Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz

[Thad House]

I'm very torn on the Ri3D idea. On one hand, I absolutely LOVE it that it brings teams up to higher levels and does that in a great way. The level of competition has been growing dramatically in past years. On the other hand, I felt, at least for our team, they saw them and got slightly distracted. But I hugely believe that the pro of bringing teams to a higher level greatly offsets any cons, because that is what will make FIRST even better.

Also reading through this thread, BJC's post sticks out. This game has a lower ceiling mechanically then we have had since at least 2010. Had their been 5 Ri3D's in 2013, I bet every single one of them would have been DRAMATICALLY different. This year they all had the same basic concepts, because that was really the best way to play the game. Execution might have been different, but ideas were similar. Had there been 5 Ri3D's in 2013, basic strategy would have been completely different, because there were so many different great strategies to play last years game.

I feel these Ri3D's will always be game dependent. I want to see them stay around because they help bring teams up, but I think how the higher level teams react to them will always be dependent on what the game challenge actually is and how complex it is.

[sanddrag]

I'm still undecided on it all, but I find it to be helping, and our creative process to not be very diminished. A team's work will expand to fill the time available. So, maybe we are not innovating in some areas like we used to, but we are innovating in new areas.

One of our original mechanism designs was ruled illegal by a Q/A post. We had an immediate alternate solution thanks to the JVN team. The students are now learning about a completely new mechanism they've never built before, and perhaps never would have explored otherwise. And since we don't have the exact parts JVN used, they're learning how to make a similar mechanism with different parts, and adapt it to our own robot.

[EricH]

OTOH, 1197 started to prototype a particular device from one of the Ri3D teams' ideas. That prototype didn't work out quite as well as an idea "borrowed" from another team's previous year's robot, at least with what we had in the shop to work with. But, the kids still learned a bit about what it took to handle the ball using that concept.

[bEdhEd]

Our team just tries something original, and we do our best to not copy the Ri3D design. We try to have a design that we think can work better if tested, but if all else fails, and there's little time left, copy as a last resort. The learning process of trying your own design is very fulfilling. On the other hand, for some teams, just getting a robot built is the fulfilling part, especially if resources are short.

[JB987]

Please keep in mind that many teams likely came up on their own with many of the same ideas found in the Ri3d team efforts. Not a knock on the designs or end products they came up with. Previous years designs continue to be a source of "inspiration" to all of us too

Hats off to the crews that participated in such a valuable endeavor. They
all did a fantastic job by any measure...

[Racer26]

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

After 12 years of playing these games? I've seen a lot of weak teams building completely ineffectual robots. Sometimes unable to even drive about the field. Anything that makes that less common is a good thing.

I wasn't around for the "must be from Small Parts Inc" restriction.

I WAS around for the days before AndyMark/VexPro.

I WAS around for the days before the KitBot.

I WAS around for the days before mandatory bumpers.

Other posters are correct in that each of those changes prompted a similar "but it makes it TOO easy" outcry.

Each of those changes has dramatically improved the competitiveness level of ALL teams. This effect is asymmetrically loaded though. They help the weakest teams the most, and they help the strongest teams the least. This helps to both raise the overall level of the competition AND level the playing field. This is a GOOD thing.

Observations:

In another similar thread, a user expressed:

Originally Posted by Starke

I hope that some well-respected FIRSTers like JVN, Karthik, Andy Baker, Joe J. will reply in this thread as well. These are men that are inspiring to me and would love to know their side of the story.

All four of the mentors named in that post were a part of a 2014 72-hour robot.

In general? I see many of the MOST respected mentors in all of FRC echoing essentially the same sentiment. That 72-hour builds are an immensely great thing. So much so that they're joining the fray, and doing one of their own.

2013's Ri3D team? I didn't know about them before 2013. They did a great thing, and showed how simple a competitive 2013 robot could be.

JVN, Paul Copioli, Karthik, Joe Johnson, Andy Baker, and a handful of others are all names that I automatically associate with winning robots, and all of them joined or started a 2014 72-hour build. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE I WANT TO LEARN FROM THE MOST!

Seeing how these people analyze the game, and then translate that into a strategy, and ultimately a robot design, is the best possible way I can imagine to learn how to build winning FRC robots.

I also agree with many posters in saying that wholesale copying of one of their designs is not going to be nearly as inspiring. I don't think that its completely without value though. You will still learn things. This program is specifically about inspiration and nothing else matters. Does building a robot whose design you didn't come up with, but does well on the field do that? I think it does.

[Mark Sheridan]

I think the 3 day robot enhanced our design discussions. For my team, I feel the 3 day robot was a nice ice breaker in the idea discussion it really got ideas flowing. One of our mentors challenged the students to think outside the box, to question the 3 day robots and to think of new criteria for for our design spec. I am really proud that my students started generate different sets of ideas for different design goals. We had collections that prioritized passing, others that emphasized the truss pass and catch and etc. I think ideas are cheap and we are rich in them.

the challenge for us is narrowing the ideas down. Since the 3 day robot videos are so good, the prototyping of other ideas feel inferior. I feel this is very different issue than creating "narrow-mindedness." We had to work really hard to make sure we could generate similar results, yeah some ideas did not make the cut to the prototype phase, some prototypes were abandoned, a few proved the ideas were not sound and few will make it on the robot.

For my team, I feel the 3 day robot was a nice ice breaker in the idea discussion it really got ideas flowing. We just wrapped up our latest intake prototype. I am really impressed, the students tried to take it beyond what the 3 day robots did, went a little to far, they dialed it back a bit and added some more features. I was really impressed the level of work they did to prove it would work. They are also a bit smug, for having a drawing of the mechanism since noon of the kick off day. I think the similarities to the 3 day robots is obvious but knowing its design history makes me very happy. A lot of the time, we used the 3 day robots as a gauge. Some days the prototype worked better than others but it could have lacked an outside perspective. I thought it was really great to compare to the 3 day robots. In the end I hope our intake will live up to the prototype.

[Steven Smith]

I think of FIRST as a bit of a journey. Some teams have been on this journey a long time and have learned many things they may now take for granted. They have a toolbox of good design concepts, know what materials work well for applications, etc. When a new team comes along, is it better to tell them to start at the beginning, or to catch them up as quickly as you can so they can walk along side you?

Just because I think Ri3D/BB is great doesn't mean I'm dismissing the value of original design or learning lessons myself. However, if I created my own design this year, I might have had a critical failure because I counted on a release mechanism being able to actuate and it wasn't designed to release under that load. Not all of this data is readily available, and I don't have time to test every component thoroughly. Or, being a mechanical engineer, I might neglect to include a ratcheting component in a cocking mechanism and burn a few components up by stalling a CIM. Frankly, I think I have now learned the lesson, regardless of whether or not I personally experienced the failure... or observed it in someone else's design. I don't see a need for my team's students to experience EXTRA failure, because I am coming up to speed on good design as it relates to robotics.

This year, we've struggled to get parts in on time because we're dealing with a new school system and funding sources, we've just now reassembled our mechanical mill to start making parts... about 60% of our mentors and 80% of our students are new, etc. We went through a week of purely original strategy discussion/WoT, then sat down to look at all the examples of Ri3D robots to cherry pick elements we think will work well and address the strategy the students/mentors came up with. I was specifically concerned with picking components I know I can machine on a VERY sloppy manual mill, no lathe, etc. (Also, not blaming the mill, if I were a better machinist I could work around it... but I haven't run a mill in 6 years since college, and even then I had DROs... the mill, like my skills, are a limitation)

Long story short, I feel like I had two options this year.
1. To teach students/mentors "good design", by doing everything on our own and failing... delivering a weak/noncompetitive robot because our team lacks the engineering experience and machining resources to execute a competitive purely custom design. Some might find this rewarding and stick around... some might not. Basically, all the discussion on "good strategy", "good scouting", "driver practice" will be moot though... if our robot is not sound enough to allow those elements to be relevant at competition.

2. To teach students/mentors "good design", by letting them execute a design that is heavily influenced by external references. It is still true to how they want to play the game, it is achievable with our resources, and it will likely perform well at regionals. We will have it done in time for drivers to practice and we should get to experience all that a regional competition has to offer, instead of just standing around a non-functioning robot for most of it.

Final thought... I don't believe Ri3D/BB can make a good team lazy. If any team sees another design and decides they will just build it in a week and take five weeks off... then chances are they weren't going to magically be motivated before Ri3D/BB. Most teams won't be lazy, they are just freed up to focus their resources in that 6 week build season elsewhere, instead of prototyping the 5th failed design because they lacked the experience to pick a good one on the first try or two like a more experienced team.

My 2c as a new mentor.

Steven

[pfreivald]

Anything that helps struggling (and/or rookie) teams build a more competitive and more fun-to-watch robot will impact the I in FIRST in a positive way, will help them impress sponsors and parents and prospective members and mentors, keep the team members interested in FIRST, and as such I'm all for it.

If it makes it harder for the elite teams to stand out from the crowd in a manner that doesn't drag them down or tie their hands, that's even better--they're elite teams; they'll rise to the challenge!

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

If it makes it harder for the elite teams to stand out from the crowd in a manner that doesn't drag them down or tie their hands, that's even better--they're elite teams; they'll rise to the challenge!

What I find most telling about the whole situation, is that generally speaking, its the elites who are singing the praises of 72-hour builds the loudest.

I think this is because it raises the floor of the competition. Anything that helps get them more successful teams to work with is seen as a good thing.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Racer26

What I find most telling about the whole situation, is that generally speaking, its the elites who are singing the praises of 72-hour builds the loudest.

I think this is because it raises the floor of the competition. Anything that helps get them more successful teams to work with is seen as a good thing.

I think that's a great thing, and for a good reason, but not the best reason. Raising the floor helps everyone be more inspired by the entire process.

And that said, I help another team that is struggling at emulating some Ri3D ideas--it's "easy" if you already know how to do all the stuff that those "floor" teams don't, and we're still going to see a lot of teams that don't build robots that can do more than drive (and in some cases, if that.)

[AquaMorph]

I feel like inspiration and building a better robot should not be placed above learning to solve a design challenge. From personal experience I learn more if I figure out solutions on my own rather than copying an answer. I understand that teams don't have to copy or even look at Ri3D but from talking to people on several teams I have discovered that their motivation to try and come up with original solutions has been dampened. I know of one team in particular that is planing to build one of the Ri3D robots part for part. Will that team learn as much as they would have if they had to create a robot without Ri3D?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

At one point in time there was a blurb on the FIRST website about effective mentorship. It went something like:
1) I do, you watch.
2) I do, you help
3) You do, I help
4) You do, I watch

It seems the scope of this was aimed at direct mentor/student interaction, but I see no reason this methodology cannot be applied to whole teams. I think the benefit of these tools becomes a lot clearer if you look at all of the teams in FIRST in the same way you look at students on your individual team. There are obviously some teams with more experience that do not need help but there are tons if teams that fall into bullet number 1 in the blurb above.

You wouldn't accuse your own student of cheating if they walked in to a build season completely green and watched/copied a mentor designing a mechanism for the robot, would you? This is a normal part of the learning process and you can hope the student would pick up enough to be inspired to learn more on their own and come back next build season ready to move on to bullets 2-3. Replace the words "student" with "new team" and "mentor" with "experienced community members" and the analogy still holds true.

[Anupam Goli]

I'll admit, i was initially kind of skeptical of having 6 robots built in 3 days for people to watch, but the results of this build have erased any doubt I had about these programs and their effect. I love any and all attempts to raise the level of competition in all of FRC, especially coming from a weaker region. What Ri3D and Build Blitz have done is compress 6 weeks of prototyping and iteration into 3 days, giving all teams a base to work off. Teams that have little experience and are starting out the process of building their team up can use this base bot, learn from it, and compete with it. Elite teams know that iterating and improving designs never ends, and will continue their attempts at creating the perfect bot to play the game.

The concern that these new resources stifle creativity is a valid one, but unless I'm mistaken, this robotics program is called FIRST Robotics Competition, not FIRST Robotics Fair. In order to promote the FIRST program, we need to raise the base level of competition and give the resources to teams so they can meet that base. The one lesson that students and mentors need to ingrain into their minds is that engineering is an iterative process, and even though you may learn a lot from just copying one of the Ri3D or build Blitz designs, but those who twiddle their thumbs with their copy won't be able to rise up as much as these who take these ideas and improve them. And it's not like that we only saw one idea surface during these marathons. We saw 3 different intake concepts, 3 different shooter concepts, 1 catching concept, and different drivetrains. There's still a lot of ideas that teams can mix and match and further improve upon. Don't worry too much about these programs existing, because even teams who copy these bots will continue to grow due to what they learn in the process.