[Steven Smith]

I think of FIRST as a bit of a journey. Some teams have been on this journey a long time and have learned many things they may now take for granted. They have a toolbox of good design concepts, know what materials work well for applications, etc. When a new team comes along, is it better to tell them to start at the beginning, or to catch them up as quickly as you can so they can walk along side you?

Just because I think Ri3D/BB is great doesn't mean I'm dismissing the value of original design or learning lessons myself. However, if I created my own design this year, I might have had a critical failure because I counted on a release mechanism being able to actuate and it wasn't designed to release under that load. Not all of this data is readily available, and I don't have time to test every component thoroughly. Or, being a mechanical engineer, I might neglect to include a ratcheting component in a cocking mechanism and burn a few components up by stalling a CIM. Frankly, I think I have now learned the lesson, regardless of whether or not I personally experienced the failure... or observed it in someone else's design. I don't see a need for my team's students to experience EXTRA failure, because I am coming up to speed on good design as it relates to robotics.

This year, we've struggled to get parts in on time because we're dealing with a new school system and funding sources, we've just now reassembled our mechanical mill to start making parts... about 60% of our mentors and 80% of our students are new, etc. We went through a week of purely original strategy discussion/WoT, then sat down to look at all the examples of Ri3D robots to cherry pick elements we think will work well and address the strategy the students/mentors came up with. I was specifically concerned with picking components I know I can machine on a VERY sloppy manual mill, no lathe, etc. (Also, not blaming the mill, if I were a better machinist I could work around it... but I haven't run a mill in 6 years since college, and even then I had DROs... the mill, like my skills, are a limitation)

Long story short, I feel like I had two options this year.
1. To teach students/mentors "good design", by doing everything on our own and failing... delivering a weak/noncompetitive robot because our team lacks the engineering experience and machining resources to execute a competitive purely custom design. Some might find this rewarding and stick around... some might not. Basically, all the discussion on "good strategy", "good scouting", "driver practice" will be moot though... if our robot is not sound enough to allow those elements to be relevant at competition.

2. To teach students/mentors "good design", by letting them execute a design that is heavily influenced by external references. It is still true to how they want to play the game, it is achievable with our resources, and it will likely perform well at regionals. We will have it done in time for drivers to practice and we should get to experience all that a regional competition has to offer, instead of just standing around a non-functioning robot for most of it.

Final thought... I don't believe Ri3D/BB can make a good team lazy. If any team sees another design and decides they will just build it in a week and take five weeks off... then chances are they weren't going to magically be motivated before Ri3D/BB. Most teams won't be lazy, they are just freed up to focus their resources in that 6 week build season elsewhere, instead of prototyping the 5th failed design because they lacked the experience to pick a good one on the first try or two like a more experienced team.

My 2c as a new mentor.

Steven