Thoughts on Ri3D and BuildBlitz

[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?

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

I know of one team in particular that is planing to build one of the Ri3D robots part for part.

I fail to see how that would at all even kind of be the fault of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz teams.

[AquaMorph]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I fail to see how that would at all even kind of be the fault of the Ri3D/BuildBlitz teams.

Because this year they released CAD models. I feel like the discussion has gone a bit off topic. If your go back to the original post it asks for ideas to improve some of the problems Ri3D creates. I feel like sugarcoating the problems and not trying to find solutions to them is foolish. Looking at the robots for ideas and proof of concept is great but having the CAD files and being able to assemble the robot like it is a kit is too far in my opinion.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by AquaMorph

I feel like inspiration and building a better robot should not be placed above learning to solve a design challenge.

Funny enough, "Inspiration" is in FIRST and "Design Challenge" isn't.

You are free to run your team how you choose, just as the copycat team is free to run theirs. Your team has every right to decide to not use Ri3D designs. You have exactly no right to tell any other team to do the same.

What happens in their house is their business (presuming it's legal).

[Carl C]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Funny enough, "Inspiration" is in FIRST and "Design Challenge" isn't.

Neither is business, marketing, outreach, and a plethora of other things that FIRST teams do, but would you say those things are less important things for a team to do than science and technology just because it isn't in the acronym?

[Anupam Goli]

This thread started out as a good discussion, but I feel like it's slowly becoming cancerous and may get a lock soon if we start bringing up dead horses.

Originally Posted by 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.

Isn't gathering resources and performing research one of the first steps you take when solving a design challenge? When I go and design a circuit for a power amplifier or some other circuit, I look at datasheets and sample circuits for my chips and modify those schematics. The same principle applies here. "Copying" a build blitz or Ri3D is using a public resource that's freely available to everyone, so I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to look at it and perhaps use it. I don't see how this is different from using the Kitbot or anything else in the kit of parts, or any gearbox or COTS item made by AndyMark or VexPro.

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?

I'm willing wager that a team that uses build blitz or Ri3D will learn as much as a team that doesn't use it, but the content which they learn may be different. A team copying the build blitz or Ri3D designs may learn more about how to improve those existing designs and how they work, whereas a team that comes up with its own solution may learn some things about prototyping and mechanical design.