Multiples 2007

FIRST General Forum
1

Now that CD is being flooded with photos, I’m noticing a trend that I can’t help but talk about.

Last year, there were the Niagara Triplets. I was incredibly supportive of this rookie-starting venture because I thought that it was a good way to get them through a season and give them a chance at survival. This year, I’m a bit confused with some of the twins and triplets.

The twins and triplets that I see this year seem to be old veterans teaming up with old veterans. I’m curious as to the motivations behind these collaborations.

If some of the double/triple veterans would like to talk about why they decided to collaborate this year, I’d be interested to hear some of the reasons behind them!

2

I can’t say that I’ve noticed that, but I have noticed that all the robots seem to have the same designs (although I haven’t seen my team’s design yet, for which i’m worried, and thankful at the same time)
For the triplets and twins, I’d say that it is great that teams are branching together. I can imagine that in real world engineering, different teams will have to work together, on the same object; perhaps different companies even. I’ll all in favor of collaborative efforts, and if it produces a better, more competitive robot, then all the more reason to cheer. I love watching really competitive matches, its the next best thing to building your own. :slight_smile:

3

Team 226 formed a collaboration with two other teams because they didn’t have funding or mentors to build their own robots and we wanted to help them out. We decided that it wasn’t feasable for our engineers to build three separate robots, and never considered leaving the other teams to cope for themselves without mentors, so we built three identical bots. I’m guessing other teams were in similar situations and had a lack of resources, so they had to pool together.

4

1403 didn’t participate in any collaboration efforts (unless being gracious and professional counts). What I’m thinking is happening is that teams are recognizing the success of the Niagara Triplets beyond the rookie factor. Besides producing top notch robots, the teams were able to pool resources resulting in much more complete and deep teams. Some teams have better fabrication capabilities than others, some have better programming, so why not team up and create better robots?

My next question is, how long will these collaboration robots last?

5

I can certainly see where collaboration can be helpful, but at the same time I really think there is a better solution.

For example… Team 125 designed and built their own robot this year, just like 99% of the other teams in FIRST. On top of that, we decided to mentor 3 rookie and second year teams. We brought the high schoolers from these other schools into our lab, showed them our design process, then went out to their schools and held brainstorming sessions with them. Each school had a different goal, and we designed two more robots to fit the high schooler’s ideas. From there we split our resources in two, half going to our own robot and the other half going into fabricating parts for our rookies. At the end of the build we had 4 different robots, all fully functional. While they might not all be the best, prettiest robots, each robot had input from their high school of choice, and is more than just a “cookie cutter” robot. I think the students from these schools will appreciate this more than if we just handed them a robot to play with.

6

I think Beth is proably alluding to the “triad” of 384, 540, and 1086, the Exploding Minotaurs (1369 and 1902) and possibly also the continuation of the 254 and 968 partnership. I havn’t noticed any other collaborations posted on Delphi (I know of one other though, both 3rd year teams).
While I may not know the motives of each collaboration, there is a definite and distinct difference between most of these and a NiagaraFIRST-type scenario. The 494/70 scenario seems to fit the NiagaraFIRST bill pretty well though, and the 340/424 is a unique situation, and not really a robot collaboration.

7

im sure the 340/424 boys and girls and confirm and add more to this post.

424 is a rookie team, based within the HS. They just were given a recycled number.

But other then that, i do agree with that was said before this post and a lil confused as well.

8

340 and 424 are both based out of Churchville-Chili High School. " A chicken in every pot, two FIRST teams in every school…"

424 is a team for rookies, new to the FIRST program. 340 is a team for students who have been through the program. SO next year, kids on 424 this year, will be on 340 next year.
Both of our teams brainstormed together about how to accomplish the game, but then went our separate ways to decide on how to accomplish it. We realy wanted to make sure we didnt make similar robots. But even if we did, it would because the two teams came up with it on their own. Even though the title of that picture says “GRR Twins”, were not really twins in any sense, except that we both have orange bumpers. Unless like Ed said, we’re fraternal twins. The drives, lifts, grabbers are all different on the two robots.
It was really cool to work side by side with other students, but totally working on two totally different robots.

9

Also, you have 1902, 1369 together and the martians did it last year with 70 and 494 and will probably do it again this year. Best of luck to everyone.:slight_smile:

10

I’m seeing more similar designs than more exact designs.

11

I don’t think I’ve noticed any startling growth in collaborating teams over last year. A number of teams, including ours, posted pictures of identical robots that could be mistaken as collaborating teams if it wasn’t realized it was just a second practice robot for their own benefit.

As Tetraman stated, there are definitely more similar designs to be had, but this dosen’t necessarily mean collaboration. I could search for 5 minutes or less and come up with pictures of 10 - 15 robots that are either direct replicas or clear derivatives of what is now being referred to as the “West Coast Arm”, yet I know of no pair of collaborating teams using this system this year.

I doubt we’ll see the current collaborating alliances breaking up any time soon. Its a different way of doing business, but arguably no better or worse. In order to pull off such a successful collaboration over a distance like 254 and 968 have there must be some comprehensive designing being done before they even set out to build the components of their robot, something our team just more thoroughly utilized this past year - our 4th season. Also it more closely replicates what is witnessed in the real world this day in age. Very rarely anymore does a company build a system completely from scratch - they outsource manufacturing of various components to companies specialized in that field. I’m impressed that two FIRST teams manage to build their transmissions and wheels hundreds of miles from the production of their frames (not to mention countless other parts of their robot) and they are organized and coordinated enough to have everything fit together and work when the time comes - to me this is a pretty astounding achievement and a testament to the design work that must go into these two robots.

  • Jeff
12

I can say that with 1902 and 1369, the collaboration was mutually beneficial. Both teams had quite low budgets and time limitations with college mentor classes. We still built 1902’s robot in Dan’s garage, we still built the majority of it with hand tools. This year’s game required an autonomous that took several days to code and in doing a collaboration permitted the first robot to be done early for programming. To say that 1902 was just collaborating for an ungracious reason would be silly. I can say that I personally have spent more time with 1390 then 1902 this year, and I know that we have worked with the majority of the Orlando-area teams in one form or another helping their programs. 1902 has also worked on securing funds to help sponsor all the teams in the local area. The code that was developed for this collaboration has been taken in pseudo-code bits and shared with local teams in need of help.

In response to Tom’s comment, I know that 1369 and 1902 both built their own robots. Sometimes 1369 would put extra resources into one area (for example, the drive base assembly) while we worked on something else (in this same example, the arm assembly). Neither team handed a robot to another team, not in any way. The photo of the 2 robots taken together was the only day I ever saw the 2 robots in the same room in fact. 1369 came to Orlando to work in Dan’s garage on a day where the school couldn’t allow them to work and both teams made a full day out of it. Several students drove over from Tampa that day. 1369s programmers also met with 1902s programmers at a house in West Orlando every weekend working in unison on the sensor testing and code design. There is no way we could say that one team built the robot and handed it to the other. 1369 built the base first, learned some lessons and told us before we put ours together. 1902 put the arm on the base first and passed on the lessons to 1369. We learned to use the assembly-line process to our advantage to increase efficiency and make much better use of our time.

Without the collaboration none of that would have been possible, I wouldn’t have had the time to donate to 1390, the code wouldn’t be in a position to help other teams, and we certainly wouldn’t have had the first robot done a week and half early. Veteran teams pairing doesn’t have to be a selfish act, and from what I saw this year was one of the best changes 1902 made in it’s approach to expand. I think that you will see the Orlando area teams greatly benefited from this approach since we have been able to share our resources even though both 1369 and 1902 had small teams with small budgets.

13

Like Smita said above, we have triplets this year. It wasn’t so much planned as it just happened. We have a 9th year team, a 7th year team, and a 4th year team. 226 found out on kickoff that the first team needed help, and on the Monday after kickoff that the second one did, and there wasn’t much decision making involved. It was either a collaboration or no team at all. Mentoring wasn’t a workable option because we didn’t have the resources to divide between two teams, much less three. It’s been a really great experience for all three teams though, so I’m glad it happened. All three teams worked together to design one robot and build three of them. We didn’t assign robots to a team until the day before ship, and even then all students worked on all three robots. I don’t have the energy to look up the thread (my brain is still melted from last week) but I recall a conversation about how to help flailing veteran teams. Maybe the veteran collaborations is an example of this issue.

In any case, Larry, Curly, and Moe are looking forward to a reunion at West Michigan!

14

I posted this in another thread concerning the idea of a colaboration. Its about geting local teams together to better the experience from FIRST.

15

I can think of reasons for teams to do this, if even once.

  • As miketwalker and Allison K have mentioned, helping/aiding each other. Lack of resources can make things like collaboration a successful learning experience for everyone involved.
    and
  • curiosity - Working together for one robot is fun and challenging enough - teams working together brings new challenges and ways of working together - expanding the pool of talent, resources, opportunities

There has been scattered remarks about veteran teams and their struggles, some dying out. This is something to look at - as FIRST expands creating more rookie teams, we need our veteran teams around to help support the rookies with experience, knowledge, and the can-do attitude to help them get through build and the competitions and to help them understand FIRST. That is why our Hall of Famers are so valued and important.

16

First off there is a difference between similar designs and collaboration, for example two of the RI teams (1568 and 1350) built very similar robots despite the fact we didn’t talk about design or see each others bots until day 43 (at team 69’s scrimmage). This was coincidence; there are only a couple of simple and reliable designs, so you will see alot of teams that seem to have some design overlap.
http://joemenassa.com/images/robotics2007/day43/images/IMG_1598.jpg

Now to the topic at hand, collaboration. If two or three teams work together and all of the hs students get to work with engineers and every one learns something then I see absolutely no problem. FIRST has not stopped collaboration because it doesn’t need to, collaboration does not seem to take away from the quality of the experience of the students and mentors involved. I have worked with a couple different teams and have also had the opportunity to see how some other teams work. It is definitely possible to have two or more teams build similar robots without taking away from the experience for any one. I think that more time needs to be spent focusing on the details than on the big picture. The big picture just shows identical robots, but if you read the old posts by Karthik and the other Niagra FIRST people, or you read this year’s posts by any of the collaborating team members then I think you would have a hard time arguing that these teams did not fulfill the goals of FIRST.

17

Here are the design collaborations that are public at the moment.

  • 384, 540, 1086
  • 254, 968
  • 1503, 1680
  • 1369, 1902
  • 226, 515, 1447
  • 70, 494
  • 1112, 1815

Whether that growth is “startling” is up to the reader, regardless it is growth.

18

From that list, I count no rookie teams. I think Beth’s observation is valid.

Over and over again, the answer to why collaborate and build one design among several teams is that the teams believe that collaboration will allow them to build a more competitive robot than they could alone.

Yes, there are lots of opportunities to learn by working closely with other teams, but I’m not convinced that most of these experiences require duplicate robots.

Another interesting trend: As some teams/mentors make public their design solutions, many teams are picking up and building major components of their robots by duplicating these designs - in some cases exactly. This results in robots with duplicate parts - even if the teams did not collaborate. A prime example is the “west coast drive” and “west coast arm”.

I humbly remind teams to give credit where it is due - especially in terms of design solutions that have been implemented this year. (BTW, both “west coast” drive & arm designs first appeared on robots from the Bionic Bulldogs - Team 60 from Kingman, AZ when the team was coached by Glenn Thuroughman.)

Just my thoughts at the end of a very difficult week. Congratulations to everyone for making it through another Build Season. See you at LA, SD, Sacramento and hopefully Atlanta!

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
RoboDox

19

Well, I might as well tell my opinion on this issue.

When I saw the Niagara Triplets at GLR last year, I was personally a bit… well, pissed off. Along with other people on my team. They had gotten really far in the competition through collaboration that other teams didn’t have. I realized that this a choice to collaborate and to make the same/very similar robots, but there were teams very set on making their own. In a way, I found this to be an unfair advantage for the other teams that worked alone, especially for the newer teams with not as much experience. I read the thread in CD right after GLR about the triplets, and my reaction was around the lines of, “…oh. That’s why.”

I felt bad for a while. I did want teams that weren’t as fortunate in terms of funding to get a chance to compete with a working robot fit for competition. However, time passed, and I realized there were other ways to get past obstacles, especially involving money that didn’t involve making twins or triplets of a robot, even if it was cheaper. There are many ways to fundraise if a team really applies itself, and even if teams do collaborate, I don’t think they should make the same robot. It might be harder work and harder to pay for, but I personally find it more worth it. Teams will take more pride in themselves not only as a team, but also on an individual level. It might sound idealistic, but if one really believes that they don’t have to settle for the easy way out, that attitude will take someone far.

I know plenty of people on 226, especially the veterans, have a lot of pride for their team. I do, too. Even though our collaboration with two other teams is a healthy working relationship from what I’ve heard, I’m still disappointed that we are part of a triplicy this year. It might be selfish to feel this way, but we just like to stand out as a team, not just with our tshirts and our mascot, but with our robot. It just feels so… cheap to do this, in my opinion. We could have easily collaborated without copying. I know I’m not the only person who feels this way. I have talked to people on my team, current students and alums, and they aren’t the happiest about it. But obviously it’s too late to go back on the plan, and we just have to do the best with what we did.

It sounds like this was an idea to make us look better in the FIRST community, to have a greater chance at winning Chairmans, or to even win the actual competition. But that’s not everything. It’s not all about looking better and getting respect, it’s about doing what most people on the team want to do most, especially the students; build an awesome robot. We’re happy to have our robot out there, no matter how much it breaks down or malfunctions. I’d rather have a robot that was crappy that my team made themselves, and only for themselves, rather than a robot that was made to perfection that was cloned a few times to be used by another teams.

I also like the variety of robots. If everyone starts following this multiplicity trend, there will be less unique robots in general. And not all ideas will go through, especially in a multi-team collaboration. Sometimes it’s the idea that everyone is against except for a few people that happens to work for the best, and ideas are more likely to go through when less people are working together. Yes, there are more ideas generated in the a multi-team environment, but if more ideas could become reality if each team made their robot differently.

I’m not completely against collaboration and making a few elements of the robot a bit similar, but making clones I am not too pleased about. It’s about finding a balance: sharing a design of a part of a robot, but yet, having enough to make it look uniquely like your team’s.

20

Just because two teams have the same robot does not mean that one did all the work, and the other was handed a robot. Maybe some collaborations have worked this way, but certainly not most of them.

I can tell you from our team’s experiences, both teams spent an incredible amount of time designing, discussing, and refining everything on the robot, together.

We’re not collaborating to help the less fortunate, or anything like that. We’re collaborating because it helps to show the students a real engineering design process, our mentors and 968’s mentors have been friends for years, so it’s fun for us to get to work together, and because it does allow us to build a better robot.

The workplace is extremely global right now. Your job can be based in the US, and you can have coworkers in Asia, Europe, etc. In our case, 968 is hundreds of miles away. Not very far in an absolute sense, but when it comes to having meetings, testing ideas, shipping robot parts, it’s pretty far. The whole design and build process better prepares everyone on both teams for the real world, where you don’t just get to sit in your little corner and do your own thing.

As to the whole making twins/triplets/etc to be competitive, sure they usually are competitive. But look at the teams who have been most competitive and done so–60, 254, 494, 968, 1114, etc. All these teams have always been competitive by themselves. All teams will continue to be competitive to the highest level, even if they were not collaborating.

I dont think collaboration would help rookies as much as some make it seem. As a rookie team, I would not want to make the same robot as a team thats many years older. It would take away from the process. It’s much better for a veteran team to guide and teach a rookie team than to make identical robots. Considering that they are rookies, likely more of the design, and build of the bot would probably happen by the veteran team, which won’t help the rookies if/when theyre on their own.

In short, who cares what reasons people collaborate for, so long as they aren’t doing anything to break the rules? To make great robots, to further inspire the students, to work with your friends, to help disadvantaged teams, just for the challenge…whatever. As long as it’s inspiring the kids, it’s all good.