Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ken Patton
I have to disagree. The type of creativity that gets applied when a team is coming up with a new use for some existing piece of hardware or software is different than the creativity required to successfully implement some new design concept. At the risk of being a bit flippant, I would call it "junkyard engineering" versus "real design."
Not that JE is unimportant. We all do it! Its fun, cheap, and fast.
As someone already mentioned, the unrestrictive type of rules would not prevent teams from taking off-the-shelf items and creatively using them.
But... the restrictive type of rules would prevent teams from implementing great NEW ideas, because presumably there would be material or content limitations.
Take for example, the omni wheel. Some might think that AndyMark pioneered its use in FIRST because they are the ones who make it easily available to us all. But before AndyMark, there were teams that concepted and designed their own. I would suggest that Team 67's use of their own omniwheel design in 1998 was due to the relatively unrestricted nature of the rules back then (ignoring the fact that even then the rules were relatively restricted compared to today). If teams were given a choice of only using wheels from a certain source or kit, would any of us have the chance to learn to deal with scrub by designing something new?
The above might be too restrictive of an example, but hopefully it gets the point across.
What was more creative: Beatty's use of a bucket from page xyz of the SPI catalog for the base of their detacheable skewer in 1997, or the concept of a detacheable skewer?
My vote is for allowing teams to create something from nothing. I occasionally tell people that the magic part of engineering is the ability to make something from nothing. Making something from something-else is not as impressive in my opinion. It is not as inspirational. And (again my opinion) its all about the big I.
Ken
|
I think that either direction can increase creativity. If you have less restrictive rules, you can be more creative with your overall design. However, given that there are a limited number of off-the-shelf components available for use, most teams will stick to those and end up with a less creative robot. If you're daring, you'll design something more creative because it will give you an edge in competition (if it works).
Now, if you restrict the rules, it means that each subcomponent will end up being more creative. Why is this? Because you can't just buy one off-the-shelf. If AndyMark is selling a shifter, I'd be much less likely to design my own when I could just buy one from them. Is it the best shifter possible? Probably not (no offense to either Andy or Mark intended here, very few things are the best possible). Now if I'm not allowed to buy one, I may spend my time designing one and I may make one better; in all likelyhood, at least, it will be different and I will have applied creativity to it.
I end up believing that the restricted rules make it more creative as I think most teams end up using off-the-shelf parts whenever possible. The less off-the-shelf parts you have, the more creative you have to be in designing what you'd like to do.
Honestly, I think the key is not to so much restrict which parts are used but the total cost allowed for purchasing things to go on the robot. This requires great creative in deciding how to build things at the lowest cost and what you really need to include.
Matt