Re: It Ain't Violent
 

Posted by Dan at 04/27/2001 12:07 AM EST


Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.


In Reply to: There's more to learn than engineering.
Posted by Mike Corliss on 04/26/2001 11:55 PM EST:



I think this is where the line is drawn. I don't see BattleBots as being violent; at least not in a meaningful sense of the word. To even try to draw a line between it and school shootings or any sort of acts against living beings doesn't click with me.
I do think it's competitive and aggressive, unlike FIRST (at least this year) but I don't think these are the qualities that makes it popular. I think what makes it popular is the simplicity and novelty of it. When someone tunes in they can immediately start making judgements about various robot designs, what they would do, etc. I think this is pretty common in any sport really.
Dan

It may not be violent but it is Destructive
 

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 2:25 AM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: Re: It Ain't Violent
Posted by Dan on 04/27/2001 12:07 AM EST:



Whether or not it is violent isn't really the issue.
It's more the fact that it's destructive. And guess
what? Destroying is easy. It's real easy to break
something. It's a lot harder to create. And that's
where the basic different in philosphies between
Battlebots and FIRST are. And frankly, the
philosophy is the most important part of FIRST to me.
FIRST is about creating. About making the world a
better place. Battlebots is about two robots
*trying* to destroy each other (and I say trying as
they tend to do a very bad job at it). I'm not
trying to link Battlebots to school shootings or any
other ill of society. But I seriously doubt that
changing the American mindset from one of destruction
to creation will cause an increase in such societal
ills.

Matt who thinks that we should just ignore Battlebots
and continue operating like we have for the past 10
years

HEIKU
 

Posted by Patrick Dingle at 04/27/2001 12:22 PM EST


College Student on team #639, Red B^2, from Ithaca High School and Cornell University.


In Reply to: It may not be violent but it is Destructive
Posted by Matt Leese on 04/27/2001 2:25 AM EST:



Battlebots have bots?
Bots they certainly are not
compared to FIRST bots

Patrick, who is very bored in between classes.

: Whether or not it is violent isn't really the issue.
: It's more the fact that it's destructive. And guess
: what? Destroying is easy. It's real easy to break
: something. It's a lot harder to create. And that's
: where the basic different in philosphies between
: Battlebots and FIRST are. And frankly, the
: philosophy is the most important part of FIRST to me.
: FIRST is about creating. About making the world a
: better place. Battlebots is about two robots
: *trying* to destroy each other (and I say trying as
: they tend to do a very bad job at it). I'm not
: trying to link Battlebots to school shootings or any
: other ill of society. But I seriously doubt that
: changing the American mindset from one of destruction
: to creation will cause an increase in such societal
: ills.

: Matt who thinks that we should just ignore Battlebots
: and continue operating like we have for the past 10
: years

Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
 

Posted by Jason Morrella at 04/27/2001 3:07 AM EST


Coach on team #254, Cheesy Poofs, from Bellarmine College Prep & others and NASA Ames/Cypress Semiconductor/Unity Care.


In Reply to: Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
Posted by Dan on 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST:




: Jason...I respect you a lot, but I really disagree with you on this one. BattleBots is not FIRST's evil arch nemesis. They're really both great.
: Dan

Dan,

I absolutely respect the views of those who defend battle bots - but please don't put words in my mouth. If you read my post again, NEVER did I in any way refer to Battle Bots as "FIRST's evil arch nemesis." My quote was "there is nothing wrong with Battle Bots, it just has different goals & values than FIRST"
Battle Bots is no more a threat to FIRST as destruction derbys (which is essentially what Battle Bots is). And FIRST is no threat to Battle Bots - in fact Battle Bots owes much of their growth to FIRST -as shown by their copying of the FIRST control system in an attempt to improve their machines and endless attempts of Battle Bots producers to recruit FIRST teams (at FIRST regionals) into their destruction derby.

I know people involved with Battle Bots, and they are good people who I respect. They are doing it solely for fun and as an engineering challenge (but they will all admit it has NOTHING to do with inspiring or teaching kids - it is just a chance for them to build a machine themselves and test it in "combat", as they have said, against others. And they will all admit it is violent & destructive)

Is Battle Bots an engineering challange? I guess. With the simplicity of strategy, the unlimited resources allowed, and the quality of the robots I have seen - I know that the top FIRST teams in the country would build bots that would dominate battle bots. If they tried - I shudder to think of what Delphi, Wildstang, Beatty, Kingman, and GRT robots would do to battle bots - it would surely be "quick, complete, and violent" destruction of all battle bots. :)

Our team and our engineers discussed it, but Battle Bots just doesn't present a challange to us. If it contained a sports like strategy and complexity, instead of just building a "destruction derby car" AND - big AND - if the program was based on redeeming social values instead of violence, destruction, and ridiculous marketing - we would be happy to make it a summer project for our team. It would be fun - and certainly much less stressful, time consuming, and difficult as the FIRST experience - just without the intrinsic rewards.

Again - nothing against Battle Bots. They are two TOTALLY different programs with TOTALLY different objectives - so why is so much time being spent trying to "justify & defend" battle bots, and/or compare it to FIRST. I know FIRST will continue to grow & thrive, and I would not be surprised if Battle Bots does also.

Just a quick one...
 

Posted by Kevin Sevcik at 04/27/2001 11:31 AM EST


College Student on team #57, Leopards, from BT Washington and the High School for Engineering Professions and Exxon, Kellog Brown & Root, Powell Electrical.


In Reply to: Re: I see it EVEN MORE differently
Posted by Dan on 04/26/2001 9:05 PM EST:



Sorry, but as an engineering student, I'd like to find out if what I'm being taught actually applies...
According to my professors, engineering is all about buildng the best thing you can, given certain material, budgetary, etc. constraints. Real word engineers don't always have an unlimited budget and the pick of whatever materials they want to build something. Ergo, FIRST's materials restraints make it more like real engineering. Also, they make engineering and building a good bot harder. Do you really think building a good robot is harder when you can pick motors that are designed specifically for the tasks you set them to? The only thing harder about engineering a BattleBot is picking a part to use, as evidenced by your 60 lbs of catalogs.

Re: Just a quick one...
 

Posted by ChrisH at 04/27/2001 11:52 AM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: Just a quick one...
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/27/2001 11:31 AM EST:



Besides if he only has 60 lbs of catalogs, he's obviuosly just a beginner. Either that or he specs a very limited selection of stuff. ;^)

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots
Whose reference collection, including catalogs weighs over 120 lbs, and that's just the stuff at work.

No, No, No
 

Posted by James Jones at 04/27/2001 12:11 PM EST


Engineer on team #267, The Demolition Squad, from North Broward & St Andrews and Motorola.


In Reply to: Just a quick one...
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/27/2001 11:31 AM EST:



As a practicing engineer I can say that the robot construction rules under which we labor DO NOT simulate real life very well at. In real life you need to come up with the design that strikes the best balance of cost, performance and availability. No one vendor has all the best products and technology. As an engineer you BETTER be familiar with the vast array of engineering components that are available to you and select the best ones on a case by case basis. You better have 60lbs of catalogs at your desk! Having limited choices makes the component selection easier in some cases but the design integration harder in almost all cases. I can say that in 4 years I have made a number of decisions to design things in certain ways that were more expensive, harder to manufacture and less reliable because they had to meet the rules. In real life designing things the way I did would get me fired. I have yet to hear a good a defense of the material limits. "They teach you real life" just doesn't fly.....they don't. Besides, in many cases the kids aren't the ones making the detailed design decisions therefore don't have to deal with the rules. (PLEASE don't start another thread on student design envolvement...each to his own.)

Re: No, No, No
 

Posted by ChrisH at 04/27/2001 12:33 PM EST


Engineer on team #330, Beach 'Bots, from Hope Chapel Academy and NASA JPL, J & F Machine, Raytheon, et al.


In Reply to: No, No, No
Posted by James Jones on 04/27/2001 12:11 PM EST:



Obviously you don't work in aerospace, where if it doesn't meet a MilSpec (or other specification, depending on what it is) it doesn't exist.

Chris Husmann, PE
Team 330 the Beach'Bots
Who works in R&D and so only has to pay attention to MilSpecs sometimes :^)

Re: No, No, No
 

Posted by James Jones at 04/27/2001 1:01 PM EST


Engineer on team #267, The Demolition Squad, from North Broward & St Andrews and Motorola.


In Reply to: Re: No, No, No
Posted by ChrisH on 04/27/2001 12:33 PM EST:



: Obviously you don't work in aerospace, where if it doesn't meet a MilSpec (or other specification, depending on what it is) it doesn't exist.

: Chris Husmann, PE
: Team 330 the Beach'Bots
: Who works in R&D and so only has to pay attention to MilSpecs sometimes :^)

Actually I have worked in aerospace doing R&D too. Even with Milspec parts there are generally a wide range of sizes and multiple vendors to chose from. Besides, I seem to remember there was a big push by the contracters to move toward allowing "good commercial quality" parts just because Milspec limitations were so expensive and ineffecient. Anyway, all these kids who think destroying inanimate objects is immoral aren't going to be working for any defense contractors anyway.

James Jones
Former aerospace engineer on Team #267

"Mechanical Engineers build weapons......Civil Engineers build targets"

Re: No, No, No
 

Posted by mike oleary at 04/27/2001 2:59 PM EST


Student on team #419, rambots, from bc high and sponsors are overrated..go pocket-change robots!!!.


In Reply to: Re: No, No, No
Posted by James Jones on 04/27/2001 1:01 PM EST:



:Anyway, all these kids who think destroying inanimate objects is immoral aren't going to be working for any defense contractors anyway.

hmmmm...this is a good point.
if battle bots are immoral then writing with a pencil is...because you have to cut it up to write with it, even though it was designed to do just that. battle bots are designed to destroy or be destroyed...the people who spend money and time to build a battle bot know this going in and if the bot gets destroyed, well, thats sorta what it was designed to do

there's a difference
 

Posted by Mike Corliss at 04/27/2001 7:41 PM EST


Student on team #419, Rambots, from BC High and :(.


In Reply to: Re: No, No, No
Posted by mike oleary on 04/27/2001 2:59 PM EST:



you don't sharpen a pencil with the intent of
destroying your pencil, or your paper, or another
pencil. but battle bots are built with the specific
purpose to destroy.
And another thing: battle bots aren't bade to be
broken. they try their best not to be.

you have been contradicted by someone with the
same name: Mike. that's twice as bad.

Re: there's a difference
 

Posted by mike oleary at 04/27/2001 11:03 PM EST


Student on team #419, rambots, from bc high and sponsors are overrated..go pocket-change robots!!!.


In Reply to: there's a difference
Posted by Mike Corliss on 04/27/2001 7:41 PM EST:



yes...fine then how bout this one: you fight with youre friends a lot and there is beating up of people involved and it is fun, right? thats basically the same thing as battle bots except the bot is an INANIMATE OBJECT
plus: i may have been contradicted by another mike, but at least i have my clothes on in pictures of me that are on the internet...and ive never bought a speedo, unlike someone i nkow

: you don't sharpen a pencil with the intent of
: destroying your pencil, or your paper, or another
: pencil. but battle bots are built with the specific
: purpose to destroy.
: And another thing: battle bots aren't bade to be
: broken. they try their best not to be.

: you have been contradicted by someone with the
: same name: Mike. that's twice as bad.

Re: No, No, No
 

Posted by Matt Leese at 04/27/2001 4:16 PM EST


College Student on team #73, Tigerbolt, from Edison Technical HS and Alstom & Fiber Technologies & RIT.


In Reply to: Re: No, No, No
Posted by James Jones on 04/27/2001 1:01 PM EST:



I seriously doubts anyone considers Battlebots
immoral, just not the best thing in the world. I may
dislike Battlebots and consider them inferior, but it
doesn't mean I find them immoral.

Matt

Oh, and another thing
 

Posted by James Jones at 04/27/2001 12:24 PM EST


Engineer on team #267, The Demolition Squad, from North Broward & St Andrews and Motorola.


In Reply to: Just a quick one...
Posted by Kevin Sevcik on 04/27/2001 11:31 AM EST:



Let me first say that I don't even watch Battlebots any more. I am disturbed by the rampant assertion that building a successful battlebot has to be a piece of cake. I would hope some of the experienced FIRST students would have learned by now that many things appear easier than they are when you have never done them. I'm sure the Battlebots environment presents a whole new set of problems that would frustrate many cocky FIRSTers trying it for the first time. Gimmee a break, a lot of OUR robots couldn't even drive over a ramp without falling over this year. And when you consider most BB participants are paying for these things out of their own pockets rather than having a bunch of corporate, school or comunity money thrown in their laps I think they deserve just a little respect. It is too bad they are represented by such an idiotic television presentation on such a raunchy channel but many of them were doing this long before the TV show came on.

Re: I see it MUCH differently
 

Posted by Chris Orimoto at 04/27/2001 2:21 AM EST


Student on team #368, Kika Mana, from McKinley High School and Nasa Ames/Hawaiian Electric/Weinberg Foundation.


In Reply to: I see it MUCH differently
Posted by Jason Morrella on 04/26/2001 12:53 PM EST:



Despite all the replies here...I'll have to side with Jason on this one. Battlebots appeals to me as mindless entertainment. Don't get me wrong...I watch Battlebots and Robotica...but I mean, after what I've gone through with FIRST...ANYONE can slap together a box-on-wheels that rolls and call it a Battlebot. If they add a little piece of metal to it and call it a wedge...with some robot-driving experience, they can be a "successful" Battlebot. FIRST is much different in many ways.

First off (no pun intended), FIRST promotes much different ideals than Battlebots. Although yes, you "learn" about engineering through both competitions, I believe that FIRST facilitates a much more professional atmosphere than Battlebots. Working with partnerships and inspiring students in the fields of science and technology is a much better goal than individuals competing for television ratings and a cash prize. Although Battlebots may have some "inplicit" benefits which "just-so-happen" to spur off the competition, FIRST employs such virtues as their MAIN goal.

Second, FIRST allows you (or at least for the past 3 competitions) to work WITH other teams as well as compete against them. This results in a much deeper level of thinking toward strategies and outcomes than the mindless smash-and-bash of Battlebots.

FIRST also allows you to meet people like yourself from around the nation. It is "similar" to a high school sport, but it's not quite the same in the sense that you don't have to be extremely talented to be a competitor. In a nutshell, anyone can build a Battlebot...from a wealthy articulate genius, to a crazed-psycho-cyborg who mistakenly stumbled upon an abandoned machine shop, to your average Tom-Dick-or-Larry (no offense to any names mentioned).

Now about kit parts and time restrictions...that is an attempt to level the playing field so all teams have an equal opportunity at the gold. Although, in the end, it doesn't matter who wins or loses the game, it is a big part of the project...seeing your creation compete. Now, any lucky-schmuck with some connections can afford to build a Battlebot. But in FIRST, partnerships are created between coporations, engineers, colleges, teachers, parents, students and the community...resulting in lasting friendships.

Now I don't know if people are just a little sour because this year's competition wasn't as TV friendly and a little harder to explain to the public eye, but tell me now...WHO CARES ABOUT THE PUBLIC EYE??? I mean, it's nice to attract sponsors and all, but shouldn't the message be saying that FIRST seeks to inspire students THROUGH the competition? Sure, a little television coverage would be great...I'd love it too...but it's not NECESSARY.

Personally, I think we ALL here should re-evaluate what FIRST has done for us and rethink what gripes and complaints we may have. Are we complaining because OUR team didn't do as well this year? And seriously now...how can ANYONE compare FIRST to Battlebots...take out the "building of the robot" part and their two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

Just my personal thoughts (sorry so long)...

Chris, #368

PS: Don't even get me started on Robotica...