 |
| Auyon Siddiq watches as his robot attempts its final turn towards the target. (Bruce Bottomley Photo) |
Harder, better, faster, stronger? Or slow and steady wins the robot race?
Most teams taking part in ±«Óătv’s 18th annual Electrical Engineering Robot Competition went for the jugular, designing robots to complete the 28 by 16-foot course and hit the button at its end for maximum reward (five points). But students Karen Pahlavan and Majd Alkaraki had a different strategy: take a more challenging but less risky route through the middle of the course, making it near-impossible to hit the button but ensuring a reliable three points every round.
They never lost a match. While the other 17 teams struggled in their more ambitious plans and often ended up with only two points, the duo and their robot—appropriately named “Don’t Worry - Be Happy”—coasted to the championship.
SEE MORE PHOTOS: Robocup
“The key lesson was our design process: always go through the simplest path,” said Mr. Alkaraki after their win.
“And don’t pay too much attention to what the other robots are doing,” added Mr. Pahlavan. “Do what works best for you.”Â
The yearly competition is the culmination of Design Methods II (ECED-3901), a third-year engineering course where all class and lab time is devoted towards building an autonomous robot – no remote controls allowed. On its own, the robot must be able to navigate the obstacle course; the closer it gets to the goal, the more points it earns. The competition itself is worth 10 per cent of the students’ grade, with the bulk of their market coming from reports and labs guiding them through the hands-on construction process. It’s a teaching model that’s central to the course’s success, explains the man who created it 18 years ago.
“It’s always interesting to teach because for one month I tell them what to do, and then for two months they just fire questions at me,” says electrical engineering professor Peter Gregson, who still teaches the course today. “The learning opportunity is huge – students pay attention when they know that the discussion is being directly applied to their project.”
Students agree. “It’s not like you have months to learn the process – you have to build as you go,” says Auyon Siddiq, whose robot “Marvin, The Paranoid Android” made it to the fourth round before being knocked out of the competition. “I’ve probably learned more in this course than any other one at university.”
Building the robot is a rather intense experience; most students speak of long nights in the lab, frantic last-minute readjustments and at least one or two spontaneous (but controlled) small fires before all is said and done. And sometimes, the drama extends to competition day. Partway through the competition, Lance Taylor was doing a trial run with his robot, “Project Gattica,” when disaster struck.
“I thought the motor had stopped and I went to pick it up by the wheels,” he said. “The whole thing flipped over and crushed all the circuits. Stuff was catching on fire and everything.”
With the help of a lab technician, Mr. Taylor and his teammate Aaron MacNeill frantically soldered their robot and, miraculously, made it fit for competition again – so successfully, in fact, that it was one of the final three robots standing at the end.
It’s learning these intangible skills – project management, handing a crisis – that is every bit as important to the course as the technical accomplishments. “It’s about reliability, robustness and strategy all working together on the course, and that’s a very good engineering lesson to learn,” says Dr. Gregson. “I think it’s a great opportunity to teach real engineering and to differentiate ±«Óătv as a design-focused engineering school.”