[Joe G.]

Another person's random ramblings on "creativity for the sake of creativity":

I love coming up with creative designs. Who doesn't? Its one of the most fun parts of the design process! There's something special about that feeling of "I thought of something no one else did." And, creativity is responsible for every improvement to a technology in the history of mankind. Behind every improvement, whether a tiny optimization to a well established system, or a radical new direction, there was someone thinking "Now how could I do this differently?"

I have to disagree with some of the stronger-worded posts stating that innovation and creativity are not always the best options. If they weren't, how would we move forward?

But, you have to be sure that you're moving forward, and not backwards, which is the point many have been trying to make. Just because something is different, doesn't mean it's better. And to check if a new idea is "better" we use the engineering design process: have a clearly defined problem, and criteria which the solution must meet. In the case of an established system, like a drivetrain, the "problem" is a perceived deficiency of the "standard" system.

Most of the time, you'll go about this process very methodically: Defining a problem, coming up with criteria, developing possible solutions, testing, and improving these solutions. This process works well on small-scale improvements, but is more difficult to apply to Out-of-Left-Field ideas.

But sometimes, a creative spark can cause the thing to happen in reverse. A random, "different for the sake of difference" idea is worthless in itself. But, when compared, very objectively, to the original solution, you might find that it is in fact superior in some way. This is a great way to discover "problems," that you may not have percieved as problems in the past! Maybe no one has! And if it solves a problem that no one else gave a second glance to, more power to you in competition!

But, don't take this as an endorsement of the creative idea over the standard. By all means, think about them, give them a chance, and compare them objectively to the established designs. If they are better, then they are better. If they are not, then they are not. Simple as that.

I'll also give creativity the point that they stand out of a crowd. Which for some people, is a big part of what they go into these competitions hoping to achieve. But in terms of pure competition, the success of a creative design is measured by its contribution to a winning robot, not the level of creativity itself.

Lets look at your motor-switcher idea in these terms. Its different, yes. But what does it solve, that a shifting gearbox does not? Is it more efficient? Is it more powerful? Does it use more or less motors? Is it less prone to failure? Are its failure modes more or less catastrophic than those of a shifter? Does it require a pneumatics system? Is it harder, or easier on the motors heat-wise? Machining effort? Cost? Size? Weight?

You can ask these questions, and a hundred more. Some of the answers will favor the shifter, and some will favor your design. You have to weigh the pros and cons of each. In this case, it seems fairly clear that the shifter wins. But that isn't always going to be the case.

Never stop innovation.