I am quite interested in hearing from Karthik (or anyone else, for that matter) on how collaboration works between three teams, and how they all came up with the same design. In contrast, when 217 and 229 collaborated, it was only partially (Only the towers/arms were the same). 60/254 made the same robot, but from the discussion surrounding it, I gathered that individual components were designed/manufactured between the two due to lack of resources. I assume that the Niagara triplets all use the same manufacturing area? In which case, how was design split up?
Having been involved in this argument before, I am reserving judgement until I hear the entire story from the horse’s mouth (Not to imply that anyone in Canada is a horse ;))
Guys Guys Guys! Calm down! I can offer my best explanation.
We are all sponsored by GM, and we all share engineers, but we also have our own sponsors as well.
for example, Fort Erie had a sponsor who has a great CNC setup with a 16 foot bed. they got us our towers made. they also got us our drivetrain materials. We worked on all the little things, shafts, spacers, and all the little important things, because we have a good shop. Simcoe worked on the shooter and making the machine work. We all got together and put our robots together and helped each other.
I dont know where you guys get the idea that we are all mentor built, we are about 50/50 and we believe thats the way it should be.
and to CatchRothy22: NiagaraFIRST is just the name we have given ourselves. not a company.
How is it unfair? Everyone has the option to collaborate with other teams. If you want to build three identical robots, then you can, no one is stopping you.
Okay - with respect to everyone that has posted - take a deep breath and slow down the argument a bit.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and that is all they have at this point) and we hope that they can be presented in a manner in which doesn’t incite problems.
As pointed out by others - this topic has been discussed in depth on other threads from other years. Let’s not re-hash that all over again here.
Please respond respectfully to each other and as "grandma said - if you don’t have anything nice to say - don’t say anything!
Thanks -
Mike Aubry
I read through this thread with incredulity. How could a community such as FIRST which preaches such values of gracious professionalism just jump on NiagaraFIRST like this? Not only are they powerhouse teams who do a LOT of work to get to where they do, they are the epitomy of gracious professionalism and dignity. What they have done for FIRST in Canada, and for other teams is incredible.
Earlier in the season, my team was having problems finding parts, and some of the ones we ordered got held up at the border. We asked team 1114 for help, and they donated tread and wheel sprockets to us, driving all the way from St. Catherines to Oakville to drop it off. For this I thank them. I know that we are not the only team they have helped out. At competition, they are always incredibly graciously professional, and always follow the rules to the letter.
I have no idea how the internal workings of these teams work, but they seem to have had no problem in INSPIRING their students and getting RECOGNITION for the program. Isn’t that the point, not whose robot preforms well on the field or what they look like or how many teams are involved? Isn’t it not about the robot? These are incredible machines, Karthik, congratulations, and I hope to see you at Waterloo and Greater Toronto.
On behalf of Phill (catchrothy) I apologize, he made too many assumptions. I personally am a little disgraced by the Co-op between these three teams, because here on team 11, we believe that a bad robot with no adult design input is much better than a good robot with no student input. I am not saying niagraFIRST students had no input, because they clearly had some form, but i believe that the mentors are there to challenge the students mind by asking questions the students must think about hard and long before giving an answer. Our leadership always wants a good robot, but they ask us what we want our robot to do, and then ask us why we think that, and when the students come to a majority for a single strategy, we keep it. Afterwords, it is in our hands to design the robot. The mentors work FOR us, when we come up with a design, they help us solve details by offering ideas. They help us learn HOW to make the parts of the robot, not how to DESIGN it. I am not accusing these three teams of not designing their own robots. We CADD our own things, all CADD’d by students, then send the drawings to our local county college, or one of our teammate’s basements to have it CNC’d. We then assemble it, and if there is a part that is not made, our mentors point it out and we make it. Not to say these three teams don’t do so. Its about time i get to the point: disagreements are unavoidable. there is no such thing as the perfect robot. Everyone has a different view on how to do things. I personally think that the Co-op could’ve resulted in similar ideas (IE high shooter, same abilities) but i think that every robot should have a different solution… seriously… if you have to design something… and its the same amount of material as the other robot… then you can easily CAD something different and send the CAD over to the source of all your heavy machining. The robots would do the same things in the end, but the way they do them may be different. Essentially, it’s like one giant team, which is great, because we have a fairly large team ourselves, but everyone wants to build a robot. It’d get crowded, sure, but thats the point where i think that they should go in the direction that RAGE went. Two robots (or in this case 3) for one team, using them as spares. Its all one team in the long run, but if something breaks they have a back up. Its not three teams competing with the same robot that way. its one team with two spare robots, which would not call any attention to it. But having the idea of having three teams with the same exact potential is… its just unfathomable. I’m not saying the design of these robots was easy. Honestly, i think the robots themselves a very impressive. But i want to compare this to the real world. Take any industry you want. Three companies/firms need to come up with a product to do the same thing. They work together and come up with the same result. they market the end product under a different name, but they go for the same price and work exactly the same. which one do you buy? i think that the idea of three teams with the same robot isn’t bad when it comes to learning how to construct it and design it… its just a bad end result… and after all this rambling (which is all it really comes down to) I’d just like to state that i have no stance on this. i like the robot, and i know students took part in it. But the fact that they acted as one team and want to compete as three others goes against my FIRST morals. What’s done is done, but i recommend forming one team with three robots next year. Our team founder/current mentor found this picture… and the look on his face could only be described as the deepest disappointment. As a team that worked with another school to help them get started, we know that cooperation between teams really helps, and we’ve helped that team when they had problems, but we never designed their robot with them. There is a fine line between one team helping and three separate teams. i think you blurred it to make something no one has ever seen. My point is really just to let people have their opinions, and that there were better ways to go about this. Nice robots, good luck, and i hope that we see more great robots in the future.
Sincerely,
Mike
note: I know the people involved in the NiagraFIRSTteams are amazing people… but three teams may be a little excessive for what they need to do.
Well PJ, since you’re so sure of yourself, I’d like you to meet Peter Diakow, Grade 12, from Team 1114 and NiagaraFIRST. He’s actually building the hopper of a 2006 NiagaraFIRST robot.
Oh, why does some rookie team mentor from PA give a crap about this? Well, it seems as though Team 1712 was having difficulty figuring out how to marry that big CIM with a roller system because of limited resources. So I’m discussing this online with Karthik and he says, “Dude, why don’t we make you a shaft adapter.” So NiagaraFIRST’s and 1114’s own Peter Diakow took time out from BUILDING their robot(s) about 8 pm one night, so he could help 1712 in PA. Then Karthik brought the STUDENT-done work to us in DE where we met up at a Vex event. The kids on 1712 were so elated, they wrote 1114 a long letter for the incredible act of gracious professionalism. See 1712’s tribute here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44048
Just because this isn’t how you do business, don’t make assumptions about others - EVER. Would my team collaborate like this? Probably not, but that’s a team decision. In this case, when you talk about collaboration you are taking shots at 229, 217, 60, 254, the Niagara teams and some of the most storied names in FIRST that go along with these numbers. You know, these are the same names that brought us the kit gearbox and other incredible acts of gracious professionalism.
Take a step back and decide how gracious it is to accuse someone in a public forum without knowing all of the facts. You now have a chance to make things right. Take the opportunity. Namaste.
In response to this… i’d like to say that Phill has jumped to conclusions. and he is in his place to apologize… so, from a teammate/friend, phill, you have already apologized once, but i think you need to apologize to a greater extent… these teams worked hard, whether or not we like the fact that the robots are the same.
That’s great for Team 11, but this thread isn’t about you. I’d venture to say that (GASP!) every FIRST team is run differently.
Furthermore, I was actually impressed this year with the amount of GP on these boards, the encouragement given to designs and teams, and the questions some of the students are asking about other bots to learn more about them… until I read this thread. Is this really an argument worth getting worked up? Don’t you think the kids on these teams would be hurt by you making assumptions about their sponsors, mentors, and the students themselves?
Are we really that close-minded that we have to insult other teams that deviate from what we percieve to be right? Giving an opinion and insulting someone are far from each other. Graciousness isn’t just sharing your crayons in kindergarten. It’s also about encouragement and growth, especially in this program.
A little note for everyone: If you want to rant collaboration, mentor involvement, or any other topic on here, don’t disgrace one team by attempting to call them out. There’s a handful of collaboration (or mentor involvement, or whatever) threads that serve the same purpose. If you aren’t familiar with the ChiefDelphi boards, I’m sure a moderator would be happy to show you around.
Rothy, what exactly are you basing your guarantee on? Part of the design process is about making educated decisions based on unknown outcomes. What exactly is your “guarantee” based on. I spent the last 6 weeks in the shop with my students, and I can guarantee you this, this robot was built by them. Was it 100% student built? No, that’s not how this team operates. We have established a happy medium of student/adult involvement.
NiagaraFIRST is not a company by any means. If it is, I’m going to be complaining, because I know I haven’t gotten my pay cheque yet. Here’s a description of what NiagaraFIRST is, taken from our 2006 Chairman’s submission. (Thanks to Emerald and the Chairman’s team for this)
You see, 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 seperate FRC teams in our area. This is where NiagaraFIRST was born. Collaborating gave us the opportunity that bring FIRST to more students, and more communities. Since the creation of NiagaraFIRST, we’ve exposed our community to the values of FIRST. You may claim that what we’ve done is against the spirit of FIRST, but I wholeheartedly disagree. As a result of our efforts we’ve been able to spread the word of FIRST across the Niagara Peninsula. Elementary students across the region are flocking to our high schools, because of FIRST. These kids are the next generation of engineers. You have to remember, we’re not here to build robots. We’re here to inspire future science and technology heroes. If building three identical robots is the most efficient way to do this, then that’s what we’re going to do.
You really need to stop making unfounded assumptions. At last year’s Greater Toronto Regional, Team 1114 was the number one seed. Did we pick Team 1503 or 1680? No, we picked Team 1305. In the second round Team 1680 was still available, did we pick them? No, we picked Team 1511. Like I said earlier, if we participated as one team, and built only one robot we would be a much stronger team. By building three seperate robots, we were able to reduce the design phase, and have three times as much opportunity for students to get a hands on impact. (Oh wait, according to you our students don’t build anything…)
As for how the details of how this collaboration proceeded. The day after kickoff, a joint brainstorming session was held between all three teams. 75 students got together and hashed out many designs. The mentors then evaluated them for engineering soundness, and together a consensus was achieved. From here, our mentors firmed up the design using their years of engineering experience. Students watched and learned during this process. Once the drawings were complete, each school was assigned various manufacturing tasks. If tasks were beyond our capabilities, local machining sponsors picked up the slack. Once all parts were built, the teams came together in 1114’s shop, and the robots were assembled. The entire process illustrated our team’s greatest strength, partnership.
I’d like to thank all of the people here who kept calm heads and didn’t rush to make assumptions. It happens every year when people publicly make claims that they can’t back up. We need to stop letting this happen. No one knows what goes on in someone elses shop. You can make unfounded guesses, but chances are you’ll come off looking like a moron. Let’s try and avoid that
If anyone as any more questions, feel free to ask.
P.S.
Actually, only 1114 and 1503 are sponsored by GM. 1680 is sponsored by EDS Canada.
i do not want to start an argument, and I’m approaching this with no bias toward any team. I would like to reiterate that i realize the hard work these student put into the robot. If you read my entire post, through the excessive rambling that occurred, you will, in fact, notice that i had quite a few positive views on this whole situation. I am not taking sides, and I believe (yes, I, as in my personal opinion, not necessarily correct) that these STUDENTS (yes, these are student built robots) did an amazing job this year, but the three way Co-op COULD"VE been settled with one large team. Notice, the could’ve, not should’ve. if i said should’ve, I’m sorry, i can be pretty stupid sometimes. If anything, i was trying to provide a slightly more relaxed view on this, and the point of stating how our team operates was merely an attempt at showing that there is no right or wrong way. the only wrong way is sponsor designed, which is not what these robots are, so i think there is nothing to say about this. I was never trying to make this about us, by the way, but that is not the point. I am agreeing with what Ms. Morrison said, every team is run differently. We should let these teams be, we’ve all stated our opinions, and we should not start personal vendettas. This should be a friendly environment. We all learned something this year, and it doesn’t really matter what everyone else learned, considering we all pretty much learned the same concepts. And I’m sure that we will all gain some sort of technical knowledge when we look at either one of these robots. thats the reason we’re here.
For those of you who are not familiar with our moderated forums: all replies by non-moderators must be approved by a moderator, and could take up to 24 hours to appear. Please make sure your reply makes a positive contribution to the thread, so that your time and our moderators time is not wasted.
Thanks Brandon, there are some great robots here and now we can get our questions answered.
Wow, collaborative design really pays off, hopefully it’ll motivate some people around here to attempt it. I really love the idea, 3 teams are better than one (thats why we have alliances)
Look at the PVC on the hoppers! Thats pretty cool I like how you guys can both pick balls up off the ground and throw them in. But could you enlighten us how the balls get from inside the robot up into the shooter?
Are those FP’s in dewalt’s on the shooters?
Are specs on the drive train available? By the look of it treads are used on all of them, but I’d like to know the speeds and gearbox specs you used.
Anyone besides 1680 using the camera?
When did you take this picture, and how long was it until you had your first robot built and working?
Does collaborative build take longer than a single team’s build?
When this discussion came up last year, I wrote this thread. I hoped that people would read it and take it to heart. Apparently I was sadly mistaken. Karthik, those robots are gorgeous, your kids should be exceedingly proud of the fantastic job that they did this year.
Regardless of what you people think there still very good looking robots. Nice job to Niagara FIRST keeping things simple and elegant with the design. I really them. Love the application of the DeWalt transmissions looks great keep up the good work you three teams. Good luck to each one of the teams. :roll eyes:
I agree with the two MORT team members in saying that to an outsider the first impression will usually be that how these 3 teams operate can seem unfair. Even though Niagara FIRST builds great robots my personal first impressions was this. Many people I know have had this same impression when first seeing these 3 same robots last year, even my father had the same impression when he learned about these robots. However, throughout this past year I have warmed up to these 3 teams, and have come to admire many aspects about them. They have been able to do to Canada FIRST what none of the larger older Canadian FIRST teams have done. They are able to build robots of the highest quality in the FIRST competition, these three robots I saw at the Greater Toronto Regional last year were by far the best built Canadian robots in that competition, and look to have great robots again. Even though their collaboration will always bring skeptics, it will fuel the rest of the Canadian teams to work harder to build much better robots to truly compete with these three. They have raised the bar for robotics in Canada, and us at 610 have built our strongest robot to date and strive to compete at the same level and defeat these three strong teams. Just as many American teams always strive to beat the great teams such as HOT or Wildstang.
Their accomplishments do a lot for building FIRST, especially in Canada, however the thought of building 3 of the same robots can be seen as hindering creativity and originality in robot design. If these three teams can build 3 great robots with the same original design, I would love to see what 3 original designs they can come up with for three different robots while working together. Am I implying that the 3 teams should not share GM Engineers or share resources to build 3 great robots, in no way. However, I do believe that building 3 exactly the same robots for the same competition, who usually all compete in the same regionals, can be unfair to the rest of the teams in the competition. Because of the robots impeccable quality, competing in a regional with these teams can feel like facing 3 HOT or Wildstang teams, which is a challenge on to itself. I am not trying to say that these three teams should not work together, which should be applauded, but I would wish to see 3 individual robots of the same great quality but each with unique original designs. With the resources to build these 3 same robots, I do not see why they cannot build 3 unique individual robots, while continuing to work together and share resources. Us here at 610 have been sharing our resources for a while, in a much different manner. We have ‘sponsored’ a team in the past, St. Clemens School, when they worked in the same shop as us for the whole build season, we shared much knowledge and resources. But ended up building very different robots, of different capability due to different levels of experience. I am not trying to imply that our method is better in any way, we did not produce robots of the same quality, but I believe, as do others, that this method of joint work is closer to the method FIRST wished us to follow.
Anyway sorry for ranting, for a while, try not to read into my words too much as they are just a single persons opinion.
If you can pull off the challenge of coordinating a collaboration (especially a three-way collaboration), I don’t care whether your teams wind up in the bottom three spots of the rankings–you’ve pulled off a task that 99% of teams can’t or won’t be able to do.
I don’t think, however, that you’ll have to worry about being at the bottom of the rankings. I see three competing robots, so…
