Musings on Design Inspiration

[Taylor]

I've run this through multiple iterations in my mind, and I still can't see the fit. Minibots - sure, one could make a carbon copy in a relatively short period, but that would require a high level of robot and mechanism understanding that cannot be bought at Quik-E-Marts.
As for extrapolating the idea of stealing a design idea to a large-scale mechanism/whole robot, I think the notion falls on its face. Without understanding the mechanical, physical, and engineering concepts behind a design, there are so many minute details that would be missed/misinterpreted that the 'carbon copy' would be inferior in many ways.
If it is in fact mechanically at the same level or even better, then it would have to be agreed that learning did take place, reverse engineering did happen, thoughts about the original design process were thunk, and Inspiration did occur.
Either way, on the competition field, the original designers would have the upper hand. An adequate but well-understood and practiced robot will beat a flawless robot controlled by novice hands every day and twice on Saturday. If a team chose to copy our design in 2015 (I'd first have to question their intelligence), I'd first feel honored to be held in such high esteem as to be steal-able, and I'd next feel secure in the knowledge that our deeper understanding of the design, that we gathered through multiple iterations and assembly, and the time spent testing and practicing, would give us the upper hand in competition.

[GGCO]

Originally Posted by JVN

I don't like seeing "I agree with John" or "I disagree with John" because... I don't know HOW I feel.

Hmm, just a suggestion, but I think that next time before you post something where you haven't made up your mind on a topic you should put a disclaimer at the top or constantly remind everyone that you have conflicting feelings. Otherwise, when people read the post's strong language they can make incorrect conclusions from it.

[Mr. Pockets]

Funny, I know that our team is in the process of building one of these master mini-bots. I have a sense of irony reading this because one of my team members who worked full season on the mini-bot was just noting their frustration (best word I can think of) today about how they worked for six weeks on the dang thing and now learn that they can build a better version by the end of the week. I'll pass this blog post on to them, I'm sure they will find it very interesting.

[HarveyAce]

Just a word from the captain of a really no name team:
There are teams that have a lot of resources, and there are those who have less, and there are those who have none. My team fell under the category of NONE, i mean zip, zero, nein, no funds at all. I have heard a lot of teams complaining about the teams that have a lot of resources, never mind that they've been around FOREVER, never mind that they have worked their butts off to get where they are, never mind that they do everything they can to help a team in need; lets just complain about them winning a competition, and complain that they have more than us. Get a grip guys. seriously.

We began in 2010 with four students and a mentor all who had no clue what we were getting into. We went to competition with a kit chassis, a wooden board screwed on top with a few electrical components slapped on (velcroed, and i'm not kidding, because we had nothing else to use), a wooden board to keep balls from rolling under the front of the bot, and a piece of tubing stretched across the sides to stop balls from coming underneath on the sides. We could move around, and that was about it.

We came to Peachtree, and saw the most amazing thing in the world. Finally a competition where there were real professional players and everyone willing to help everyone. In a matter of minutes, there were teams swarming our pit coming to visit "the new guys", and to help out. A few teams saw our bot, and took it into their hands to help us. They donated and helped us build an 8020 cage around the bot to keep from being demolished from their own resources, helped us fix chain, helped us re-write code, all of the top-tier teams did all they could to help us.

Now, as captain, looking back, everyone seems to forget that powerhouse teams such as 148, or 254, or 330, or 33, or whoever, will do everything within their power and ability to help out another team no matter what. I contacted team 254 at the start of this year because with the extreme increase in the amount of people this year, I decided it would benefit us to see how such powerhouses goth where they were, and to see how they manage the their teams. Instead of saying that the mentors do all the work on those teams, maybe people need to take a step back and re-evaluate their own teams. 254 told me that anything they could do to help, mechanically, design related, marketing related, anything, that they would do anything to help us. That includes sharing designs and what they have learned in the past. instead of criticizing them, maybe the FIRST community needs to try and be more like them. These teams realize that not everyone has an entire NASA research center at their disposal, not everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on fabrication equipment. But they do extend their hands to the community if all we would do is ask.

Using others designs to improve upon, is not copying. it's innovation. The first thing that i did when came hope from kickoff this year was begin researching what worked and what didn't work in similar games in past competitions, especially 2007. That's research. Learn from others mistakes, learn what didn't work and what worked instead to harping on teams that have been-there-done-that. give them credit and thank them for saving you the trouble of learning the hard way. That's what FIRST is about people. Collaboration, Innovation, and Gracious Professionalism.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by GGCO

Hmm, just a suggestion, but I think that next time before you post something where you haven't made up your mind on a topic you should put a disclaimer at the top or constantly remind everyone that you have conflicting feelings. Otherwise, when people read the post's strong language they can make incorrect conclusions from it.

That's the reader's fault for skimming and not reading thoroughly, not the original poster's fault.

TL;DR - In order for people to thoroughly understand the intricate concepts and ideas being outlaid in a long post, it may be necessary to fully read through the entire post without skimming. Using these critical reading skills are also of utmost importance to determine whether or not the post is written in a sarcastic or satirical tone; after all there is usually always a handful of people in your class that were horrified by Swift's A Modest Proposal as they did not understand it to be a satirical work. There are also times, such as in the case of the OP, where a column or op-ed has no definitely white-or-black solution/thesis but reflects on the author's torn opinion on the matter. Thus, while fully reading everything in a post may be a moderately time-consuming process, understanding the problem at hand the the arguments presented by the poster is more critical than saving thirty seconds so you can look at photos of lolcats.

[MagiChau]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

That's the reader's fault for skimming and not reading thoroughly, not the original poster's fault.

TL;DR - In order for people to thoroughly understand the intricate concepts and ideas being outlaid in a long post, it may be necessary to fully read through the entire post without skimming. Using these critical reading skills are also of utmost importance to determine whether or not the post is written in a sarcastic or satirical tone; after all there is usually always a handful of people in your class that were horrified by Swift's A Modest Proposal as they did not understand it to be a satirical work. There are also times, such as in the case of the OP, where a column or op-ed has no definitely white-or-black solution/thesis but reflects on the author's torn opinion on the matter. Thus, while fully reading everything in a post may be a moderately time-consuming process, understanding the problem at hand the the arguments presented by the poster is more critical than saving thirty seconds so you can look at photos of lolcats.

shortest tl;dr I have ever read

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

That's the reader's fault for skimming and not reading thoroughly, not the original poster's fault.

TL;DR - In order for people to thoroughly understand the intricate concepts and ideas being outlaid in a long post, it may be necessary to fully read through the entire post without skimming. Using these critical reading skills are also of utmost importance to determine whether or not the post is written in a sarcastic or satirical tone; after all there is usually always a handful of people in your class that were horrified by Swift's A Modest Proposal as they did not understand it to be a satirical work. There are also times, such as in the case of the OP, where a column or op-ed has no definitely white-or-black solution/thesis but reflects on the author's torn opinion on the matter. Thus, while fully reading everything in a post may be a moderately time-consuming process, understanding the problem at hand the the arguments presented by the poster is more critical than saving thirty seconds so you can look at photos of lolcats.

Any issue sufficiently nuanced to be worth discussing at length probably can't be contained in a tl;dr.

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

I think it all depends on what your motivations are. If you are a team that has decided all of the inspiration comes DURING the build season, and the competition season is just for the fun of it, then I completely see this being the correct stance. However, if your ultimate goal is to WIN the competition, and to do it however you can (within the rules), it makes SENSE to iterate on your designs, it makes sense to look to other teams for inspiration. Neither way is WRONG, its just a different way of looking at things, and different goals, both achieve the objectives of FIRST.

I think you hit my nail on the head here. I think the competition is "for fun", but at the same time, you play to win. FRC is similar to NCAA Div I, because a lot of these kids will grow up to do this for real. (Sadly our coaches miss out on the million dollar salaries...)

In my view, whatever my team decided to put on the robot probably had a lot more time and effort put into it than the few hours we could weasel out of our FIX-IT window. I have only ever competed at week 1 events, and when we went to the championship we were too burned out after the season to make much use of our windows... so that might play into my view.

[PayneTrain]

I feel like I should add that it's important to note that the goals of FIRST and its intended methods of achieving the goals are entirely open-ended.

As mentors, you can inspire your students by designing a robot and showing them how it works, or you can let them learn form their mistakes by taking a back seat.

As students, we can become inspired by Science and Technology by aiming at winning the competition, or just enjoying the six weeks of the build season.

Both groups can consider inspiration to come from your own, likely unique creation, or be inspired by building an iterative design, with hopeful improvements, that is successful in competition.

That's why I don't understand, but appreciate the point of debate of this or coaches/mentors on a drive team. While it is great to see how teams go about inspiring their students, whether or not it is in the spirit of the rules is moot. It's intentionally open.

[anissa]

I feel as though you shouldn't be able to share your designs on robots, minibots etc because people should learn to make/build their own with help from others but should be forbidden to share.

[Ian Curtis]

I don't understand why you would copy a design in the same season. That isn't any fun. If I'm going to compete, I want to compete with my robot, not someone else's!

FWIW, I think even with a directly copied minibot there is a lot of room to flub up. No doubt we'll see some of that. If a team realizes that they've got to build a non-geared minibot to keep pace with the high scoring teams I think that by necessity they'll need to do engineering work to integrate it into their robot. We've seen over and over that deployment is key, and "The devil is in the details."

I understand that some teams have little to no engineering support. That is unfortunate, but at the same time I have a hard time believing those teams get a lot out of straight copying a top-tier minibot. I think there is something to be gained from reverse engineering something like that, but sending John and email asking for details is "cheating" in my world view. There is a lot to be learned looking at pictures of mechanisms and frequently consulting Wikipedia.

-Ian

P.S. Every team should take pictures of every robot at their event. If you see mechanisms you especially like, take pictures and ask about them!

[Nemo]

The simple minibot solution is a fact of life in this year's game. Teams should expect to see many of the fast direct drive bots with magnets and plan accordingly.

Copying a design is okay, and I agree that we should try to give credit where it's due. I think it should be acknowledged that it's difficult to make significant design changes after the shipping deadline, because our access to the robot is limited to the precious hours we get in the pits at regional competitions. There are only so many meetings we can hold in the in-between weeks before a competition, so it is not that easy to build and program new stuff (keep in mind that most teams don't have two copies of their robot). Any team that manages to copy another team's design has some significant hurdles to overcome. Even if they do, the original designers should have the advantage, because they should be able to tweak their designs while the other teams are busy fabricating and programming new stuff. The original designer also has the benefit of more precious practice time. It's the same situation we have in the middle of the build season - if somebody else showcases their sweet manipulator on the web and my team copies it, we are weeks behind. Whatever one's opinion on the fairness of copying, there is some justice in the advantages inherent to being the first to put together a specific successful design.

If the minibot in this year's game is easier to copy than most other systems, that just means that other aspects of the game will be more important in differentiating teams at the Championship.

[Sunshine]

Great discussion Folks!

I apologize if I missed someone mentioning the following.......

Just a couple of questions to ponder.

1. Is it better to make a mini-bot "borrowing" another teams' successful ideas or actually borrow the backup that they bring to the competition? FIRST allows both scenario's to happen this year. If the ultimate goal is to learn from the experience, which scenario allows the most learning?

2. Did FIRST think this through prior to kickoff? Why did they allow us to hold back the mini-bot from weight allowances? Did they want the morphing to exist this year?

3. What does Cooperation really mean? Sharing a robot? Sharing a robot design?

[Tom Ore]

The discussion has lead my thinking off on a tanget. What happens in a few years when there are 4500 FRC teams and 100 regionals? It seems that these sorts of issues will only be larger. I'm wondering if FRC needs to split at some point - say an A league and a B league. The larger, more experience teams with more experienced students and mentors and better resources would compete in A league regionals. The smaller, less experience teams or teams that have lost experienced students and/or mentors would compete in the B league regionals. The A league would be the more competive league where designs and strategies are more closely guarded. The B league would be more informal, more between team mentoring. There would need to be some built in incentives to compete in the appropriate league - for instance maybe the B league winners don't get an automatic place in the championships. Sorry for going off on a tangent...

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by JVN

Hi Everyone,
I don't like seeing "I agree with John" or "I disagree with John" because... I don't know HOW I feel.

Too funny... I read through your blog yesterday and was going to post but didnt get the chance (hmm real work got in the way?? lol). The funny part about it was in my mind I was saying "No way... a day where I actually agree with John?!?!" But my agreement was merely in the conflicting feelings.

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

In the real world, there is a lot of reverse engineering. It's an important skill for engineers to learn because everyone does it.

EXACTLY. I am a Systems Engineer... I am constantly fighting the whole irrational thought of "Its no good if its not designed here." The best & brightest companies take someone elses design and improve it. There are even company mottos that say "We don't make the things you buy, we make the things you buy BETTER". The real world of engineering very very much includes reverse engineering and understanding other companies designs.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't understand why you would copy a design in the same season. That isn't any fun. If I'm going to compete, I want to compete with my robot, not someone else's!

I think it all depends on what your motivations are. If you are a team that has decided all of the inspiration comes DURING the build season, and the competition season is just for the fun of it, then I completely see this being the correct stance. However, if your ultimate goal is to WIN the competition, and to do it however you can (within the rules), it makes SENSE to iterate on your designs, it makes sense to look to other teams for inspiration. Neither way is WRONG, its just a different way of looking at things, and different goals, both achieve the objectives of FIRST.


Now... for my thoughts.

1. For the past several years, I've beat in the "be inspired by past years" idea into 1511's head. WHY on earth would we reinvent the wheel when we can take the wheel and improve on it? Every kickoff day one or more of us sits for hours pouring over other teams designs, pulling out the succesful & unique ones and compiling a giant slideshow of robot photos. We print them out and bring them in for Sunday's design session, spreading them all over one of our tables. I HATE reinventing the wheel, I'd rather improve on it.

2. I've told this story before, but in 2008 the rails sagged and made our design for hitting the trackballs useless without being able to measure the field (which they would NEVER let us do). I kept forcing our team to try and iterate and get it right, but to no avail. Our student coach finally had our mechE team make up one of the simple lexan flippers. A design I believe we first saw on 1507 and other FLR robots. A literal direct copy. I nearly flipped out on him. I hated that we couldnt solve it ourselves, that there was no better way than directly copying someone elses design. Yet it worked beautifully, and our team was MUCH happier winning matches than getting hung up on the stupid rails for a saggy field.

3. Last year, a couple of our students worked insanely hard on a lifter design, that just well didnt cut it at FLR. In that week 1 we saw 217's lifter mechanism, and had seen videos/photos of 148 & 1114. Ours didnt work, even marginal improvements would probably not help. I personally didnt think we had the time to redo it entirely (though I was at a distance). The team took the 148 design, found the flaws (sorry John!), and redesigned with "inspiration" from the 148/217/1114 type design. They ran into a few hiccups along the way, and learned a lot. This wasn't a direct copy, but it was inspired within the season, though I would say it was somewhat similar to one idea that was pitched early in the season.

But I think the REAL question is what kind of credit should be given? If you asked any of our designers they would know exactly where it came from. If you asked some random team member, they might not know. Most of us that are active on CD will freely admit where we got ideas from, and will never take credit for someone elses idea. But is that enough? Should everyone put on little stickers that say "Inspired by XYZ FIRST Team"? Should the students have to tell the judges where they got the idea? What is enough?

I was happy to hear that successful teams like 67 copy in season. It makes me feel like maybe its not such a bad thing.

I do think its a very very difficult thing to copy a design without learning anything from it. I can't think of a time that we ever did that, and I don't know of a time that anyone else did either. So maybe it isnt all bad?

But I go back to my "What is your Ultimate Goal" point. John, you've said multiple times that 148's ultimate goal is to win events & win championship. I KNOW that you inspire many kids along the way, so I don't want that debate to come back up. But if YOUR Ultimate Goal is to win the championship, and MY ultimate goal is to win the championship, and your design is clearly better than my design, how do I win the championship? I either have to improve my design beyond yours, copy yours, or copy & improve yours. Which takes the least amount of effort? Right or Wrong, copying designs is the fastest way to winning when it is done correctly. If you decide in your musings that it really is wrong/unfair, go back to the "sheet over your robot" days and stop posting designs .

Ultimately kids are learning, teams are playing hard, the teams that worked hard to begin with are being rewarded (and very often credited), and kids are being inspired... isn't that what this is all about?