Looking Back: 3 Day Robots

[aldaeron]

At the beginning of the season when multiple "3 day robots" (Ri3D, BuildBlitz) were announced, there was a lot of discussion on whether or not it was a good thing or not to have these televised, "professionally built" FRC robots.

Here is one of the many threads: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=123152

I setup a reminder to follow up and now I want to see what you all think. I am not sure I have finished making up my mind, but here are my initial thoughts.

The biggest thing I wonder is what designs we would have seen without the 3 day robots? Would teams have come to similar conclusions in 6 weeks that the 3 day robot teams did in 72 hours? Would we have seen different ideas at the competitions if there were no 3 day robots?

I admit it was a little disappointing to see some bots that looked identical to what I saw on day 3 of the build season on YouTube at the competitions. Listening to my scouting team describe teams was often similarly disappointing. Some things I heard were: "it's a SimBot with a JVN intake" and "it's literally a Boom Done clone".

I never was able to investigate these teams in more detail in the pits. Maybe they were a small team with limited financial resources and this was their first solid bot that could play the game well. Perhaps they were rookies with limited professional engineering mentors and would have struggled to do more than driving. Maybe this was the first year a team was able to have a robot done by week 4 and actually spent time testing or doing driver practice.

Many teams made clever combinations of the 3 day robot designs, combining their strengths and improving on their weaknesses.

Overall I thought the 3 day robots added to the season and would like to see them come back. I think that releasing all the code and CAD after the 72 hours was a good thing because it gave teams a working example to look at.

My main dislike was that the Boom Done team kept working on their bot and releasing updates during the season (I do not think any others kept working, but I could be wrong). While it was interesting to see their progress, I think that limiting the FRC professionals to a short amount of time helps showcase good concepts, while not figuring out all the fine details of a design for the students. The amount of work these FRC veterans can crank out in 72 hours is amazing and a huge help to many teams.

The opinions above are my own and are offered in the spirit of healthy reflection and debate. It is not my intent to diminish anyone's design or critique how their team operates.

-matto-

[Max Boord]

I am a strong supporter of the Ri3D/ BuildBlitz robots for many perspectives.

1. They are a good example of what a mid level robot must/ will be capable of at regionals.
2. They provide a multitude of solid, tested, and documented mechanisms available from the start. This helps out teams who do not have the time, resources, or wish to prototype every type of mechanism capable of completing a task.
3. It allows teams strategy department to get working immediately knowing how the game will be played and what basic principals will or wont work.
4. For rookie teams, what better way to get an introduction to FIRST that seeing robots preforming this years game in a matter of hours.
5. The Ri3D builds can be an emergency backup in the event a team finds out late in the season there mechanism does not work.
6. By having 5 builds the chances of your alliance having a toaster/ printer/ box on wheels robot goes down significantly.
7. By showing off low cost, easy access machinable parts (versa system) less machining capable teams will have a solid place to start on construction materials and techniques that actually apply to them.

[dudefise]

I think it's a good thing, as others have said, it provides options for teams unable to design their own functioning mechanisms due to delays, and helps those who would otherwise be competing with box-bots. This increases the competitiveness of the competition, which helps everyone.

The downside is that it decreases creativity, with many designs from teams capable of designing and constructing unique components simply being copies of the Ri3d stuff.

Our team was able to counter this effect by asking the students to avoid watching Ri3d until initial brainstorming, strategizing and conceptual design had been completed.

[BBray_T1296]

I liked the Choo-choo mechanism. Unless teams like us were looking at (EDIT: I knew better) Winnovation 2008 robot (or people who worked on it ahem Aren), I doubt that many teams would have stumbled across this great mechanism.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

I liked the Choo-choo mechanism. Unless teams like us were looking at Simbotics 2008 robot (or people who worked on it ahem Aren), I doubt that many teams would have stumbled across this great mechanism.

It's very cool, no doubt, but if you have access to the other side of the pivot, I think a snail cam is a better equivalent. Much easier to build strong without so many cantilevered shafts.

Back on topic - I'm a supporter of RI3D and Build Blitz. Sure we've seen a few hundred JVN low pivot winched catapults, O-Ryon claws with kickers, and BoomDone/Copioli motorized high pivot catapults this year. But I'd rather see what teams can do with that inspiration than a bunch of schools flounder looking for an idea. (Much of the similarity is probably due to design convergence, rather than imitation anyway)

[Chief Hedgehog]

The jury is still out for me.

After attending a week zero event and then having watched countless hours of video via TBA, followed by our lone regional at North Star I keep seeing robots that were near mimics of the Ri3D Bots. After all of this, I am left wondering if we would have seen more differentiation of designs in the robots themselves without Ri3D.

I give all credit to my design team that was lead by Ginger Power by creating a Robot that was very different in design and game play in reference to the Ri3D Robots. Our robot had a very unique design structure that included a ground floor pick-up via a fork design (which we did not utilize at North Star). Our throwing mechanism - a catapult with a very unique cam that was powered by a winch that my students built and stressed with speargun tubing http://www.magisto.com/album/video/f...8wNSIHDmEwCXl9

What you do not see in this video is how the lead screw has put tension on the tubing and then the student-built winch pulls it back into position. But if you watch our videos from North Star, you can see how effective it can be - and during this event we were only pulling back at around 40% - if we pushed it the full 100%, we would be throwing outside of the HP area with ease. We never pushed the limit as we saw no need to. Especially when we were drafted by the #1 alliance to keep doing what we were already capable of.

We struggled early in our Regional as we were not able to fit the Superstructure to the competition robot - but once we did, we were dominant.

I see the positives of Ri3D, but I also see how it can severely limit the ingenuity of students - especially if the teams are heavily influenced by the Ri3D designs, or by the mentors that are swayed by Ri3D.

I know that I may be a little out on the fringes as I allow my students to make the decisions of the final design (but we have been fairly sucessful the last two seasons) - but as a coach and a teacher, I realize the valuation in failure. And in the last two seasons, 4607 has failed a lot in the initial design phases of our robot (any inspector at North Star in 2013 can attest to this as we were the last robot to pass inspections - where we had to rebuild our robot on the spot).

But I believe in my students, I encourage them to fail in their endeavors to find the best formula. There is valuation in failure. That is why you will never see me with the drive team. I feel that my coaching has already been done before the regional - I have no need to be on the drive team - just like I have no need to be on the field when my soccer players are playing the game.

Aside from all of that hyperbole, I do see value in modeling. If a team can gain insight from Ri3D and then improve, more power to them. The competition of ideas and ideals is why FRC has quickly become my favorite of all sports - no matter of the controversies.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

I am not sure I have finished making up my mind

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

The jury is still out for me.

Me too. I can't vote on a poll that appears to be a false dichotomy. How about you add a selection for me?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by BBray_T1296

I liked the Choo-choo mechanism. Unless teams like us were looking at Simbotics 2008 robot (or people who worked on it ahem Aren), I doubt that many teams would have stumbled across this great mechanism.

Here's a fun story, I've been around a while and I knew about the 1625 choo choo from when it was done in 2008. However, I had a student, who watched Team JVN, explain it to me ... this was the first time I understood how it worked. So, inspiration managed.


As an addendum - 1114 did not use that linkage in 2008. They used a dog released winch.

[pfreivald]

I think this season taught us that by and large, the Ri3D robots could play the game, but were not optimal designs. I think that's wonderful both in terms of raising the floor and in terms of inspiring better design.

[instantcake]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think this season taught us that by and large, the Ri3D robots could play the game, but were not optimal designs. I think that's wonderful both in terms of raising the floor and in terms of inspiring better design.

I feel this is the most important aspect of robot in 3 days: it allows rookie teams and veterans alike to get an idea about what to build, allowing rookies to focus on learning how to build a solid robot that will play the game, and veteran teams to use ideas from the robots as a bases to improve on. More robots in three days will give an even greater amount of ideas to FRC teams, allowing the skill floor and ceiling to rise for all teams in FRC.

[Iaquinto.Joe]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think this season taught us that by and large, the Ri3D robots could play the game, but were not optimal designs. I think that's wonderful both in terms of raising the floor and in terms of inspiring better design.

This. I was really disappointed by the lack of iteration upon the Ri3d designs by teams in Michigan. Many just copied or made very little changes to the design, instead of iterating upon the 3 day builds. I like the 3 day challenge, i just think teams are missing the bigger opportunities available.

[Andrew Remmers]

I posted this on the Reddit Thread regarding this earlier this week but I figured I should post it here as well.

Build Marathons such as Robot in 3 Days or Buildblitz are raising the bar, not lowering the floor.

See it as you wish, but this is how I feel about the individual programs on their own.

- Andrew

[jijiglobe]

As a New York team my personal experience with RI3D is a little different than what I saw watching other regionals and attending the Buckeye. Quite simply. I don't really like it. A team can build a JVN bot without changing anything and still seed first or at least easily within the top eight. At other regionals you see the higher end of the spectrum being innovative or at least interesting bots. New York has only a handful of particularly strong teams and RI3D helps keep New York teams making competitive bots. At the same time I don't really like how it basically tells most of the teams that you can win just by copying someone else. Some things like the JVN intake are things that most teams would've figured out but el torro and the choo choo are things that most teams wouldn't have done themselves.

[GBK]

I am still not a fan of the 3 day builds. Our team did watch the videos, but not until the Thursday after kickoff, after we made decisions on what direction we wanted to go. We did it as a team and discussed how these robots would work with our design. I guess if a team does not have the creative design resources, then they are a good thing. It seems like so many teams got stuck in the design influence of the 3 day builds.
I think if they are going to continue with this, the teams doing the three day build should be required to do it with a kit chassis, that way they are truly helping teams that do not have the creative design resources.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by GBK

I think if they are going to continue with this, the teams doing the three day build should be required to do it with a kit chassis, that way they are truly helping teams that do not have the creative design resources.

This is not a top-down activity, where anyone has the authority to dictate to anyone what they can or can't do. Nobody has any ability to tell a non-FRC team group of people what to do or how to do it, so there's no such thing as "requiring" any of these groups to do anything.