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

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Leav

In the end, the only real solution (in my mind) is not to have these marathons exist at all, but I don't really see how that can be achieved without the marathoners themselves bowing out...

Greetings,

RI3D's is a tool. A tool can be used by different folks in various ways. It can even not be used at all. Please, get with your team now and talk about how you want to use this tool. Many teams found this tool useful last year. Please, use,or don't use, this tool as you see fit. Leave the rest of the teams alone to use it as they wish.

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.

[Pault]

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.

+1000000

Ri3D shouldn't cause any problems for any teams, because it is not necessary that the students use their own design, so long as they have the opportunity to. If the students think that they should use Ri3D because they will be more successful and have a better, more inspirational season, than by all means let them. But if they think they have a better design (or good improvements to the Ri3D bots), then that is great for them. Whatever best achieves the goal of FIRST (the inspiration and recognition of science and technology). I feel the problem comes in when the students are forced to do one or the other. Using a design that the team doesn't want to is possibly one of the biggest turn offs in FRC. Also, there is a problem if teams don't go through a proper design process in order to make this decision, and instead automatically default to using someone else's idea (teams who don't have the resources to do anything competitive besides a Ri3D bot are exempt from this rule).

Also, I can't see what good Ri3D would be if it was released later in the season. In fact, I think the main reason that it is 3 days is because they want to get it out to teams as fast as possible. If somebody who wants to delay Ri3D can explain in more detail what purpose it would serve, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Brandon_L]

This reminds me of a short story I read way back when...

Whats wrong with raising the bar? With all these new COTs items coming out lately and all these RI3Ds starting up, I feel as if you'd have to live under a rock to not be able to score.

Robot in Three Days can be used however you want to use it - As an inspiration, a guide, a strategy-check, or totally ignored. Leave it to the individual teams. Like someone said earlier, seeing a team go from just barely driving around in '12 to hanging, shooting, and getting picked in elims in '13 using RI3D concepts must be an awesome feeling for the students on that team.

I don't see what it hurts.

[nicholsjj]

A new thought crossed my mind when reading this very interesting thread which is how many people can watch Lebron James, Albert Pujols, or Peyton Manning and become sports MVP's? Yes they might mimic them to better themselves, but it is very hard to become Carbon Copies of players that strong. This is not to say that FRC teams are not awesome, but many of these marathon teams and mentors have been around since the 90's. Of course they are going to know more designs and build techniques that many teams (my own included) will not know. This should only raise the level of the competition, which I hope will be a positive. I would rather see 500 Ri3D bots in FRC than 250 kbos robots that are dump bots and 250 kitbot chassis that might have a passive hang or maybe they add pool noodles to their robot.

My final thought on this was that last year during build season I was inspired by Ri3D. Not necessarily because of their robot, but because two students on our team decided to watch over twenty hours of the build. In my view they accomplished their goal right then and there because they had inspired two students with an interest in what the Ri3D team was doing.

[JosephC]

FIRST'S MISSION STATEMENT

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

"To inspire young people to be science and technology leaders." I find nothing more inspiring then watching FIRST superstars design and build a robot. It makes me think, if they can do that, then why shouldn't I be able to do that one day?

"By engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills." Although JVN, Copioli, and the Ri3D team may not be direct team mentors, they are most definitely teaching those who watch their videos science, engineering and technology skills, and making it exciting while they do it.

"That inspire innovation." After watching Ri3D last year, the first thought in my mind was, what can I do that would make this even better? What can I do to innovate this design and incorporate it into my team's design so we can be a stronger competitor?

"And that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." 2012 was my first year where I saw freshman really step up during design discussion. Listening to someone who had never been to a FIRST competition speak passionately about designs they had thought of because of Ri3D really warmed my heart up. Never before had I seen 1st years speak with such confidence, communicate their ideas so well, and really step up; showing leadership.


FIRST's mission isn't to help promote different unique designs, its to do exactly what Ri3D did last year. I say, keep it up 72 hour build projects; you're doing just fine.

[cadandcookies]

So, there are three main issues that the OP brings up:

Originally Posted by Leav

• The marathons are probably going to stifle the creative process. If teams choose to watch they can easily be locked on an idea and be unable to shake it from their mind.

I find this idea insulting. Especially in FIRST, and even more so for veteran teams. Lock-in is something that happens regardless of outside research-- in brainstorming, my team likes to call it "group-think," and it's important to get rid of and avoid as much as possible. But blaming Ri3D for causing lock-in (especially before we even see the effects in 2013) is premature and probably not even correct in the first place. When you get a group together, people tend to gravitate towards certain ideas based on a variety of factors-- the charisma of the person who suggested it, the actual validity of the idea, whether they've had enough coffee to actually analyze the idea or not, etc. If a team is being stifled because of watching a video or three, there's probably a lot of group-think going on already.

Solution: Try assigning a creative or wacky student/mentor to suggest random ideas that are absolutely ridiculous and have little chance of working out-- the "duck-tape and hydraulics" solutions that are just flat out bad ideas. This stirs things up and lets other people bring out their ideas, which means you have more ideas and therefore a higher chance of getting a few good ideas. (We learned this technique from one of our sponsors, Skyline Exhibits, which was kind enough to bring in their "Research, Design, and Innovation" director to teach us their techniques. This was part of the process that lead to Windscape, which is a really freaking cool product.) OR This isn't a problem because the team is already pretty good at assimilating ideas and brainstorming (which I hope is the case if it's a veteran team).

Originally Posted by Leav

• Showing 5 working robots after 72 hours is going to probably cover most bases in terms of basic ideas for the 2014 season. This will rob teams of the sense of accomplishment which comes with brainstorming and deciding on your own robot.

These are two very separate issues, so I'm going to address them individually.

1: "Knowing five different types of robots is going to cover most of the general robot types"

This is not an issue. It gives everyone a tool that teams have been using for years: archetyping (at least that's what my team calls it). One of the parts of strategic analysis of a game is looking at what other people are going to do-- I seem to remember Karthik mentioning that the two main reasons that 1114 chose to climb instead of picking up discs were that they wanted the design experience and that they were confident that good third level climbers were going to be rare after game analysis. This helps teams that haven't traditionally considered what other teams are going to build as part of their strategy process add it in in a fairly easy to understand manner. I frankly don't see any negatives to this.

Solution: None needed, this is a good thing.

2: "Knowing the archetypes robs teams of the sense of accomplishment in brainstorming and deciding their own robot"

I literally rewrote this section a dozen times, but I think that knowing the archetypes and designing a robot based around the five robots we'll have in 3 days may actually be a plus for teams that have little experience with strategy in FIRST-- for some teams even coming up with reasonable solutions is a challenge, so having the option to analyze and look at real, practical solutions is a huge plus towards understanding how real engineering works. I would be happy for any new team to even have a chance to look at and analyze proven options for building a robot-- that seems like a very solid way to introduce new students to strategic thinking.

Originally Posted by Leav

• An obvious retort to the above point would be "just don't watch the marathons or look at their results", but we all know it will be hard to avoid. Also, there is a dillema here: these are robots built by professional FIRSTers, are you really not going to try and learn from them when you have the chance?
  

This is something that also falls into the "non-issue" category. Maybe I'm wrong, but my assumption is that two kinds of people will be watching Ri3D: those that desperately need help with their design and strategy, and those that want a peek into what competition season will look like. For the former, it is hugely beneficially to see our very own "FIRST rock-stars" working through the same problem-- they would likely not see anything like that level of expertise until at the earliest competition season. I have yet to hear a new team complain about Ri3D. For the former, Ri3D is more of an interesting background thing useful for research and developing competition strategy than it is something that will detract for the team's own ideas. While certainly it will have an effect, it's more likely to just help the team analyze what will be unique at competition and what they can do to stand out.

In conclusion, don't think any of these are issues that can solely be solved by getting rid of Ri3D or BB-- most of the issues are only so in very specific cases of new teams or teams without strong leadership, which are going to have problems anyways. And even for these teams, 3-day competitions are probably a boon, because they're likely guide them towards more reasonable solutions and therefore more time to refine those solutions.

[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.

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

... But blaming Ri3D for causing lock-in (especially before we even see the effects in 2013) is premature and probably not even correct in the first place. ...

I completely agree. Students and mentors alike are all victims of settling on an idea and not wanting to change it. This happened before Ri3D, and I witnessed it first hand in 2012, on a subject completely unrelated to Ri3D. Attempting to blame Ri3D for something that already exists is absurd. It's like blaming a new gas company for creating high gas prices.

A team that falls victim to lock-in needs to sit down and talk about about it. It's not Ri3D or BB's fault that your team has an internal problem.

[Mark Sheridan]

I am actually reading about innovation in history in Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"

He argues that we have an "heroic theory of invention" where influences of new inventions are ignored to favor the genius of the inventor.

To quote Jared Diamond:
"The hero (inventor) customarily credited with the invention followed previous inventors who had similar aims and had already produced designs, working models, or commercial successful models. Edison's famous "invention" of the incandescent light bulb on the night of October 21,1879, improved on many other incandescent light bulbs patented by other inventors between 1841 and 1878." Diamond, Jared (1999). guns, germs and steel: pg.245

He goes on to list numerous examples:
Watt's steam engine was influenced by Newcomen's. The Wright brothers were influenced by Otto Lilienthal and many others. Eli Whitney's cotton gin was an update of a several thousand year old device.

I think there is vast historic and modern evidence to argue that having more influences produces more and better innovations. I hear this a lot but could not determine the original author, "that innovation does not occur in vacuums."

Jared Diamond furthermore explains that all our innovations for writing required iteration of previous concepts. To create a written language from scratch is partially impossible without referencing previous languages. Even then, writing is a descendent of drawing and many symbols were derived from a simple drawing.

i think creativity and innovation are feed by necessity and predecessors. An idea by itself is weak, it lacks perspective and context for its ability to fill a necessity. With two ideas, now that can be compared, now one idea can be superior, necessity can be defined more clearly or even change. Thus more ideas cannot stifle creativity, even when most are not your own. Even inferior ideas can inspire greater ones.

One can have too many ideas and must either to cope with it or whittle it down to manageable pieces. One must have a means to compare ideas (QFD, prototypes, design spec and etc). I find my challenges are more related to honing my teams collective output into a singular vision.

If students can only perceive the 3 day robots and cannot envision new ideas. i am sorry but I don't think blocking influences will help them be more creative. It will make it worse. if making your students creative is a priority, than I think they must learn how to use their influences to inspire ideas of their own, no matter the source.

[billylo]

^^^ +1 (We really could use a Like button here.)

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Mark Sheridan

i think creativity and innovation are feed by necessity and predecessors. An idea by itself is weak, it lacks perspective and context for its ability to fill a necessity. With two ideas, now that can be compared, now one idea can be superior, necessity can be defined more clearly or even change. Thus more ideas cannot stifle creativity, even when most are not your own. Even inferior ideas can inspire greater ones.

I think that post, is about as well thought out as you can get on this subject. I've told my students numerous times that the best way to build better robots is to watch other robots and learn about them. Just like in sports you study what has worked for other teams in in the past and what your opponents are doing to get better. You innovate by building on the ideas and knowledge of others not by starting from nothing.

Thank Ri3D Challenge and Build Blitz for being the shoulders that all FRC teams can stand on this year.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by billylo

^^^ +1 (We really could use a Like button here.)

Are you +1ing the original post, or something else?

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

Are you +1ing the original post, or something else?

The "^^^" in his post are referring to the post right above his.

[Joe Johnson]

As usual, a lot of good discussion on ChiefDelphi. Thanks for joining in.

To me many of the arguments echo past debates about 100's of other developments in FIRST: The Kitbot Chassis, Gamepad Controllers, Expanding Motor Choices, Leaving the Small Parts, Inc. Catalog, Team Cooperation to build "Twin" robots, The Business Models of companies like Banebots, AndyMark, VexPro, West Coast Robotics, Cross the Road Electronics...

In every one of these debates, I come down on the side of more capable robots, in particular, the side of helping the lower resourced teams put a robot on the field that can actually play the game. If we reach some future where we have nothing but 100's of capable, cool, cookie cutter robots that, despite their coolness & capabilities, are not inspiring kids, then I may change my mind, but at this point that future seems so remote that I am not losing any sleep over it.

I can't speak for any team other than BOOM DONE. but I believe a major focus for all the 72 hour build teams is to raise the level of competition for all by helping the low resourced teams (read more about BOOM DONE.'s motivation and goals here).

Helping raise the lower end of the capability spectrum helps everyone in my view. Certainly it will help the many would be Box of Rock teams, teams that end up with a robot that kinda sorta drives and does little else. And, there are still a LOT of teams in this category. This hurts everyone. It makes the games less interesting to watch and to play. It distorts the seeding system. It is no fun for anyone, least of all the teams that feel like they let a couple dozen alliance partners down.

Providing teams a window into the design process, including prototyping concepts (both successes and failures), discussions about what is hard and what is easy, etc. is going to be a very effective way to help raise the overall capability of FIRST robots.

Let me give a specific example. I recall Paul C. talking about tetras at a competition in 2005 where he said something like, "Picking up tetras is easy. Putting them down quickly, effectively & reliably, right where you want them? THAT's hard!" I think a lot of teams would benefit from hearing that when they still have time to do something about it.

There are more reasons for doing this but for me that is perhaps the biggest one.

Joe J.

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by billylo

^^^ +1 (We really could use a Like button here.)

positive rep points is a just reward