I meant I’m certain IQ competitors copy his designs quite often.
Evidence? All he has to do is go to almost any competition…or his comment section…
Here are some comments (sorry if this isnt allowed–I censored their users)
Gotta appreciate this guy’s honesty
This is curious…
Oh, and this is interesting. I wonder why they didn’t try to work it out themselves? Maybe because they copied the design and hardly know how it works?
At this point, Ben Lipper is WELL known in the Vex community for letting people copy his bots.
The official herobot is FAR less competitive than the copy bots you see. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Even this is…an interesting way to go about Vex to me. If you get a full design from your sister team–isn’t that also a bit questionable? They still aren’t your team…
Absolutely not. The thought process required for replacing the shape of a C-channel/beam or two is far less than the thought process required to design your own robot.
In severe cases, there are exact copies of robots. I specifically remember two sister teams in IQ back in Slapshot that had literally identical (some of the beams were different colors I think) robots. Sorry, but that isn’t okay nor is it in line with the Vex ethos.
The herobot is legal to copy. The line is drawn at it and the clawbot (and whatever other vex-provided instruction bots you can find). Herobots are not competitively viable in nearly all regions, as opposed to holecounted and cobuilt bots that can do very well at local events and signature events. They do not break G2 or R2.
As the biased, self-proclaimed Biggest Fan of the Hero Bot, I feel the need to say something, here.
I get frustrated at this argument, because I think it is a very poor one.
The Hero Bot is not marketed as a final solution.
The Hero Bot is not marketed by “Being able to score XXXX Points”.
The Hero Bot is not marketed as a shortcut.
The Hero Bot is intentionally designed with flaws, shortcomings, and hurdles to leap through because it is a teaching tool. It exists to aid and assist in the accessibility of our competition, bringing robotics to people that would otherwise have a much more challenging time getting off the ground.
It is our intention that teams who use the Hero Bot will eventually NOT use the Hero Bot. We are happy when teams “graduate” away from it. It means it did its job; the students learned what they needed to, and gained the confidence to build their own design.
Teams that are downloading solutions/CAD/Instructions and/or building from publically (or semi-publically) available photo albums are not being given designs that force teams to make their own decisions, make revisions, improve on the robot throughout the season, etc. Because they are being shilled a design that
is marketed as a “Final Solution”
is marketed as “Being able to score XXXX Points”
is marketed as a “Shortcut”
Comparing and conflating the Hero Bot with the obvious and rampant problem that is plaguing this competition does a disservice to the Hero Bot, and it makes the bad actors here feel like they are actually making positive contributions to our program.
Spoiler Alert:
They are not.
Not questionable, illegal. There are unfortunately many very successful teams that codesign, but from what I’ve heard, it’s not exactly one team copying the other. However, it still breaks G2 and R2, as well as possibly G4.
I think you should consider rebranding “Hero Bot” to something with less association with “success” or “positive” that the word “Hero” implies. Calling it a “Minimally Viable Bot” or “Start Bot” would be beneficial, IMO.
(Sorry to the mods for making three different posts that probably should have been one)
I see your point about this, I did overlook that. However, it would be nice if he said something to explicitly discourage holecounts at the beginning of the video. He has to be aware of all of the holecounts, and I know that he can’t do much to stop them, but I believe that most teams that copy his bots do so because they sont realize it’s against the rules.
I’m sorry, but these are adults who are not affiliated with an organization and therefore pretty much untouchable by recf, to my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong). The second channel has nearly 1k subscribers, and Ben Lipper has over 8,000. I feel that it is not a bad thing to directly accuse such seemingly well-known figures of Student Centered Policy Violations.
Just some anecdotal examples from my neck of the V5RC woods…
I have not seen an issue with purchased or complete clone-bots, but most of the teams in my area are school based and the develop the bots during an associated class (and lots of after-school time).
The HeroBot is an awesome starting point for beginning teams. It helps to overcome that initial level of intimidation while also encouraging them to improve and develop better designs. During Spin Up, my rookie teams did not like the HeroBot and one started with a published alternative called BullsEye (I think). While it was more functional than the hero, they had to make considerable changes to even be moderately competitive.
The bigger issue I’ve seen is when a student builds a robot for a sister team. A little help is fine, but I know we’ve had complete builds by sister teams. I even found an article on a school website that was touting how proud they were of team “B” that did so well with a robot built by Student “X” from team “A”.
And, to some degree I think this is a cause of the problem, for a new team thinking “hey we just copied the herobot, what should we build next.” It is a very easy next step to just copy a better robot and, honestly, there is a solid chance they don’t know that it isn’t allowed; Many teams who start off with the herobot probably don’t know the manual and RECF policies that well.
In my opinion that is one of the 3 “types” of hole-counting if you will, New teams copying because they don’t know better and nobody has told them. Increasing the penalty for hole-counting likely won’t reduce the prevalence of this. We, as a community, just need to inform new mentors and teams of the rules.
(By the way, no herobot hate here, just an observation that it might lead to hole-counting if teams don’t know better)
Alternatively, there are experienced teams that like you said, have admitted to hole-counting other robots. This is the second type of hole-counting and maybe the hardest to solve; Maybe punishing teams more publicly so it scares others? but that’s just mean; you could increase the penalty but it is already at least a DQ from a tournament if verified, and anything more than that seems overkill and could make some students lose a significant amount of their precious time in vex. I think the main problem with this one is a culture that is accepting towards hole-counting and, I don’t think there is a quick solution to solve it when the third type is still competing in tournaments with (relatively) few consequences.
In my opinion, the final type of hole-counting teams are probably the biggest problem, they are the teams that are a part of organizations that build the same or extremely similar robots from the same cad (stereotypically with a lot of assistance from mentors but that is a different topic). I think that it is ultimately these organizations and teams that lead to a trickle-down effect where hole-counting is more acceptably viewed by everyone. As for what can be done about this type I don’t have any ideas, though I am sure the good people at the RECF (who have much more information than we do) will continue to work to improve V5RC for everyone.
Wow. This post is great, I’m definitely going to refer to it in the future when talking about holecounting.
I agree, with how many dome teams I’ve seen admit to this, I think that the recf taking action against this would be extremely beneficial. A very successful organization said in a youtube comment,
In China, If you don’t [cobuild], you simply can’t go to the World Championships because the Chinese team is just too competitive.
This is the problem. In competitive regions, the perceived only way to succeed is holecounting. this is why it would be virtually impossible to stop holecounting completely.
Chill…
I should have mentioned this as well - I am a big fan of herobot too.
Whenever there are any new teams that asked me about design and learning V5, I will always refer them to herobot 
When I said co-design, I really mean both teams come together to brainstorm and design it together. I am not referring to those that just copy screw-by-screw (or hole by hole) directly from their senior teams.
So if co-design is not allowed, then are we implying all those alliances formed (which my teams are never part of) are illegal as well? The teams do come together to discuss and design the robots together. And how about those situations whereby multiple teams coming together to do a Ri3D project?
Should we “track” how much does each team contribute in the “co-design process” ?
Personally, I do love all these Ri3D projects - collaborative learning at its best.
The main objective in raising all these scenarios (including herobot) over here are to illustrate the point that it is really not easy to draw a line to what’s acceptable and what is not.
It is still grey even if we are to look at it from the learning point of view. Yes, in general, we are more forgiving when it is brand new team that is learning or building their 1st robot. But this “grace” is easily abused - it ended up as teams that just want to win, doing hole-counting and then put it down as they are learning.
And yes - this is my point too.
I do consider my teams as competitive (I hope it is not a misplaced belief), and I will confess that for my MS, 1st time V5 teams, I do encourage them to make reference to some existing designs (including herobot). And most of the time, it ended up the brand new teams coming together to discuss and share info and help each other out, and it ended up having pretty similar robots to each other. So is this also unacceptable?
But beyond that, most of the time the teams have too much pride to hole-count from other teams (phew…).
In Singapore, most school-based teams are pretty fine (even though you can’t help but to expect the teams (from same org) “copying” certain part of the design and adapt it into their own robots).
But it is those teams that are from enrichment centres that will be difficult to regulate.
All these said, performance-wise, in our region, it is still the school-based V5 teams that are outperforming those non school-based teams. So in this sense, we are not too concern about them.
But it is a very different situation in VIQ though.
Just to summarise, legally speaking, you can’t patent ideas, only the approach in doing it. Hence, hole-counting will always be illegal.
But beyond blatant hole-counting, there is a huge grey area that is extremely contextual-based and difficult to navigate. Simply because it is difficult to quantify the exact amount of learning or the exact amount of thought processes that the teams had put in.
And in this post, I am just throwing out different scenarios to illustrate the grey areas.
I have no solution, other than the adult mentors need to perform their role ethically.
I only have a basic awareness of it, but the Japanese concept of Shuhari resonates to me. For those not familiar:
Shu (“protect” / “follow”)
Focus: Learning the fundamentals by strictly adhering to and imitating a master’s teachings.
Action: Rote memorization of techniques, forms, and movements without questioning the underlying theory.
Goal: To absorb and internalize the foundational knowledge of a skill.
Ha (“break” / “detach”)
Focus: Moving beyond strict imitation to explore and experiment with the techniques and principles learned.
Action: Breaking away from tradition, questioning existing methods, and integrating different perspectives or teachers.
Goal: To adapt the skill, personalize it, and begin to develop a unique understanding.
Ri (“break” / “detach”)
Focus: Achieving a state of intuitive mastery, where techniques are second nature.
Action: The practitioner acts naturally and creatively, no longer bound by formal structures or rules.
Goal: To create new approaches, innovate, and potentially set off on one’s own path, contributing to the art’s evolution.
In this sense, “hole counting” (however one defines that) is the first stage of mastery. Obviously there are ways to go about the Shu phase and incur G2/R2 violations, but I think there can be ways that this phase can be acheived without G2/R2 violations, in student-centered collaborative fashion.
Then there’s the famous “Good artists copy, great artists steal” approach. We see this with design convergence and the evolution of a META as the season progresses. Teams, rightly, will watch early-season tournaments, see what is successful, and legitimately use those designs as inspiration for their own. Of course, I’m not so naive as to believe ALL teams do this, and there are clearly problems where a team’s robot does not match the team’s skill.
I do like the collaborative nature of Vex, and would hope that it continues to err on the side of fostering collaboration over harsh enforcement of G2/R2. That’s not to say there should be no G2/R2s, and I do think that the egregious violations should face consequences.
I’m also a fan of the Hero Bots, much as the “Everybot” in FRC / FTC. I think it gives people a great starting point. But thousands of teams build the hero bot and don’t make changes to it. Parents / coaches / mentors get stuck on “it’s the instructions” and they think it is the final solution on how to build the robot. I’ve suggested for years that the first few pages of the instructions say that this robot is designed to be an example, it needs improvements. I loved the video series where Bailey talked about the herobot and ways to think about improving it.
And to be honest, some of the past ones have been a huge pain to improve (For example, Stretch should be built with 2x18 or 2x20 sides to make it much more stable. But to do that after the fact is a multi session effort and the roboteers are loath (as are the coaches) to rip that much apart.)
Hey @bkahl put your own video up of scoring with the new robot, that will drive home the things it can do and the things it can’t.
I am a HUGE fan of Ben, his channel, his robots, his STEM company. He does a great job on his video series of starting from scratch. Here is the game, what would a robot look like that plays this game. His summer live session where the roboteers design robots on the fly and present them is awesome.
The builds with his brother Joseph are a master class in VIQ building. I use the “score 2.3 million points” videos more as a strategy builder. It’s clear that they have a strategy and execute it with the robot. And that’s a key point for teaching, you may have a cool robot, but if you don’t have a plan, and can’t execute it, it’s worthless.
I get the robot pictures and look at how they are built and what interesting techniques they use. They are very smart people, have years of experience, they are a great learning tool. I will confess that I have “hole count built” some of the mechanisms to see how they actually work and have then used them in my (vast?) collection of sample ideas.
I do know that teams clone his robots, I’ve had teams every year for the last 3 years do that. But I’ve pushed them to make it better, not just drive the clone.
He does hype the robots, he is advertising his business. He builds multiple robots and uses them to advertise his business. We all want to see iterations and new ideas, he does that in his videos. He’s doing online what we want our roboteers to do, that channel is a great place to find inspiration, not sure why all the hate, but it’s underserved.
I don’t know what genius at RECF came up with this category, but it’s the greatest thing since 0x3 pins. You have roboteers doing video’s / guides on how to build something tricky for other roboteers. There is one on the center wheel H drive that makes me cry on how well it’s done. Last season there was the awesome catapult by Chewbotca on A One-Motor Choo-Choo Catapult. Another near perfect build. I had teams build that, make changes to it and be very successful.
But this G2/R2 crackdown may kill that off. And that will make me sad that roboteers that come up with great ideas, perfect the build and present it will be penalized.
I don’t have a solution to the G2/R2 problem, but I don’t want to throw valuable resources like onging Herobots, the talents of the Lippers and a hundred other roboteers showing off their talents. I posted a few days ago about Milo and their videos, the detailed builds are great tools.
" cobuilt robots" What exactly Is the problem here? Many teams do it all the time often and are very open about it, and even if it is looked down upon what rules are preventing it? It doesn’t violate any student centered learning plus most teams who do this are highly capable.
Honestly, I don’t really know how much it really matters if they even try to hole count because for some reason in my personal experience, wink wink, whenever they do, their bot ends up not working as well as, cough, my team…
The bottom line is, RECF doesn’t care. I’m not saying nobody at RECF cares, it’s quite possible that there are plenty of people within the organization that want a stricter stance. But whoever is at the top, or the majority, or whatever doesn’t care about this issue. I’ll couple off pictures from a match in MS dome, about 2 teams from the same organization that have nearly identical robots, even down to the decorative patterns on the plastic (keep in mind teams must machine cut these pieces themselves). I do not personally believe that any reasonable person that is around vex robots full time can look at these 2 robots and say that they were developed independently in a legal manner. Additionally, there are plenty of other blatantly obvious examples that other users have pointed out in this thread.
I have also reached out to RECF, specifically the Code of Conduct committee, and I have never gotten a concise answer to any of my questions. I continually get vague “we cannot issue a blanket statement” or “this will be clarified” responses.
Now, looking specifically at the Student Centered Policy, let’s focus on what they actually say here. I’ll be focusing on the “Mechanical Design, Physical Construction, and Inspection” section as things like libs and mentor coding is a whole other issue not fit for the scope of this thread. First off, items in the Q and A directly conflict with statements here. This Q and A states that adults may not operate machinery for students: 2676: Custom Cut Plastic/Metal – Levels of Assistance - G2, G4, R2, R25 : Robot Events while the SCP states adults cutting items to be specifically allowed: “Young students need to cut down a metal axle, but cannot safely use the cutting equipment. An adult cuts the axle after students mark the desired length, and uses the opportunity to teach the students how to use the tool safely.”
I think the 2 main points you’re getting at here are the following not being allowed: “Mentors create detailed CAD drawings to guide students’ build.” and “Mentors provide students with pre-made instructions or a model to copy for competitive mechanical designs that were not provided by VEX Robotics or other approved sources only as a starting point.” The emphasis is added as mine in the 2nd point. I have published full guides on how to build mechanisms on my youtube channel. Typically my videos cover more broad things like tips and tricks but this video specifically walks students step by step through how to build a drivebase. https://youtu.be/y-j1hIiJ_NQ?si=cp76Nb3aHMhdpcl5
Now, I think there are a couple major differences between something like this and the “buy a cad model” that you see online. First, this is not a competitive design and only a starting point. 99.9% of competitive teams will agree with me when I say that 333 on 3.25 inch wheels is too slow to be competitive. Additionally, this is only a starting point, just a drivebase. I think it can be really good for teams to build something like this when they’re just starting out. They learn the techniques of how to build a good drivebase. Additionally, if they’re watching the video, they hopefully learn why they’re building what they’re building. And maybe it is good enough to win competitions at a lower level, but eventually, the students will hopefully realize they’re significantly slower than more competitive robots and want to go back and change the design to a different faster drive. (Also, the other point is that these videos are free and anyone can access them even without an email).
The unfortunate reality is that RECF doesn’t step in when this goes too far. I don’t think anyone would say that robot’s winning their division at worlds are just starting points or not competitive mechanical designs. Thankfully, this isn’t an issue at the local level for Kansas. I encourage the middle schoolers I mentor to work hard because hard work and dedication can win them competitions at the local level. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case for some teams at the local level. My best advice is to keep pestering RECF in hopes they’ll do something, and host invitational events only allowing teams who actually build their own robots to compete at those.
Just my 2 cents.
Based on the picture, 18,000 Yen is around $120 USD. This robot is on sale at an extreme loss.
Chances are, either the team is retiring or the robot is. And personally I think spending $120 to buy a robot used would be a good idea to have immediate proof that all of the electronics and wiring works.
In my opinion, I do not believe that selling complete builds is going to be an issue because the window where a design can be utilized is very small. And if it even were to intend to be that way, any public knowledge from it should shut down any form of judging awards, leaving only tournament champion and skills as one of the only few awards available.
Therefore I believe the robot is not being sold for any bad intentions. The seller likely just is done with VEX for the season or they don’t want to take the robot apart and don’t want to keep the robot.
As for the entire concept itself, it requires two bad actor organizations to not only exist in unisen but also to locate and trade. It is much more likely that there is an issue of mentorbuilt robots to cheat than fully built robots sold for the purpose of cheating.
This has been a problem even since my first year in VEX. This issue is knowingly prevalent in almost 10 years since 2016 when I saw entire orgs make the same bots.
These approaches are essentially the entire org and class working together to construct one robot with the mind of all members involved typically, and then the design gets shared and used by all of the teams in the org.
From an organizational perspective, it makes sense to do so. The focus is to design and have multiple near-perfected robots made as soon as possible to prioritize practice which increases the odds of winning VEX worlds. These organizations are not focused on judge awards, but the elitism of increasing the odds of World Champions. And the crazy part? This method works very very well.
I am not talking about some or many. During my time competing, EVERY largely funded organization in Texas that I saw that does this had a season where 1-3 teams of the organization wins worlds (or gets close to), make dome, or gets close to making dome.
Collaborative effort of 20-30 students, with support and aid of a highly professional and experienced mentor, creating a highly polished design in a week for all teams to share and practice with for the rest of the season (or sometimes one half of the season, and then repeated for the second half) is far superior than any other design strategy available in VEX, period.
I agree with everything you said here, and have experienced/deduced similar results myself as well.
Back during Slapshot this problem was immensely atrocious, and I located/reported a large number of teams with not a single one being punished via the reporting avenue, with 2 of these teams making it to dome.
Its absoluteley horrible seeing teams steal slots and awards from people who do actual, honest work.
The only solution I see is for the season banhammer to come down alot more than it does until people get the message, as well as possibly a new “department” or at least a group of people who care who can actually and identify these issues and investigate them, instead of just ignoring them.
I want to add on that I am not endorsing clonebots, but rather stating that it is a problem and a highly potent and effective one. I do not have the concrete data but based on my past I strongly believe that VEX should start to punish this strategy because the reality is that it usually results in 5 of the 20 students being active while the remaining 15 typically building already polished robots which is equivalent to looking at LEGO instructions. But because clonebots are not being punished to an extent that is reasonable, I will not be surprised to see VEX Worlds have a couple of clonebots in dome, just like there almost always are every season.
At what point will these teams be actively punished and the rules actually forbid this behavior to a reasonable preventative degree?
