Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm fairly certain this event was Bag and Tag (part of the pilot that year), and I don't know if the deflector was in the bag or not. A lot of different stories went around that year and I don't want to comment on them without knowing exactly what was up.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

... I just heard ... :) :/

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Two responses to the point that FIRST's culture is a "make our own design decisions" culture:

1. Many teams used Rhino tracks (a WHOLE drive system! :ahh: ) and copied Ri3D this year (as well as in past years).

2. Our team doesn't have that culture, but we might be statistical outliers. We follow Golden Robot Rule #3: Steal from the best, invent the rest.

Best,

-Mike

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Hey Chuck, it is worth reaching out to Frank and getting a clarification in your team's case. He has said that they will work with teams in this situation to ensure they are treated fairly (just as we were). I don't think you'll have any issues and I certainly don't think you have done anything wrong.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I also thought FIRST's whole culture was to "create a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders" and didn't have much to do with all 3000+ FRC robots being their own special sunflower but maybe I picked the wrong day to stop drinking my Rockstar Sugar Frees.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

To those that think if there was no bag day that there wouldn't be teams that choose a week 5 or 6 event with the idea that they will finish their robot after watching a week 1 or 2 event are being quite naive. There would certainly be some that do that with the goal of copying the top performing robot from those early weeks. I'm not saying that they will all necessarily build a robot that performs as well as the original but it is likely that some will come close and maybe a couple will build one that does even better. I also think that there would be a few teams that don't decide which route to follow until seeing week 1. In the context of this year's game I could see a team building both a low bar and a non low bar robot and then deciding which one to finish perfecting to take to their event.

Even if the desire is not to copy a top performing robot you can not deny that there would be teams that pick later events to give them more time to perfect their robot, driving and code. It could make it quite hard to fill up those week 1 and 2 events and I believe it would be even more of a problem with areas in the district system.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

To bring up an important point, why do teams care that teams copy their designs. Any time a time imitates something we publish/build we get super excited. I think I made more friends in FRC by publishing our 2013 shooter design than anything else I've ever done. Some fantastic teams used aspects of our design and went on to do great things with it, I'm proud of that. Why wouldn't anyone else in FIRST be proud if things they helped design were helping to inspire more students and put a better product on the field to get even more people involved.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I said design. I never said build. It takes no money to design, and since you're so against improving robots between now and competition, you seem to have plenty of time to make a design in four weeks using what you've seen in this video. This is all theory. So come on, Brennan. I'm challenging you. If you think it's possible to look at a robot and copy the entire design, prove it to me. Deliver a cad model of a robot that other people believe could be just as functional as 118's robot in four weeks and I'll back you on everything you've said so far. Individual subsystems don't count, because those are copied year in and year out, that's just how engineering works. And if you "don't forsee any team taking...up on this offer to copy [a robot] (or any robot), spending plenty of manhours and thousands of dollars for [what could be a legal robot if they used their withholding weight correctly]", then you seem to be contradicting your previous statements that teams *would* in fact do this.

You're spewing a lot of BS with no backing and everything you claim to be fact is all hypothetical theory.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I can't believe you're teaching your students to steal ideas! That's intellectual property thef... ohh, whatever, it's what we do too and we're not half as good at it as you are and I'm jealous. And I'm jealous that it didn't occur to me to build 3 robots until you mentioned it. :D

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Hey, that sounds like something fun to do over spring break.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Not sure what made you think I don't think robots improving is a bad thing. I am merely attempting to imply that full robot copies aren't as far fetched as others may seem to think it is.

As for the challenge to "design a robot" that is almost identical to 118, maybe I will take you up on that offer outside of competition season. My other commitments come before proving some person on the internet wrong.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Doug, same experience for us! We've started a rookie team in Woodland and Winters over the past two years, and helped them with last minute changes/modifications just before bag day.

Woodland came back to our shop last weekend to take some field measurements and plan out their autonomous mode for competition, but they can't do much more than plan/write a basic structure while their robot is in a bag. Meanwhile, we're testing auto with one practice bot while doing driver practice with the second practice bot!

Personally, I wish Dean Kamen would let go of the "6 Week" sales pitch and work towards some much needed improvements to FIRST's flagship program.

Best,

-Mike

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

#113Days

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Everyone is getting upset on behalf of the "elite" teams. Are you all forgetting they'll have the time too? What makes you think they won't utilize it to the fullest. If I know Karthik (I don't really, I just like to pretend I do since we met last year :D ), he's probably already got a strategy for if bag and tag goes away. Something with multiple configurations of robots designed to scale up through the weeks of competition or align to what's needed.

I know for sure that last year, had there been no bag and tag, 900 would have walked into champs with something closer to the robot we left with. We called it day 2 into build season that the robot needed for regionals wasn't the same one that could get you into Einstein. Why not let teams build different bots/mechanisms/configurations and be able to switch to see what works best? Think of the batman-robin robot last year, how cool if at different competitions they could have used different portions of that robot!

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

The reason I'm not a fan of in-season "copying" and resulting design convergence has practically nothing to do with a personal desire for competitive edge. Rather, it has a lot more to do with the fact that coming into a FRC event and seeing all the radically different approaches and implementations is an inspiring experience. Seeing a huge array of mechanisms and systems, not just the ones deemed to be "correct," and the possibilities that these mechanisms has is an inspiring experience. Being on a team with a design that the students can call "theirs" is an inspiring experience. Seeing something cool that nobody else thought of is an inspiring experience, even if it doesn't work quite as well as 118's robot. Diverse robots enhance the inspirational power of the program, and I don't think we acknowledge often enough just how much the "mediocre but unique" robots inspire us.