Robot in 3 Days 2017

[tjwolter]

bonus points for use of word "patinated"!

T. Wolter

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by tjwolter

bonus points for use of word "patinated"!

My slide rule is patinated. Like those sophomore physics tests several decades ago at Georgia Tech, during which electronic calculators were not permitted, and points were deducted for failure to show work, include correct units, express results to the required number of significant figures, etc.

My slide rule was replaced by a 15C calculator. Now that calculator has been replaced by an app. Someday, apps will be patinated.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

... would FRC's educational and inspirational value would be unchanged ...

Joe,

A thought that might push the tension you are describing into the background (not make it irrelevant, but move it into background) is this:

If I understood them correctly, FRC's founder(s) told us that FRC was created to attract students to STEM fields.

The methods FRC's founders chose to use have many fun and valuable side-effects that shouldn't be absent-mindedly discarded or unnecessarily crippled; but those side-effects aren't the reason FRC was created, and shouldn't be elevated to parity with FRC's core purpose.

If RI3D opens the eyes of initially tentative, or unaware, students to the fact that fun STEM activities and careers are well within their grasp, then I think it's on-target. If RI3D demystifies building something as interesting and tangible as an FRC robot, then I think it's on-target.

This makes sense if you start from the premise that FRC was created to attract and inspire new students, and not to give already interested students a blue banner, or an associate's degree in engineering.

Blake
PS: The FIRST mission statement tries to pitch a very big tent. It alone isn't the basis for what I wrote above.

[XaulZan11]

Does it even matter if Ri3D fulfill FIRST's mission statement? I don't believe they are 'official' FIRST activities and most (all?) don't directly involve any high school students. I don't think it should really matter if a group of people want to have fun, challenge themselves and show off what they accomplished in three days or if a company wants to do it to help sell their products or whatever motivates these groups.

(for what it's worth, I do think that generally these groups contribute more positive than negative to the FIRST community).

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Joe G.

Ri3D is a small step in taking this element as both a skillset and a learning experience as applied to FRC from "absolutely mandatory" to "optional depending on what your goals are," and that bothers many people.

Put another way: would FRC's educational and inspirational value would be unchanged if the game stayed the same every season, but the rules required us to build a new robot every year? Or is the fact that every team gets the experience of solving a previously unsolved problem an integral part of the educational and inspirational process, connected strongly to what we hope our students gain from the program?

I appreciate your clarification KSPRUL's point of view. I am in agreement, however, change happens.

Getting a new game every year is the one constant that keeps my interest in FRC.
The problem is new and the competitions are still about scores of Robots competing for the best solution.

"Absolutely mandatory" works for many teams. For rookies or teams that are struggling to maintain their existence, the options demonstrated by Ri3D can be a godsend.

I still miss the old days before students were given the advantage of a Game Animation, instructional videos on the details of the playing field, and a bandwidth that required you to economize your inputs.
All we basically received was a "spec sheet" of game details in the Manual.
Back then, we were really teaching engineering inspiration the way it was meant to be.

Ri3D is a signpost of how creativity may now be crowdsourced. Patent lawyer is a valuable vocation nowadays.

A team can choose not to watch Ri3D and their intent of preserving the problem solving aspects sans outside inspiration will remain intact.

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

My slide rule is patinated. Like those sophomore physics tests several decades ago at Georgia Tech, during which electronic calculators were not permitted, and points were deducted for failure to show work, include correct units, express results to the required number of significant figures, etc.

The Ramblin' Wrecks had a great weekend.
I find myself reminiscing about the old days when using a slide rule, showing your work, SigFigs, and units mattered to engineers.
I am teaching the new AP Physics curriculum now and these details are not considered as important anymore.

Ah, nostalgia.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by KSPRUL

I'm sure this will be an unpopular perspective....but here goes.

As a long term supporter of FIRST and as a mentor of FRC teams in the New York area I find myself reminiscing for a time when students could not just browse for an answer to the challenges set by FIRST.

No disrespect meant to the engineers and mentors taking part in robot in 3 days. Just my 2 cents.

Time for some secret sauce: if you "just browsed" for the Team Cockamamie answer to FIRST Stronghold, you were in for a bad time. The frame lacked a real bellypan and yielded within a few days of launches over the rock wall, the kicker (which required that minimal belly pan) was inconsistent as heck, electronics maintenance and packaging were lolno, and from time to time we'd lose the boulder sailing over the defenses. I think the radical difference between it and last year's Garnet Squadron robot speaks for itself.

But perhaps we gave someone some ideas (like how we made the AM14U3 intake kit sit lower than stock), so maybe we contributed a thing or two to the mix.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Billfred

Time for some secret sauce: if you "just browsed" for the Team Cockamamie answer to FIRST Stronghold, you were in for a bad time. The frame lacked a real bellypan and yielded within a few days of launches over the rock wall, the kicker (which required that minimal belly pan) was inconsistent as heck, electronics maintenance and packaging were lolno, and from time to time we'd lose the boulder sailing over the defenses. I think the radical difference between it and last year's Garnet Squadron robot speaks for itself.

But perhaps we gave someone some ideas (like how we made the AM14U3 intake kit sit lower than stock), so maybe we contributed a thing or two to the mix.

I will echo these sentiments. The GreenHorns' robot had a number of good concepts going on, but if you copied it verbatim, you would do poorly. I spoke with many teams at champs that were inspired by our intake/shooter mechanism, but none of them used our horrible drivetrain. It's difficult to build a durable robot that is sound in all aspects of the game in just 3 days.

I would say that each Ri3D team offered a few concepts that teams could take inspiration from, but no all encompassing solution.

[Jay O'Donnell]

I think alot of the sentiments against Ri3D don't actually come from the last few years of it. I think alot of it comes from 2013 and 2014, where some seriously competitive robots were built (The two Build Blitz robots come to mind).

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell

I think alot of the sentiments against Ri3D don't actually come from the last few years of it. I think alot of it comes from 2013 and 2014, where some seriously competitive robots were built (The two Build Blitz robots come to mind).

My team learned from those years. 2013 taught us what not to do -- we have aimed for simple, durable designs ever since.

2014 gave us Build Blitz Team JVN's over-the-bumper intake and 'choo-choo' catapult. We made small tweaks to those, and built them on a souped-up kit chassis. Because we converged on a design concept early, our build season objectives became (1) drive team practice, and (2) finding the robot's weaknesses. Drive it, break it, fix it, iterate. That robot played 72 matches, including a blue banner and our first trip to CMP. Pretty nice improvement vs. 2013. That trend has continued.

Since then, our team has become more confident about game analysis and setting build/practice priorities. 2016 was a break-out year for the Average Joes, but its seeds were planted in 2014 -- and we thank Build Blitz Team JVN for that.

[Ryan Dognaux]

For those who don't like RI3D, you are free to not use it as a resource. Just like every FRC team that uses it in any way is allowed to as well.

I'm realistic and live in the real world where multi-site collaboration and using as much COTS stuff as possible are viewed as good things that probably 99% of FRC teams should be doing.

Time is ultimately the most valuable resource during a build season and RI3D has saved us a lot of time in the past 3 years. Thank you!

[Jay O'Donnell]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

My team learned from those years. 2013 taught us what not to do -- we have aimed for simple, durable designs ever since.

2014 gave us Build Blitz Team JVN's over-the-bumper intake and 'choo-choo' catapult. We made small tweaks to those, and built them on a souped-up kit chassis. Because we converged on a design concept early, our build season objectives became (1) drive team practice, and (2) finding the robot's weaknesses. Drive it, break it, fix it, iterate. That robot played 72 matches, including a blue banner and our first trip to CMP. Pretty nice improvement vs. 2013. That trend has continued.

Since then, our team has become more confident about game analysis and setting build/practice priorities. 2016 was a break-out year for the Average Joes, but its seeds were planted in 2014 -- and we thank Build Blitz Team JVN for that.

This is what Ri3d inspiration should be. I'm glad it does work for some teams, but I know it doesn't work for everyone.