KISS -- More Complicated than it Appears?

[EricH]

Simple... or, as Woodie so elegantly put it in 2007, "Simplicity on the other side of complexity"?

I think the question could be phrased this way: What is the minimum X device to do Y function effectively, given that Z group can't do anything beyond A complexity? If you go below the minimum X, you fail--Y isn't effective. If you go beyond A, you fail--Z can't do it without risking pain in terms of time, weight, or cost. If you are at the minimum X and at A, you have a simple, and quite possibly elegant, machine. (Going beyond X can result in greater complexity or greater capability, depending on the manner. For example, scissors lift versus linear elevator versus single-joint arm versus multi-joint arm in the 2007 game.)

[Gray Adams]

Originally Posted by EricH

Simple... or, as Woodie so elegantly put it in 2007, "Simplicity on the other side of complexity"?

That's actually a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and was repeated by Einstein.

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Gray Adams

That's actually a quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and was repeated by Einstein.

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

In 2007, Woodie applied it to FRC robot designs. There were quite a few complex mechanisms that year, and then there were the simple ones that just appeared complex (looking at 1114 and 1717 as good examples). Those found the simplicity on the other side of complexity, I think...

[OZ_341]

I think any discussion of KISS in 2012 must include Team 67.
They had one device to pick up balls, lower the ramp, and assist with balancing. When I finally had a chance to look at this machine up close at IRI, I was floored by its elegance.