[mrnoble]

I am now in year 10 as a coach, and year 13 as a teacher. My approach to robotics has evolved along with my teaching techniques, and I believe both have evolved for the betterment of my students. I know that both my classes and team 1339 are producing much better quality work (and better-prepared young adults) than they used to. The following are my current thoughts on the subject of this thread.

1) Experientially, I have found that students are much more prone to avoiding research, rather than pursuing it. I actively encourage mine to make a habit of looking for existing solutions to problems concurrent to brainstorming. I knew students who, when presented with Ri3D last year, simply didn't take the time to watch the process, and in so doing missed out on obvious solutions to problems they were having with their robot, much to their ongoing frustration and later regret.

2) While 1339 ate up Ri3D last year, we did not directly implement any of their robot's elements, other than the in-line shooter, which was in the works anyway and used very different parts throughout. We also pursued a pure climber until it became apparent it would not get us where we wanted to be.

3) I observed only one robot at the Colorado Regional that appeared to be influenced by Ri3D. It was still significantly different in materials and design; more like Samsung to an iPhone, perhaps.

4) I did, however, observe that rookie teams and historically weaker teams came to competition with fully functional robots. The several people I asked told me that Ri3D was inspirational, because it showed them that the task of launching frisbees was not impossible.

To conclude, I just don't think that fears about FRC turning into an assembly line of clones are realistic, as evident in both the actual robots in competition last year, and in my (obviously subjective) observations of high-school behavior and thinking.