Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz

[mikemat]

I understand some people's fear of a loss of originality because of the 3 day robots. But I wouldn't say 2013 had any less original designs than before. Sure the 'Ri3D robot' was popular, but in 2012 the 'polycord elevator to hooded single wheel shooter' was just as common. As was the '4-bar with roller claw' in 2011.

[tkell274]

I agree that having robots being built in three days and having all the cad files and part numbers readily available is an issue and allows teams to be lazy, but I feel that is not that big of an issue.

My thought being that yes some teams will take these ideas and do better than they have in the past but for the most part teams will continue to only build upon the basic ideas or use their own totally original ideas that will get them the win on Einstein. And using ideas from other teams or past years is not always a bad thing. I don't see anyone on here complaining about that fact that pretty much half of FIRST uses or has used at sometime 1114's kitbot on steroids and that's because it's a good and well tested design that makes a better robot.

I feel that robot in three days has actually made FIRST a lot more competitive now because although it does now allow teams to just take some cad and part files and build a totally solid and competition ready robot, it also forces teams to figure out ways to defeat these ideas and make even more effective and well designed robots. Because in the end the Ri3D and BuildBlitz bots might be able to make it to district or regional eliminations, but they will all be beat out by better designed robots that came from a teams original idea.

[BJC]

I cannot speak for VEX on this matter. I just want to bring another factor to your attention.

This year's game is very easy compared to the last two years. There isn't much getting around it.

This year's game challenges are effectively:
-score in the high goal (also means you can truss toss.)
-intake ball (also means you can score in the low goal and assist by spitting out)
-catch a ball/pass ball

You can argue the finer details but the best robots in the world basically just be doing these three things really well. You could say this game has a low ceiling -- meaning the robot that does everything really doesn't have to do as much as other years.

2013, by comparison, was much more challenging. There was not a single robot in 2013 that could do every part of the game -- meaning the ceiling was very high, perhaps the highest in FRC history.

2012 is much more similar to 2014 in that there are fewer things to do. However, shooting into a basket (IMHO) was and still is the most technically challenging thing an FRC robot has ever had to do. The 27' wide 2014 high goal is child's play by comparison.

The thing I'm trying to get at here is because this game has a lower ceiling than most, the 5 robots built in three days this year were all able to accomplish more of the game tasks than they would have been able to do in harder years like 2012 and 2013. This makes them more attractive to directly copy rather than use for inspiration like they are intended.

Food for thought
Regards, Bryan

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by BJC

I cannot speak for VEX on this matter. I just want to bring another factor to your attention.

This year's game is very easy compared to the last two years. There isn't much getting around it.

This year's game challenges are effectively:
-score in the high goal (also means you can truss toss.)
-intake ball (also means you can score in the low goal and assist by spitting out)
-catch a ball/pass ball

Still, none of the 3-day robots this year are catchers (because it was impractical to design for as a robot intended to stand alone). Last year the 3-day robot team didn't even touch 30-point climbing.

The ceiling may be low, but it's still above what the 3-day teams are hitting.

This year, our team had a full robot design after the first day. It just so happened that we came to most of the same conclusions as Team JVN. This is convenient, because now we have a ton of prototyping done for us so we can modify it until it works. I don't think it's a problem because teams can come up with their own ideas just as fast as these groups do. They can build faster, but they can't talk much faster.

[KeeganP]

Hey everyone. I am in no way suggesting that we discontinue/disregard that the Ri3D and Build Blitz teams did an incredible job and should be thanked for their amazing effort, skill and time commitment to making FIRST better.

All I'm suggesting is that next year they limit their production of exact resources until after build season is closer to a conclusion. I agree that teams could theoretically just turn a blind eye to all of this, but can you really control an entire FRC team's internet access? What happens when one student comes in and says "look at this robot!" or claims to have a great idea the he/she *knows* will work because they saw it already.

I think that perhaps if the teams had just waited until later to release their CAD drawings I would personally be happier -- teams couldn't just copy the robots. I understand that no robot (hopefully) will be a direct copy of it, however I think that being able to look up the exact dimensions, part numbers, etc. for building an obviously successful robot becomes degrading to a team that can no longer call their robot design original and student led. After all, what's FIRST's mission? To inspire a generation of technology leaders. Are they going to learn to think outside the box when they can download 5 different robot CAD files and combine them? Or are they just learning how to assemble a box set?

Let's keep this discussion going and how we can improve upon the Ri3D and Build Blitz ideas, rather than attacking each other's views on what "inspiration" and "cheating" are.

[mrnoble]

I have the privilege of coaching/mentoring two teams from different schools, one much younger and less experienced (and less supported) than the other.

The more mature team was able to come up with many possible designs through brainstorming (which is mostly a shared pot of knowledge based on experience), then did research and evaluated designs from previous years, as well as the Ri3D/Blitz designs, once they were available. The design they eventually settled on (after multiple prototypes and proofs) was not one shown in any of the builds, though it was inspired by other teams as well as past successes. They have appreciated the Ri3D/Blitz input, but didn't end up implementing much from those robots.

The younger team has struggled with research, prototyping, designing, you name it. Having struggled through the learning experience, they finally realized that some of the mechanisms and ideas they saw in the videos were beyond their capability, but that others were things they understood and had done in a different context with success. They are "copying" one or two elements of a couple of the Ri3D/Blitz bots, as best they can, based on what they know how to do. They are pushing themselves and are finding joy in the learning process. For them, making a kit base and changing one or two elements is in itself a challenge, and having ideas presented in ways that they can understand has been the very definition of "inspiring".

I am in agreement with those who look at Ri3D/Blitz as an evolution of the FRC experience. This organization and idea has been around for more than 20 years, and has gone through huge changes. The games are more streamlined and subtle, and are more friendly to spectators. The COTS and kit parts are way better than they used to be. The drive bases have been iterated to near-perfection. And now, even rookie teams don't have to come away proud of their duct-taped drive base that barely moves; most of the teams that would have had that experience in the past now can put their efforts (still Herculean) into a robot that can drive and compete. That is progress.

Addressing a concern of the original poster: the BOM for team Boom: Done helped my younger team as they worked to figure out torque/speed ratios today. That in itself made me appreciate them even more, and I support the sharing of anything they are willing and able to share.