Design Sharing
 

In past years teams have kept robot designs secret. Why are we doing that? In an attempt to help out rookie teams and new members I am going to bring up the thought of design sharing to our team. What do you think?

Re: Design Sharing
 

Now, that's what I call a great subject for discussion! To share or not to share is always a tough call, especially for long-time veteran teams and members. And if you share, how much do you share?

I think to ask teams to share their entire design before the end of build season is probably not a good idea. Why, you ask? Well, imagine what would've happened if Beatty (team 71) had let their amazing designs in 2001 and 2002 out to the public before the end of build season. Chances are, a lot of teams would have tried to steal 71's great ideas and use them on their own robot. So, you really can't fault them for wanting to keep their ideas under wraps. In my mind, sharing strategies and full-robot designs should be each team's own perogative. If they want to share their ideas with other teams, all the better for the spirit of cooperation. If they want to keep a potential championship-winning strategy secret, that should be their choice, too.

Now, as far as sharing technical data from previous years goes, I'm all for it. Things like the Technokats' gearbox designs can help so many teams, that I think it's a great idea to share such designs. I think if more teams (and I know mine is at fault here, too) would share their designs from previous years, it could be a great knowledge base for rookies and new teammembers.

So, in short, I think strategies and designs for this year's game can, and should be protected, unless a team chooses otherwise. Last year's designs, though, should be open and available to all whenever possible.

Re: Design Sharing
 

I agree that sharing during the same build season is probably not the best of ideas, unless you share build facilities and time with another team. In addition to "the element of competitive surprise," it's probably not time efficient or practical to share ideas on the fly while trying to perfect a new idea yourself. To me the best time for this sharing begins when the season ends, especially with regard to drive systems, because real performance data accompanies the ideas. Also, those teams that post Inventor entries, white papers, etc. make them available to the public in Feb-April because the demand of the build schedule doesn't allow for such detailed sharing earlier.

For one, I love the anticipation of the unknown, as pictures become available and the first week of regionals starts. Helping out rookie teams is always a great idea and I'd never leave them out in the cold, but I'd try to help as much as possible prior to that first build with information/designs from previous years.

Good Luck!

Re: Design Sharing
 

You've etched your name onto a tricky subject, Rod...

The veterans who have earned their place in being expected to have a unique, new, innovative, and/or stellar robot/assembly every year may not want to lose that 'title' (if you will). You may remember the mass histeria created by the pictures of Beatty's bot posted by oneangrydwarf over everyone trying to find out what they did.

While I would have liked to have seen things like Beatty, Wildstang, and Technokat's robots as it was being designed, I think it would also lose the shock and awe factor of some of the great designs. (Be it from a rookie or a veteran).

Then comes the matter of teams who do not make things in AutoCAD or take digital pictures (be it by ability or choice) who can not share their designs. Such as last year with team 470. We built our bot of scaled sketches and cardboard and string replicas instead of AutoCAD's precision. We had a unique design that many liked and others shrugged at.

Also, I think if you know the design before seeing it at competition, you might not want to visit the team and ask questions and study the parts. For example, I spent a good 20 minutes looking just at WildStang's wheels and "flippers" (as I've come to call them) as they tested some code.

When I worked at ComauPICO (Sponsor of a few teams) I had access to the full designs of a few automated assembly lines for Ford and GM. I had models of 2D Orthographic and 3D Solidworks pieces and in full assembly that I could look at. However, some of these were out on the plant floor only 30 feet away from my desk. Whenever I got the chance, I would go out and study certain pieces or maneuver's that the machines did. I found I can appreciate the mechanics of a design better in person than as a graphic.

The above are my reason why I am against the sharing of full designs before Shipping Date.

Now, the other side.. from ComauPICO expierience..

There were many times where I would look at the assembly, figure out what it does, then come back to my desk and pull up the drawings so I could see how it was assembled. In this respect, I would like to see teams post their designs after I've (and everyone else) have had a chance to look at them. Once we've come to appreciate the design, we can see the mechanics.

However, I do like the pre-ship pictures (without details) that get posted. It's nice to see what others are doing.

A long list of thoughts on design sharing, trade secrets, and being competitive...
 

I think this is a touchy subject. Since there's a lot of different views on this, it's very likely that my point of view is very different than many of the other teams and team leaders out there.

I think that the Technokat's transmission design was one of the first, and is probably the most widely duplicated components in FIRST at this time. If you read the first page of the hardcopy booklet that team #45 passes out, Andy writes that the design is published in hopes that others would improve the design and share their insight to raise the bar of competition.

The truth of the matter is that because all of the details drawings are present, and the design works out of the box, many teams build to print the transmission and call it a day.

The overwhelming number of teams that have modified this design (in some very clever and worthwhile ways may I add) that even properly credit the #45 design as the primary inspiration, do not publish their changes, and some teams are even holding this as a trade secret (for lack of a better term). The question of course is, "Is keeping "trade secrets" ungracious, especially looking at the intent of the original publication and intent of the author?"

I'll fuel the flames of thought a little bit more:

Copying a design over and over is not inspirational. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to teams who are unsure about creating a transmission for the first time, and maybe want to just use one out of the box, like the Technokat's design. However, if you've prebought metal to make another duplicate of the same design you've built to print for the past few years, and are placing bets among yourselves on how few days you can build it... you're truly missing out, and missing the point of this program. I don't expect every team to be leading the way in creating the most amazing improvements to revolutionize FIRST, but I think that it'd be a shame for a local Boston Gear distributor to all of the sudden have 4 orders for a half dozen of the exact same 24 pitch, 3/8" face width gears, because nobody decided to even tweak the ratios on a gear set.

I guess my thesis is that I think that having a full set of details of a design, such that it can be "built to print", has caused laziness for many teams. I believe that having a simple 20 page picture book of different views, stages of engagement and exploded assemblies might have had a very different affect on the quality of innovation, since teams would have to do more design work on their own, and in turn, discovered more useful improvements. Most importantly, I worry that there are some high school students who may be short changed, and don't even know it.

To close, I have the utmost respect for Andy Baker and Team 45. I think that what they did was among the most gracious and professional moves that FIRST has had. I wrote that I have a mild fear that their gracious action may have inadvertently stunted the growth of some teams' capacity to innovate.

Am I proposing or suggesting that full details of components not be published?
Perhaps. (Though perhaps not... I'm just writing off the hip really.)

A thought provoking question:
If all of the details in all of the publications on Chief Delphi (including but not limited to the #45 design) were published with all the dimensions rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch, and no published tolerances, (giving a very fair representation of component scale) would there have been more or less innovation as a result?

When I say innovation, I mean changes and improvements. There would obviously be less copies. (Long term implication of less copies? )

Another thought:
How much weight does being "competitive" have on the whole scheme of inspiration? While I agree that it's easy to be discouraged if you're absolutely uncompetitive and not functioning properly... is it important that as much as possible is shared to increase the competitiveness of all teams?

This was a long one... we'll see what happens.

Another couple pennies in the bucket,
Matt

Re: A long list of thoughts on design sharing, trade secrets, and being competitive...
 

There are multiple views on this subject, simply because there are multiple way of doing things around the country, and different situation at each school. I for one can only speak from the west coast experience.

For us, we do not get many mechanical engineers in the California teams. If it is up to the high school teachers and students to design the drive train, most of them would not have been close to the quality of other teams without professional engineer's help. By releasing their design, the Technokats, and Andy Baker specifically, inspired a lot of west coast students/teams more about engineering and designing than they could've on their own. It is true they are copying a design. But just building the copied design is such a great experience for those teams already.

I do agree that some people just choose to take the easy way out and copy others design. But I have a feeling that shared designs aren't lowering team's motivation to create new designs. Again, things are differet at each place. Some teams could have problem with getting professional help. Some others might have problem because their students cannot engage in their team year round. What I believe is happening is, teams who are motivated to create their own design, or new improvements on top of the shared designs are doing them anyway. Teams who don't, well, they just don't have the resources or they don't want to anyway. It is a matter of how the team works. A single white paper doesn't change that.

I am afraid this goes back to the issue about inspiration in FIRST. What exactly is the best way to inspire kids? Is it limited to 1 method and 1 method only? What is right and what is wrong? My gut feeling tells me we should let teams do what works for them. You can give them friendly constructive advices, build a support group and show the teams different ways of doing things, but in the end, the teams have to behave according to their environment and their resources.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but here in the Bay area of Northern California, WRRF create workshops so students and teams can learn what they need to know to start designing a robot. We also create a network so teams around the area can ask for help from each other, and share ideas and designs if they want to. There are trade secrets, or "competitive edge" from time to time, but after a year's competition, the teams are more than willing to share their design and their experience with other teams. All in all, it has worked well for us. There are teams who are competitive, but there are more teams who are in just for the experience of inspiration and learning.

So, try to give advice when you see teams aren't challenging themselves enough even though they got the resources, talk to them and see what they think. I learned that a lot of those teams are ready to move up to the next step and create a bigger and more experienced robotics program, but just need the right key and the right time to get started. I would go as far as to say showing teams the network of teams out there is as important as giving them a specific design. There is a chinese saying: "Give a man a fish, and he will have a meal. Teach the man to fish, and he will know how to feed himself."

-Ken L

Re: Design Sharing
 

This is an excellent discussion. I would like to post many points on this. Matt brings up some good questions. Ken Leung not only responded very well, but he also brought up some of these same questions to me 2 years ago when I released the dual motor design after the 2001 season.

To answer Matt's question, I think that "it is all good" when a team releases a design, even if it is to the exact detail.

There are different levels of usage with regard to these print packages. I'll point out benefits of each.

1. A team uses the exact published prints (from Dave Lavery, Paul Copioli, etc.) and re-creates the design for their team's robot.

• The team using the prints are exposed to a professional-quality engineering print package.
• They are using a design that has already been proven
• The using team sees aspects of design that they may not learn on their own (press fit tolerances, etc.)
• The using team is building a foundation for future years experiences

2. A team uses portions of the published design, but integrates it into their specific design, improving or changing how the initial design is implemented.

• This team may be building upon their experiences from example 1 above, but in the next year
• This team is "raising the bar" and putting their own twist on a successful design
• This team is performing a service to FIRST by taking what is already out there and improving on it. In most cases, this team is proud of their improvements and openly share this design with other teams (pictures, prints, etc.)

Our team agreed to start giving away designs after the 2000 season. We did this because we noticed that there are many FIRST teams who do not have engineers as mentors. Many FIRST teams are made up of 10 students and 1-2 teachers. If these teams want to compete with teams with "pro" designers, then they need to see what these designs are. We simply gave them examples of proven print packages. Not only do they get the design when they see the print package, but they see how to organize a print package and how a design is communicated to others.

I have found it very rewarding to give away these designs. There are tens of teams who have told me that they would've had no success if it were not for our team's effort to publish these designs. Teams have gone from middle-of-the-pack teams to regional winners with these designs. To the kids on those teams, not only designing well is inspirational, but winning matches is inspirational.

Andy B.

Re: Design Sharing
 

Here are my sencere opinions on the subject:

During the season: No design sharing. Teams can feel free to view old pictures, old designs from previous years, or whatever. However, teams should all innovate on their own as to how to adapt these old designs (and create new innovations) for the current game. If teams need help with something specific, like a gearbox, there are plenty of designs from previous years to help you.

I feel this way for three reasons: 1) I feel that teams should innovate a little on their own so they get the full blown experience of what it's like to be an engineer - to solve a problem that hasn't been solved before without outside help; 2) once everyone sees a great solution for the game at hand, we'll get a bunch of cookie cutter robots - who wants that?; and 3) from a purely selfish standpoint - I LOVE the surprise of all of the new designs at the first regionals.


After the start of the season, it's virtually impossible to keep the designs a secret. Everyone has a digital camera these days and with a few good pictures, you can copy the majority of any design (except software, of course). With that in mind - go crazy and share whatever you wish - I'm all for it, as long as it's after the build season.

-Chris

Re: A long list of thoughts on design sharing, trade secrets, and being competitive...
 

I think "competitiveness" is a big part of the inspiration in FIRST.

If you are competing with the realization that your bot has to go out and either win or get beat in every match, you will probably try harder. Just the fact that your pride/ego/whatever is pushing you to think about what the other teams will be doing, then try to one-up them or out-think them, is a good thing. If you decide that your team is going to compete then you have decided that people are going to increase their level of effort in all aspects of the game.

This is not to say that winning is the important part of FIRST. Its not. TRYING to win, and the PREPARATION for competition, are the important parts where people learn new things.

I would weight it very high, Matt.

Ken

Re: Design Sharing
 

You can read about a similar idea we had several years ago here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9504

Re: Design Sharing
 

i think sharing is good. it lets ua all learn more much more quickley sharing of your oun desings is up to yourself but The desing of your teams robot thats somthing for them to agree uppon before any information is put "out there" Overall i think idea sharing is good i heard dean say once "If i have an idea and you have an idea and we share Now we have two ideas" Words to Love by. I leARned Volumes From Andy Baker's Transmition White Paper I also Got extremely Valuable info investigating The Thunderchicken's CCT and sending e-mails to Paul Capoli. I asked for advice form Ron Heartman with my crab drive desing He was a big help He even sent me Mounting screws for the Globe motors. Dan Quiggle on my team Pointed out a "Path of Least resistance" problem in my crab drive desing and helped me learn and do the calculations for it. the kilthro (Kiwi) drive, the gearbox desings, the crab drives, the "walkers". the Ball Drive, and all these other ideas ive been able to check out and experment and play with the myself. Ive Learned So MUCH. There is a sea of ideas and posted desings out there that can be learned from. The "I" In first stands for "Inspiration". Idea sharing Has Inspired Me Greatley. I hope to see much more shared desings concepts and ideas in the future

Re: Design Sharing
 

Well just ask Truck Town Thunder about sharing their designs before....FIRST goes and makes a rule essentially saying what they worked on for six weeks is not allowed. They shared their design and got burned by FIRST....That's motivation enough for some of the teams I know to keep their designs a secret.

Re: Design Sharing
 

Live Free or Die!

What kind of a competition results if a team with a phenominal design idea slaughters everyone else? From whom are established teams trying to hide thier ideas? [other established teams who have just as much techincal skill and as great of a talent and creativity pool?].

I would fully support a means of making design ideas, even scale plans to rookie teams who have little experiance and most likely a small talent pool to work with. What kind of a community is established if only the old guys have all the cookies?

Lazy teams would be shunned, as they would only be able to say that they copied thier drivetrain from Team #XXXX, while a rookie would be proud in reverse engineering such a drivetrain.

Thats my $0.02 PLN. (Too much Eastern Block Socialist flair?)

Re: Design Sharing
 

Would it have been better if 68 had shown up at competition and the FIRST officials had decreed then their design was illegal?

Would it have been better if their design, which FIRST believed to be illegal, was allowed to compete anyways?

Re: Design Sharing
 

I always scout ahead so those teams that do post their bots.... Keep doin' it! However I like being suprised by bots I've never seen before, much more fun that way!

Re: Design Sharing
 

Sharing a design after ship but before the first regional is probably the best idea for any team. It gives other teams the opportunity to take a peek at the creations of all their favorite teams, begin strategizing against these robots, and ensures that their design will not be copied.

Re: Design Sharing
 

Oohh - this is going to be a very touchy subject.

There are 2 ways you can go in this - eather you can say "Gracious Professionalism" or you can say "each team is unique and should keep it that way." (or close to it - you know what i'm trying to hint at) But my view on this is something that is great - say a special action for the field or some sort of drive train - you should be able to share. I think by the time that you develop it and test it - other teams will have began their own robot design - and i'll put money that says the 2 will be incompatable. Some of the times you may be able to get away with it - but unless you are planning something close to that design - the other teams won't be able to "borrow" that design.

I say we share. Some teams will make something pretty generic (that it can go on all robots) so for thoes teams i don't see any huge problems. But for some of the veteran teams out there that have designed some very sweet drive train or some sort of mechanism - they should share the wealth. I realise that this will probally throw some flames - but seriously - if someone (after all the engineering/testing/ect...) released something - it will be probally close to impossible in the timeframe to "borrow" that design...:)

Re: Design Sharing
 

For our team at least the rookie teams if they want usually get to see the robot done a bit before ship date. and even a few others do we have a scrimage that we usually post pictures of right after ship date. Personally I have no problems sharing concepts but specific autocad docs that took our engineers 50+ hours of thier weekend to cook up for our team unless it's specific I would not share because I feel that defeats the point of brainstorming with your team, however yearly components (say like the wings from Icarus last year) and others like that need to be discussed because it aids the creativity of all teams to discuss a concept idea now how you implement that idea is up to you but I do think that helping the younger teams is something that us "mature" "professional" teams should do a lot more of. Last year we ended up mentoring over 7 FRC teams I beleive and about 4 different lego teams. We did everything we possibly could to help new teams and old alike even trying to ressurect an old idea of a state alliance to help coordinate sponsorships between teams so that the older teams didn't just snag all the good companies and leave the young ones out to dry. :]

(gets off pet peeve...)

Re: Design Sharing
 

I never really thought of that, but come to mention it, it's a very valid point. To order all the specific parts from suppliers around the country, plan out the mechanism, fabricate some parts, and assemble a complex mechanism would be incredibly difficult to do with even one or two weeks.

Re: Design Sharing
 

This is one of the ways FIRST is different from any other type of project.

In a corporate environment, intellectual property and trade secrets make something like design sharing next to impossible, unless there is a clear advantage for both parties. For example, I know a guy who works at Apple, and every time I see him I try to wheedle any sort of information about future products out of him that I can, but he's not even allowed to tell me what PRODUCT he works on. (That or he just likes to mess with me, which is entirely possible) Ultimately, at Apple, or GM, or UTC or any other company profit is the goal, not education.

Unfortunately, most FIRST teams are stuck serving several masters. On the one hand we have to please our sponsors, who often demand that we win, on the other hand we have to follow the spirit of FIRST, which emphasizes inspiration, and education. Sometimes you have to make trade-offs between those two goals. Sometimes you have to choose between a student design that won't work, or a mentor design. Or you have to choose between sharing something that will help the community, but might hurt your team, or keeping it to yourself. However, as the little quote thing on the top of the screen says, engineering is all about trade-offs. You just have to look at each case and decide which goal is more important for that case only. For example, sharing a simple, but useful gearbox design that will benefit rookie teams won't really hurt you. However, if your robots function is to drag goals around the field, sharing the design for your revolutionary goal-gripper mechanism might not be a great idea.

Re: Design Sharing
 

This is indeed a very difficult issue.

I'm over in electrical and programming and I am generally for sharing code and schematics wherever it is possible. There are many people (like me) who don't have the knowedge of others in these areas. I have to thank Kevin Watson especially for creating code for us and James Rickertsen for the math library to get us started.

However, there are cases where hiding designs is a good idea. I heard rumors about how awesome StangPS was, but how would it have been unique and impressive if their schematics and code were available for any other team to duplicate?

I see many teams share ideas and designs with those who need assistance. Meanwhile, special or interesting or impressive designs are kept secret, with occational rumors/info spread to pique interest. I like the way this aspect of the FIRST community operates, and I cannot think of a better way.

Re: Design Sharing
 

They were in accordance with the rules before they shared their design online. That is the reason I wouldn't share my design because I do not want FIRST inventing a rule against what I worked six weeks on.....I don't know if anything would have been better, but I know it is motivation enough not to share my design early.

Re: Design Sharing
 

your teams design SHOULD be the result of your game analysis, your strategy for playing, and it will depend on your teams resources and manufacturing capacity

so by the time you have a 'design' to share, I cant imagine another team stopping what they were doing and copying your design instead

besides, why is your teams design more correct, competitive.... than mine? why would I throw away all the work my team has done so far (we would be in the 3rd or 4th week by this time) and start working like mad to copy what you did?

so I guess sharing would be a good thing in general. If you came up with some killer function or mechanism, you might want to keep that under wraps - esp if it could be easily added to someone elses machine

keep in mind that once you attend a regional, everyone will see your bot. If there is something clever you did, then they CAN copy that feature and fabricate it at their next regional, or at the championship - as long as you dont fabricate the parts back home and bring them with you, you are allowed to modify your bot AT the event site.

I lean towards sharing knowledge - knowlege is power and time is money... so be generous with what you have

thats what they told me in kindergarden, sharing is good! :c)

Re: Design Sharing
 

this is interesting - I had not heard about this - can someone explain what happened in more detail please?

FIRST always changes the rules during the six week build period. Why? because FIRST is emulating what its like to be an engineer, and thats what happens on real engineeing projects - you get halfway done and the customer says "thats not what I wanted" or "Ive changed my mind"

is it possible the rule change was a co-incidence with their design being published?

anyone know the rest of the story?

Re: Design Sharing
 

Inventing a rule? Are you sure that's what happened? As far as I can tell, the device on team 68's robot was taken off because it didn't agree with a rule that was already established since the beginning of the season. They weren't told to take them off because they showed their photo online, that just made it sooner that FIRST found out about it.

If your robot doesn't follow the rules, then it doesn't matter if you show your pictures online before the inspections begin. If it does, then you have nothing to worry about. It benefit FIRST nothing to intentionally invent rules during competition time to disqualify team's creative designs. After all, they try get teams to think creatively and stretch their imagination, as long as they follow the rules.

Having said that, I do agree FIRST have to be more consistent with their ruling and their actual rules. But for the past 5 years, the rulings at Silicon Valley Regional has ALWAYS been fair, and I am proud to be a part of the regional.

But I think this is going off topic... Sorry Matt.

Re: Design Sharing
 

you sure about that Ken? I remember a team update coming out not more than a week later ruling against the device they had....maybe im incorrect, but ill see if I cannot find it again....

[edit] Well on further review here is the thread that discussed it http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...k+Town+Thunder and Ken you obviously thought it was illegal to begin with, but others disagreed and said nothing was illegal. Either way FIRST reevaluated the rule to outlaw their specific case. They shared their design online causing a controversey, and got burned in the end....either way you look @ it this was reason enough for myself and others not to share their designs....personally I didn't see it as being in violation to begin with, but FIRST sounded off otherwise.[/edit]

The thread is there discussing it, you can review it for yourself and make your own opinions, but I am done with this topic.

Re: Design Sharing
 

When they first posted their design, it was unclear if it followed the rules or not. There was a big discussion here.

A bit later(after the ship date), in the final team update, FIRST clarified the rule such that their design was illegal. Personally I think they would have declared it illegal at a regional even if the design and ensuing team update weren’t posted, and thus the team update was good because it gave 68 time to think up ways to modify the design.

Re: Design Sharing
 

Agree. Thank you for taking your time to respond. Let's hope FIRST will be much better at rules clarification this coming season. I think that's something we both want :-).

Re: Design Sharing
 

The coolest part of the competition for me is seeing some robot do something crazy and then going to their pit to find out what the heck that was! I suppose I would only lose this thrill if I went online and viewed posted information on other bots.

However, I am torn on this pointy subject as well. Last year on 1020 a few members were veterans from teams that were strictly confidential during the build period (71 for instance). The idea that our design needed to be protected infected almost everyone else - despite the obvious lack of need to protect our design (even if non-rookies - who was seriously going to look to us for ideas?). It was no big deal, however it caught me off guard and I thought it was a bad thing for the rookies on the team because it gave them a sense of contempt (is that the right word?) for other teams. It wasn't a horrible thing, but you get my point.

Re: Design Sharing
 

I just took a look at what team 68 had constructed last year. It was most impressive. Kudos to TT.

I believe that if a team constructs such an awesome monstrosity that is not clearly against the rules, there should be some sort of appeals process to allow such designs to be permitted. Many teams would have loved to block the entire field last year, but how many tried? I think that there might be some merit to a general FIRST-wide vote on such an issue.

I would loved to have the chance to go up against something like that. How would one fight it? I think one could try to go under the arms (if there was room) or to try and force TT out of that position by creating some sort of stacking havoc. It is just like a wall in Jezzball, that good old game.

On the other hand, a general FIRST-wide vote might not fit the ideas of FIRST very well. We would start down the path of lawyers and such. The idea of questioning the rules of FIRST is like questioning referees in sports. There is some validity in some cases, but on the whole such a thing would most likely hurt an organization.

Can anyone think of a way to implement an appeals process for something like this without creating a burecratic machine?

Re: Design Sharing
 

I think an appeals process would make things worse

as it stands now, the judgement of the head referee is final. If there was an appeals process, then what does that do to a 3 day competition? If someone apeals a call or decision on the second day, do we stop the whole competition until the call is appealed to a higher authority?

I was totally unaware of team 68s giant spider legs last year - I read the whole thread, and in my opinion, if the wings were deployed and a bot pushed against them, then clearly they were using the dividing bar to hold their position on the top

If I remember correctly, FIRST clarified the rules so that nothing could reach over the side - if this was in response to their bot then I take this as an indication that FIRST felt the bot failed the intent of the rules, but rather than argue sematics, they issued a ruling that made their position clear.

personally I think it was a mute point anyway, those spider arms would have a rotational torque on them and they would have twisted up like pretzels if a bot slammed into them, they would have twisted along their length (like a strand of DNA) and supplied no holding force anyway.

the bottom line for this whole issue of meeting the requirements of the rules, if there is any doubt, ask FIRST - they will tell you before you start building anything whether your idea violates the intent of the rules.

and if you really think your team is the ONLY one out of 950 to come up with your idea, and you dont ask because you are afraid of giving your idea away

well then, you are taking a big risk, your gonna win big, or lose big.

Re: Design Sharing
 

I wanted to add to my comment earlier because it only refers to designs during the build season...

I think that it would be beneficial for teams to share their past mechanisms, designs, ideas, etc with other teams. That's to say - starting after the Nat's or after all the off season competitions - I think teams should be more free about their secrets especially since someone could have walked up to the pit and found out for themselves (for most things, not all). My reason for this view point falls into the same concept Andy B. discussed - raising the bar throughout the teams as well as giving that rookie team without eingineers or guidance something to get them going (physically or mentally).

As a side note - some of you who are adicts and read too much of these forums might think, based on my past posts, that I apply this philosophy to my knowledge of Beatty's past creations without reguard to their secrecy. I have not divulged all knowledge and don't intend to. The things I have discussed I believe were obvious enough for anyone to understand by visiting the pits.

Re: Design Sharing
 

Well, we had a very good argument as to why it was legal. And it was, until FIRST created that rule.

I dont think we would even have utilized the third stage as much as we thought anyways.

If 71 had posted pics in 2002, might file cards on the carpet have been deemed illegal, due to complaints to FIRST?

And, yes there was inertia, but the arms were made of T6 aluminum. The did not twist, or bend terriblly at all. T6 is extremely strong. They weigh less that 15 pounds, and could be lifted very quickly. Even a head on collision at 14 ft/second wouldnt do any serious damage.

Not complaining, simply clarifying.

****Lets just say, we wont be sharing our design this year.****