Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Before you read this, please know that my opinion might not be shared among the majority of ChiefDelphi users, and I accept that. I just think I should share my opinion and thoughts, and hopefully help to improve FRC.

First, I do want to say that I truly appreciate how much effort and time went in to Ri3D and BuildBlitz this year. The participants were an incredible example of what is possible to do, and I thank them for their time. The robots they designed were and are incredible. That said...

The Problem

I feel like although Ri3D and BuildBlitz are incredibly inspirational as to what a team could theoretically accomplish in just 72 hours, they are helping teams a little too much.

When they release videos of how ever part on their robot works, CAD drawings down to the last nut bolt and rivet and number of links they used in their chain, they kill the ingenuity and originality of many frc teams. Why reinvent the wheel when you have 6 fully-functional rule-abiding choices complete with parts lists and design videos that you can copy?

I agree that many teams are not going to directly copy a robot from these 6 teams, however I personally know 3-4 that have chosen to. I know our team is borrowing ideas from many of the robots, and that the moment the reveal videos, CAD drawings and other marketing materials came out, the ingenuity and originality on our team went down, and it was disappointing to me.

Some of us wanted to directly copy parts of their robots and others of us wanted to steer as far away from any of the designs as possible, just because we felt copying their designs wasn't right.

What I Suggest

Have the Ri3D and BuildBlitz teams continue to inspire teams. But don't release CAD drawings and parts lists and complete specs -- leave something to the imagination until after build season is over, or at least after it's ⅔ done.

Only release a reveal video after the 72 hours, and make it be just the robot driving/shooting/climbing/miniboting/swimming, with no human narrating it's abilities. Again, I think this would cause the teams to be inspired by what is possible, without making them decide to build a copy of one of their robots.


Again, I know this probably isn't a popular opinion, but I feel I needed to share it. Have any other teams felt this way at all? Did Ri3D or BuildBlitz curb your ingenuity or originality of design?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I think that it is great to have these conversations. There have been a lot of discussions on CD about these 3 day builds. Here is one thread of a few.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=123152

Matt

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I agree with the thoughts you shared here. While my team isn't really using anything from Ri3D or Build Blitz, I know that many teams will. Just look at last year. With only one robot in 3 days, there were many teams who were carbon copies of that design, and many who followed their suggestions. Not that this is entirely a bad thing, because some teams do need some inspiration right off the bat in build season. I liked having 5 (almost 6) different robots this year because teams could be inspired by many different robots. What you stated about CAD drawings and parts lists is exactly correct, because teams shouldn't need these unless they plan on building the same robots. So in conclusion I completely agree with you. Robot in 3 days is inspirational and helpful, but giving teams ways to just copy a robot design is not.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I stand by my original opinion on this.

If you don't like Ri3D or Buildblitz, your team and your team alone has the right to decide not to pay attention to BuildBlitz/Ri3D and all resulting designs and CAD models and videos.

Just because there's a bunch of violence on television does not mean that I have to watch it. Similarly, if a team decides that it is preferable to design in a vacuum, that is their right.

Personally, I don't see where the obsession with creating unique designs comes from. FIRST robots have always been a combination (in various degrees) of previously existing technologies and game mechanisms. Build Blitz/Ri3D just happen to be introducing more relevant mechanisms (none of which, by the way, are really anything new-- winches and catapults have a had a large deal of previous use in FRC). The only mechanism that I saw that I don't think is relatively common knowledge (other than Boom Done's awesome use of sensors) was the choo-choo mechanism of Team JVN. Roller intakes are classic, catapults were used in 2008 and a little bit in 2012, winches have been used in 2008, 2010, 2013, at least, and motor-powered flingers (like Boom Done), while not exactly common, are really just an extension of a classic arm/lever design.

Individual mechanisms very rarely in themselves grant teams advantages. It's integrating, effectively implementing, and quickly building mechanisms that is the real difference.

Borrowing designs is not a bad thing. There are no patents in FIRST robot design (at least by teams).

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I agree with a previous poster that the three day robots have the right to do what they're doing. However, I'm still unsure if I like the Ri3D teams or not

PROS-
We end up with competitive teams that are fun to watch
Week 1 regionals in 2012 were pretty darn awful to watch because teams were so bad
Experienced teams who know that certain things will work really well don't have a massive advantage any more.

CONS-
There are tons of clones of robots out there.
A moderately competitive team now doesn't stand out as much from a Ri3D copy.
(this could be seen as a pro for some teams)
Less fun to design and prototype your robot.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

It's still really different.
I agree that roller intakes aren't anything revolutionary, and in the past, I could look at years of roller intake pictures on CD, but now, I can get the exact angle, position, speed, location, width, gearing, motor, and bearing setup that works. I guarantee that if you asked 1114 if they spent a while to get their roller intake in 2008 to work the way they wanted to, they would tell you they tried different wheels, widths, speeds, motors, torques, angles... Now, I can just grab my CAD file from the internet, buy a versa frame kit, and suddenly I have a competitive intake.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Arguably if everyone does this, it's no longer a competitive intake.

Raising the bar and all.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

True, but there will be a good portion of teams who will compete with an intake that is inferior to the Ri3D intake. IMO, with the new defense rule, your intake will be the most important part of the robot.

I actually got into an argument with my son about this sort of thing. I became a mentor to help these kids who little to no mechanical experience learn how to put stuff together. One of the things I personally try to get across is this program is suppose to be about thinking outside the box and using some imagination. We all want to make it to Einstein and win, but to me it is more about the learning experience, and learning how to things work and move rather than having an uber competitive bot.
Just my two cents.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I understand some people's fear of a loss of originality because of the 3 day robots. But I wouldn't say 2013 had any less original designs than before. Sure the 'Ri3D robot' was popular, but in 2012 the 'polycord elevator to hooded single wheel shooter' was just as common. As was the '4-bar with roller claw' in 2011.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

To overuse the word arguably...

Arguably one of the most important lessons we can teach our students is how to win.

Setting goals, working against seemingly impossible odds, not giving up after failure, working harder, working smarter, etc...

Isn't it more important to teach them how to think!!?? Winning is nice, but it shouldn't be the end all be all. Putting forth true effort, and learning something is way more important than bragging rights.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

FIRST is a competition.....not just about winning a trophy, but winning sponsorship, support from school, and the other non-robot awards associated with a competition.
Every journey is unique and teams have the right to choose which route they want to take.

Personally, I think Ri3D and Build Blitz was one of the best things that have happened in recent years.
Not only do they help teams come up with ideas, they show how teams can utilize their respective products they market and sell.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

To achieve what I said against the caliber of competition out there is impossible without thinking. A lot. I said "working smart" after all.

I'll also say that our team doesn't compete for bragging rights. We enjoy winning when it happens (as everyone should), but what we really take pleasure in at the end of everything is the transformation in each and every member of the group. Even kids that are barely involved and don't contribute much (shy, first year, not outgoing, whatever reason) get instilled with an unshakable sense of quality and hard work that often springboards them into much success in their coming seasons with us, and in the rest of their lives.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

What is FIRST's mission?

Inspiration.

To me, the Ri3D type of robots are a good thing and maybe not so good of a thing. They're a good thing because they raise the floor, allowing teams to see a successful design or six in action, then copy it (and if you just copy it, you're missing out--the subtle improvements are where it's at, folks!). They allow more teams to actually be competitive at regionals, never a bad thing--anybody else remember the older days, when if you got one BLT on your alliance, your only hope was that they could play some really good defense?

That said, the not-so-good part is that some teams will just copy the designs. Anybody who's seen me answer "obvious" rules and/or design questions knows that I'm not going to give a straight answer right away, I'm going to go the long way around (often involving math) and try to teach something along the way. I'm a big fan of not giving the answer, and a big fan of teaching how to think--and NOT a big fan of having everybody just say "Do my homework for me."

So, I opt to be somewhat neutral, because of what I just outlined. I can see both sides as having valid points.

I think we are saying the same thing just differently. I've heard a bunch of bellyaching about this years game, but I think it really brings the "teamwork" back.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

To consistently win you need to learn how to think. Engineering is about using your resources. Buy/make analysis is a common occurrence in industry. Using prior examples is also a common occurrence.

If you want to build a bridge, you learn the techniques and the math, but you also look at past winning bridges. That's how you build a winning (I.e. not this) bridge.

Winning does not exclude learning, to requires it.

Check out my user title (right under my name), I think it's appropriate for this discussion.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I agree that having robots being built in three days and having all the cad files and part numbers readily available is an issue and allows teams to be lazy, but I feel that is not that big of an issue.

My thought being that yes some teams will take these ideas and do better than they have in the past but for the most part teams will continue to only build upon the basic ideas or use their own totally original ideas that will get them the win on Einstein. And using ideas from other teams or past years is not always a bad thing. I don't see anyone on here complaining about that fact that pretty much half of FIRST uses or has used at sometime 1114's kitbot on steroids and that's because it's a good and well tested design that makes a better robot.

I feel that robot in three days has actually made FIRST a lot more competitive now because although it does now allow teams to just take some cad and part files and build a totally solid and competition ready robot, it also forces teams to figure out ways to defeat these ideas and make even more effective and well designed robots. Because in the end the Ri3D and BuildBlitz bots might be able to make it to district or regional eliminations, but they will all be beat out by better designed robots that came from a teams original idea.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Similar to cadandcookies, I stand by my pre-season post

While there was a lot of cool stuff shown on Ri3d/BuildBlitz, our team compared the final bots against the strategy discussions we had in the first 3-4 days. We decided there were a few shortcomings in the designs (as you would expect with only 3 days to conceptualize and build). We are inspired to design a robot that correct these shortcomings and is a level above and beyond what we saw.

Overall I think Ri3d/BuildBlitz added to the season in a positive way.

-matto-

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I cannot speak for VEX on this matter. I just want to bring another factor to your attention.

This year's game is very easy compared to the last two years. There isn't much getting around it.

This year's game challenges are effectively:
-score in the high goal (also means you can truss toss.)
-intake ball (also means you can score in the low goal and assist by spitting out)
-catch a ball/pass ball

You can argue the finer details but the best robots in the world basically just be doing these three things really well. You could say this game has a low ceiling -- meaning the robot that does everything really doesn't have to do as much as other years.

2013, by comparison, was much more challenging. There was not a single robot in 2013 that could do every part of the game -- meaning the ceiling was very high, perhaps the highest in FRC history.

2012 is much more similar to 2014 in that there are fewer things to do. However, shooting into a basket (IMHO) was and still is the most technically challenging thing an FRC robot has ever had to do. The 27' wide 2014 high goal is child's play by comparison.

The thing I'm trying to get at here is because this game has a lower ceiling than most, the 5 robots built in three days this year were all able to accomplish more of the game tasks than they would have been able to do in harder years like 2012 and 2013. This makes them more attractive to directly copy rather than use for inspiration like they are intended.

Food for thought
Regards, Bryan

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Change is a constant in FIRST, and due to the nature of the competition it must be. Even the changes that we now collectively agree were good have generated enormous suspicion (districts anyone?). Ten or so years ago the announcement that AndyMark.biz had been founded and would be selling COTS gearboxes triggered many of the same arguments. There was concern that COTS gearboxes would hinder creativity and that all the robots would look the same. Now a decade out from that it would appear that the general consensus is that availability of those products (and now other components from AndyMark as well as VEX and other suppliers) has overall been a value added proposition and actually promoted creativity by making more advanced mechanisms available to a larger portion of teams. I see the 72 hour robot builds an analogous event. It's a natural evolution of the community created by FIRST, and I think it's something that we will look back on and agree has had a positive effect.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I recently thought of an analogy to sum up what I believe the OP was trying to say.

Essentially teams can use Ri3D as either a way to copy designs or to use the ideas shown as inspiration. I see the teams that just copy these designs as the kids who copy other students homework in school. Do we celebrate those kids and tell them they've been inspired? No, we call that plagiarizing and cheating. The teams the use Ri3D to inspire their kids and come up with even better designs are like the students who instead of just copying answers, ask others for help with their homework so they can understand it. I think we can all agree that having teams who use Ri3D as inspiration are beneficial, but I think people aren't realizing that having teams who just copy might not be so beneficial. Just my two cents.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

The see these events as professional engineers and FRC lifers (and even some FRC rookies up in New England this year) donating just 72 hours of their time to telementor the entire FRC community. It's the next step in the ever evolving landscape of FRC resources. Some resources to compete at a high level in FIRST are universal (ie the KoP and manual) while some are used at varying degrees by teams of varying experience and other resources. It's easy for the segment of the FRC community that lurks on here to forget that for every Hall of Famer or World Champion, there are 10 rookies or low-resource teams who need things like 72-hour builds as their only engineering mentor resources for the whole season.

To build something like anything in these 72 hour builds is easy, to build them to a T is more difficult, but to use them as a jumping-off point to develop your capabilities is probably their best use for most teams on here. However, all of these things require someone learning at least how it works, and why the teams made decisions that affected the robot one way or the other, and that can lead them to creating something better, or at least learning how to make something good.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I certainly hope we don't see any veteran teams using any design influence from any other competitions they may have been involved in. What about "collaboration" leading to exact replications ? what is to say that similar designs as the 3 day builds wouldn't surface anyway? The 3 day builds are a tremendous resource for teams with limited depth such as rookies. The idea of FIRST is to cast a larger net, purist's need to chill. Thanks to all the 3 Day Build teams.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Wow, that is harsh. If a history teacher was excited about STEM and scrounged up enough money to field a team out of a classroom that only had the resources to put together a sweet looking AM14U, would you tell them to go home because they just copied Andy's design and built what the (very thorough) instructional book told them to?

I don't think it is our place to tell someone they've been inspired. That is a very personal revelation. 1778 will keep working hard at the I in FIRST -- I hope everyone else does too, however they see fit. :)

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Well obviously that's a different circumstance. If all a team is able to do is put together a kitbot then that's all they're able to do. And you're right that for some teams, that's enough inspiration. However if you look at the teams that are able to copy the complete designs of the Robots in 3 days, they obviously have the resources to build something more than a kitbot, and can build their own machine. A quote that's said often our team is "look at that robot and be able to call it yours, because you designed and built that yourself." Of course this is my opinion, I can't say that what inspires my team is the same as what inspires another.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

http://youtu.be/i1QyM9WTF18?t=1m8s This great video narrated by Morgan Freeman quotes Dean saying that he wanted to inspire high school students to embrace science and technology the way Shaquille O'Neal inspires them to bounce a ball. Well I think this is exactly what these Robot in 3 Days/ Build Blitz teams are doing. Even though JVN, Andy Baker, Dr. Joe, etc. are not not 7 feet tall and have the ability to break a backboard, they all have the knowledge and respect of the FRC community to display a robot that was designed and built in 3 days. Many students probably have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours watching these fantastic mentors in order to better themselves and their teams. Does it reduce creativity? Probably so, but I do not see the letter "C" anywhere in FIRST. I actually believe that researching as many resources as possible is a major part of engineering. Using prior knowledge and experience is a very important part of successfully completing any task IMO. I know I would have loved to see a roller claw in 2011 because I will admit that our team had no experience to pull from and we didn't start looking at CD until about week 6. Also as far as cheating goes; nowhere in the rules does it say you may not look at others designs in order to help design and build your robot.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Still, none of the 3-day robots this year are catchers (because it was impractical to design for as a robot intended to stand alone). Last year the 3-day robot team didn't even touch 30-point climbing.

The ceiling may be low, but it's still above what the 3-day teams are hitting.

This year, our team had a full robot design after the first day. It just so happened that we came to most of the same conclusions as Team JVN. This is convenient, because now we have a ton of prototyping done for us so we can modify it until it works. I don't think it's a problem because teams can come up with their own ideas just as fast as these groups do. They can build faster, but they can't talk much faster.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

One of my main concerns with all of the Ri3D/Build Blitz robots is the sentiment expressed in this post, and the kind of arguments or resentment that could cause at competition.

Let me outline our build season so far this year. The team mentors on 167 this year agreed not to discuss the Ri3D type videos until the team's prototyping and design process was basically done in an attempt to preserve wild ideas, and since I am the only member on my team that posts or checks CD regularly we were able to keep things under wraps pretty easily. We prototyped four different shooting mechanisms and four different pick up mechanisms, then spent most of a Saturday comparing and debating different design combinations and their implications for the rest of the robot. Guess what? We essentially arrived at team JVN's design on our own, even a choo-choo style mechanism which had been used previously for the kicker on our 2010 robot with good success. There are some subtle differences in our design (pick up arm has a larger range of motion, fitting in a catcher, etc.) but if some of those things end up not working and getting removed we will look like a team JVN knock off* at a quick glance.

Our team knows that we came up with our design without much outside influence and that the prototyping process was very beneficial, and now we can use those 3 day builds as some guidance on perfecting the mechanisms. For another team at competition though it will be very easy to conclude that "they just copied that design from Build Blitz." And with six different designs done in 3 days this year it will be easy to conclude that about a much larger number of finished robots this year than last. I hope we don't all have to justify to other teams that we didn't steal our design.

*The accusation of being a team JVN clone is one of the higher compliments a team can receive at an FRC competition.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Hey everyone. I am in no way suggesting that we discontinue/disregard that the Ri3D and Build Blitz teams did an incredible job and should be thanked for their amazing effort, skill and time commitment to making FIRST better.

All I'm suggesting is that next year they limit their production of exact resources until after build season is closer to a conclusion. I agree that teams could theoretically just turn a blind eye to all of this, but can you really control an entire FRC team's internet access? What happens when one student comes in and says "look at this robot!" or claims to have a great idea the he/she *knows* will work because they saw it already.

I think that perhaps if the teams had just waited until later to release their CAD drawings I would personally be happier -- teams couldn't just copy the robots. I understand that no robot (hopefully) will be a direct copy of it, however I think that being able to look up the exact dimensions, part numbers, etc. for building an obviously successful robot becomes degrading to a team that can no longer call their robot design original and student led. After all, what's FIRST's mission? To inspire a generation of technology leaders. Are they going to learn to think outside the box when they can download 5 different robot CAD files and combine them? Or are they just learning how to assemble a box set?

Let's keep this discussion going and how we can improve upon the Ri3D and Build Blitz ideas, rather than attacking each other's views on what "inspiration" and "cheating" are.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I have the privilege of coaching/mentoring two teams from different schools, one much younger and less experienced (and less supported) than the other.

The more mature team was able to come up with many possible designs through brainstorming (which is mostly a shared pot of knowledge based on experience), then did research and evaluated designs from previous years, as well as the Ri3D/Blitz designs, once they were available. The design they eventually settled on (after multiple prototypes and proofs) was not one shown in any of the builds, though it was inspired by other teams as well as past successes. They have appreciated the Ri3D/Blitz input, but didn't end up implementing much from those robots.

The younger team has struggled with research, prototyping, designing, you name it. Having struggled through the learning experience, they finally realized that some of the mechanisms and ideas they saw in the videos were beyond their capability, but that others were things they understood and had done in a different context with success. They are "copying" one or two elements of a couple of the Ri3D/Blitz bots, as best they can, based on what they know how to do. They are pushing themselves and are finding joy in the learning process. For them, making a kit base and changing one or two elements is in itself a challenge, and having ideas presented in ways that they can understand has been the very definition of "inspiring".

I am in agreement with those who look at Ri3D/Blitz as an evolution of the FRC experience. This organization and idea has been around for more than 20 years, and has gone through huge changes. The games are more streamlined and subtle, and are more friendly to spectators. The COTS and kit parts are way better than they used to be. The drive bases have been iterated to near-perfection. And now, even rookie teams don't have to come away proud of their duct-taped drive base that barely moves; most of the teams that would have had that experience in the past now can put their efforts (still Herculean) into a robot that can drive and compete. That is progress.

Addressing a concern of the original poster: the BOM for team Boom: Done helped my younger team as they worked to figure out torque/speed ratios today. That in itself made me appreciate them even more, and I support the sharing of anything they are willing and able to share.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

But it's not, Jay. It was the same argument that was presented when the kit bot was introduced. It was the same argument when teams first started collaborating to build identical robots. It was the same argument when FIRST lifted the "must be bought from Small Parts" restriction or when they allowed COTS items. It's been the same argument over and over and over.

It'd be nice if, one day, people just concentrated on how to inspire your own team and your own community. Let others decide on how to inspire theirs.

Ri3D and BuildBlitz: keep I-ing and R-ing the S and T, guys. We appreciate you.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'm very torn on the Ri3D idea. On one hand, I absolutely LOVE it that it brings teams up to higher levels and does that in a great way. The level of competition has been growing dramatically in past years. On the other hand, I felt, at least for our team, they saw them and got slightly distracted. But I hugely believe that the pro of bringing teams to a higher level greatly offsets any cons, because that is what will make FIRST even better.

Also reading through this thread, BJC's post sticks out. This game has a lower ceiling mechanically then we have had since at least 2010. Had their been 5 Ri3D's in 2013, I bet every single one of them would have been DRAMATICALLY different. This year they all had the same basic concepts, because that was really the best way to play the game. Execution might have been different, but ideas were similar. Had there been 5 Ri3D's in 2013, basic strategy would have been completely different, because there were so many different great strategies to play last years game.

I feel these Ri3D's will always be game dependent. I want to see them stay around because they help bring teams up, but I think how the higher level teams react to them will always be dependent on what the game challenge actually is and how complex it is.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'm still undecided on it all, but I find it to be helping, and our creative process to not be very diminished. A team's work will expand to fill the time available. So, maybe we are not innovating in some areas like we used to, but we are innovating in new areas.

One of our original mechanism designs was ruled illegal by a Q/A post. We had an immediate alternate solution thanks to the JVN team. The students are now learning about a completely new mechanism they've never built before, and perhaps never would have explored otherwise. And since we don't have the exact parts JVN used, they're learning how to make a similar mechanism with different parts, and adapt it to our own robot.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

OTOH, 1197 started to prototype a particular device from one of the Ri3D teams' ideas. That prototype didn't work out quite as well as an idea "borrowed" from another team's previous year's robot, at least with what we had in the shop to work with. But, the kids still learned a bit about what it took to handle the ball using that concept.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Our team just tries something original, and we do our best to not copy the Ri3D design. We try to have a design that we think can work better if tested, but if all else fails, and there's little time left, copy as a last resort. The learning process of trying your own design is very fulfilling. On the other hand, for some teams, just getting a robot built is the fulfilling part, especially if resources are short.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Please keep in mind that many teams likely came up on their own with many of the same ideas found in the Ri3d team efforts. Not a knock on the designs or end products they came up with. Previous years designs continue to be a source of "inspiration" to all of us too :)

Hats off to the crews that participated in such a valuable endeavor. They
all did a fantastic job by any measure...

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

After 12 years of playing these games? I've seen a lot of weak teams building completely ineffectual robots. Sometimes unable to even drive about the field. Anything that makes that less common is a good thing.

I wasn't around for the "must be from Small Parts Inc" restriction.

I WAS around for the days before AndyMark/VexPro.

I WAS around for the days before the KitBot.

I WAS around for the days before mandatory bumpers.

Other posters are correct in that each of those changes prompted a similar "but it makes it TOO easy" outcry.

Each of those changes has dramatically improved the competitiveness level of ALL teams. This effect is asymmetrically loaded though. They help the weakest teams the most, and they help the strongest teams the least. This helps to both raise the overall level of the competition AND level the playing field. This is a GOOD thing.

Observations:

In another similar thread, a user expressed:

All four of the mentors named in that post were a part of a 2014 72-hour robot.

In general? I see many of the MOST respected mentors in all of FRC echoing essentially the same sentiment. That 72-hour builds are an immensely great thing. So much so that they're joining the fray, and doing one of their own.

2013's Ri3D team? I didn't know about them before 2013. They did a great thing, and showed how simple a competitive 2013 robot could be.

JVN, Paul Copioli, Karthik, Joe Johnson, Andy Baker, and a handful of others are all names that I automatically associate with winning robots, and all of them joined or started a 2014 72-hour build. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE I WANT TO LEARN FROM THE MOST!

Seeing how these people analyze the game, and then translate that into a strategy, and ultimately a robot design, is the best possible way I can imagine to learn how to build winning FRC robots.

I also agree with many posters in saying that wholesale copying of one of their designs is not going to be nearly as inspiring. I don't think that its completely without value though. You will still learn things. This program is specifically about inspiration and nothing else matters. Does building a robot whose design you didn't come up with, but does well on the field do that? I think it does.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I think the 3 day robot enhanced our design discussions. For my team, I feel the 3 day robot was a nice ice breaker in the idea discussion it really got ideas flowing. One of our mentors challenged the students to think outside the box, to question the 3 day robots and to think of new criteria for for our design spec. I am really proud that my students started generate different sets of ideas for different design goals. We had collections that prioritized passing, others that emphasized the truss pass and catch and etc. I think ideas are cheap and we are rich in them.

the challenge for us is narrowing the ideas down. Since the 3 day robot videos are so good, the prototyping of other ideas feel inferior. I feel this is very different issue than creating "narrow-mindedness." We had to work really hard to make sure we could generate similar results, yeah some ideas did not make the cut to the prototype phase, some prototypes were abandoned, a few proved the ideas were not sound and few will make it on the robot.

For my team, I feel the 3 day robot was a nice ice breaker in the idea discussion it really got ideas flowing. We just wrapped up our latest intake prototype. I am really impressed, the students tried to take it beyond what the 3 day robots did, went a little to far, they dialed it back a bit and added some more features. I was really impressed the level of work they did to prove it would work. They are also a bit smug, for having a drawing of the mechanism since noon of the kick off day. I think the similarities to the 3 day robots is obvious but knowing its design history makes me very happy. A lot of the time, we used the 3 day robots as a gauge. Some days the prototype worked better than others but it could have lacked an outside perspective. I thought it was really great to compare to the 3 day robots. In the end I hope our intake will live up to the prototype.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I think of FIRST as a bit of a journey. Some teams have been on this journey a long time and have learned many things they may now take for granted. They have a toolbox of good design concepts, know what materials work well for applications, etc. When a new team comes along, is it better to tell them to start at the beginning, or to catch them up as quickly as you can so they can walk along side you?

Just because I think Ri3D/BB is great doesn't mean I'm dismissing the value of original design or learning lessons myself. However, if I created my own design this year, I might have had a critical failure because I counted on a release mechanism being able to actuate and it wasn't designed to release under that load. Not all of this data is readily available, and I don't have time to test every component thoroughly. Or, being a mechanical engineer, I might neglect to include a ratcheting component in a cocking mechanism and burn a few components up by stalling a CIM. Frankly, I think I have now learned the lesson, regardless of whether or not I personally experienced the failure... or observed it in someone else's design. I don't see a need for my team's students to experience EXTRA failure, because I am coming up to speed on good design as it relates to robotics.

This year, we've struggled to get parts in on time because we're dealing with a new school system and funding sources, we've just now reassembled our mechanical mill to start making parts... about 60% of our mentors and 80% of our students are new, etc. We went through a week of purely original strategy discussion/WoT, then sat down to look at all the examples of Ri3D robots to cherry pick elements we think will work well and address the strategy the students/mentors came up with. I was specifically concerned with picking components I know I can machine on a VERY sloppy manual mill, no lathe, etc. (Also, not blaming the mill, if I were a better machinist I could work around it... but I haven't run a mill in 6 years since college, and even then I had DROs... the mill, like my skills, are a limitation)

Long story short, I feel like I had two options this year.
1. To teach students/mentors "good design", by doing everything on our own and failing... delivering a weak/noncompetitive robot because our team lacks the engineering experience and machining resources to execute a competitive purely custom design. Some might find this rewarding and stick around... some might not. Basically, all the discussion on "good strategy", "good scouting", "driver practice" will be moot though... if our robot is not sound enough to allow those elements to be relevant at competition.

2. To teach students/mentors "good design", by letting them execute a design that is heavily influenced by external references. It is still true to how they want to play the game, it is achievable with our resources, and it will likely perform well at regionals. We will have it done in time for drivers to practice and we should get to experience all that a regional competition has to offer, instead of just standing around a non-functioning robot for most of it.

Final thought... I don't believe Ri3D/BB can make a good team lazy. If any team sees another design and decides they will just build it in a week and take five weeks off... then chances are they weren't going to magically be motivated before Ri3D/BB. Most teams won't be lazy, they are just freed up to focus their resources in that 6 week build season elsewhere, instead of prototyping the 5th failed design because they lacked the experience to pick a good one on the first try or two like a more experienced team.

My 2c as a new mentor.

Steven

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Anything that helps struggling (and/or rookie) teams build a more competitive and more fun-to-watch robot will impact the I in FIRST in a positive way, will help them impress sponsors and parents and prospective members and mentors, keep the team members interested in FIRST, and as such I'm all for it.

If it makes it harder for the elite teams to stand out from the crowd in a manner that doesn't drag them down or tie their hands, that's even better--they're elite teams; they'll rise to the challenge!

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

At one point in time there was a blurb on the FIRST website about effective mentorship. It went something like:
1) I do, you watch.
2) I do, you help
3) You do, I help
4) You do, I watch

It seems the scope of this was aimed at direct mentor/student interaction, but I see no reason this methodology cannot be applied to whole teams. I think the benefit of these tools becomes a lot clearer if you look at all of the teams in FIRST in the same way you look at students on your individual team. There are obviously some teams with more experience that do not need help but there are tons if teams that fall into bullet number 1 in the blurb above.

You wouldn't accuse your own student of cheating if they walked in to a build season completely green and watched/copied a mentor designing a mechanism for the robot, would you? This is a normal part of the learning process and you can hope the student would pick up enough to be inspired to learn more on their own and come back next build season ready to move on to bullets 2-3. Replace the words "student" with "new team" and "mentor" with "experienced community members" and the analogy still holds true.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'll admit, i was initially kind of skeptical of having 6 robots built in 3 days for people to watch, but the results of this build have erased any doubt I had about these programs and their effect. I love any and all attempts to raise the level of competition in all of FRC, especially coming from a weaker region. What Ri3D and Build Blitz have done is compress 6 weeks of prototyping and iteration into 3 days, giving all teams a base to work off. Teams that have little experience and are starting out the process of building their team up can use this base bot, learn from it, and compete with it. Elite teams know that iterating and improving designs never ends, and will continue their attempts at creating the perfect bot to play the game.

The concern that these new resources stifle creativity is a valid one, but unless I'm mistaken, this robotics program is called FIRST Robotics Competition, not FIRST Robotics Fair. In order to promote the FIRST program, we need to raise the base level of competition and give the resources to teams so they can meet that base. The one lesson that students and mentors need to ingrain into their minds is that engineering is an iterative process, and even though you may learn a lot from just copying one of the Ri3D or build Blitz designs, but those who twiddle their thumbs with their copy won't be able to rise up as much as these who take these ideas and improve them. And it's not like that we only saw one idea surface during these marathons. We saw 3 different intake concepts, 3 different shooter concepts, 1 catching concept, and different drivetrains. There's still a lot of ideas that teams can mix and match and further improve upon. Don't worry too much about these programs existing, because even teams who copy these bots will continue to grow due to what they learn in the process.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

What I find most telling about the whole situation, is that generally speaking, its the elites who are singing the praises of 72-hour builds the loudest.

I think this is because it raises the floor of the competition. Anything that helps get them more successful teams to work with is seen as a good thing.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I think that's a great thing, and for a good reason, but not the best reason. Raising the floor helps everyone be more inspired by the entire process.

And that said, I help another team that is struggling at emulating some Ri3D ideas--it's "easy" if you already know how to do all the stuff that those "floor" teams don't, and we're still going to see a lot of teams that don't build robots that can do more than drive (and in some cases, if that.)

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I feel like inspiration and building a better robot should not be placed above learning to solve a design challenge. From personal experience I learn more if I figure out solutions on my own rather than copying an answer. I understand that teams don't have to copy or even look at Ri3D but from talking to people on several teams I have discovered that their motivation to try and come up with original solutions has been dampened. I know of one team in particular that is planing to build one of the Ri3D robots part for part. Will that team learn as much as they would have if they had to create a robot without Ri3D?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I fail to see how that would at all even kind of be the fault of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz teams.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Because this year they released CAD models. I feel like the discussion has gone a bit off topic. If your go back to the original post it asks for ideas to improve some of the problems Ri3D creates. I feel like sugarcoating the problems and not trying to find solutions to them is foolish. Looking at the robots for ideas and proof of concept is great but having the CAD files and being able to assemble the robot like it is a kit is too far in my opinion.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

By that logic, should teams release any CAD of their robots ever? 2011, in essence, had a basically identical task to 2007; if another tube hanging game comes up should all CAD from 2011 be released? Same thing for 2006/09/12 and even this year and 2014, with very similar tasks

The only ones being hurt by a team "directly copying part for part" Ri3D/Build Blitz is that team themselves for not testing their personal design abilities. To everyone else, CAD being released is just a cool, fun thing to look at, or to just closer view a certain mechanism.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Sure it is bad logic if you assume time doesn't matter. With CAD models from teams they are either too late in build season to be effectively copied or are released without any idea of how the final robot will actually perform. With CAD models from previous games the game objects are different enough that designs would have to be changed and there is still end game to think about. If the CAD files are really released just to be cool and fun as you said, is it worth harming the learning experience of other teams for your fun? Yes, it is the teams choice to copy but it is also Ri3D to allow teams to copy. I think how much copying they allow should be evaluated.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Well, here's one of my friends opinions he asked me to post for him.

I've been a part of FRC since 1995, which is longer than most drivers have been alive for. I'll probably be attending my 100th competition this year (or maybe only 99th). During my four years as a student, I was a member of a really competitive team that won a world championship, and has gone on to win others. When the small parts restriction was lifted, we as a team (in a very "un-GP" way), complained that we would no longer have the massive competitive advantage we used to have. While many people's memories of 90's and early 2000's robotics remember teams like 71, chief delphi, wings of fire and wildstang building extremely great fantastic swerve driven, fancy articulated drives (111 in 04 is the coolest robot, ever...), what you don't remember is that many teams were, to be honest, really quite horrible. Look at the 2003 finals that were just posted. The robots really aren't doing any stacking. They're just running into each other. All you needed was a working drive system to be competitive. Yet, as many successful teams found, most teams at that time were bad at driving in straight lines at a reasonable speed. Teams had just two (or sometimes one) driven wheel, powered by poorly set up gearboxes with as few as two window motors.

With the small parts restriction gone, we knew that we wouldn't have an advantage of being able to CNC our own nylon sprockets, and that other teams would (gasp!) be able to have as many moving parts as us. Looking a few years in the future, there were still teams that were just better (HOT suddenly became very competitive). Next was the kitbot, which people claimed would make custom drive systems useless. Team 118 still managed to do great with their swerve they ran from 05-08. Then, out came the new control system, off the shelf shifting gearboxes, off the shelf robonauts swerve, off the shelf 111 swerve, and the affordable vex product line. There are still teams now (1114, 254, 118...) that manage to stay super competitive, except now, a new rookie team might not be easily able to win regionals single handedly, but they'll at least be able to play well, and trust me, that really means a lot.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that significantly better teams will always exist, and the playing field (yes even in 09) was never, and will never be totally level, so why should we complain if the previously uncompetitive teams are now competitive?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Why is it okay to rob teams of the experience of designing and manufacturing custom gearboxes for all of their rotary needs? Why can we copy (or worse, purchase!) gearboxes from Andymark and Vex without harming our learning experiences?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, George hit the nail on the head. There have been the same arguments repeated for the past 10 years, but I think most people will agree that FIRST is better with the current architecture than it was back then.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Funny enough, "Inspiration" is in FIRST and "Design Challenge" isn't.

You are free to run your team how you choose, just as the copycat team is free to run theirs. Your team has every right to decide to not use Ri3D designs. You have exactly no right to tell any other team to do the same.

What happens in their house is their business (presuming it's legal).

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Neither is business, marketing, outreach, and a plethora of other things that FIRST teams do, but would you say those things are less important things for a team to do than science and technology just because it isn't in the acronym?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

"Inspiration" is a goal-- business, marketing, outreach are how we get there. They are different classes of activity. You inspire by doing outreach. I don't inspire so I can do outreach.

Solving a design challenge is part of inspiring, but it is by no means central. It shares the pedestal with outreach and business and the other "activities" of a FIRST team.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Yes.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

But if every team who otherwise wouldn't have been competitive now have identical Ri3D clones (and they won't--many teams who seek to ape those designs, even with the CAD right in front of them, won't pull it off), then that's the new baseline, and the teams that don't do that will still be that much better, and will still rise to the top.

I'll admit, our robot looks rather Ri3Dish. That's coincidence, but it won't stop people from making the comparison (regardless of whether or not we do well at competition). I also admit that we used the Ri3D CAD to inform our prototyping--but we didn't just build their catapult, we used it as a starting point from which to iterate (while we also worked on a variety of other designs).

Teams that post everything they do online aren't robbing teams of creativity unless those teams choose to rob themselves of creativity; and every single team that uses those ideas (and even possibly that CAD) to rise up from the BLTs to be competitive is a win all day and all season long--because the next year, they'll be looking to go further still.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Then, if that is the case, would demonstrating gracious professionalism be less important than having a good robot? This is one of the plethora of other things that teams do that are not in the FIRST acronym.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

What part of taking concepts/designs publicly released for the education and inspiration in FRC violates GP principles?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I never said or even implied that these things violated GP principles. I simply stated that not all things should be discounted as less important simply because they are not included in the FIRST acronym and used GP as an example.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Obeying the law and not punching people in the face also isn't part of the acronym, but people generally recognize that this is more important than the elements of the acronym. That said, the FIRST acronym does a nice job of recognizing the mission statement of the organization, and emphasizing the central importance of recognizing and inspiring science and technology.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Although I love reading rants back and forth <insert sarcasm here>, can we get back on topic?

Do teams think that Ri3D should continue exactly as is? Should there be fewer resources published immediately, or should even more information be put out as quickly as possible? What do you think?

Rather than explaining why your team is/isn't modeling off a Ri3D or BB design (and thus being accused as a "cheater" and "ungracious improfessional" <read with sarcasm>), explain how you would change Ri3D and BB for the better? Maybe you'd keep it the exact way it is -- and that's a perfectly reasonable opinion -- but I'm just curious if anyone has thought past the general idea of "I like Ri3D because it helped my team do blank." What would benefit your team -- and all of FRC -- more ,and how could that be done?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

As with most issues in FIRST how about we all wait until competition season so we can see exactly what the Ri3D/BuildBlitz did or didn't bring to the community. I personally have had mixed feelings over the projects but I won't make my final conclusion until we see how this year pans out. I can come up with countless times the community has had an issue with something that builds up to be a disaster and then this event happens and we hear nothing of how awful it was.

I loved Ri3D last year and saw all the teams who used it and it was great to see so many teams show up to competition with something working who previously struggled. This year I was concerned with the direction it was taking when Vex announced they would be building two robots and I thought it would be cool but still didn't feel too jazzed about the idea. Then I heard of more projects starting up and we hit 6 robots being built in 72 hours and really started to get concerned about the future of FRC.

Anyone arguing on the basis of "copying" should also hold their tongue (unless they already know what everyone is building) but they should also talk to those teams. My team has a single robot feature that I believe everyone will immediately categorize our robot or believe we copied off of an Ri3D or BuildBlitz robot which is FAR from why it is on our robot. In reality this same feature was one we discussed during day one and was sketched out before we started following teams' progress on Sunday/Monday and as soon as I saw it my first reaction was, "crap we are going to be stuck with a label from now on". The fact of the matter is we (our team and members of Ri3D/BuildBlitz) all are drawing inspiration from the same place and the argument can be made that while you might think teams are "copying" Ri3D/BuildBlitz there is nothing saying that those teams are being inspired by previous robots themselves.

Our team looked at all 6 robots and saw some neat features in them but nothing on them we said "Oh we should built that robot" or "Let's put that on our robot".

TL;DR- Is Ri3D/BuildBlitz really reinventing the wheel that teams are copying or is everyone just looking back to similar robots for inspiration and we would see these mechanisms in 2014 regardless of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz robots taking place?

EDIT: I will say anyone considering getting together with a group to do a robot in 72 hours should think twice about why they are doing it. Just as FIRST has a scalibility issue it is tackling with districts, what would happen if in 5 years we had 50 72 hour robots taking place? Could be a crazy number but I'm sure it would be very easy to find 50 groups who'd be willing to do it. Do you think that would have an impact the community?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

There is nothing wrong with copying to learn. Painters do this all the time. Picasso spent years practicing painting by copying, this developed his talent to create paintings in his blue and rose period. This lead to his genius creation of cubism. Those years of study by copying his influences gave him the knowledge, skill, inspiration and creativity to create his brilliant cubism paintings. to quote (or paraphrase) a Macklemoore song "the greats were great because they painted a lot."

During the 1800's and early 1900's there were many bridge collapses. During this period engineering standards were formed and applied in an effort to prevent disasters. This also created engineering societies, and standard for engineering curriculum. In an effect, standardization forced many design elements to be "copied." This led to the rise standardization of rivets, steel beams and etc. key difference between engineers and artists is that engineers cannot prioritize creativity over public safety and the desired result nor can engineers doom a project by failing to be creative enough to achieve public safety and the desired result.

I think its naive to think no one can learn or become more creative by copying. Many times when I practice CAD, I copy something I like, sometimes something amazing happens, I think of a better idea. I am sure many artists could relate, that getting paint on the canvass often opens doors to creativity. I think a key point that there are many ways to copy, but the one that teaches you the most in recreating from scratch. Tracing won't teach you to paint just as importing a step file won't teach you CAD. You still need a picture of a painting or a step file of an CAD assembly in order recreate.

I am really glad these CAD's are posted, I have been able to import their models next to my team's robot, its given me unique perspectives. This is a great experience, for my team it opened so many doors to so many possible ideas.

To go back to bridges, if an idea that is not ours is better, we have to ask ourselves: why is it? Then, can we copy it? Finally, can we make it better, can we think of something superior? Obviously copying is extremely powerful, so patents were create to create incentives by protecting the idea from copying. I use this phrase a lot, if an idea is stolen, it must be good (well sometimes no, but hey people sometimes steal the wrong thing) To be good at engineering, sometimes you have to copy a lot to become great.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

But Dean Kamen didn't invest all his time and effort to start FIRST just because he wanted to foster Gracious Profesionalism. He founded it because he want to gain recognition and inspiration for STEM. And there is a lot more evidence than just the name. FIRST was founded to address a problem. That problem was a lack in the number of engineers in our country and in the world. His solution was to get more students excited about STEM so that they would go off college and major in STEM related fields. FIRST is designed to facilitate this. It is not designed to teach students, it is designed to get students into college where they can be taught. If FIRST was really about teaching students, than why isn't there a college level competition? There is no doubt in my mind that FIRST would be the most effective at teaching if it was at the college level, yet for some reason it hasn't been implemented there yet. The simple reason is that, when you get to the core, it is about the inspiration and recognition of science and technology, not teaching.

FIRST also happens to be really effective at teaching high school students, and it also happens to be great at building character, and that is absolutely amazing. I am not saying that teams should try to avoid these things, because they are awesome. The problem comes in when you start to prioritize these things over inspiration, and let that drive your decisions.

Relating this back to the original purpose of this thread, the argument that students aren't learning as much doesn't really hold much weight, so long as Ri3D/BB are increasing the inspiration in FIRST. I wouldn't change anything except make the teams and robots somehow better than they already are.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Sure. I have a few thoughts on ways the Ri3D/Blitz programs could be done better in the future. I'm sure that my perspective is very limited, so if/when I say something ignorant, those who were part of the groups/companies who did the builds, please forgive and correct.

I think that FRC as a mini-"industry" has a bizarre and difficult schedule for companies that want to make and sell quality products. The success last year with Ri3D led to many people wanting to take it to the next level. I think that the increased focus on the 3 day build, combined with the craziness of filling orders, might have led to the perfect storm. I think next year, groups affiliated with suppliers might want back off from the builds to focus on their core service to the community, and maybe other groups could take the lead on building.

I still don't think releasing the CAD files is damaging. I will wait and see what happens at competition, but I am skeptical that many teams will be able to implement the same ideas that they see in the files, or that many teams that can will want to. Many will adapt or improve on the ideas, though; for instance, I won't be surprised to see EMT hoop shooters based on Boom: Done's bent rod.

Related to the issue of out-of-stock merchandise, but entirely off topic otherwise, I recently found a supplier near my school (in Denver) that can get Colson 4 x 1 1/2 wheels quickly and cheaply, and can ship. Knowing that these are sold out of all the normal channels, anyone who wants the contact info can PM me.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but when it comes to what's going to happen ongoing, there isn't a reason why anyone should care what you or I or even the majority of FIRST participants think. People are going to do what they're going to do, and enough people love the Ri3D/BuildBlitz phenomenon that it's going to continue, and likely expand.

What people choose to do with their quickbuild projects will likely have nothing whatsoever to do with popular or unpopular opinions on what they're doing. They certainly won't have anything to do with mine, or yours. Or even Karthik's or JVN's or Paul Copioli's or Andy Baker's. Or Dean Kamen's.

People decided they want to do this, and enough people like it that I don't see it fizzling out due to the disapproval of others.

Thus, opinions on how it should or shouldn't change aren't really relevant, because those soldiering forth on these quickbuild projects have enough support (from others and from their own convictions on what they're trying to do) that they're unlikely to listen--and even if they did, somebody else would pick up the mantle.

Pandora's box is open. Our choice is how we respond to it. Personally, I hope to use the positives for the benefit of my team and my students, and to minimize the negatives.

That said, talking about what impacts it can have might or might not be important or useful. What your team chooses to get out of it, or chooses to actively avoid from it, is up to your team. It's worth discussing with other teams what they're doing, in order to inform your own decisions. But discussions of what you think other people should do differently are almost never productive.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This thread started out as a good discussion, but I feel like it's slowly becoming cancerous and may get a lock soon if we start bringing up dead horses.

Isn't gathering resources and performing research one of the first steps you take when solving a design challenge? When I go and design a circuit for a power amplifier or some other circuit, I look at datasheets and sample circuits for my chips and modify those schematics. The same principle applies here. "Copying" a build blitz or Ri3D is using a public resource that's freely available to everyone, so I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to look at it and perhaps use it. I don't see how this is different from using the Kitbot or anything else in the kit of parts, or any gearbox or COTS item made by AndyMark or VexPro.

I'm willing wager that a team that uses build blitz or Ri3D will learn as much as a team that doesn't use it, but the content which they learn may be different. A team copying the build blitz or Ri3D designs may learn more about how to improve those existing designs and how they work, whereas a team that comes up with its own solution may learn some things about prototyping and mechanical design.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Mods: Please close this thread if it continues down the path it appears to be going down. I was hoping it would be useful for teams to express what they would like Ri3D and BB to do to improve the experience for their team, but it seems to just be a thread of people explaining why someone's opinion is wrong.

So I ask the final time,

What would you like to see Ri3D and BB do to improve the experience for your team?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'd like to see it taper off from this year. I think they went a little too far, because everyone was excited by last year's result and wanted to participate. I think that teams without ties to the companies we rely on should continue, and maybe even step up the detail. Teams that pull resources from AndyMark, VexPro etc. would improve our experience by making sure the supply chain is intact.

No offense intended to either AndyMark or VexPro. The bots were great and we learned from them, and they are definitely doing everything they can to get parts out.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I completely agree. I think Ri3D and BuildBlitz should serve as inspiration about what can be done. I would like to see a simple completion video demoing the robot and that is it. Last year Ri3D was fantastic. It was great to see a robot that could play the game that early into build season. It was obvious that it wan't a fantastic robot that would win regionals but it was an encouragement of what could be done. I think this years game is so simple mechanically that it made Ri3D and BuildBlitz have a more negative effect than with a normal game. I say simple because there is no end game and mechanically all that has to be done is catching, collecting, and shooting a ball. This year Ri3D and BuildBlitz created robots that could do all 3 of those things. I think this will lead to a good deal of copying but we will have to wait and see. So I think scaling back the resources provided by Ri3D and BuildBlitz would be my suggestion. By no means would I want them to stop. I personally enjoy seeing a working robot so quickly.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I read these posts suggesting that VexPro/AndyMark should NOT run a 72-hour build team (or 3... :rolleyes:) because it "affects" the supply chain for FIRST teams.

Exactly ZERO of the supply issues we have had so far this season have had anything to do with BuildBlitz/Team AndyMark.

In fact, the only reason we were able to get our FIRST Choice orders from AndyMark in a timely fashion is BECAUSE of Team AndyMark's 72-hour build putting them in the shop instead of spending their weekend at home when the state of emergency was declared in the state of Indiana, preventing all the staff who were supposed to ship our FIRST Choice orders from getting to work.

VexPro is having some teething issues with a few parts because of crazy demand levels that nobody could have predicted. Paul Copioli (president of VexPro and long time 217 mentor -- so he knows what the demands of FIRST teams are like) himself said that in 2013, VexPro sold approximately 850 1/2" Hex VersaHubs. They had ordered in 3,000 to have in stock for the 2014 season, and sold them out in 18 days.

It's not lost on me, and it certainly shouldn't be lost on anyone else, that a 72-hour build run by these companies is self-serving. What better way to advertise your products than by showing exactly how they can be used to solve the current year's design challenge, 72 hours after kickoff?

I think what may have happened, though, is that this advertising effort worked a little TOO well on some products, and created so much demand that nobody could have predicted it.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I'll agree with you on this one. There is no direct relationship between the BuildBlitz and the current VexPro out of stock issues. I think to someone who isn't too knowledgeable as to exactly why VexPro products are out of stock is glancing at the situation saying, "What was more important to them: all of the marketing/prep work that went into BuildBlitz or putting all available efforts into getting the parts on the shelves for teams." I don't think anyone can argue that Vex doesn't keep their customers as their priority.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This is a little unfair for you to state. You came into this thread looking for people to agree with you, and are unwilling to reconsider your viewpoint.

Many people believe what they (ri3d, buildblitz) did was great, and that tapering it down or doing less would not be good for their team (and other teams).

I'm in that camp. Build Blitz, etc. won't make good teams better, but it will improve the overall level of competition.

Many teams still show up with just drives, if just a handful of these teams per event blatantly copy a ri3d without learning anything, but in turn have a great season and are inspired, that's great. Next season they will likely be more motivated to do better, learn more, etc... Missing elims and going 2-7 after being asked to play defense every match certainly isn't likely to inspire them to learn and grow.

Start with copying, move on to innovating.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

This. This is precisely why Ri3D and BuildBlitz can only be seen as a good thing.

Building a robot that can't compete is not very inspiring. Many teams (especially rookies) come with a near-useless robot, are uninspired by their robot's failure in competition, and don't come back.

If a rookie or weak team can have greater success via wholesale copying of a 72-hour robot, and is more inspired to return and continue their learning as a result? I see that as a good thing. Get them inspired to come back. They will eventually learn more and be able to be more successful of their own accord in the future, but we have to keep them around the program long enough for that to happen, and 72 hour robots help to achieve that.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

+ 1 Adam

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

It goes both ways though, doesn't it? I have my opinion, and you have yours. Yes, I started the thread by voicing my own opinion and wanted to see if anyone had similar thoughts, but I was also curious as to why people would disagree with me. Is that unfair? I see the advantages of Ri3D and BB, but I also see some disadvantages.

If I were to ask you what you would improve upon for Ri3D, what would you say? I'm not asking why you think it's so great (you've already told me, along with everyone else on the thread -- so I know why, and agree with a lot of the reasons), I'm asking what, if anything, you would do to change it.

So far I've gotten maybe three responses (out of 70+) that answer that question.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I wouldn't change much. The changes from 2013->2014 made a big difference. More teams, better documentation provided quicker, and better blogging of the process as it was happening are all improvements that happened in 2014.

The only thing I'd like to see that hasn't happened yet, is bringing together 6 (or more in 2015?) 72-hour robots to actually play some real matches of the game, perhaps on the first weekend after kickoff, as that will give us some more information about how the game will actually be played, rather than just what robot mechanisms can solve the game's challenges (without the context of defense and so on to frame it).

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Actually, you don't. You edited my quote to make me say what I didn't say. I fully support everything that the teams did, in terms of the quality of work, the design ideas, the reveals, and even the CAD and BOM documents. I think these things only help FRC in general.

As I said in an earlier post, I know that my opinion on the inner workings of VexPro and AndyMark is limited and ill-informed. As an outside observer, and since we were asked repeatedly by the original poster what we would change, I stated that it [i]looks[i] to me like there might be a connection between the owners of a business working on a project, and the amount of time and energy they would have for their core service. I could very well be wrong about this, as several of you have pointed out.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

While this may come across as somewhat arrogant, and I don't intend for it to, but if there's anything I've learned in my 12 years in FIRST, it's that if you're a good competitive team, your partners will let you down, nearly every time. Have we been the team to let others down? Of course (especially 696 in 2010), it happens, but I think more often than not, we've carried the weight of the alliance throughout my teams' histories (696 and 968). It's statistics. At a typical regional, there are perhaps 2 really good teams, 3 pretty good teams, 10-12 mediocre teams, and the rest are rather terrible.

If the 72-hour builds help any of our alliance partners in any match score more points (any points actually), work with us better, and in general just be more competent and competitive, it seems like a good thing. It's no fun to play on alliance where you are the only robot capable of scoring and for years (and even easy years like 2011), we have.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Something that really would help every team, rookies and veterans alike, is to see a match in action, showing potential strategies, and mainly just to see the timing of certain tasks. One thing that really influences a lot of design decisions on teams is the (mis)timing of completing objectives in a match. I know this would've helped my team in 2012, we used horrible time estimates for each task to be completed and we underestimated how many points could potentially be scored!

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. My apologies.

I think what they are doing is great, and the change I would suggest if I was forced to suggest a change is do more of what they are doing.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Here's how I'd like to see this 72 hour robot process improved in the future:

1) Having more than a couple of these 72 hour projects going has the effect of exploring the solution space more thoroughly than I'd like. Last year with one robot in three days we got to see one good way to build a minimally competitive robot. That was good. Six robots this year explored the options so thoroughly that there is less room to innovate. Can you still do things better? Sure. But I think we've now seen the broad outline of what 90% of the robots at the competitions will look like. I'd like to see the number of teams doing 72 hours robots reduced next year.

2) Don't release CAD files or detailed walkthroughs until after the season is over, if ever. Reasons have been discussed previously in this thread.

3) I'd encourage the 72 hours teams to intentionally keep it simple. Many of these teams are run by competitive, brilliant, type-A personalities who naturally want to do the best they can. What they can do in 72 hours is better than many teams can hope to accomplish in six weeks. We run the risk of demotivating kids when their accomplishment over the build season isn't competitive with what the pros could do in three days.

4) Show robots failing in release videos. Don't just edit it to show the times when the robot worked great but show it not working so students can see the designers are human. It will make them feel better when their robot fails.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

That's really interesting. I hadn't thought about that before, but this year -- especially with passing -- it would have been cool to see just how long/easily/consistently robots can realistically pass a ball between them. Our team is hoping to host a day near the end of Build Season that we can assemble a field and test with multiple teams, and that'll be our first time being able to see how the game is played without just guessing.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

+1 on this. I think that, like a pendulum (bad analogy, I know), it's possible to swing too far from one side to another before finally coming to rest at a nice even place between the extremes. Perhaps this year it swung too far towards giving teams 5 options for "robots in a box", and last year we were too close to not being beneficial enough for teams. Maybe there's a common ground to be found?

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Oh I am sorry. I didn't link the two posts together and thought you were talking about something else.

This was very misleading because we were talking about changes to the whole building a robot in 72 hours. Everything after I agree was my opinion. I was not presenting it as yours.

I'm curious how people would feel if FIRST gave out a kit of parts that had instructions to build a fully working robot for the game. If inspiration is best achieved though having a successful robot why not do this? Maybe give it to rookie teams? Maybe this is the next progression from what people have learned from Ri3D.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I agree. Lowering the ceiling is a bad thing, but there's nothing wrong with raising the floor.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

That's a completely different situation, though. That would be FIRST directly influencing the way (strategically) the game is played. And there are plenty of resources (even outside of Ri3D/Build Blitz) to help rookie teams have a direction in their overall robot design; resources/fields that FIRST shouldn't do themselves (game-specific, that is).

I'll admit, last year, I was initially against/not the biggest fan of Ri3D for the very reasons you're posting/arguing. Then, I saw that last year was one of the most even-leveled fields in recent memory. And even then, teams still built "boxes on wheels". I initially credited it to the nature of Ultimate Ascent, but I think Ri3D really did have an impact. This year, with the very nature of the game (ie. the abilitites of your partners directly impact your own success), I truly think we'll see a playing field even more level than last year. Maybe you don't see it as much since you're not in districts, but sometimes, at smaller districts, there are not 24 'average' robots that can play the game. This makes for unexciting competition and a low floor of competition. I think with 6 different robots built/designed in the first 72 hours, the floor WILL be raised.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

It would be really nice if all the teams used the official control system and did autonomous mode.

Other than that, I'd like to see more teams, more CAD, and more code.

Our community needs as many resources as it can get. Imagine trying to scale this program around the world without Andy Mark, VexPro, WCP, and other suppliers. It's just not going to happen. It's REALLY hard to find effective mentorship for new teams. Ri3D has the potential to help these teams a ton.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

We are essentially handed instructions to build a fully functioning robot to play a FRC game already in the kitbot, and some teams still struggle to build a box on wheels.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

With regards to the original goal of this thread, I would see Ri3D/BB improved mostly by increasing documentation and actually seeing some matches played. My dream would be that there would be enough robots close enough together to actually run a few matches.

I loved the addition of CAD files this year-- I know I learned a bit about how to structure full robot assemblies by investigating the Build Blitz CAD files.

The other improvements I could see would be improving livestreaming-- some of the mics were a bit buggy and I think there was at least one potato being used as a camera. The entire idea of livestreaming the events was really cool-- I particularly liked when, in the BuildBlitz scene, Karthik and JVN sat down and talked about designing robots during build season. It's really cool for me, as someone who doesn't see many of the "big names" in FIRST at regionals, to see some of the people I personally look up to acting like regular people.

Overall, I just can't wait to see the standards raised once again next year. Ri3D and BB really outdid themselves this year, and I hope to see future growth in these valuable resources for teams that don't have very many (and those that do).

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

I would also really like to see the quick build projects move in this direction. I could even see this as a good replacement for the yearly game animation. Whenever I show a new student the game animation, it has to come with a heap of disclaimers that all of the robots they show are completely unrealistic and not representative of what to expect. I always end up showing videos of previous games to give them a better perspective on match play.

Re: Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz
 

Someone said something about seeing videos of these people failing-- I agree, I'd like to see much more of that. First, like they mentioned, it's good to learn that these crazy good FRC mentors mess up sometimes, and don't get everything perfect the first time. Second, you often learn a lot more about a (potentially successful) system by seeing it fail then by seeing is succeed. For example, it would be awesome to know if, for example, the geometry of team JVN's catapult was just thrown together and pretty much worked from the get-go, or required hours of laborious iteration and several failed prototypes before it worked. When I design, it's really good to know what elements of the design can be played around with a bit to make the mechanism easier to integrate, and which geometry or materials are so critical that it's worth making sacrifices to persevere them exactly the way they are. Seeing these teams fail prominently would give great insight into how hard specific aspects of the design challenge are, and where compromises should be made in final designs.

To those of you that said that five robots covered too much of solution space, I'd encourage you to think more broadly. To my eye, all the teams seemed to perfect the "Team 16 clone" type of robot in a slightly different way. Sure, some had slightly different intake and shooter geometry, but fundamentally, the robots that I saw all really worked in pretty much the same way. There are whole classes of shooters, intakes, and robots that were not covered in the 72 hour builds. Just like last year.

Personally, I'd love if every rookie and second year team without a solid design of their own just "copied" one of the 72 hour build designs. They'd learn a ton just making it work on their own (I'd argue more than they would by just fielding a semi-drivable kitbot), and they'd make regionals more fun for themselves and other teams by raising the level of competition.