Re: Grinding down skyways
 

one of the few things our team has never gone into is how we make our wheels. Sure we give them readers digest version but the fine details is something we hold very close. Same goes for our 4 ounce breaks. I suggest you find a team or place that will let you use a lathe because with wheels you want everything to be even.

shaun

Re: Grinding down skyways
 

I still don't understand this attitude.

Re: Grinding down skyways
 

your kidding right :ahh:

shaun

Re: Sharing Designs
 

i think telling teams how you do something is almost a must in first. Not only does it make you push yourself harder to be better but allows other teams to become more competive in first. However getting into the fine details is like trading base ball cards. You do not trade your babe ruth rookie for john doe wheaties card.

shaun

Re: Grinding down skyways
 

I do, in a way.

In FIRST, we help each other. White papers, mentoring other teams, and so on. However, I think that it's reasonable for teams to withhold a little bit of the "secret sauce" that makes their robots uniquely better-suited for a certain task.

Nearly every field has certain tricks that people keep secret from their competitors to get a slight edge. Using a tool you fabricated yourself to reach that one darn screw hole. Stuffing a 500-HP engine into a small car and making it look stock. Writing the program that does what you want your way. None of these may be particularly public, but nobody raises a stink about them.

That doesn't mean, however, that you can't attempt to figure it out for yourself. 25, for example, goes to a heck of a lot of competitions (last year, I recall New Jersey, Palmetto, the Championship, and a bajillion-million off-seasons). Each of those events has a bunch of camera-wielding nuts, all snapping pictures of the robot in action. And going into 25's pit, there's no barriers stopping you from getting up close and personal with their robots (unless you count fear of being bearhugged by Big Mike as a barrier). So one could probably get some good views of what they're doing.

So perhaps a team doesn't want to let out all of their secrets. That just gives you a bit of a challenge. Go up to the team's pit. Ask questions. Take pictures. Figure out how it works. Test it out when you get home. Then YOU can post it on Delphi (giving credit where it's due) and be showered in praises, green dots, and photoshoppage.

As long as there's a competition involved, someone will have a brilliant idea to give themselves an edge. Sharing it is awesome, and I highly recommend it, but nobody ever said it was a requirement.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

People don't have problems with other teams not sharing designs. Problems arise when people come out and bait others with statements like "xxx on our robot was so great, but haha, Im not going to tell you how it works!!!". If you want to keep your "proprietary" ideas secret, that's your team's decision. There's no need to be arrogant about it though.

And at any rate, if you want to see how 25's done their wheels, they have indeed shown everyone how to do it. See this picture.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Now with all that info just think of what we did not tell you. Yet you have enough info to go out and do it yourself

shaun

Re: Sharing Designs
 

What else is there to tell?

I don't want a carbon copy of your wheels.. I want to improve upon your design.

I really don't understand the point you are trying to make though. Are you in support of teams sharing designs?

Re: Sharing Designs
 

yes i am into sharing ideas. But we do not like giving away everthing because we want teams to figure it out on there own. I will give you one example about the wheels we do not talk about until after the comp. Tread design, every year when the game changes we change the way the treads are cut. We do not tell teams how or why we cut them until after the reagionals or somtimes nationals depending on how easy it is to copy. Great example of teams taking a design was back in 2002. team 88 tj2 had a great idea of how to get there robot back to the home zone. after the nj reagional everyone copied them.

shaun

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Are you talking about electrically-powered tape measures (or similar devices)? Because those were developed independently in several places, and after a build-period Q&A post describing them, many more teams put them on (well before NJ). If it's not the tape measure that you're describing, then I'd hardly see how "everybody" had one.

Incidentally, I'd submit that the vast majority of teams who used tapes used illegal ones, because of the then-in-force additional parts rules. By those rules, teams could only legally use the tape measures from Small Parts Inc.—which were a particular Starrett model that wasn't widely available.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

half the fun of this program is being given a problem to solve, then coming up with creative solutions.

personally I would much rather have someone tell me "we found a way to launch 10 balls at 100mS intervals and put them all in the target from 30 feet away" and stop there

than to have them tell me exactly how they do it.

Sharing critical information is one thing: how do I get the code to download, how to you connect the compressor to the valves....

designing our robot for me? no thanks! Thats OUR job :^)

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Tristan, 88 used a very long strip of polycarb that was rolled up and then released at the end of the match. It would unroll itself all the way back to the home zone. It was pretty cool.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I think part of the complication of this subject has to do with the difference between engineering concepts and designs/strategies, so I've divided my comments:

I think all teams need to increase the frequency that they share engineering concepts. Concepts such as how to telescope tubes using a single cable/string or how to create a claw on an arm that doesn't change it's angle (two-bar linkage). Sharing these ideas barely stunts creativity because they are the solution to the common problems that arise in engineering designs. I think it's actually more likely to increase creativity because it gives teams/students more tools in their engineering toolchest to pull out and use on their designs. These concepts are often text-book, but that doesn't mean a high-school student is exposed to them or even has access to them which is in part why FIRST is such a great experience.

To sum it up, this is about the question "how does it work?" which is something well all thought before we smashed open our first alarm clocks to find the ticking answer.

That said, I think *designs/strategies* should stay with a team at least until competition. Now, I know I showed the world our prototype ball launcher, but the reality is that there was no more there than there was at the FIRST kick-off. We simply remade a softball launcher using kit parts and robot-legal materials to prove that kit parts would work. What I think should stay with the team is their brainstormed/tested design solution to a part of the game challenge (such as ball collecting/launching). And my argument for this is in line with many others - keep the solution out of your mind and your creativity will have to take over to solve the problem. And that creates a greater learning experience.

To sum this one up as well, it's about the question "why was it designed that way?" Why can take apart a keyboard and figure out how it works. But to understand why we have the QWERTY keyboard layout takes a lot of creativity and learning unless you have the answer handed to you (you know, in history books or online). You don't get the answer by taking about the keys and playing with the membranes and silicone!

Re: Sharing Designs
 

EXACTLY! :D

I personally think that if you must share your designs, do it when there is no time left for others to copy them. If everyone shared everything, we would have 2,000 excellent but identical robots, leaving the matches up to random chance! :ahh:

Re: Sharing Designs
 

...imagine that. If we all worked together, the world would be a better place. When we protect proprietary information, we make life better for ourselves at the expense of other people.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I see what you're saying, but I think that forcing others to think through different design choices on their own is more beneficial to them than handing them the "best" design on a silver platter.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

EDITED:

I got pretty defensive in response to MK's post, and decided to edit this.

I can certainly understand where MK is coming from, it would be great to live in a Star-Trek culture world where everyone has their basic needs met, and we all spend our time and energy making the universe a better place.

The problem is that, time and time again we have learned that human nature does not work that way. For whatever reasons we are competitive creatures, and without some level of competition we tend to fade into stagnation.

That does not mean people dont care about other people, and making the world a better place. Most people do care, but at the same time there has to be some direct benefit that comes back to them personally as well. It takes both.

Intellectual Property is the life-blood of many american companies. We spend years researching and developing new ideas, systems, products... That reseach is not free. The IP that comes out of it cannot be given away for free, or the people who have created it will get nothing for their years of dedicated work and creativity.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Yes, because if you are just "given" everything, you learn absolutely nothing and cannot design anything on your own. You stay dependent on those "higher minds" that gave you the design in the first place. This is far less beneficial to society as a whole, for what happens when those "higher minds" stop giving away their designs?

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Which part of 'work together' implies a parasitic relationship?

Re: Sharing Designs
 

We all know what human nature is... :D

Re: Sharing Designs
 

As a rookie team, we would not know where to begin without the help of other team's sharing their information. The shared information has allowed our team to go and come up with ideas that we would never have thought possible. I fully encourage teams to share the information that they have obtained with other teams. This is will not only benefit the teams that are not well established but will also help to develop a relationship and gracious professionalism, which is what FIRST is all about.

Scott
1727

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I am not opposed to the sharing of information--after the point where is is impossible for teams to copy designs from this year! There are many years worth of prior knowlege and designs already posted without having to share this years designs where everyone can copy them.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

To put it simply, when you have two or more groups in the same project, you're ultimately going to have one of them doing more work than the others. And no matter how much you try to make them equal, there will ultimately be someone coming out ahead on the arrangement. (See also: separate but equal.)

The suggestion of a group of documents on how mechanisms work would hold promise, though. Knowing how a well-done telescoping arm works, for example, would do me better than getting the complete drawings from 233's robot last season. At least that's how I see it.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

The difference is that I believe that FIRST is a multinational non-profit organization that aspires to transform culture, making science, math, engineering, and technology as cool for kids as sports are today. Experienced teams (and individuals) withholding information from those trying to learn are valuing the competition over learning. I don't really care if you ever win a tournament. I don't care very much if we win or not as long as our team does everything right. After you graduate as a youth member of FIRST, the number of tournaments you won will be irrelevant, but what you learn about teamwork, program management, engineering, fabrication, mathematics, and physics will help you the rest of your life.

I suppose it's a mentor/student thing. A lot of students think FIRST is just a robot competition -- but I think it's an exceptional learning opportunity. If someone thinks it's all about winning, they will withhold information. If they think it's about learning, they will share whatever they've learned. It's not like a student joins a FIRST team at 14 years old and reinvents all this from first principles. Nearly all of what all of us know about this has been learned from other people. When we refuse to share that with the next generation of learners, we are cheating them of the chance to do their best, and ourselves of the pleasure of helping someone.

Everyone can follow their own wisdom, but as for me, I will at all times try to answer any question asked in good faith to the limit of my knowledge and experience, especially one from a student or a new mentor. Frankly, I find an attitude an attitude of secrecy disappointing in a FIRST participant. This isn't NASCAR or Formula One. We're supposed to be friends.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I'd like to bring this back to FIRST and not society at large. There are teams which will take another teams idea and use it verbatim - is this bad? Maybe. Maybe not. For a rookie team simply understanding how said idea works is a step in the right direction. That simple act of understanding may have just turned on a student to a career in engineering. Seems beneficial to me. Are there teams that abuse this, sure but I'm more interested in turning on that one student the preventing those other teams from copying our work.

Now a returning team simply copying is not what I would like to see. I know I don't permit it on our team. Innovating and improving on previous (or current) designs is fine. Quite often our design discussions will include statements like "Oh do you remember how team XXX did that in 200X?" then someone will go and find a picture and we will talk about how and why their idea worked well (or poorly). Then we will talk about if it applies to what we are doing and if so try to make it better. We also have many crazy ideas and over the years many of those ideas have worked their way onto our robots for good and bad. I don't feel that this depends on "Higher Minds" but rather simple creativity and hard work.

Choosing to share a design now or later is a team by team choice. Our team has no rules on what can / can't be given away before the competitions. I work with engineers who help other teams and we have a fun time sharing ideas some of them even show up in final designs. However no other team is going to create our exact (winning :-)) robot, so I am not worried.

Either way I am always blown away at competitions by the creativity show by all the teams. I am not at all worried that we would EVER end up with 2000 identical robots.

Very few things are black and white in this world. Don't believe me read FIRST's rules. Always gray. :)

Joshua

Re: Sharing Designs
 

This is FIRST, not the real world. I believe my role is to help more than just the students on our team. I do program management and related tasks for money in the real world. At FIRST, and in other volunteer organizations, I do it for free.

As for blackberries, you don't have to plant them, they just grow. Stop by next August and pick up a couple of tons...

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Does anyone recall how teams 60/254 did in 2004? What about teams 22/60/254, 217/229, or 1114/the other triplets did in 2005 (among many other teams)? These teams worked together in their respective years and did very well design-wise and in the rankings.

Like Maddie said, working together on projects will make all of our lives easier in the long run and still allow us to push the envelope with new ideas and mechanisms. If you’re worried about getting credit for stuff you’ve done, the majority of the FIRST community is more than happy to be up front of they’ve copied or borrowed an idea or design from another team. Of course there are some bad apples out there, I’ve run into one in particular, but that’s just life. It’s not a big deal.

Despite apparently not having a team this season you never fail to teach the students, but instead of teaching them how to make Straw Man Fallacies I would suggest teaching them something about mechanics, electronics, or programming instead.

By the way, Blackberry and/or Chicken farming is a profitable market. If it wasn’t, people wouldn’t do it. Not to mention they taste great and can be prepared in a multitude of different ways. Or maybe you meant the PDA Blackberry...

Now I’m getting back to working on my robots with other people…

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Our team has always been open with ideas we regularily post updates of our robot and ideas our website.

If a team does copy our design we still have credit for coming up with it, I mean we'll know and they'll know, so what else matters?

...besides mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery..

http://www.phxhs.k12.az.us/education..._id=1137707811

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I know that. M.Krass went off on a tangent asserting that protecting proprietary information somehow means that you profit at someone elses expense (a real world situation).

Some of the things we experience, and some of the culture in FIRST translates into engineering / real world experiences and culture, and some do not.

The competition aspect of FIRST puts a lot of energy into the program. Over the years I have seen teams attempt to do off season projects (work on a shifting transmission design, or take the robot places to show other people about FIRST) and sometimes NOBODY shows up - nobody is interested.

The competition between teams is important. What happens before and after ship date is like two different worlds. New students get to ship date and think, wow, this has been great. We have to tell them "you aint seen nothing yet".

Look at all the teams that take so much pride in 100% student designed and built robots. Why is that? Ownership.

I know that FIRST is not a robot building contest. And I know if you take the robot competition out of FIRST the program would fizzle and die.

Being competitive is a part of human nature. The standard in FIRST is similar to what happens in the real world. People design things, and keep it secret until they are ready to release their product to the market. Then everyone gets to see what they have been up to, and if possible, knock-off products start showing up 6 months to a year later.

Same in FIRST. Many teams openly share what they have done in the past, but want to keep this years design under wraps until ship date, or the 1st regional.

I dont see any conflict there.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

...a team forgets to plug in their battery before a match and your team, competing against them, realizes this. You can keep that information to yourself and win the match as a result; or you can share that information, potentially still win and earn increased qualifying points because your opponent's score will be greater than 0. Profit isn't synonymous with earning money, Ken.

Experiences in FIRST are not meant to translate into the real world, they're meant to change it.

If Chrysler figures out how to make an efficient, affordable hydrogen-powered vehicle, they can choose to keep that technology to themselves and charge consumers a premium for it or they can make that technology available to all manufacturers.

One choice let's their shareholders buy a nice new house and a big screen TV. The other keeps our planet inhabitable for another 1000 years.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I find that it doesn't help to tell someone exactly how to do something, but rather it's better to get them thinking about how to do it. Part of FIRST is the journey and then the final product. It's kind of like the whole discussion on whether or not a team should throw a game for their sister team... a championship trophy is just a piece of plastic without the journey behind it. Sharing design ideas is the exact same thing. We should strive to make our competition better in order to make us make ourselves better!

Re: Sharing Designs
 

or they can license the technology to other car manufactures for a reasonable fee, use the money to continue funding their (excellent) R&D department, enjoy the fruits of their labor, and still save the world.

competition and cooperating are both important, and there is a balance between them. Our patent laws give reseach companies protected competition rights for a limited period of time, then their inventions become public domain.

Xerox is a good example. The competition for a good document copy system drove the companys founder to invest his own time and money to invent xerography. Xerox enjoyed a monopoly under their patent, and created a new product line under the protection they had.

When the patent expired (forced cooperation) the competition flooded in like a tidal wave, which drove the prices way down, and forced Xerox to become far more innovative than they had been.

It works both ways. If you take away the competiton we will loose incentive to try new things. If you take away the cooperation then the state of the art of science and technology will become stagnent, because companys will keep the results of their research as trade secrets instead of applying for patents.

Same with FIRST - we need both, the competition and the cooperation.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

This is a personal issue of mine, I'm very open to sharing information, though none of the other students on my team are open to it.

What are you losing by sharing a design? Originality? Is that secret design of yours exactly what the winning key in all 71 robots have? (no its not PVC, the other secret)

What are you gaining? Your probably gonna get feed back, constructive critism, ideas to help make your robot better. And by showing what you got ahead of time people know at a competition to make sure to go and check your robot out more in detail. Its all publicity, if people know you got a product theres one step in the marketing process that you've got done. As for more specifics, you don't need to say what kind of sprocket size you have with all your chains, you don't need to go into detail about it. A picture (or movie) is worth 1000 words.

Why not? You've got nothing to lose (and if your saying originality, start looking at the stuff the patent office gave us in the kit)

i dont know if this "tangent" is what the original thread was made for, but it seemed fitting, maybe if the discussion was split? Mods feel free to move it

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Disclaimer:
The views expressed below do not necessarily reflect those of the rest of my team.

Now then...

Personally, I believe engineering is not simply about applying this concept, and building that design. Engineering fundamentally comes down to problem solving, and if the students can't get excited and inspired by the problem solving process because someone has spoon fed them a solution, then nobody wins.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime.

One of the most remarkable aspects of FIRST is the variety of different designs seen at the competitions. Without fail, every possible design that we brainstormed and ruled out for whatever reason will have been implemented, and in a way that we may have thought could never work. Yet it does. It's a learning process throughout, and seeing how everyone else solved the problem after you've come up with your own solution is all the more valuable.

In my mind, FIRST is kind of like school. It's here to teach students about engineering, and inspire them to consider making a career in the fields of science and technology. When I was in school, I learned a whole lot more doing something on my own and comparing it with the solutions and methods of other students than I ever would have if they simply told me how they solved the problem before I started.

I don't believe anyone is saying that information should never be shared. It's simply a matter of when. Allow teams to experience the problem solving stage without influencing them. Necessity is the mother of invention - but if you no longer need anything because something has been given to you, then there's a loss of creativity. And sure, you can argue that simply improving someone else's solution could make it worthwhile, but I stand by the argument that you should come up with your own solution first.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Perfect! This is exactly what I was trying to say through my posts earlier, though unfortunately I came across much harsher.

Nice job Kevin! :)

Re: Sharing Designs
 

The problem with your analogy is that a large portion of these students (at least the ones I work with) don't know what a fish is, that fish are good to eat, how to recognize a fish when they see one, and how to catch one if they know all of the above. This isn't about a student trying to choose between a V-belt and a timing belt, it's about them not even knowing that such things as belts exist. This is very common to rookie team members and to rookie teams. Assuming that rookie mentors are all MIT-trained NASA engineers who custom fabricate motorcycles in their spare time is a bad idea, too. We helped a mentor for a small team last year who barely knew which end of a screwdriver to hold. The girls at his school wanted a team, so he did his best, and several PNW teams helped them finish their robot (on Thursday of the tournament).

I will continue to answer any question about technology, approaches, strategy, or "how are you going to do this" that anyone on CD asks in good faith and that I think I can meaningfully address. I think it is how I can best advance the goals of FIRST.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

well, they reflect some of our views quite well :)

Woodie once said he wanted to make our brains hurt. And I *don't* think he was talking about getting beaned by 198 grams of foam....

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Here, here (or is it hear, hear? - oh well). This is another one of those discussions that occur every year.

I agree that the struggle to solve the problem is part of what is great about FIRST. There are a lot of great designs from past years that the teams can learn from - how to build drive trains, arms, grippers, transmissions, etc. These mechanisms can be modified and tweaked to make a basic shooter for this year - there's no reason to give away detailed shooter designs.

There's a great saying: "you can fight without ever winning, but you can never win without a fight." This doesn't literally mean you actually need to fist-fight - it means that in order to gain something, you need to struggle a bit. Similar to "no pain, no gain". I'm all for letting every team struggle on their own; not because I don't want them to beat me on the field - it's because I want them to maximize their learning process.

If you build something that someone else designed, you learn what that mechanism does. By being forced to come up with the design on your own, you not only learn WHY it works (which is also important), but you also learn how difficult it can be to solve these problems, and why a good problem solving process is needed, and why research is important, and why getting an education is important - these are the major goals of FIRST.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I'm torn between my inner hippie and my practical knowledge of engineering when it comes to IP debates, so I'll save that for another day (generally I lean towards consumer rights - put a price on IP so companies strive for it, but limit the power of a patent so as not to shut out the competition).

However, when it comes to FIRST, I think people are overprotective of their ideas to some extent. For the most part, the brilliance in engineering in FIRST is in the implementation, not the raw concept. Our robot is shooting balls with a spinning wheel - not this years' most unique idea, but there are a few things we think we do differently than the competition. When people go on Delphi and try to talk in spy-like secrecy about the fact that they are using a spinning shooter, I just scratch my head.

Two, the build season is 6 weeks long. Almost every team out there will be working on something until the last day or so. If you don't have your concept ironed out in the first couple days and you don't have a working drivetrain in a week or two, you are behind schedule and will REALLY be in a bind. If I were to post my brilliant ideas on Delphi right now, in week three, no one would be able to implement them in time - at least not the same way I did. So in a way, FIRST IP is protected because of the limited period of time to duplicate design.

FIRST management has also consistently given nudging in the direction of more disclosure. This year every technical award winner will be asked to write an entry for a FIRST book - and I guarantee FIRST teams will be its #1 buyer.

Lastly, if I'm unsettled about propriety during the build season, I am absolutely dumb-founded by propriety during the off season. I've been at off season events, seen something cool, asked about it, and been told "no, that's a secret." I can't see any defense for this...it's not like I'm being force fed a design and not learning about my robot - I've recognized a feature that intrigues me and want to learn more.

Competition is what draws people into FIRST. Cooperation is what keeps them there.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Long time reader, first time posting. :)

Part of the problem I see with the idea of sharing designs follows along the “slippery slope” argument. Where does it stop? If we are going to provide kids with ideas why not designs? Why not the (custom) parts? If we give them the parts, why don’t we assemble it for them? Maybe we should just outsource the design/assembly and order a robot? :) They can still compete with it. If the students aren't designing things, what are they doing?

In the end, maybe a team doesn’t have the *best* design, or the *best* idea, but next year they will learn more from their experiences when they can look back and discover how and why they made that *decision*. Now, with that said, I don’t think there is a single team within FIRST that wouldn’t bend over backwards to help any rookie team to design/implement their own ideas, but giving them your design would take away that aspect of the learning process from a team that probably needs it most.

Every team has their own philosophy, strategy and attitude. Every design decision involves some cost-vs-benefit consequence and this need to be evaluated by each team. What is “best” for one team may not be right for another team. Help people learn to solve problems; don’t give them the solution.

I also wanted to mention that yes, FIRST is about getting students excited about math, science and engineering (first and foremost). What is MORE exciting than a group of students designing that small competitive advantage (on their own) that takes them to the national championship?

I haven’t been with FRIST for as long as many of the people that I work with, but I have noticed an amazing trend in my 3 years: The more you expect from the students, the more they will accomplish.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Update: Here is a a "proof" of my above logic:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pi...le&picid=13260

Re: Sharing Designs
 

This isn't proof of anything. These three teams chose to work together (and have done so for 2 years now?) and design their robots together. I see this as a good thing because the more people you have looking at a problem the more ideas there will be to solve it. It is not about copying an idea, but more collectively deciding on what they think is best.

I think this thread has strayed from its original purpose of a place for teams to share their information, but that’s what this entire site is for. Chief Delphi is not just a place for people to talk about robotics, but its a place where people can show off their accomplishments and spread ideas and information. Case point Dewalts and banebots. MANY teams use these transmissions and if it were not for CD then these things would have taken allot longer to spread throughout the FIRST community. If you feel that you do not wish to share information, then don't. But please do not criticize or get angry when people do share information. There will always be people willing to share information and ideas. And CD is a good place for them to share them.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Eldarion--"leaving the matches up to random chance!"



More Driver's skill than random chance.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

I have some "gripes" about "teasers". Sure teasers are great the first few weeks of the build season. But why when its week 6.9 are we still having teasers???? If you can change your design in ~24 hours you shoud be national champions, but let me ask...is keeping your design SECRETIVE even after shipping really worth it? Sure, I can see it for the suprise at the regional, but when teams are still posting teasers even after ship, I feel is just plain rediculous.
IMHO, I would rather show my idea in week 4.5ish then let the general public constructively criticize me and hopefully get some ideas to better OUR design. I know FIRST has way to many honest and gracious teams to "steal" my design. Granted in the past once I've seen a robot on Delphi, I've said "why didn't I think of that" and usually take notes for next season. I have never said or heard anyone say..."wow that bot looks great, lets change our design because of it".

Let me know your opinions

Re: Sharing Designs
 

Ken is on target again!!!

We help rookie and veteran teams by sharing info. especially if it enables those who cannot otherwise complete the necessary task. For example we figured out how to modify globe motors by milling off .25" of the housing on the gearbox. We then remove the outer layer of planetary gears to increase the speed to over 400rpm. Now we tell people about this because it helps some teams who might otherwise spend many hours or even days coming up with an equivalent which might be expensive, heavier and/or bulkier.
Giving this info away doesn't put our chances in jeopardy; other teams would have to copy almost everything else we have to do that.
Having the exact same robot on different teams still has variable outcome possibilities due to the human factor and strategy. Case in point:


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=13260&directio n=DESC&sort=date&perrow=4&trows=3&quiet=Verbose

Here's our bot by the way.
http://media.putfile.com/Team-329-ball-pickup

Re: Sharing Designs
 

This is not NEARLY the same thing as this thread is about... I think that alot of people got offended by alot of other peoples posts, and because of that we end up a with close-minded arguement in wake of an openminded discussion.

The bottom line is... If every single team had the same robot, then there wouldn't be much of a competition at all, would there? The difference between showing a team a finished result and giving the team a finished design is that with the later... the team actually learns something. It's the same reason that they don't give me the answers to my chem problems with the questions. They just give me a final result, and have me figure the rest out on my own. It helps me learn more, which is part of what FIRST is about. My team prides ourselves on being student built, and if we were offered a professional design... I doubt we'd take it. This brings us back to human nature as a whole... Our will to compete insures that there will never be a Startrek Utopia where everybody shared everything.

Re: Sharing Designs
 

This discussion really is about cooperation/competition , or FIRSTs "co-optition". Its about helping others without giving away your stratigic (sp?) advantage.

If a team, other than my own, asks for help I will help them with THIER design. I won't design it for them, for I believe that the process by which they come up with thier strategy / design is as important as the design itself.

We, in 1058, don't share our designs before the competition. We will explain how (and why) we designed our robot the way we did at the competition so that they may learn from what we did and apply it in the future, if they so desire.

One of the things I try to teach the kids is that this is a competition, and the goal of a competition is to win. However, it is what you do to achieve that goal that defines the person, and not achieving the goal itself.