involving us every step of the way. This method definetly is a lot more work for the engineers, and it may not come out quite as polished and efficient if they had built it by themselves. This is not to say the students cant make excellent contributions, but in all reality when you have amatuers build something it takes longer and more work. Our robot might not score as well but we accomplished our goal and wouldnt see it any other way. This has turned into a rather long rant, but im trying to make a point. FIRST isnt about who has more money, theres plenty of places for that kinda competition to take place, because just winning the competition is not the goal.

11

*Originally posted by Mark Hamilton *
**While there will always be some form of disparity between the big money teams and the smaller underfunded teams, it doesnt neccesarily mean the smaller team cannot win. Being a large team with a large multinational corporation behind you comes with its own problems. For example, I will use our team. We build our robot at Motorola. This means we get access to their excellent facilities, but it also means we need to make ID badges for all students, be escorted at all times by a Motorola employee, are only able to access the robot when engineers are able to get away from their very demanding jobs, etc. the bureacracy involved with accomplishing simple tasks in a large corporation

can be amazing. Do not think teams with large corporate sponsors are handed their robots on a silver plater. FIRST is not about building the biggest most expensive robot money can buy, thats what battlebots is for. Both teams rich and poor should still have the same goal of learning, team spirit, and inspiration. Once again I will use my own team as an example. We could probably hand the engineers at Motorola the rules to the competition and a budget, come back in 6 weeks and pick up our robot. The talented engineers at Motorola would no doubt build an en exellent robot capable of doing quite well. We may even win the competition, but as a FIRST team, we have accomplished nothing. Instead the engineers work side by side with us, involving us every step of the way. This method definetly is a lot more work for the engineers, and it may not come out quite as polished and efficient if they had built it by themselves. This is not to say the students cant make excellent contributions, but in all reality when you have amatuers build something it takes longer and more work. Our robot might not score as well but we accomplished our goal and wouldnt see it any other way. This has turned into a rather long rant, but im trying to make a point. FIRST isnt about who has more money, theres plenty of places for that kinda competition to take place, because just winning the competition is not the goal. **

I don’t think anyone ever said that money equated to quality or goodness. You are correct.

All that money clearly results in is the greatly lowered pressure of needing to find money…which quite frankly, some teams spend TONs of manpower and sweat doing.

That’s all…

(though it would be interesiting to see if there is a corrilation between the teams being in the top 8 nd them money spent. (I don’t mean any one team, but the % of big money teams vs small money teams against the percentage of same in the general population.)

I do think that each team should be required to track and submit their budgets so that these sort of statistics could be tracked. I think it would be interesting to see the results. (although I suspect we all know what the results would be)

12

i am on a well funded team and i can understand your guys arguement. i take i for granted that we have a machine shop and a wealth of supplies. But that doesntmean we are a guaranteed win. If the design of your robot is good, wheter you have poor or excellnt facilities, you will do well

13

I totally disagree with any sort of cap or more regulations.

First of all, it doesn’t take that much money to make a second robot. But, it takes effort, dedication and time. You don’t have to be a “big money” team to do that. Over the past two years, I only know of 2 teams in Indiana who have made a second robot. One was a rookie (535, last year and this year) and one was NOT a “big money” team (135, this year).

Second of all… take a look at this past weekend’s Buckeye Regional and see who won: teams 859 (#3 seed), 469 & 201. This alliance of 3 teams beat teams 229, 47 and 254 to get to the finals, and then beat 67, 68, and 302 to win.

Not one of these 3 winning teams (859, 469 or 201) is a “big money” team. It was simply a display of “David beating Goliath”… not only once, but twice. It was a sight to see.

Andy B.

14

*Originally posted by Mikeman602 *
**Well I have some things to say and I do not mean to offend anybody. I just think that it is almost unfair that some teams that are funded by big compines like NASA and Lockeed have a lot of money to blow on their robot and also have pro-engineers to help them build it. A smaller team like mine who can barley get the $5K to enter and is very very lucky to get any help from an engineer.
**

The vast majority of the teams funded and co-funded by NASA are far from “well off” by any definition that you would want to use. The NASA grant process is designed to help new teams get started and introduced to the FIRST program. To do that, we pay the registration fee for selected rookie teams to attend one regional competition event, and provide a small travel fund to allow a representative of the team to travel to the kick-off to retrieve their kit of parts. This total is limited to $6000, and is provided for no more than two years. Anything that the teams do above and beyond that is entirely up to them (and we encourage them to do as much alternative fund raising as they can, as early as they can).

Our philosophy is to provide as many new teams as we can with at least a minimum amount of financial assistance so they can participate in the program and compete (and hopefully inspire the student participants). If they are able to use our resources as a starting point, and leverage additional support from other sources, more power to them. If this leads to their ability to survive and thrive as an independent team after they are no longer eligable for NASA funding, then we consider it a success.

A very small number of teams (about eight out of the 193 teams receiving NASA co-funding this year) do receive some additional funding and engineering support, as they are working directly with one of the NASA field centers. The engineering support typically takes the form of NASA employees volunteering their evenings and weekends to work with teams. I make absolutely no apologies for any of this - instead I commend them all for their willingness to share their knowledge, expertise and experience with the next generation of engineers, technologists and scientists.

I am not taking a position on either side of the argument originally posted by Mikeman602. But I just want to make sure that if people are going to cite NASA as an example when making a point, that they understand what we are really doing (and what we are providing).

-dave

15

Hi all!

I personally asked Dean Kamen himself this question…not because I had a tremendous problem with the wide disparity between team size/finance but because I had been asked many times by my team’s members/parents. but first…background…

This is my sixth year as the Chief Geek (lead adult mentor/engineer/second oldest kid on the team) of Team 86…Team Resistance. Team 86 has two adult mentors (myself and the All-Knowing Dave - the oldest kid) as the adult staff and a handful of participating (but mostly non-technical) parents whose job is to help wherever they can in the shop. Our team of 38 students is divided into 4 work shifts to keep the insanity in my shop to a minimum during the build session.

We have no (ZERO) support out of our namesake school or the local school board. We have to beg for a school sponsor each year to be able to officially affiliate with the school for fundraising reasons. Fortunately we have three major financial sponsors here in J’ville but no tech support or facility support from them. Jacksonville is a non-tech town full of banking, finance, real estate, and insurance companies…it’s hard to get support for a “techie” program…(hey it’s not sports!!)

We build our robot in my home garage workshop. We subcontract nothing to no-one. If we can’t do it, we do it some other way.

AK Dave and I work year around to teach the students the craft skills needed so that the students can build the robot we field each year. The students build about 90% of the robot themselves overseen by us’ns. (MIG, TIG, lathe, mill, etc)

With one exception, we have been surprisingly competitive each of the six years that I have been involved. (Top third of seeding most years). We have whooped up on a lot of the “bigger” teams more than once.

I approached Dean about the money/size issue at the kickoff meeting in 1999. His response was (paraphrased as well as an oldster can remember) (hopefully I re-deliver it as intended!):

1.) FIRST is about inspiration, not teaching. FIRST is also about reality.

2.) Each team needs to do what they can to inspire/motivate the students directly involved and anyone else around to aspire in math, science, and technology areas.

3.) Therefore, if your team has a crew of engineers that design the robot and a machine shop to build the robot and the students get to watch the design/build process from a distance but get motivated to aspire, FINE.

If your team engineers can involve the students in the brainstorming and design and then the closed union shop machinists build the machine while the students watch from behind the plate glass windows but still get inspired, Better.

If your team engineers involve the students in the entire design and manufacturing and debugging process all the way to making them crate the machine up, kudos.

We’re looking to inspire the students to do well in science and math and technology to hopefully touch a few students who otherwise wouldn’t have had the light bulb turn on so that they saw what they had to do to better themselves (and in turn, provide a skilled technical labor pool for the future of these industries that piour money into these teams.

Yep, I’m sure everyone feels underdoggish every now and then. We certainly have our days.

Understand that when each of y’all get out of college and get into the real world that the big money kicks butt a lot of the time but every now and then a garage team (like Steve Job’s) comes out swinging and slays the Goliaths and the Micro…er, sorry!!

Have the time of yer life! Learn stuff! Have fun. Win when you can!

Seeya at Nationals!

16

Well I would like to thank all of you for your 2 cents. I think I have offically changed my mind! I realize now that you get what you put into it. My team did now fundraiseing what so ever, my teacher did all the “money finding”. We also have a very small team 7 people! of who only 2 or 3 (including me) did any serious work! Like spending almost every weeknight of the 6 weeks after school building. Next year I am going to college where I’m going to study ehgineering, and I hope to get them involved in FIRST!!

Thanks again to all for your opions and experiences :smiley:

Michael D.
Team 602