My wish? make the BuildBlitzs/RobotIn3Days projects go away...

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by seg9585

Maybe they should have picked the last 3 days of build season (do not start until Feb 16th and have the same stop build deadline as everyone else).

I don't understand, who would this benefit?

[Leav]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I don't understand, who would this benefit?

Akash, what I don't understand is this: who benefits from the current model of the build marathons?

I can see rookies benefiting, but I think rookies have been doing fine since before these marathons.

And I won't shy away from saying this: AndyMark and VEX definitely stand to benefit commercially by demonstrating how to build successful robots with parts available from their stores.

Originally Posted by Starke

I want students to come out of my classes being problem solvers. The content is important yes, but I want them to be able to use the content that I share to solve life’s issues. They will probably never encounter the exact problem that I gave them in class. However, I want them to be able to take the situations and content that I give in class to solve any problem that comes at them.

Satrke, I really agree with this and I think this is mostly what has been bothering me with these builds. For me the off-season is the time to learn from other people and the build season the time to work on you own and tackle the problem as a team.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by Leav

I can see rookies benefiting, but I think rookies have been doing fine since before these marathons.

I think I saw less rookies with just drive bases this year than I have before so I don't think rookies as a whole were all that better before Ri3D.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Leav

Akash, what I don't understand is this: who benefits from the current model of the build marathons?

I can see rookies benefiting, but I think rookies have been doing fine since before these marathons.

And I won't shy away from saying this: AndyMark and VEX definitely stand to benefit commercially by demonstrating how to build successful robots with parts available from their stores.

I don't think anyone is oblivious to the fact that this is an awesome way to market their products. I, in fact, like that this is a way to show off to teams how to use COTS parts. There are a TON of teams who don't even know about all of the COTS items available to them. Maybe I like the free market and capitalism, but I don't see anything negative about this.

As for rookies "doing fine," why is it a bad thing to want to raise the level of competition in the process of marketing a product? Should we, instead, maintain the status quo? [Edit] Also, I saw a few weak veterans do well this year due to what they learned from Ri3D. It isn't just about the rookies. Ri3D affected teams at almost each level. Rookie teams and weak veterans got ideas of how to tackle the task or gained confidence and reassurance in their own ideas, while mid-level teams had a great baseline achievement to evaluate the performance of their own robots against. [/Edit]

In the end, I don't see it as a huge deal. I pretty much stated my opinion in this post, but I will re-evaluate after this season is over.

I think of it in the sense that you can really only control what actions your own team takes. Rather than asking for the resource to go away, make a plan of how to react to the videos and incorporate all of this information into your own build process.

Past those points, feel free to discuss via PM, since I don't have much more to add to the discussion. I want to just wait and see how it all works out.

[Allison K]

It would be silly if a team said "we don't look at old designs because it stifles our creativity." In an era where often times the game has an element that's similar to the past (tubes in 2011/2007, foam ball in 2012/2006, etc.) there's a plethora of examples of manipulator mechanisms (in addition to the drive trains and electrical techniques) that teams look to for design ideas. Innovation will not move as quickly if teams are continuously reinventing the wheel rather than using the intellectual property that they have at their disposal. I feel like the Ri3D/Build Blitz projects are similar in that they set a base line where teams can build from and actually encourage creativity and innovation.

Additionally, even non-rookie teams stand to benefit significantly from second hand prototyping. Are you home designing and want to know if something will work, but you don't have your shop on hand? Ask one of five teams that is more than willing to do some testing for you. Remember how excited teams got when the Ri3D team showed that accurate full field shooting was a possibility?

Finally, I think a major element of these Build Blitz type projects is understanding how to approach strategy. I've seen a number of teams that either don't value strategy or don't know how to derive a strategy, and having a number of methods to observe will help these students understand the game that happens in those first three days.

Overall I think the 72-hour build projects benefit the community.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Allison K

It would be silly if a team said "we don't look at old designs because it stifles our creativity." In an era where often times the game has an element that's similar to the past (tubes in 2011/2007, foam ball in 2012/2006, etc.) there's a plethora of examples of manipulator mechanisms (in addition to the drive trains and electrical techniques) that teams look to for design ideas. Innovation will not move as quickly if teams are continuously reinventing the wheel rather than using the intellectual property that they have at their disposal. I feel like the Ri3D/Build Blitz projects are similar in that they set a base line where teams can build from and actually encourage creativity and innovation.

This + let's be honest, was it really groundbreaking to teams that a wheel could be used to shoot something into a goal? No. But Ri3D's prototypes allowed a lot of new teams to work out the details of a shooter more quickly. Not all teams have the funds to buy things to prototype with, and rookies especially don't always have an inventory of old parts to use and work with.

Okay I'm done now lol.

[XaulZan11]

As a fan of FIRST who just wants to watch matches, see which strategies and robots win, I'm super excited to get to see finished robots in just a handful of days. As someone who has to work with students on my team, it does bring some additional challenges. While I may have enough experience and confidence (or stupidity) to deviate from these legendary FIRST mentors' strategies and designs, I think that is pretty hard for a 16 year old high school student to do. As Matt Stark mentioned, I'd prefer to let students think for themselves for a little bit first before getting too much tunnel vision. Last night, a student jokingly asked me if we should even meet during the first three days of buildseason.

Last year, the original Ri3D built a robot that would have been competitive at every regional and may have won a couple events, but probably wouldn't have faired too well at the championship (tall cyclers usually had trouble getting the nod over short cyclers unless they had a secondary feature). One of my concerns is, what if one of these five robots stumble on 'the design'. For example, the minibot ramp in 2011, 469's 2010 ball return, 1114's 2008 puncher claw, 67's 2012 utility arm (even if a team doesn't copy the arm, I'm sure they would build a wide robot). I prefer not to watch events (let alone the championship) where the winner is who could implement the same design better. Given the experience and talent of those building the robots and the competitive environment, I wouldn't be shocked if one of them built the dominate design of that year.

One possible compromise that I would prefer (but may not be best for all those involved) would be to still build a robot in 3 days, but not share anything until a week or so into build season. How cool would it be if each team created a professional quality hour documentary on their three days and then we had a unveiling week with one team showing their video a day. We all loved 148's unveiling videos, but what if it was an hour long and featured interviews that detailed their design thoughts and process? Teams would still have time to think for themselves, while these robots built in three days could still provide significant help for those inexperienced teams that are behind and really need the help. Plus, the documentaries would probably be more inspiring and cool than some youtube clips. The videos probably would be one of the first things I'd show to a potential mentor.

While there are certainly some valid concerns and downsides to these completed robots shortly after buildseason, I do think the benefit outweighs the negative.

[mrnoble]

I am now in year 10 as a coach, and year 13 as a teacher. My approach to robotics has evolved along with my teaching techniques, and I believe both have evolved for the betterment of my students. I know that both my classes and team 1339 are producing much better quality work (and better-prepared young adults) than they used to. The following are my current thoughts on the subject of this thread.

1) Experientially, I have found that students are much more prone to avoiding research, rather than pursuing it. I actively encourage mine to make a habit of looking for existing solutions to problems concurrent to brainstorming. I knew students who, when presented with Ri3D last year, simply didn't take the time to watch the process, and in so doing missed out on obvious solutions to problems they were having with their robot, much to their ongoing frustration and later regret.

2) While 1339 ate up Ri3D last year, we did not directly implement any of their robot's elements, other than the in-line shooter, which was in the works anyway and used very different parts throughout. We also pursued a pure climber until it became apparent it would not get us where we wanted to be.

3) I observed only one robot at the Colorado Regional that appeared to be influenced by Ri3D. It was still significantly different in materials and design; more like Samsung to an iPhone, perhaps.

4) I did, however, observe that rookie teams and historically weaker teams came to competition with fully functional robots. The several people I asked told me that Ri3D was inspirational, because it showed them that the task of launching frisbees was not impossible.

To conclude, I just don't think that fears about FRC turning into an assembly line of clones are realistic, as evident in both the actual robots in competition last year, and in my (obviously subjective) observations of high-school behavior and thinking.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Not all teams have the funds to buy things to prototype with, and rookies especially don't always have an inventory of old parts to use and work with.

This effect, especially, was huge for team 4464 last season. Our robot (minus the kitbot base) was made almost entirely with donated materials and scrap we could pick up from local shops. No way could we afford to spend on parts for prototypes that had any chance of not panning out; many of the parts from our first prototype shooter ended up on the final thing, and we purchased them knowing this would be the case and would not have purchased them otherwise. This would not have been possible without Ri3D.

Would it have been nicer, in an ideal world, to have been able to prototype more systems than a Ri3D-esque linear shooter (complete with AndyMark pneumatic wheels)? Yes, of course; but the world is not ideal. I don't think anyone could look at our robot from last year (a tall full-court shooter) and claim that it was a carbon-copy of the Ri3D robot or that our creative process was stifled, but Ri3D was a massively helpful resource in making fundamental design choices early on by removing many of the unknowns that we simply could not afford to figure out ourselves.

It's also worth noting that 449 prototyped a very large number of potential systems, most of which had nothing at all to do with the Ri3D design.

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

FIRST isn't about kids solving issues. If that's what you want, there are several STEM programs out there that require kids do all the work.This is what FIRST is about: teams using the tools they have in different ways to inspire kids while solving a problem. Let teams use all the tools they want.

I would be wary of this line of thinking. I think one of the biggest potential pitfalls of FIRST is allowing it to become a proxy competition for professional engineers. I was not "inspired" when I was a student by watching mentors design and build a robot, I was inspired (and gained a very large amount of incredibly useful experience) by doing it, along with my other team members. I would not have participated had it been otherwise, nor do I think, if it had been that way and I had participated, that it would have been nearly as beneficial.

My philosophy as a mentor (which I have cribbed largely from 449's senior mentor, to whom I am greatly indebted) is that my ideal job is to ask questions to get students thinking along the right lines, and to show them things they do not yet know. It is not to design and build the robot; I am a facilitator, not an agent, of that. Of course this is not always the practical reality; I will not shy away from getting hands-on if I think it is necessary, but I will try my hardest to never lose sight of the ideal.

I agree fully that Ri3D is a fantastic resource and, in general, the more resources available to the students the better. I also think it's very important to be mindful of the line between offering the students resources and performing the task yourself.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I would be wary of this line of thinking.

This is not my thinking. This is what FIRST says it's stated goals are: to inspire the next generation. How a team does this mission is entirely up to the individual team. If a team chooses to inspire by having professionals design and build the robot, that's entirely their choice. This is very similar to RI3D's. If a team uses it to inspire their students, more power to them. If a team chooses another path, that's just as valid. The only thing you should take away from this conversation about my "line of thinking" is that the all teams should have access to as many tools as they would like. What they do with them is entirely their choice.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

This is not my thinking. This is what FIRST says it's stated goals are: to inspire the next generation. How a team does this mission is entirely up to the individual team. If a team chooses to inspire by having professionals design and build the robot, that's entirely their choice. This is very similar to RI3D's. If a team uses it to inspire their students, more power to them. If a team chooses another path, that's just as valid. The only thing you should take away from this conversation about my "line of thinking" is that the all teams should have access to as many tools as they would like. What they do with them is entirely their choice.

I was simply opining that I do not think it is nearly as inspiring or educational to watch a mentor build a robot as it is to do it yourself. I can state with absolute certainty that had I not had access to the hands-on problem-solving experience that my FRC team provided, I'd be much worse off. I understand that this may not have been the point of your post, but your claim that "FIRST is not about kids solving problems" is something I felt compelled to comment on, because I think that students solving problems is a very important part of what FIRST is about. It certainly was the most valuable thing I got out of the program.

As an illustrative anecdote: About a year and a half ago I began an internship at the university of Maryland, working in robotics. The professor informed me that I would not be added to the payroll until I was contributing deliverables to the research; that they do not pay students to learn. A week later I was on the payroll, almost entirely because of the hands-on engineering work experience and problem-solving skills I had gained through FIRST.

You mention that Ri3D's choice is to have engineers build the robots, in the context of teams choosing how best to inspire their students - in light of this, I think it is also worth noting that Ri3D is not a FIRST team. They are a group of independent engineers who feel that this is a good use of their time (for which I am very grateful, as I've already mentioned).

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

You mention that Ri3D's choice is to have engineers build the robots, in the context of teams choosing how best to inspire their students - in light of this, I think it is also worth noting that Ri3D is not a FIRST team. They are a group of independent engineers who feel that this is a good use of their time (for which I am very grateful, as I've already mentioned).

You misread my post. I was simply saying that Ri3D is a tool that a team can choose to use or not use.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

You misread my post. I was simply saying that Ri3D is a tool that a team can choose to use or not use.

I read that part, and agreed with it totally; I even qualified my last response with a mention that I realize what I'm responding to was not the main thrust of what you were posting. It was an aside, albeit a lengthy one, on a subject you touched on that I feel very strongly about.

[aldaeron]

When I heard there would be many more “televised robots” (i.e. Ri3D, Team Blitz) built this year I had the same initial concern as the OP – that FRC is for the kids and if we follow a trend of having “Professional FRC builders” that FRC may become a competition where everything is copied from the Pros. After a bit of thought I changed my mind. Most of the good points have been added already, but I wanted to share what changed my mind.

Finally, some competition!

One argument I have not yet seen is for the C in FRC - Competition. I would like to see 50 functional bots at the regional and have the ranking determined by teams could drive and score well and who had a good strategy. It would not be fun to watch the Denver Broncos play a local high school football team. Similarly it is not fun to watch a match where 3-4 robots can’t offer much activity. It is a lot of fun to see a close match where 2 points made at the buzzer determines the result.

Design Iteration

In the “real world” of engineering, design iteration is a must. Design, analyze, build, test, repeat. With a “go to” design shown online, less experienced teams could spend some time on driving and testing (which from my experience on such teams does not happen at all). While there is not time for major design iterations in 6 weeks it is a great practice to show a full design cycle including testing and proposing changes (even if they cannot be implemented before the regional).

Is Ri3D really different than years past?

I would argue that the concepts shown by RI3D last year would have come to light anyway and been utilized by most teams. I recall seeing numerous YouTube videos of collegiate Frisbee competitions with shooter designs and whitepapers, including the popular linear and curved shooter designs on CD. Ri3D was just a well documented summary of ideas mixed with years of “what works well in an FRC specific environment”. Think of it this way: without Ri3D do you really believe there would have been a big difference in the design concepts teams chose?

I share the concern that student learning and growth can be hampered by improper balance of “outside help”, be it from mentors, Ri3D, CD, etc. I would not want to see a team that bought and assembled a group of parts that were designed by a contracted professional engineering firm with no student or mentor involvement. I believe this is “doomsday scenario” the OP envisioned happening down the road. So long as the “outside help” limit themselves to 72 hours I don’t see that trend developing because there is a lot of fine tuning of the game specific mechanism that takes place and can’t be done in 72 hours. The nice thing I have noticed in FRC games is that there is always something more to learn to dig into (the hard part is restraining yourself IMO)

My biggest critique of Ri3D is that they should have gone back and explained in depth why they made certain choices (after they sleep) whether it be “this tweak has worked well for FRC because”, “you might want to experiment with disc compression vs. distance” or “a six wheeled drivetrain is better for FRC because …”. This allows everyone to learn their process and important FRC specific design concepts (more on this later).

“Doing FIRST right”

It has been noted numerous times that every participant and team in FRC is different and there is no single solution to “doing FIRST right”. From differences in resources, knowledge, experience and “how much help should mentors give”, teams have a variety of successful approaches toward achieving the FIRST mission. I have participated in or mentored a few collegiate engineering clubs and have mentored a few new engineering grads at work. On the issue of “how much do we show by example” I think it is important to note that: (remember this is my opinion on the subject)

• “Copying” or re-use of established design concepts is and old concept (For example: The concept of a differential dates back hundreds of years ). We don’t start with oval wheels every year to see if they might work better for a reason. We accept the fact that circular wheels are the way to go.
• I haven’t seen any major design concept in an FRC robot that did not come from somewhere else. It is very unlikely that you will see an identical copy of an FRC mechanism on a commercial product, since most are tailored to FRC. However, you will see the concepts (gearing, linear motion, etc) and implementations (2 stage gear reductions using spur gears, power transmission using belts, etc).
• All the mass produced COTS parts we buy come from established industries and are used for FRC the same as they are in industry (there are probably a few exceptions, let’s not be nitpicky).
• In industry we do not expect recent college grads to design spaceships from scratch on day one. We assign senior engineers to teach new hires and they show them “how to do X and why we do it that way”. Why should FRC be different? My real life example to any college seniors – How do you mount a fiber optic gyroscope such that it can withstand extreme thermal and pyrotechnic shock events without moving over a 20 year lifespan? I have never found that answer in a book. The answer is proprietary and cost thousands in the design/analysis/test/iterate cycle
• Learning by example works (it is the motto of my alma mater – Cal Poly SLO). That is why we have so many labs in science and engineering classes – to see what we read in textbooks in action. A well explained “super design” that is simply replicated by students can teach them a ton. I believe the students learn even more if they legitimately try to come up with their own solution and are then presented with a very elegant solution and the elegant pieces are explained to them in detail. Then they can really appreciate the creativity that went into the design.
• Students of all ages have a tolerance for failure. There is a point where everyone says “I am sick of failing at this and going to do something else”.

New to FRC

When I started FRC my professional background was in ultra high precision navigation systems like this . That season of FRC was a disaster because I had no idea what to expect or what worked well in FRC. I joined only a few weeks before the season and though resources like CD were plentiful I did not find them until near the end of the build season. We rebuilt the robot at the competition, barely passed inspection and were able to drive in a straight line and occasionally turn – that’s it. It was quite a disappointment and a number of kids did not return. Having a demonstrated working bot doing the current year’s game would have helped enormously to set expectations for the overall design.

Great topic and great feedback from all!

-matto-

[jimwick]

We have been paying close attention to the robot in three days project and our bot is quite similar to one of them. We have been feeling guilty about this.

BUT
recently we have started to re-engineer a number of systems to make them simpler, more efficient, and easier to build with the parts we have on hand. (Not willing to rely on order from AM or VexPro at this point in season.)

So in the end quite a bit of good engineering is being done, and that's the point. So we're feeling a lot better about the 3-day thing.