Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
The design process doesn't have to incorporate the first-principles analysis you presented as an example. Researching existing solutions and using them where appropriate is also a perfectly valid design methodology.
|
Im trying really hard to find a way to agree with this (seriously). I know how things are done on many teams, and I know about design sharing and white papers and all that stuff
but when I look at that rule, if it said "must design your robot" then I would happily concede that re-using old subsystems designs, or battery mounts (an individual component) was in line with the rules. A system level design often does reuse older subsystem designs for parts of it functionality
but because its says "all the components and mechanisms" I see red flags waving everywhere.
If I goto Comp USA and buy a laptop computer, in no sense of the word (in my vocabulary) did I 'design' that computer. [I know we are allowed to use COTS subsystems, Im trying to clarifiy the word 'design' here]
If I copy a schematic from a website and wire the parts together, what would people think if I told them "I designed this" ? They would think I was taking credit for someone else's work.
The purpose of these
You
Make
The
Call threads is to discuss rules from FIRST that are sometimes vague, confusing or downright contradictory. How a leader runs their team is not up to them, its up to FIRST - its all contained in the rules they hand down.
If nothing else there should be a section in the rule book on re-use of old designs (not only single components, like the other contradictory rule addresses), and use of designs from white papers, internet websites...
going back to the original scenario in this thread, if a team has designed a transmission in the off season, with the intention of using it for the upcoming season, and they have it down to drawings that can be handed to a machinist to be fabricated on Jan 3rd, then I think they have clearly violated the spirit of the 'design starts at kickoff' part of this rule. If they have already gone that far, when the parts are actually machined is irrelevant.
Thats my call. (I do concede this rule is vague, confusing, and contradicts other rules from this year, along with going against many common FIRST team practices).