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

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by xForceDee

I want to clarify that I don't think those of you with lots of experience are wrong, in fact I hold your thoughts with regard above all else, but I fear sometimes you lose sight of just how hard it can be to field a functioning robot for teams with little experience.

Let me share a little about how we experienced Mentors know exactly how hard it is to build something with little experience...

Roll the clock back to 2003 to MY rookie year. We didn't have predesigned and prefrabricated kitbots. We didn't have AndyMark, nor Vexpro to order gearboxes from. We needed to do all of that ourselves still within 6 weeks. So we do understand just how hard it is. I think that having these premade frames, gearboxes and such allow us to focus on the creativity in meeting the challenge and less on the fabrication of components. So yes we do know and do understand just how hard it is.


Now back to the thread itself. I find that these RI3D challenges do take away from each teams individual experience in meeting the challenge.
I saw a great number of "copycat" machines last season. Where's the creativity and thinking outside the box in that?

[brrian27]

These build marathons are great in my opinion.

First of all, it's obviously beneficial to rookie teams. For new teams, it's hard to go through the design process completely, and for many just making a robot is an accomplishment.

But, for more experienced teams it is still a great resource. After watching the Robot in 3 Days final video last year, we really got hit with inspiration. We incorporated some of their features of a linear shooter, but in the end made a robot that looks nothing like theirs. We took what they had made and built off of it, ending up with a completely unique product that everyone felt proud of.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by Leav

Akash, what I don't understand is this: who benefits from the current model of the build marathons?

I can see rookies benefiting, but I think rookies have been doing fine since before these marathons.

Everyone benefits. You get to see some ideas that others are trying out that maybe you had dismissed or do not have the resources to try out (only so many hours in the day right?)

How is this different from teams referencing past robots from previous seasons and gaining inspiration for their current robot? Let's be honest, very few teams are re-inventing the wheel here. We're all developing something from another idea, another concept, it's (almost) all been done before by someone. Instead of segregating everyone into their own team silo's, technology now allows our community to collaborate and share ideas throughout our teams' design processes - in real time. I love how this is changing the build season and can't wait to see what everyone comes up with.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Starke

Q: Are we creating problem solvers or fabricators?

A: Looking at these builds, I could see that we are creating more fabricators than problem solvers. We are showing students how to pick a part “off of the shelf” and follow instructions on how to build it. In my opinion, this does not have as much problem solving experiences as make something “from scratch.”

How do you host a (very valuable) library of robot CAD that teams can reference while also saying that students shouldn't have access to Ri3D or the BlitzBuild? Your signature even says: "Your one stop shop for robot design ideas and solutions!", but the above post seems to indicate you think it is bad for FIRST to have students see other people's design ideas and solutions?

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

How do you host a (very valuable) library of robot CAD that teams can reference while also saying that students shouldn't have access to Ri3D or the BlitzBuild? Your signature even says: "Your one stop shop for robot design ideas and solutions!", but the above post seems to indicate you think it is bad for FIRST to have students see other people's design ideas and solutions?

There's probably enough distiniction to allow Matt some leeway here. I see a big difference between adapting from the past to solve a new problem, and having someone tell you how to solve the current problem.

Edit: Interesting to note that the kickoff broadcast of 2011 kept the GDC's minibot designs in a black box. It would make sense that they would not present both the problem and the solution in the same kick-off broadcast.

[Steven Smith]

Since I got involved in April 2013 as a mentor, I’ve been drinking from a fire hose, and I acutely feel the overwhelming nature of “trying to catch up”. Fortunately, our team has a few existing mentors with a longer history in FRC, and I’ve found troves of information in various team websites, Chief Delphi threads, etc. I’d like to say THANK YOU to all of you that contribute this content. Know that it is being read and appreciated by us newbies. I thought I’d comment on this thread, as I have worked with other programs that “got it wrong” and I wanted to encourage you all by pointing out that my fresh set of eyes still sees FRC as “getting it right.”

Maturing Programs
Assuming people enter FRC at a constant level, and the level of robot sophistication grows each year, the gap between a rookie and an “average competitive robot” will continue to grow. I see a few ways to address this.
• Design the rules or game to handicap the top end
• Find ways to accelerate the learning curve of the bottom end
• De-emphasize the competitive side of it (everyone gets a trophy mentality)

If you implement option #1 poorly, top tier teams will feel stifled, get bored, and eventually leave. These established teams are the bedrock that the FRC community is built on, and they not only build great robots, they are active in their communities, support rookie teams, etc.

As an aside, I was a part of Formula Hybrid racing competition in college. In 2009, the program organizers attempted to level the playing field without prior notification to anyone before championship. Imagine showing up to FRC regionals after build season, and finding the inspectors were allowing robots up to 200lbs, just to allow more teams to compete. The organizers even tried to rewrite the scoring metrics mid-competition to provide more points for fuel economy, because they didn’t like that our fuel-inefficient vehicle was poised to win. Ultimately, we did win easily after protesting the rule re-write, but it was a pretty bitter experience for a team of 30 students who essentially did a cost-benefit analysis, and emphasized “race car” over “hybrid”. I’d rather be a part of a program that constantly brings rookies up, than artificially holds the level of competition down. For any that are curious, this was Texas A&M in 2009.

FRC addresses these issues in a much better way. The nature of the 6 week competition and new challenge each year already limits the innovation (via time constraints) that can be applied specifically to that challenge, but it does so in a fair and fun way. It still allows year-long innovation, but at a gamble that it might not directly apply next year, and with the stipulation that it must be freely shared. The resources in the community, the increasing availability of COTS solutions, and the emphasis within the community of helping rookies address point #2. And finally, I think the myriad of non-robot, rookie, and regional awards are great and address #3, as they are highly valued and are many are less affected by the increasing robot sophistication. They give young teams an easier way to “win”, without devaluing the importance and goal of winning world championships in robot competition.

I believe that Ri3D and BuildBlitz will fix #2 for young teams that want to watch them, and potentially make it worse for teams that don’t. I think this is the primary source of discord. Some rookie teams see it as a way for them to be competitive faster. Other established teams that have remained marginally competitive, while allowing the design/build/strategy to be formulated entirely by the students with few outside resources, might see this as accelerating the maturity of the “average robot”. This may threaten their ability to continue on in the manner they like (and the manner that might be working for them and their students), while still remaining competitive.

Impact on Students
I feel the arguments both for and against allowing the FRC competition to mature come from differing opinions on what is most inspirational/educational for the students. Some argue that a higher profile competition, featuring well-built and visually impressive robots will inspire students and the public more readily... as student teams think "wow, I was a part of building something this impressive, regardless of how much external help I got". Others argue that regardless of the final product, student teams will be more inspired by thinking "I designed and built this robot all by myself... even though it did not seem to be competitive, I'm proud I accomplished it alone." This is complicated by the fact that it might vary for different groups, and there really isn’t a “right answer”.

I think it is important to recognize the maturing competition for what it is, and accept it as a natural progression instead of fighting it. Some of the initial design and creativity might come externally, and your ability to create parts better than COTS solutions in 2002 may no longer provide the edge it once did. However, there are still ways for your team to innovate and differentiate themselves from the other 3000 teams that watched the same video. If the competition starts to get stale, the game designers can always just “break the mold”, by altering the game enough that it makes previous strategies or COTS parts less applicable, and forces a bit of a knowledge reset for both new and experienced teams. Or perhaps, more awards are created that emphasize engineering creativity, with points docked for designs that are copied with little iteration. Ri3D and BuildBlitz might change FRC in the short-term, but I don’t see them as damaging it in the long term.

Finally, everyone is making great points, and I agree it is important to constantly think about how changes in the nature of FRC impact what we are trying to achieve with our students. However, I think framing the discussion in the terms of “how do I continue to emphasize the importance of original design with my students, despite the abundance of resources available at kickoff” vs. “how do I stop the proliferation of these resources”, would help a lot.

I too am conflicted, as I see these resources as being very helpful to get me up to speed more quickly, and potentially give our newer team a taste of early success. However, we also have to walk a line to make sure enough is being contributed by the students that they feel proud that it is “their robot” and “their design”, and not simply a copy of someone else’s design. For this year, I think that regardless of the source, our students will be thrilled to field a competitive robot that their hands were touching for 6 weeks, and that is driven by two of them. Maybe I’m wrong, and next year we’ll have to better manage the incoming information so the students are more bought in, but for this year, I’m pretty psyched to have so much information available in the first three days.

Thanks!
Steven

[Peyton Yeung]

While I agree that the build marathons may give teams tunnel vision I don't think they should go away. The goal of FIRST is to inspire and what inspires many is success. I know my time as a student were more inspired by the great memories achieved from competition but that may be just me. I don't think one needs to reinvent the wheel every year to achieve inspiration. Otherwise we may need to get rid of COTS parts so we can be inspired by designing them ourselves.

[billylo]

Great discussion here... A few additional thoughts:

Nothing is perfect. The key question I ask myself is: does R3iD/Buildbitzs help inspire students to like STEM from a big picture perspective?

My thought process is as follows:

1. For new teams, the benefit is clear. They can enjoy the fun of being in the competition sooner and contribute to their alliance partners more and learn more in the process.

2. For teams with a few years of experience, their job will be harder than last year because competition level will be raised and they will need to think more to "stand out from the crowd" and come up with a more capable/effective design. But I have no doubts that these teams will adapt and find a new way to do just that. Case in point: the games are getting harder every year, but teams manage to overcome new challenges.

3. For veterans teams, I see this is as a good thing. Competitions will be more fun with stronger participation level overall. Their job will be harder too as they will no longer be able to dominate a match easily. More strategic thinking, need to be more versatile and better scouting, driving and in game adjustments. All fun things for veteran teams to enjoy.

Competition is a powerful motivator for growth. Our team, 610, have our share of intense battles over the years... :-) The net result? Our students have learned to come up with better solutions, persevere through tough times and most importantly develop a stronger passion for STEM.

[Tungrus]

My biggest challenge this year will be to minimize external distraction. At least few team members will watch YouTube and will comeback with half baked ideas, not understanding the engineering behind the design process and insisting on doing like "they" did. To add to some parents will come prepared with video loaded on iPad and try to challenge those who are practicing engineering best practices. Anyways this is my challenge and I have to learn to deal with it.

[Mark Sheridan]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

My biggest challenge this year will be to minimize external distraction. At least few team members will watch YouTube and will comeback with half baked ideas, not understanding the engineering behind the design process and insisting on doing like "they" did. To add to some parents will come prepared with video loaded on iPad and try to challenge those who are practicing engineering best practices. Anyways this is my challenge and I have to learn to deal with it.

Roy Plunkett invented Teflon by trying to make a better refrigerator. His experiment completely failed but he took samples of the material he made a found he made a material that achieved a different necessity.

Harry Coover tried to use cyanacrylates as a moldable polymer. It completely failed because its so sticky. However, he realized it was sticky enough to hold two materials together thus inventing superglue.

One can argue in hindsight that their original ideas were bad however these inventors were operating in the unknown. Their flawed ideas yielded a great invention.

Last year, I had a picture I took in 2011 of 1114's drivetrain that my students saw. We like the drivetrain but that is not what inspired my students. They liked how 1114 mounted their wheels and my students used that method to hold our shooter wheel. We never had an argument about if we should use our west coast drive versus 1114's drive. Frankly I don't think we could argue if one was superior. Time was precious, thus we picked west coast drive based on our collaboration with 766.

A lot of these examples require an idea to be prototype, to be experimented with. That consumes resources so not every idea can move forward. I disagree that a team should limit "distractions." The challenge is to condense a reservoir of ideas into working prototypes and functioning mechanisms. The process can get gruesome as ideas are dropped. Last year, we had two climber concepts but barely enough time to do one, so the other was cut. We tried two shooters; linear and curved, but our linear shooter lagged behind the curve shooter. We had to drop it to focus on a design that was working.

About 3/4 of our teams mentors are parents. A lot of parents want to help and have ideas, a key transition is to get parents to join as full-fledged mentors. Some will suggest ideas that don't appear to help but its a clue that they want to help. Also, I really try to cut the egos from ideas, some people get very attached to their ideas and that makes it difficult to have productive discussions. I wish I had resources to say "go build it, show us how great your idea is." That is just not practical. We do say, if your idea is to be pursued in prototyping, you are expected you to be part of the prototyping process. We want people to take ownership of their work.

The best thing I can suggest is to research and develop a formal design process. This will help manage the flow of ideas. My team uses one based on Ideo's method. I got it from a documentary I saw about them. We have a timeline that we try to adhere to, this year will be the strictest schedule yet, we can't afford to endlessly talk ideas. We also have a design spec, and ideas must address the design objectives. Some ideas will cause us to redefine our design spec but this should help you make people say more than, "they did it so it must be good." They will have to articulate their ideas.

[Kevin Ray]

Originally Posted by billylo

Nothing is perfect. The key question I ask myself is: does R3iD/Buildbitzs help inspire students to like STEM from a big picture perspective?

My thought process is as follows:

1. For new teams, the benefit is clear. They can enjoy the fun of being in the competition sooner and contribute to their alliance partners more and learn more in the process.

2. For teams with a few years of experience, their job will be harder than last year because competition level will be raised and they will need to think more to "stand out from the crowd" and come up with a more capable/effective design. But I have no doubts that these teams will adapt and find a new way to do just that. Case in point: the games are getting harder every year, but teams manage to overcome new challenges.

3. For veterans teams, I see this is as a good thing. Competitions will be more fun with stronger participation level overall. Their job will be harder too as they will no longer be able to dominate a match easily. More strategic thinking, need to be more versatile and better scouting, driving and in game adjustments. All fun things for veteran teams to enjoy.

billylo, Well stated!!!
I had intended to start this exact thread the day after kickoff and was adamantly opposed to Ri3D. However, after having read this entire thread I'm only mildly opposed to it. Some reasons:
You cannot "unsee" something--especially a design that piques your interest and especially one that you know that you can replicate. Yes, not all of the designs can be replicated by all teams, but one of the purposes of the Ri3D teams is to show you what you can do with their products and they tell you pretty much how to do it. This does stifle the creative process and anyone who says it doesn't, I think is kidding themselves. There is a plethora of threads on CD attesting to gains made by students going from the design process through final construction. A major part of that is prototyping, and the consequent iterations which evolve the final product. Short-cutting that by showing a great solution (or five) deprives teams of that learning opportunity. Yes, "they don't have to look if they don't want to see it". There will invariably be at least one or two team members who might look even with the admonition not to. Once they see it, do they remain silent as ideas are being proffered during strategy sessions? Remember, we're not talking about "borrowing" an idea from 1114, 359, 16, 2056 et.al. on drive systems or shooters or lifting mechanisms from previous years--we're talking about complete robot solutions to THIS year's problem. And finally, to those who say that you can't prototype your potential designs in 6 weeks--hogwash! Hundreds of Youtubes prove otherwise.

Having said all that, I do think we should have Ri3D! Here's why, it does enable rookies who would/could not field a working robot (more than a chassis) to be competitive and have a great first year experience. I remember being on a bus coming from Dean Kamen's home during the pre-kickoff party in 2000. A woman from the Midwest was sitting with me and said that she was the only mentor on their rookie team and she was a home economics teacher. I wished then that there was something available for rookie teams like them which would help level the playing field--now there is.
I agree with billylo in that competition will increase almost exponentially now. Most teams should be able to field at least a semi-competitive robot and separating the elite from the good and the good from the rookies will just be harder--as it should be. You will now HAVE to build a better mouse trap if you want to be a winner.

I think the compromise would be to hold off on unveiling the Ri3D for one week. That gives teams a legitimate amount of time to discuss strategies/designs without being influenced by obviously elite level teams. It still affords rookies (and anyone else) plenty of time to proceed with whatever level of assistance they wish to gain from viewing the builds.

[dbonar]

I'm adding my opinion to the discussion even though I haven't read all of the thread yet. Apologies if I am repeating someone else's comment but this is the only free time I have.

I'm conflicted about the Ri3D videos. However its really just part of the overall conflict in FIRST especially as a smaller team. As a science teacher with an engineering background I want my students to do their background research and start with some idea of the state of the art. Unique and innovative designs are great but with scarce resources in both money and time we don't want to reinvent the wheel or go down too many dead ends. This research should include seeing how others have solved similar problems up to and including other solutions to the current problem.

There is a risk of just copying but its the same risk as just letting a mentor design the robot.

[dbonar]

One thing that I feel is important is expanding the Ri3D idea. One robot in 3 days leads some students to see a solution and copy it. 4, 5, or 8 robots shows that there are different possible solutions and leads to discussions about pros and cons of each design.

[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.