Andymark.biz

[Andy Baker]

AndyMark.biz is up and running. We have 3 products for sale:
AM Shifter
8" Trick Wheel
AM Planetary


Prices for the 8" Trick Wheel and AM Shifter are set. The AM Planetary is having a design upgrade and the price will be set within a few weeks. Details for these products are listed on the website.

We are close to being able to receive credit card payments through the website. If you want more info, either contact Mark or I through our website (http://www.andymark.biz/shop/agora.cgi) or PM us (Andy Baker / Mark Koors).

Thank you for the support and encouragement we have received.

Sincerely,
Andy B.

[Joshua May]

Very nice job. I like how you will allow for some options with the products. Looks professional, too. I'll definitely have to notify my team of this.

[Bill Beatty]

Andy

Stuff looks great.

I am the kid that must have the first one on the block.

I will order two shifters and two planetarys. I'll hold off on the wheels for now. Email me when I can enter a formal order.

Best of luck.

Mr. Bill

[Madison]

This is probably a dumb question, but do these come preassembled?

[JVN]

Andy,
Site looks great, and the products look awesome!
Congratulations on making this happen! Best of luck to you and Mark.

I'm already trying to convince my team we need some "new toys" for this season. Expect my order soon!

Rock On,
John

[Andy Baker]

This is probably a dumb question, but, do these come preassembled?

Yep, pre-assembled and tested. Our quality assurance for the AM Shifter tests the unit for the amount of drag, therefore estimating the efficiency.

Andy B.

[Max Lobovsky]

Perhaps you should consider offering a power transfer hub for the omniwheels (keyed, hex, etc). I know several teams used two omniwheels and two regular wheels in a 4wd configuration.

[Joe Ross]

What are the weights of the items?

[Elgin Clock]

Hmm.. How will this effect the biz?


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30130

[Joshua May]

Hmm.. How will this effect the biz?

As long as we get to keep the CIM and FP motors then the Gearbox can still be used with the AM Planetary.

[Joe Ross]

As long as we get to keep the CIM and FP motors then the Gearbox can still be used with the AM Planetary.

The FP motors were sold in the garage sale, so they are out too.

[Billfred]

So, just checking for my own record, if something goes to the FIRST yard sale, we can expect that it won't be in the KOP for next year?

Has a similar-but-different-enough-to-make-the-original-illegal product ever made it into the next year's kit? Otherwise, that AM planetary might be doomed from the start.

[Joe Ross]

Has a similar-but-different-enough-to-make-the-original-illegal product ever made it into the next year's kit?

All the time

[Alan Anderson]

The FP motors were sold in the garage sale, so they are out too.
As I understand it, the garage sale was clearing out several years' worth of older FP motors. There's no indication that they won't be supplying "fresh" ones in next year's kit.

[Arefin Bari]

The site looks awesome... with great products... one of the best ways to help teams out who would need help with the drive train... Good Luck Andy and mark... :)

[Greg McCoy]

As long as we get to keep the CIM and FP motors then the Gearbox can still be used with the AM Planetary.

That's what's so sweet about the AM Planetary gearbox...modular design so that the gearbox can be used with any combination of the CIM/Fisher-Price/Drill motors. They should be good...unless FIRST changes all the motors :ahh:

Good luck guys!

[Raul]

Andy

Stuff looks great.

I am the kid that must have the first one on the block.
I will order two shifters and two planetarys. I'll hold off on the wheels for now. Email me when I can enter a formal order.

Best of luck.

Mr. Bill
Andy and Mark,

I agree with Bill. I want to be the second on the block to get some pre-built trannys. The question I have is - if we buy them now can we use them on the robot in 2005? Do we know the official ruling on this?

Also, some advise on the Urethane wheel options for the Omni wheels: Softer material gets more traction, but make sure to use a high enough durometer, otherwise the weight of the robot will cause too much deflection of the rollers and they will not work very efficiently. I had experience with this last year.

Raul

[Jeff_Rice]

Now this is just a hypothetical question, and please don't be insulted by it. If Andy Baker learned through his volunteering with FIRST that all of the motors would be changed, would it be illegal for him to stop making and selling these and begin making compatible products? I was just thinking along the lines of illegal stock tips.

[Andy Baker]

The question I have is - if we buy them now can we use them on the robot in 2005? Do we know the official ruling on this?

We have not sought out an official ruling, and I don't have a plan to do so. Tomorrow, I could buy standard gearboxes from Bayside, HD Systems, Boston Gear, Mectrol, or others. These standard, purchased gearboxes would be legal on FIRST robot for 2005, if FIRST keeps the rules the same as they did last year. Why should our standard gearboxes be treated any different from the ones that are currently available in the industrial market?

Now this is just a hypothetical question, and please don't be insulted by it. If Andy Baker learned through his volunteering with FIRST that all of the motors would be changed, would it be illegal for him to stop making and selling these and begin making compatible products? I was just thinking along the lines of illegal stock tips.

(For the record, FIRST has not told us what motors are in the kit for 2005. We have some educated guesses, but no "for sure" information.)

Good question, and no offense taken. I could see that IF FIRST told us which motors are in the kit, they could require us to not be on a team. I am not saying that they would do that, nor am I saying that we would agree to do that, but I could see them asking.

On the other hand, I cannot see them coming out with a rule stating "teams can buy any mechanical part they wish, from any vendor, as long as it is not from AndyMark, Inc." This seems unreasonable to me. Call me crazy, but I am assuming that FIRST may like that certain companies are marketing directly to support FIRST teams. They should see this as a good thing, I hope.

Speaking of supporting FIRST teams, Mark and I have decided to post complete CAD files of our 3 current products on our site, in "STEP" format (.stp). This way, teams can plop our CAD models into their designs and see if they fit. Teams can then choose to purchase our assemblies or make (and/or alter) these designs themselves. We think that our prices are low enough and our delivery will be good enough that teams will want to buy from us. If teams are pinching pennies, they can buy certain parts from us which are difficult to fabricate and then make the rest of the design themselves. Stand by for an update on our site about this.

I will post an update here when the STEP files are available on the site.

Andy B.

[Andy Baker]

Here (http://www.andymark.biz/shop/agora.cgi?cartlink=Products.htm&cart_id=1080569.12281*hO8Iq01080569.12281) , at the bottom of the page, there is a link to our 8" trick wheel step (.stp) file.

Similar CAD files for the gearboxes will come soon.

Andy B.

[Aignam]

The AndyMark.biz logo is suspiciously similar to my Avatar...;)

Eh, I made that for my Dad's practice, and since we have the same initials....(I'm a Jr.) I kind of use it for personal use all the time. So...I guess I stole it in the first place...Hm.

About the Website:
Looks good---nice and professional! Sweet looking products, too.

Side Note:
Fix the spelling of guaranteed on the Warranty page. Otherwise...no complaints!

[Stephen Kowski]

cool stuff andy....i might get one of those planetarys just to mess around with it...

[Andy Baker]

Update:

We have our first batch of standard parts fabricated and currently being tested. Mark and I will be at the Ford Sweet Repeat this coming weekend (Oct. 9). I will be volunteering at the event while Mark will be milling around the competition. We will have products with us for teams to see and purchase.

Here are the weights of the 3 current assemblies:

AM Shifter: 3.5 lbs
AM Planetary: 0.75 lbs
8" Trick Wheels: 1.52 lbs

Our website will have an update this weekend, and it will be able to accept credit card purchases.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

[Rich Wong]

Update:

We have our first batch of standard parts fabricated and currently being tested. Mark and I will be at the Ford Sweet Repeat this coming weekend (Oct. 9). I will be volunteering at the event while Mark will be milling around the competition. We will have products with us for teams to see and purchase.

Our website will have an update this weekend, and it will be able to accept credit card purchases.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

LOVE IT!
You guys are great......

[Derek Bessette]

Simbotics has put our order in.

We're very excited to see these products...I'm sure they will be amazing!!

Thanks Andy

[Vince lau]

for your am shifter do you have to use two motors? or can you just use one CIM?

what is the purpose of two motors?

Thanx

[Cory]

for your am shifter do you have to use two motors? or can you just use one CIM?

what is the purpose of two motors?

Thanx

two motors gives you more torque, as well as spreading the load more evenly across two motors instead of one.

[David Kelly]

Looks like the website (http://www.andymark.biz/) has gone online and can now accept orders. Congratulations Andy & Mark. :]



>David

[Kevin Sevcik]

Since I don't know where else to post this, there's an error on the trick wheel page.

I believe the word you're looking for is "propulsion". Or "motive force." Or just "movement." Though I think Mr. Lavery would be interested if you could actually provide directional propellant.....

[tkwetzel]

Nice website and great products. The gearbox seems like it would be great for rookie teams who do not have enough skill or experience to design and build their own (although many great engineers have requested them in this thread). I wish you two luck with this endeavor.

[Gary Dillard]

Andy:

For the omni wheels, the assembly drawing and the step file show the inner 6 button head screws at 60 degrees installed from one side; the photo shows 3 at 120 degrees. I'm guessing the other 3 are on the other side, since it allows both plates to be the same part by clocking it (the step file shows the clearance) - is that correct? Could made a difference if someone were putting that face close to a mount bearing and didn't leave clearance for the screws.

Looks pretty sweet, for sure. We're still working on Mod 3 to our omni wheels - depending on resources we may use yours come build season though.

[Andy Baker]

Andy:

For the omni wheels, the assembly drawing and the step file show the inner 6 button head screws at 60 degrees installed from one side; the photo shows 3 at 120 degrees. I'm guessing the other 3 are on the other side, since it allows both plates to be the same part by clocking it (the step file shows the clearance) - is that correct? Could made a difference if someone were putting that face close to a mount bearing and didn't leave clearance for the screws.

Looks pretty sweet, for sure. We're still working on Mod 3 to our omni wheels - depending on resources we may use yours come build season though.

Thanks, Gary. You are correct. Those 3 screws on the step file need to be on the other side of the wheel, as shown in the picture. I will update the CAD info soon.

Andy

[Charlie B]

Tomorrow, I could buy standard gearboxes from Bayside, HD Systems, Boston Gear, Mectrol, or others. These standard, purchased gearboxes would be legal on FIRST robot for 2005, if FIRST keeps the rules the same as they did last year. Why should our standard gearboxes be treated any different from the ones that are currently available in the industrial market?


The difference is that these products are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics. They would not be used for anything else.

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, and I'm tempted to use the products myself, but I'm afraid that this could eventually lead to a situation that would compromise FIRST's objectives.

Now I can buy a transmission component, or an entire transmission. Why not a chassis, or a chassis with transmissions, wheels, axles, chains, sprockets? It might come in four wheel, six wheel, or omni wheel versions. All I would have to do is drop in the kit parts and I'd have a box that moves. Then I could focus on designing and building the appendages. Or maybe I could buy those too, with a guarantee that they'll get to me before the ship date. The deluxe package would include two sets of everything, one to ship and one to practice with. If I were on a tighter budget, at least I could buy a "Game Analysis Report" a week after kickoff, to save me the trouble of coming up with my own strategies.

Maybe I'm stretching the possibilities too far, but maybe not. Might the focus of FIRST move away from engineering? Is it possible that teams would spend all their time raising money to buy the best "standard" components, at the expense of the design experience?

One could argue that "standard" components allow under-resourced teams to build something that moves. But FIRST already does a pretty good job of providing the components for a very basic robot.

Andy, I'm sure that you're started your business intending to benefit FIRST, and not just to make a buck. I would hate to see you lose time and money, but I'm honestly concerned about what FIRST-custom products might mean for FIRST over the long term.

Question for Dave Lavery... Should the rule makers consider disallowing products that are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics?

[Cory]

The difference is that these products are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics. They would not be used for anything else.

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, and I'm tempted to use the products myself, but I'm afraid that this could eventually lead to a situation that would compromise FIRST's objectives.

Now I can buy a transmission component, or an entire transmission. Why not a chassis, or a chassis with transmissions, wheels, axles, chains, sprockets? It might come in four wheel, six wheel, or omni wheel versions. All I would have to do is drop in the kit parts and I'd have a box that moves. Then I could focus on designing and building the appendages. Or maybe I could buy those too, with a guarantee that they'll get to me before the ship date. The deluxe package would include two sets of everything, one to ship and one to practice with. If I were on a tighter budget, at least I could buy a "Game Analysis Report" a week after kickoff, to save me the trouble of coming up with my own strategies.

Maybe I'm stretching the possibilities too far, but maybe not. Might the focus of FIRST move away from engineering? Is it possible that teams would spend all their time raising money to buy the best "standard" components, at the expense of the design experience?

One could argue that "standard" components allow under-resourced teams to build something that moves. But FIRST already does a pretty good job of providing the components for a very basic robot.

Andy, I'm sure that you're started your business intending to benefit FIRST, and not just to make a buck. I would hate to see you lose time and money, but I'm honestly concerned about what FIRST-custom products might mean for FIRST over the long term.

Question for Dave Lavery... Should the rule makers consider disallowing products that are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics?

What these products will mean for FIRST over the long run is that a team that would never in a million years be able to make a shifting transmission, or omni wheels, can now do so, and THAT levels the playing field. The teams with all the resources will be able to do more and more every year, while the teams without will fall behind at the same rate. This isn't going to make the powerhouse teams stronger, it's going to give the teams that struggle to put a moving robot on the field a chance to be much more competitive, and that's what everyone loves to see.

[Andy Baker]

The difference is that these products are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics. They would not be used for anything else.

We have only been selling products for 2 months, and people have already inquired about using our product on non-FIRST applications.


I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, and I'm tempted to use the products myself, but I'm afraid that this could eventually lead to a situation that would compromise FIRST's objectives.

Now I can buy a transmission component, or an entire transmission. Why not a chassis, or a chassis with transmissions, wheels, axles, chains, sprockets? It might come in four wheel, six wheel, or omni wheel versions. All I would have to do is drop in the kit parts and I'd have a box that moves.

Having a box that moves... this is a good thing. I have seen countless teams show up to a competition with a box that does not move. Many of these teams don't come back to FIRST the next year. I don't see how providing teams with competitive assemblies is compromising FIRST's objectives. Part of engineering is inventing and creating while another part of engineering is using the tools available to you as a creator. These gearboxes and omni-wheels are nothing new. Many teams have used them over the past few years.


Then I could focus on designing and building the appendages. Or maybe I could buy those too, with a guarantee that they'll get to me before the ship date. The deluxe package would include two sets of everything, one to ship and one to practice with. If I were on a tighter budget, at least I could buy a "Game Analysis Report" a week after kickoff, to save me the trouble of coming up with my own strategies.

Appendage design will greatly depend on how the game changes from year to year, so this seems unrealistic to me. Also, if this would happen, teams are again only buying standard parts that anyone can buy. While this may get them a good robot, it would not provide them a decided edge or unique ability. Also, your "Game Analysis Report" you can get for free on this website, in the form of opinions, Excel spreadsheets, and scouting reports.


Maybe I'm stretching the possibilities too far, but maybe not. Might the focus of FIRST move away from engineering? Is it possible that teams would spend all their time raising money to buy the best "standard" components, at the expense of the design experience?

One could argue that "standard" components allow under-resourced teams to build something that moves. But FIRST already does a pretty good job of providing the components for a very basic robot.

Andy, I'm sure that you're started your business intending to benefit FIRST, and not just to make a buck. I would hate to see you lose time and money, but I'm honestly concerned about what FIRST-custom products might mean for FIRST over the long term.

Question for Dave Lavery... Should the rule makers consider disallowing products that are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics?

One of FIRST's goals is to change the culture. I enjoy hearing Woodie speak of celebrating what we want to honor in our culture. FIRST honors FIRST teams. FIRST honors entrepreneurs, designs that work well, and a competitive spirit. FIRST also honors those people and companies who have supported FIRST and teams over the years. You are now proposing that a company should be disallowed to create parts for FIRST and FIRST teams? We want more FIRST teams, more kids affected by FIRST, but companies can't make parts targeting those teams? This seems back wards to me. I would think that the FIRST community would embrace a company who targets their products to help FIRST teams.

Andy B.

ps... off the subject, we just lowered our 8" Trick Wheel price to $70 each.

[tkwetzel]

The difference is that these products are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics. They would not be used for anything else.

I admire the entrepreneurial spirit, and I'm tempted to use the products myself, but I'm afraid that this could eventually lead to a situation that would compromise FIRST's objectives.

Now I can buy a transmission component, or an entire transmission. Why not a chassis, or a chassis with transmissions, wheels, axles, chains, sprockets? It might come in four wheel, six wheel, or omni wheel versions. All I would have to do is drop in the kit parts and I'd have a box that moves. Then I could focus on designing and building the appendages. Or maybe I could buy those too, with a guarantee that they'll get to me before the ship date. The deluxe package would include two sets of everything, one to ship and one to practice with. If I were on a tighter budget, at least I could buy a "Game Analysis Report" a week after kickoff, to save me the trouble of coming up with my own strategies.

Maybe I'm stretching the possibilities too far, but maybe not. Might the focus of FIRST move away from engineering? Is it possible that teams would spend all their time raising money to buy the best "standard" components, at the expense of the design experience?

One could argue that "standard" components allow under-resourced teams to build something that moves. But FIRST already does a pretty good job of providing the components for a very basic robot.

Andy, I'm sure that you're started your business intending to benefit FIRST, and not just to make a buck. I would hate to see you lose time and money, but I'm honestly concerned about what FIRST-custom products might mean for FIRST over the long term.

Question for Dave Lavery... Should the rule makers consider disallowing products that are designed and manufactured specifically for FIRST robotics?


I believe that there is still a lot of engineering going on with the rest of the robot and assembly. NASA didn't develop all of the parts on the Mars rovers, but they had to integrate them all together which is still a huge part in engineering. Also, I expect to see many teams continue building their own gearboxes, because they have the resources and the will. As mentioned by Cory, this will help the teams with fewer resources. This includes any teams that may have only a handful of members and struggle to get a robot completed because of the lack of man hours. I think that these teams with fewer resources will be able to focus more on a certain part of the robot and will gain a more complete engineering know-how from a more in-depth design of other parts. I see no problems with this, but as you mention, if appendages and such become available (I think this is a long ways away) then FIRST might have to look at revising some rules, but until then, I think that AndyMark is benefitting all of FIRST.

[Charlie B]

What these products will mean for FIRST over the long run is that a team that would never in a million years be able to make a shifting transmission, or omni wheels, can now do so, and THAT levels the playing field. The teams with all the resources will be able to do more and more every year, while the teams without will fall behind at the same rate. This isn't going to make the powerhouse teams stronger, it's going to give the teams that struggle to put a moving robot on the field a chance to be much more competitive, and that's what everyone loves to see.

I see your point. I understand that the competition provides a lot of the motivation for participating in FIRST, and that under-resourced teams can get frustrated (from personal experience), but the competition is just the frosting on the cake. The design/build experience is the important thing, and the availability of off-the-shelf robot parts discourages home-grown design.

Our own team is a good example. We designed and built a shifting transmission our second season. It was a big stretch for us, and given the choice, we very well might have chosen to purchase transmissions, especially if "everyone else" were doing it. We would never have learned how to choose gear ratios, whether to use roller bearings or bronze bushings, how to keep keys in their shafts, and a thousand other things.

As an engineer, I use components every day without knowing every detail of how they were designed, because I can make better products in less time that way. But my company is in this to make money in a competitive world, not to educate me. If FIRST were all about winning competitions, I'd say bring on the best components money can buy, and I'd tell the students to get out of the way while I did the design.

I don't think that a few "standard" components available today are ruining FIRST, but think of how it might evolve. One company today, (that I know of), why not a dozen? Transmissions now, why not complete moving boxes? Where do you draw the line?

If FIRST is doing it's job, then any team can build a box that moves from the kit of parts. The Andymark components can help a team exceed the basic requirements of moving, and have a better chance to win, but FIRST isn't all about winning, it's about learning from the engineering experience. If we've lost teams because they can't win, then I would argue that they need to set their expectations realistically, learn patience, and remember why they're in this. We're a small high school, with only juniors and seniors. We'll never be in the big leagues, but we're growing the program anyway.

Maybe the frustration of struggling teams can be reduced by giving them their own competition class, a class for FIRST-standard drive trains only.

[Steve W]

I would like to start by saying that I believe that teams will lose out a lot by buying all of their parts premade. I am against a robot that has all snap on parts. I believe that we, as teams, should be attempting to improve every year. We must be seen as inspiring the students not providing a model car kit to be put together the same as every other kit.

That being said, our team has purchased a set of wheels from AndyMark. Thanks Andy for the reduction in price. We purchased these for the express reason of trying out something that we figured might help reduce friction on our system and lengthen battery life. We could have made them but it would have taken countless hours and expense. This gave us a tool to start with. If they work out we may modify to our needs. If we don't like them then we have saved a lot of work that could have been spent on other projects. For this tool I am grateful. For a new team starting out I can see these Items as a great kick-start to their team.

I guess the main concern would be that a team uses all things as is and don't try to grow and use their own ideas. We are here to inspire. We are here to try and open the minds of students. We are trying to show the limitless possibilities that can be attained. By being exposed to the products of AndyMark then the students can see and experience different areas of expertise. From there the mentors should be working with the students to design, build and add their own signature to their robots. What we do with the tools we are given is a personal decision to be made by each individual and each team.

I know that I have spoken out about this before and even received well earned negative rep points. I have since reviewed my position and what you see above is my latest stand. It can be noticed though that I have changed and that may be for the better. What I have learned is that there are a lot of ways to look at every challenge. Just go to any regional and see how many different robots and strategies that are implemented.

The most important issue (in my wee mind) is how we as mentors lead the students when we see this type of challenge. Is AndyMark good for FIRST? Only time will tell. I do know that our team will grow one way or another by the experience of working with this company. We WILL learn from the technology and will be back at the 2005 competitions better than we were last year. Because of this I thank Andy. The question that remains is, how will your team benefit from your experiences and attitudes on this and other challenges to come.

[MikeDubreuil]

The design/build experience is the important thing, and the availability of off-the-shelf robot parts discourages home-grown design...
But my company is in this to make money in a competitive world, not to educate me. If FIRST were all about winning competitions, I'd say bring on the best components money can buy, and I'd tell the students to get out of the way while I did the design...
The Andymark components can help a team exceed the basic requirements of moving, and have a better chance to win, but FIRST isn't all about winning, it's about learning from the engineering experience...
Maybe the frustration of struggling teams can be reduced by giving them their own competition class, a class for FIRST-standard drive trains only.
We've beat this issue like a dead horse but I'll re-iterate.

FIRST's main objective is partly education, majorly inspiration. The program is intended to inspire students to pursue a technical field after school. This is done through a variety of ways: completely student made robots, COT (commercial off the shelf) assemblies, engineer designed- student manufactured, and some that are sent to engineering firms and made by a sub-contractor. Basically, any way you decide to do FIRST students will still be inspired because "robots are cool." Your job as a mentor is to give them a basic understanding of what is happening technically on the robot, that's the education part. It's usually up to the individual student to really gain an education out of the program.

Again... the idea isn't to win competitions (that's just a bonus). The idea is to immerse the students into a competition that celebrates engineers, scientists, and technology and makes it fun and exciting. Win or lose the events- everyone wins because students have been inspired.

[Kims Robot]

I have to admit, in the beginning, I was completely against our team buying transmissions for the same reason Charlie B has mentioned. However, we are a rookie team, with a lot on our hands, NO Mechanical Engineers, and a few students that have Inventor design experience (but perhaps no knowledge of gearing and transmissions etc), not to mention considering going to three regionals and nationals. Our guess is that 4 competitions will take a really rugged transmission to survive all of them. So we are considering these transmissions as an *option*.

I myself am a systems engineer, and only once in a great while actually do a design from scratch. I more often take working power supplies, components, cables etc, and put it together to make something new. I see the point that my company is in it to make the money, but this is real world engineering, and what the students would actually be getting into if they decided to pursue engineering.

I think if done right, these transmissions can be a help to a lot of teams. Instead of trudging through trying to make your own transmission in your rookie year, why not buy one, teach the students (education & inspiration) exactly how that one works, and then in your following year, improve upon the design or just design your own?

I see where this whole thing is going, and as I said, I think I was 100% against it in the beginning (having gone from being a FIRST student, to a college mentor, to now an engineering mentor), I was worried about the inspiration side of things, but I am starting to see the benefit now.

My proposal, instead of limiting snap on parts, would be for teams to be forced to return to the $450 spending limit, so if you wanted to buy two transmissions for $200 each, you only had $50 left to spend on the rest of your robot, and you couldnt buy the snap-in arm(Besides, with so many teams sharing designs now, you dont really have to design your own transmission or arm, or roller anyway, you can just look it up on CD, and manufacture it yourself). The smaller spending limit is more like real engineering, and is a compromise between the teams who dont have sophisticated design ability, and the teams who have unlimited spending capacity. My guess is that there are a lot of rookie teams this year who cant afford to spend the $3500 on the robot anyway.

[Cory]

Besides, with so many teams sharing designs now, you dont really have to design your own transmission or arm, or roller anyway, you can just look it up on CD, and manufacture it yourself.

Not really though. I would hazard a guess that over 60% of FIRST teams have limited or zero machine tool access, and an even lower percentage have enough members qualified to operate said tools and produce such a product.

[lupjohn]

I have to admit, in the beginning, I was completely against our team buying transmissions for the same reason Charlie B has mentioned. However, we are a rookie team, with a lot on our hands, NO Mechanical Engineers, and a few students that have Inventor design experience (but perhaps no knowledge of gearing and transmissions etc), not to mention considering going to three regionals and nationals. Our guess is that 4 competitions will take a really rugged transmission to survive all of them. So we are considering these transmissions as an *option*.

I myself am a systems engineer, and only once in a great while actually do a design from scratch. I more often take working power supplies, components, cables etc, and put it together to make something new. I see the point that my company is in it to make the money, but this is real world engineering, and what the students would actually be getting into if they decided to pursue engineering.

I think if done right, these transmissions can be a help to a lot of teams. Instead of trudging through trying to make your own transmission in your rookie year, why not buy one, teach the students (education & inspiration) exactly how that one works, and then in your following year, improve upon the design or just design your own?

I see where this whole thing is going, and as I said, I think I was 100% against it in the beginning (having gone from being a FIRST student, to a college mentor, to now an engineering mentor), I was worried about the inspiration side of things, but I am starting to see the benefit now.

My proposal, instead of limiting snap on parts, would be for teams to be forced to return to the $450 spending limit, so if you wanted to buy two transmissions for $200 each, you only had $50 left to spend on the rest of your robot, and you couldnt buy the snap-in arm(Besides, with so many teams sharing designs now, you dont really have to design your own transmission or arm, or roller anyway, you can just look it up on CD, and manufacture it yourself). The smaller spending limit is more like real engineering, and is a compromise between the teams who dont have sophisticated design ability, and the teams who have unlimited spending capacity. My guess is that there are a lot of rookie teams this year who cant afford to spend the $3500 on the robot anyway.

I agree with Kim's statement. I know that my team will be tightly funded for this year's build. I wanted to point out though that in the past three years, FIRST has proved a tranmission in the form of the drill motor/reduction drive combination. There has been some effort to remove the antibackforce components and rebuild the gearbox discussed and documented on this website. I have not seen any discussion about adapting the drill gearbox to a shift on the fly two speed transmission. Maybe this illustrates how off the shelf parts may shift developement time to other robot systems where innovation is required.

[Matt Reiland]

My proposal, instead of limiting snap on parts, would be for teams to be forced to return to the $450 spending limit, so if you wanted to buy two transmissions for $200 each, you only had $50 left to spend on the rest of your robot, and you couldnt buy the snap-in arm(Besides, with so many teams sharing designs now, you dont really have to design your own transmission or arm, or roller anyway, you can just look it up on CD, and manufacture it yourself). The smaller spending limit is more like real engineering, and is a compromise between the teams who dont have sophisticated design ability, and the teams who have unlimited spending capacity. My guess is that there are a lot of rookie teams this year who cant afford to spend the $3500 on the robot anyway.
Just a quick reminder to the new teams out there that were not around when we used to have limitations as silly as 300 or 500 dollars. You may sit here and think, hey that will level the playing field, well think again! Back in 1999 and 2000 I saw robots that were every bit as complex and expensive as anything I have seen lately and they easily met the rules of the time. The low dollar amount ONLY hurts teams with low resources, THATS IT. For $300 I can buy almost unlimited raw stock and have it machined, water-jet, wire EDM's, laser cut you name it all in house and the total expenditure by the team was under $300. Back then, if gears and sprockets cost too much to buy, you made them out of any material you want. Look at the pictures in the gallery of the early Chief Delphi, Wildstang, Technocats robots and you will change your mind about what the $300 limit really means. What it means is that unless you have resources you are out of luck. With a high limit you can now get transmissions like the one from Andy that will rival what the high dollar teams will have regardless of the dollar limit for a realistic cost.

I am really hoping that people will come around to what Andy & Mark are doing here. They have been a part of FIRST since the beginning and know as well as anyone what it takes to be competitive. I have built MANY transmissions for FIRST and I would be surprised if they were making much if any money on these. If we had to send the machining outside to somewhere I estimate that we would probably be paying well over $1500 for our transmissions. Lucky for us we have a machine shop in the lab and a machinist who can show us how to use the machines. FIRST doesn't really include everything you need to be competitive and build a box. They give you some wheels, some aluminum tube, and some motors. For every team that I have been able to talk to, FIRST was overwhelming for their rookie year. Most teams have no concept of time management for the entire build season. And while no one seems to want to admit it, having a robot that can't even move for every match not only is a downer for the entire robot team but also for your alliance partners. In my mind I don't feel good teaching my students about designing and building a robot yet in the real world not being able to also show them the results. I am not even the least bit concerned if someone wants to build an off the shelf chassis or drive system, it is almost already happening. People like Andy have posted their engineering prints for others to use in their entirety. Programmers have posted their whole code for complex movements. I remember there were something like 13 teams last year that had the identical drive base, one that was robust and actually worked. This particular base gave every team out there good competition which is what I think FIRST is about.

In my engineering world I also believe that this should be real world, that kids should learn, but I also believe that my team should at least have a fighting chance out on the field. This year my team won't be buying a transmission from Andy-Mark :( (Sorry Andy) but I will without a doubt make sure that any team I am helping that either can't make their own or doesn't have the time looks at this and strongly considers it as an option, as should your teams.

[Charlie B]

Several of you have made very good points about the positives of allowing “standard” FIRST robot components. Thanks especially, Mike, for reminding me that FIRST’s mission is to inspire as much as it is to educate. I see advantages now that I didn’t see before, but I still have some concerns.

Purchase of pre-builts feels like a way around the six week rule. A company may offer “standard” moving boxes, maybe one version with low ground clearance and one for climbing obstacles, with my choice of high and low speeds. There are no rules in place now that would prevent it, and it wouldn’t be too hard, logistically, to pre-build a bunch of them. I take delivery on January 10, and get five weeks to practice driving and to design and build appendages. What about the teams who can’t afford the pre-built robot? Even if they are on the ball and get a design done pre-season, and buy transmissions, they still have to build the chassis, drive train, and appendages. Pre-building doesn’t seem to eliminate the disparity problem between rich and poor teams, it just moves the problem down the economic ladder some.

Andy, will your transmission plug into the FIRST-standard chassis? That might help alleviate the disparity.

Consider the team that’s debating whether to do their own innovative drive train. If their competitors are buying pre-builts and focusing on appendages, maybe they’ll skip the risk of innovation in favor of being safely competitive. Might pre-builts discourage innovation? I agree with Steve that pre-builts could be a great way to expose students to the state-of-the-art, and I hope that mentors, or students, will push teams past settling for “good enough”.

It’s fun to watch a robot do well in competition, just like it’s fun to watch my favorite baseball team win a game, but being a sports fan doesn’t make me want to play sports as a career. The pride and inspiration that I see in my team comes from knowing that they designed and built the robot, that they can fix it between matches because they know every nut, bolt, gear, wire, and tube. They learn that engineering doesn’t have to be distant and esoteric, it’s something that they can do. That’s where the inspiration comes from. Pre-builts seem to lessen the opportunity for that kind of inspiration. Like many teams, we usually have one design group on chassis and drive train, and another group on appendages. Only so many people can work on appendages. If teams can buy pre-builts, doesn’t that decrease design engineering opportunities? Even if the mentors have them take the pre-built moving box completely apart and put it back together again, they won’t get the design experience. Engineering design will still be something that other people do.

It may sound like I’m on a crusade to stop Andymark, and I’m really not. I just think that we are at a crossroads here, and that the FIRST community should consider the negatives as well as the many positives before going too far down the road of pre-building.

[Steve W]

Maybe if you look at the other thread that I started a while ago you will see things from both sides. There were a lot of good posts and ideas that were thrown around. Enjoy the reading. :)



http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29900

[Charlie B]

Thanks. Note to self, search before you post.

[jimfortytwo]

I take no issue with AndyMark biz in its present form, and I feel like most people here are primarily concerned that copycat programs might take things "too far." I feel as though if this sort of program ever did encourage abuses, the FIRST community could respond in the next season. I don't think this two man effort itself can rock the boat enough to begrudge a few rookie teams their gearboxes.

What I might like to see from AndyMark would be competitively priced unassembled gear boxes, or even some individual key parts. I imagine there are a lot of teams out there for which the only thing holding them back from making these on their own are one or two parts they don't have the capability to machine themselves. If my team had a gear cluster and dog like that at our disposal, we probably would have build a shifter by now ourselves.

[sanddrag]

FIRST is not just about fabrication, it is about being resourceful. I don't think anyone here goes making their own bolts because they need a certain length. Just the same for sprockets, very few teams make their own because we can work with what is available. And I don't think anyone goes extrudeing their own frame rails or molding their own plasitc parts. We work with what we have. The AM shifter is the same type of thing. It will not be ideal for every robot. But for teams that can adapt it for their own use, it is available. For teams that do not find it useful, they will build their own.

If eveyone had to manufacture every part in their assembly, nothing would ever get built. I'm not talking about just robots, I'm talking about everything in the world.

The motor in your Maytag washing machine was most likely not built by Maytag, and the bearings I can almost gaurantee were not.

A team can already put together a robot without fabricating anything. FIRST even promotes this by giving the "rookie robot kit" which was started in 2003 and included frame rails and gearboxes and stuff.

With the AM shifter, the only difference is that teams can build a better robot.

Just like Inspiration can come either from engineers working with the kids or the kids watching the engineers build a robot, inspiration can come from building a two speed gearbox or buying a two speed gearbox.

Plus, say a team spends six weeks building a gearbox and fails miserably. Yes, something will have been learned but why fail? Let them buy one and succeed.

Finally, it is not like a pre-made gearbox (or any component for that matter) is letting anyone "get off easy" Every team works hard all week for the entire six weeks no matter how many pre-fab or custom-fabbed parts they have.

sanddrag
-Proud supporter of the AM Shifter :)

[Matt Reiland]

On a side note but still related to the issues of teams not having the resources available to do extensive CNC machining or make super accurate gearboxes.

It is not our teams intentions to make master machinists out of students in 6 weeks. None of the engineers on our team are qualified to be teaching them every in and out of the mills and lathes. When it comes to parts that we feel are too complex to be made in the lab we can either make them at our sponser MG tool or find somewhere to pay to have them done.

In the offseason we wanted to make a super trick chassis that would require extensive CNC work to actually produce. Our sponsor looked at it and said it would be at least $1000 to CNC machine from a 2'X4' 1/4" piece of 6061 aluminum. (About 30 different parts). Troy Athens has a CNC, I actually have a CNC but neither of us had the time to make the parts right now. We looked around at laser and water jet cutting and found it was definately the way to go for FIRST robots. The local place we found in our area www.copland-gibson.com (http://www.copland-gibson.com) can take your .dxf file and give a quote within about a day. Total cost for the above parts, $400 for the first sheet of parts, just over $200 for each additional. ANYONE can use a source like this, turnaround time is usually a week or less. Yes your read this correct, if you live in California, Canada, or Florida, you can use sources like this tom make your parts. If your team wants to start getting more advanced but you have nothing more than hand tools, USE the resources available. If your team doesn't have $400 to spend on the robot, get out and start fundraising now.

No one on any team should feel bad that they had parts made by a CNC instead of some poor student or mentor cranking away on the wheels of a machine. Back when I was at Purdue I took a machining class where we had to make a hammer. It took forever to make this thing by hand. Then on the last day of class we all came over to the CNC mill and lathe and it cranked one out every 45 seconds, each more accurate than the one I could do. The teacher made it clear that there are jobs that should be done by man, and jobs should be done by machine. If you can perfect a CNC based design now, the first day of the season it can be reproduced within the rules by popping the program in the machine and letting it cut the piece out.
Matt,
Supporter of the AM Shifter

[Salik Syed]

I don't know... its definitely a good design but it just doesn't seem right....
The shifting transmission is like the core of the robot... teams spend years perfecting their designs and it takes so much hard work... now if anyone can fork over 1 grand they can get a great tranny....its levelling the playing field too much almost like communism... first is for innovation and this feels like a cap on that
the bolt / entire shifting transmission comparison is not really so valid
A bolt is not the focus of your entire robot... that would be like saying just because you use refined sugar in a cake you bake yourself it is the same as just buying a cake...
that was a crappy analogy but oh well....

our team can maybe afford the AM shifter but we just enjoy teaching/learning how different transmission can be made and enjoy the process of making one....
i personally enjoy seeing something i designed and buitl work (or not) than just taking off some bubble wrap .... although popping the bubble wrap may give me some enjoyment it is not quite the same as seeing my own tranny work....
that was off on a tangent kinda...


it would be really funny if FIRST gave us completely new motors this year... lol ... i almost hope that happens....

[Jaine Perotti]

I don't know... its definitely a good design but it just doesn't seem right....
The shifting transmission is like the core of the robot... teams spend years perfecting their designs and it takes so much hard work... now if anyone can fork over 1 grand they can get a great tranny
I guess I happen to disagree.

Firstly, teams CHOOSE whether or not they build their own custom trannys. Teams even CHOOSE whether or not to build a transmission at all. When they choose to do whatever it is they want to do, then obviously they think that there is an advantage to that choice.
I don't think that if another team chooses to buy an AndyMark tranny, they are undermining any of the other teams' hard work -- this is because the teams who build their own trannys obviously beleive that what they are making is better to suit their needs. They may feel that they have an even better design.

In short:
If you don't have the right part, then you build it. But if you have the right part, why build it all over again?


....its levelling the playing field too much almost like communism... first is for innovation and this feels like a cap on that
I happen to think that the opposite will happen. If you introduce a new, better product into the market, naturally other product-makers will raise their level of competitiveness to make an even BETTER product... quite the converse of actually putting a cap on innovation. If the situation really resembled communism, then FIRST would be forcing everyone to use the exact same transmission. But since this is not the case - innovation will not stagnate.

the bolt / entire shifting transmission comparison is not really so valid
Although this topic has already been beaten to death...I think the analogy DOES work -- why try to "re-invent the wheel"? If your team needs a transmission, and AndyMark has it -- why not buy the part you need? In fact, this is already a major part of FIRST -- we get a kit of pre-made parts EVERY YEAR! We don't build our motors or control system from scratch.

More than being a major part of FIRST, buying parts is a part of the real world:

If eveyone had to manufacture every part in their assembly, nothing would ever get built. I'm not talking about just robots, I'm talking about everything in the world.

The motor in your Maytag washing machine was most likely not built by Maytag, and the bearings I can almost gaurantee were not.


A bolt is not the focus of your entire robot... that would be like saying just because you use refined sugar in a cake you bake yourself it is the same as just buying a cake...
A good analogy...but it can be reversed to prove the opposite.
A shifting transmission is not the main focus of your robot either.
If you have a pre-made transmission but you build the rest of the robot yourself, that doesn't mean that the robot itself has been bought, pre-made, and that no innovation or learning occurred. It doesn't mean that the students didn't get anything out of building a robot.

our team can maybe afford the AM shifter but we just enjoy teaching/learning how different transmission can be made and enjoy the process of making one....
If this is how your team feels, and thats what is right for your team, then go for it. I think I speak for most when I say that I am behind teaching about building these transmissions %100. But for those who have different goals and objectives, I still think it is ok for others to buy premade.

To sum it all up, it really is up to EACH TEAM to decide whether or not they want to buy or build. Whatever suits their needs should be right for them. If they feel that they would like to have the experience of building their own -- then they should do that. But if they just don't have the time or resources to take on such a project, or they feel that the AndyMark tranny is the best for them, then why should they be forced to do something that isn't right for them?

$0.02

-- Jaine
Supporter of the AM shifter and AndyMark as a whole

[Greg McCoy]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26161

;)

EDIT: Just to clarify, both AndyMark and Dewalt are companies which sell transmissions to everyone, not just FIRST teams. Under the 2004 game rules, both transmissions were (or would have been) legal for competition use. Why should one be legal and not the other?

[David Kelly]

k... now if anyone can fork over 1 grand they can get a great tranny....its levelling the playing field too much almost like communism... first is for innovation and this feels like a cap on that
Well, 2 AM Shifters (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter.htm) do not cost 1 grand. They can be purchased for $360.00 each


it would be really funny if FIRST gave us completely new motors this year... lol ... i almost hope that happens....

Well the funny thing is that the AM Shifters (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter.htm) can easily changed to accept many types of motor imputs. They may require a few minor modifications but AndyMark (http://www.andymark.biz/) can easily make up for it because they are designed just for that reason.

Those things are slick and super smooth. Every team should at least take a look at them. ;)

[Salik Syed]

yeah i guess i can kinda see it you guy's way also....

as for the AM shifter : 360 *2 (for 2 of them) + 110*2 (for the planetaries) = 940$
i round to 1000

i'm not saying it should be illegal just that well its too easy ... i can't really make up my mind.... i can understand why its okay and i agree with you all its just some tiny part of me says .... "its wrong"

for the changing motors thing.... it wasn't really solely aimed because of the AM shifter... i've just seen that people have so many designs that they've made after years etc... its gotten easy to build a shifter.... i think it would shake things up... add a challenge aspect to it...

"But for those who have different goals and objectives, I still think it is ok for others to buy premade."
shouldn't everyones goal to learn how to build robots/engineering etc... NOT just to easily build a robot that is reliable and therefore you can easily win competitions....yet not learn so much..?

also for those who don't really have that much money for transmissions.... hmm..... what if they make a rule that says only a certain amount of money can be spent on one individual product? i kno i kno .... i am a pessimist i'm like this in every aspect of life... lol....

btw if this does go for sale i think our team SHOULD buy it.... i want a reliable shifter for my team but in the BROAD overal FIRST picture i don't think its the best thing...

[Jaine Perotti]

"But for those who have different goals and objectives, I still think it is ok for others to buy premade."
shouldn't everyones goal to learn how to build robots/engineering etc... NOT just to easily build a robot that is reliable and therefore you can easily win competitions....yet not learn so much..?

I never meant to imply that the goal of each FIRST team was NOT to teach about robots/engineering. There are SO SO many different things to be done on a robot, and teams who dont have enough resources to address all of the aspects of the robot to be completed may want to buy a transmission form AndyMark. There are many other things, such as building the chassis, building arms and other mechanisms, wiring, programming, and the whole design process that the kids can still take responsibility for. The way I see it, there is still PLENTY for the kids to learn and experience, even if the gearbox is premade.

-- Jaine

BTW - I think these are good questions to ask, because it IS very important to be thinking about these things, and to demonstrate a concern for what will benefit the students the most.

[Karthik]

shouldn't everyones goal to learn how to build robots/engineering etc... NOT just to easily build a robot that is reliable and therefore you can easily win competitions....yet not learn so much..?

A large part of engineering is about building reliable products. Sometimes the most effective way of doing this involves purchasing components. Should we ban extruded aluminum because it just snaps together with a few gussets? We could force everyone to weld their own aluminum frames, as it would teach them more about welding and fabrication? I see purchasing an AndyMark transmission in the same light.

Plus there's much to be learned from these prebuilt mechanisms. 1114 & 1503 have already purchased two AndyMark shifters, and rookie team members have taken them apart and reassembled them. This was a invaluable learning experience for every student who took part. Remember, there are many differents path to obtaining knowledge. There's no need to pigeonhole the process.

also for those who don't really have that much money for transmissions.... hmm..... what if they make a rule that says only a certain amount of money can be spent on one individual product?
That rule already exists...

<R75> The total cost of all non-Kit items may not exceed $3,500.00 USD. No individual item may exceed $400.00....

[Salik Syed]

yeah i was just thinking what if they lower it to like 340$ it is not like its totally impossible...! that would be disappointing if we did decide to purchase the trannys.... i am actually for purchasing them for our team simply cuz we want to be competitive and not fix our tranny and i am kinda lazy....

[Chris Fultz]

over-ruled.

[dlavery]

Since my name was brought up earlier in this thread, I will go ahead and throw in my two cents worth (note: this is my opinion only, and in no way represents any discussions FIRST may or may not be having on this topic).

First off, right up front I have to say that I really don't like where we all are on this. Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't have any problem at all with what AndyMark is offering (more on this in a moment). But I don't like the current system that basically allows you to buy and bolt on pretty much anything from any source that you can find. I was a very big fan of the FIRST competition of 10 years ago, where you had to build your entire robot from the contents of the kit, a small amount of credit with Small Part Inc., and a very select set of "additional materials." Dean Kamen's philosophy at the time was very clearly stated when he said "we want to see what happens when we make you use parts for purposes for which they were never intended." The solutions that teams developed at that time were among the most creative, innovative, and occasionally astounding systems I had seen built in quite a while. As a competitor, it was an amazing experience and I really miss that competition.

But, that said, we are where we are. Given the system that is in place, it is incumbent upon all of us to make the very best of it that we can. One of the clearly stated goals of FIRST is to expand the program so that it becomes a common element of our culture, and through that mechanism, spread understanding and appreciation for science and technology. One approach to this is to help teams raise the level of the competition so that the competition itself is as exciting and inspirational as it can possibly be (to the casual observer, and not just to the teams). Turning the FIRST Robotics Competition into something that really can interest the vast unwashed masses, and mass media, will require that we increase the caliber of the competition itself and the robots that compete. This is not going to happen with robots that are moving piles of rain gutter and bicycle fenders held together with bailing wire. It is going to happen with machines that are well designed, well built, and able to compete. It will happen when we raise our standards from "success is building a robot that can just get out on the field" to "success is playing the game and being a good competitor - and doing it with a robot."

Toward that end, anything that comes along that allows teams to build better robots or compete at a higher level is a good thing. If a new vendor appears with a set of products that raises the quality and competitiveness of the robots on the field, as competitors we have only three ways to respond. We can ignore them and continue to use the tools and methods used so far, and maintain approximately the current level of competition. Or, we can take advantage of their wares and incorporate them into our robots, presumably making our robots better in the process and thereby raising the quality of the competition. Or we can say to ourselves "well now that EVERYONE will have access to capabilities that used to be reserved for only the very top teams, the only way to stay ahead of the crowd is to get to work and develop the NEXT great quantum improvement in competition robot technology" - a step that will set the bar even higher than before and force a quantum leap in the quality of the competition.

In short, I think that having options like the AndyMark products available to teams will positively impact the overall quality and caliber of the competitions, and end up increasing our probability of reaching and inspiring an even larger audience. For the teams at the lower end of the scale, it will help them to become better able to get out on the field and be competitive. The middle-class teams will be able to go head-to-head with the top-tier teams and compete like there is no tomorrow. Top-tier teams will be challenged to come up with new technologies to stay ahead of the commercial products and the rest of the teams. And if in the end the students are inspired and more of the public becomes aware of the program, and people gain more appreciation for engineering, how can that not be a good thing?

-dave

[Matt Attallah]

After catching up on this thread - I am also going to put in my few words in here.

Shame on some of you people.

1. This is an Andy Baker and Mark Koors development. Any type of 'poor judgment' should automatically be dismissed. I have met Andy a few times and (If I recall right) I have met Mark also. VERY, VERY nice people that - in my heart - carry what FIRST means and they have no intent of doing wrong knowingly against FIRST. Geez guys - comon - A-N-D-Y B-A-K-E-R. Need me to write it out in purple crayon?

2. Say they do sell it to some sources out-side of FIRST. So? Do they not deserve something for 1. their hard work and 2. I'm sure something (if not all) will some how make it's way back to a FIRST related event. Give them a break.

Leave them alone I say. I'm in TOTAL favor of what they do and I hope they can take it on a National Level. I'm rootin' for ya Andy. I see no fowl play...

Sorry if I seem a little irrated. It's after 2AM on Thanksgiving. Just alittle tired...

[DougHogg]

In the 2003 season , our team had more engineering resources than we did this past season, and we designed our own shifting system (involving shifting between large and small wheels). For 2004, one of our engineers was away for the whole season on a project and another was up to his neck in a vital project locally. So we used Team 716's 2003 non-shifting gear box design from the Chief Delphi White Papers. We also used a modifed version of Team 25's 6 wheel design that we learned about from the Cheezy Poofs and Team 60. We got gyro code from Team 492 (via Chief Delphi). Our mechanical engineer said we had to keep our robot really simple this year. Well we had an amazing year that wouldn't have happened without the information that we got from other teams. Question: If we were to prevent teams from buying gear boxes, should we then ban getting gear box designs from other teams via Chief Delphi?

The truth is, the FIRST Competition has been evolving all along as teams share their knowledge. And the competition needs to evolve for reasons that dlavery mentioned above and also because the field of robotics inself is evolving and we need to keep pace so that our students are learning at a level that is in keeping with the requirements of jobs in this and other technical fields in the society.

If we were teaching automotive design, it is unlikely that we would make the students build their own generators. It wouldn't be a terrible thing for them to know how to do that, but to be competitive in the future, they will need to know how to find, acquire and integrate such parts into their systems.

I am sure there will be times when I look back fondly at the good old days of FIRST when we shifted by switching the drill motor transmission (my first year), but the future is ahead of us, and we are helping to prepare students for that future.

There will be lots of future challenges to take the place of the challenge of designing a shifting gear box. (I am quite sure that our robots will require more programming in the future, and that is as it should be because more and more of our society will involve computer programmed devices.)

With the number of teams that we have now, it is vital for our competition to become much more audience friendly so that we will get more exposure and thus more sponsors who will benefit from that exposure and thus be able to justify supporting a team or a regional. Otherwise, we will run out of sponsors and many new teams will have a very rough time.

That which doesn't grow, will shrink, and I don't think any of us want a smaller FIRST. In fact, I hope that one day all students will have the option to participate on a FIRST team.

So thanks Andy and Mark for contributing to FIRST's evolution and expansion.

[Kit Gerhart]

The availability of AndyMark transmissions makes it possible for teams without fancy shop facilities to do what teams WITH such facilities have been able to do all along. To me, that is a good thing. For well-supported teams like mine, the use of pre-made transmissions can allow us to concentrate more on other aspects of designing and and building our robot. At this point, I don't know if we will be using AndyMark transmissions or not. It will mostly be up to our "chief machinist" at KSC.

Also, if anyone who might be in the Florida "Space Coast" area would like to see an AM transmission, planetary, or wheel "in person," I have one each of them that I can show (or sell) you.

[ChrisH]

With all of the other heavyweights around here weighing in, I figure I might as well add my 2 shekels.

First of all, I'm more in agreement with Dave and the "Future through the Past" crowd. I LIKED the limited KOP and AML (additional materials list) and thought it was a good thing. Because it forces you to become more creative. But I also understand that Dave and I are probably the only two hold-outs left, and that SPI just couldn't handle the volume anymore. We're growing up and maybe we just can't do things the way we used to anymore. A limited KOP and AML still require thousands of items which are sometimes only produced in hundreds. So only the first few teams get what they need and everybody else has to make do.

So, since the vast majority seem to be for open markets, I am willing to put my personal preferences aside for the sake of others. (This is sometimes called graciousness, at other times it is called Love). If we are to have an "open market" for robot parts, then AndyMark is a logical development.

Given the current conditions not only do I approve of AndyMark, I hope to be imitating them in a small way in the near future.

I am in the process of designing something that I think most teams would find useful. A set of hardware for mounting and using encoders. This will include gears to mount on the encoder shaft and mating gears to mount on the shaft to be measured. All will be made from Nylon, so it will have good durability without being very heavy. A typical encoder gear will probably weigh about the same as four 1/2"dia holes in 1/8" thick aluminum. I am currently basing the design on the Grayhill 63R series encoders.

We realized the need for a better mounting system after our encoders failed this year. Due to some unique circumstances, it is easiest for us to make them out of plastic, and it is little trouble for us to make 20 or 30 rather than one or two. So we thought we would make them available to other teams.

We are still negotiating on fabrication costs and figuring out distribution and other issues, so I can't tell you the price yet, but it won't be unreasonable. Heck, we don't even have a name for the venture yet. If you have a need for other DLPPs (Dumb Little Plastic Parts) that other teams might need as well, contact me and we might include them in the product line.

ChrisH

[DougHogg]

Given the current conditions not only do I approve of AndyMark, I hope to be imitating them in a small way in the near future.

I am in the process of designing something that I think most teams would find useful.
ChrisH

"Teams inventing new products for other teams"––now that sounds like a worthwhile evolution to me.

I picture a time when there will be 5 or 6 gear box designs available and teams deciding which one (if any) to use, and then working on their own design for sale.

In fact, lately I have been thinking that our team should market something to do with robotics as a means of helping to fund our team. I was inspired by a group connected with Team 968 RAWC who created a robot for the police department. Also I believe that Team 696, the Circuit Breakers, made a robot for a group in India. (Edit: I forgot to mention the twin girls from Alaska who, according to Wired News, invented a robot to help rescue people who had fallen through the ice. They won a $50,000 prize in the Westinghouse Science Competition and are working on marketing their invention.)

"FIRST teams as manufacturers as opposed to only being consumers" sounds like a great step toward another whole dimension for all of us. Who do we thank for this great idea? AndyMark.

Hm...I wonder what we could make for sale? I gotta go check out those AndyMark gear boxes.

[sanddrag]

Also I believe that Team 696, the Circuit Breakers, made a robot for a group in India. That is correct. If anyone is interested, you can read a little paragraph about it under "Team Projects" on this page (http://www.firstwiki.org/696).

[Derek Bessette]

I think the gearboxes are a great idea!!

Team 1114 has received two shifting and two of the planetary gearboxes for this years off-season projects. This year we are starting a new team (1503) with a possibility of helping another rookie team (yet to be announced). With this kind of growth in our area these gearboxes are going to be a excellent tool. We have used them as a demo with all of the new rookies and our veterans have been able to incorporate them in their designs of a new drive system. In the end these gearboxes will save us a lot of machining time (most of which wouldn't have been able to be done at the school because of lack of the right equipment). This allows us more time to try different designs as well as spend time with 3D modeling, controls and fund-raising.

Andy and Mark have started something good. I think this will help raise the bar in FIRST quickly for veteran and rookie teams alike.

[Salik Syed]

ookay..... don't call me a flip flopper....
dlavery comments kinda pretty much changed my mind
I am now an offficial supporter of the AM transmission....

i was skeptical at first because i thought it could affect students creativity overall in FIRST but now i'm convinced overall it could do some good...

[Andy Baker]

Given the current conditions not only do I approve of AndyMark, I hope to be imitating them in a small way in the near future.

...

We are still negotiating on fabrication costs and figuring out distribution and other issues, so I can't tell you the price yet, but it won't be unreasonable. Heck, we don't even have a name for the venture yet. If you have a need for other DLPPs (Dumb Little Plastic Parts) that other teams might need as well, contact me and we might include them in the product line.

ChrisH


Woohoo! Way to go Chris. This is great news. I really think that more companies targeted at FIRST is a good thing. I wish you good luck in this endeavor.

.....

Also, I appreciate the outpouring of support that many of you give in your posts. The questions and opposing comments are good, and this sort of debate should be encouraged.

Sincerely,
Andy B.

[eugenebrooks]

We don't have this years rules, yet, so lets look at last years rules:

<R68> Additional Parts must be generally available from suppliers such that any other FIRST team, if it so desires, may also obtain them at the same price. (A specific device fabricated by a team from non-2004 Kit materials does not have to be available to others, however, the materials it is made from must be available to other teams.)

1) Suppose that a small business makes 30 of some part (prior to the build period) and offers them for sale to FIRST teams for use in their robot. Does this satisfy R68 above? Does the fact that only 30 exist, to be served up to teams on a first come first served basis satisfy this rule? If 200 teams want the part, and only 30 exist, is there a problem? This is not a cut and dry question in that a "generally available part" from several suppliers can run into a shortage of supply, although large numbers are produced during the year.

2) Suppose a team plans to make 30 of something, during the build period, while needing only one. It them offers the extras for sale to other teams who could make use of them. This would seem to be a different situation in that a team has made them during the build period, and therefore the "generally avaialble from suppliers" rule seems to have an exception. The team markets the parts made during the build period to other teams, and uses the proceeds to fund their team efforts for the year. What about this situation, which is quite different than the one above?

3) If the two situations above are not enough to worry about, suppose a team wants to get a head start on their robot for 2005, and starts a business to make gear boxes, wheels, and other "off the shelf parts." The team makes a few, keeps what it needs for the 2005 season, and then offers the rest for sale on the internet. Such a team would get an incredible head start on its robot, and would make some profit on the extra parts that would help pay for the rest of the teams costs. Rest assured that I am not accusing anyone of this, but this seems to be the next logical development after 1) and 2) above.

In years prior to the 2004 season, the rules allowed teams to pay machine shops to fabricate critical parts, as has been referred to by other posters in this thread. The following is what was in the 2004 rules:

<R09> Teams must fabricate and/or assemble all custom parts and assembled mechanisms on the robot by the 2004 team after the start of the Kick-off. Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used, however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.

Just what did "Teams must fabricate" mean in 2004? If a team paid a custom machine shop to fabricate something for their robot, and the custom machine shop was not a "team member" and did not "wear the team shirt", so to speak, was this within the 2004 rules?

I would hope that questions such as these are directly addressed when FIRST first posts the 2005 rules, along with the 2005 game. These questions are not all that hypothetical these days.

I salute any small business devoted to FIRST, but the rules do not seem to be so clear cut as one might think, and we don't even know the rules for 2005 yet, which can change in significant ways relative to the rules we have seen in the past competitions.

[DougHogg]

...
The following is what was in the 2004 rules:

<R09> Teams must fabricate and/or assemble all custom parts and assembled mechanisms on the robot by the 2004 team after the start of the Kick-off.
...

Just what did "Teams must fabricate" mean in 2004? If a team paid a custom machine shop to fabricate something for their robot, and the custom machine shop was not a "team member" and did not "wear the team shirt", so to speak, was this within the 2004 rules?
...

The 2004 accounting rules expand on the above rule:


<R78>
...
5.3.2.2 Cost Determination
The "cost" of each additional item is counted as follows:
...

• The total cost (materials + labor) of an item you pay someone else to make; Example: A team
orders a custom bracket fabricated by a vendor to the team's specification. The vendor's material
cost and normally charged labor rate apply.
...

• The cost of raw material obtained by a team + the cost of non-team labor expended to have the
material processed further. Team member processing labor is not included. Example: A team
purchases steel bar stock for $10.00 and has it machined by a local machine shop that donates its 2
hours of expended labor. The team must include the estimated normal cost of the labor as if it were
paid to the machine shop, and add it to the $10.00. Exception Examples: If the team members
themselves did the actual machining, there would be no associated labor cost. If the machine shop
were part of the team, its labor cost would not apply.


Also for the 2004 season, we had a team Q&A system where teams could post questions. However it seems to be offline at this point.

[eugenebrooks]

The 2004 accounting rules expand on the above rule:


No one said that the rules were consistent!

The accounting rule is, clearly, an accounting rule.
The build rule was changed, relative to prior years,
and I presume that the change was made for a reason.

I do not remember a clarification being asked for on the
FIRST Q and A board. This is a distraction, however,
with regard to the three questions I posted...

[Matt Reiland]

We don't have this years rules, yet, so lets look at last years rules:

<R68> Additional Parts must be generally available from suppliers such that any other FIRST team, if it so desires, may also obtain them at the same price. (A specific device fabricated by a team from non-2004 Kit materials does not have to be available to others, however, the materials it is made from must be available to other teams.)

1) Suppose that a small business makes 30 of some part (prior to the build period) and offers them for sale to FIRST teams for use in their robot. Does this satisfy R68 above? Does the fact that only 30 exist, to be served up to teams on a first come first served basis satisfy this rule? If 200 teams want the part, and only 30 exist, is there a problem? This is not a cut and dry question in that a "generally available part" from several suppliers can run into a shortage of supply, although large numbers are produced during the year.

2) Suppose a team plans to make 30 of something, during the build period, while needing only one. It them offers the extras for sale to other teams who could make use of them. This would seem to be a different situation in that a team has made them during the build period, and therefore the "generally avaialble from suppliers" rule seems to have an exception. The team markets the parts made during the build period to other teams, and uses the proceeds to fund their team efforts for the year. What about this situation, which is quite different than the one above?

3) If the two situations above are not enough to worry about, suppose a team wants to get a head start on their robot for 2005, and starts a business to make gear boxes, wheels, and other "off the shelf parts." The team makes a few, keeps what it needs for the 2005 season, and then offers the rest for sale on the internet. Such a team would get an incredible head start on its robot, and would make some profit on the extra parts that would help pay for the rest of the teams costs. Rest assured that I am not accusing anyone of this, but this seems to be the next logical development after 1) and 2) above.

In years prior to the 2004 season, the rules allowed teams to pay machine shops to fabricate critical parts, as has been referred to by other posters in this thread. The following is what was in the 2004 rules:

<R09> Teams must fabricate and/or assemble all custom parts and assembled mechanisms on the robot by the 2004 team after the start of the Kick-off. Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used, however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.

Just what did "Teams must fabricate" mean in 2004? If a team paid a custom machine shop to fabricate something for their robot, and the custom machine shop was not a "team member" and did not "wear the team shirt", so to speak, was this within the 2004 rules?

The following is MY opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of my team.

With regards to question 1, there is no guaranty of any company having enough parts in stock for each and every single team that 'MAY' want to buy a part. If I call up Brecoflex on January 20th and say I need 8 belts and they tell me they can have them in 3 weeks, you can call them the next day and order 8, they might tell you 6 week delivery after the build period is over. FIRST has absolutely no way of policing that every vendor will have every part available to every team ready to ship immediately, its impossible, even if FIRST picked a few vendors. What FIRST appears to want is that any part that I am buying is 'able to be purchased' by all other teams. I say this because it has been this way since the days of Small Parts. We all had the same small parts catalog but if you ordered 50 flange bearings in week 1, I may not be able to get mine until week 5. We both had the same catalog, they were able to be purchased by both of us but they were not in stock in unlimited quantities. In fact due to inventory problems I might not get mine at all in the above scenario. AndyMark.biz has made it clear that they will hold a reasonable inventory of assemblies on hand just like any other corporation based on some sort of forecast. To think that they would have 1000 on hand just so that everyone who wants one can have one immediately is just silly. If you order one in week one and don't get it until week 3, your team should be building in a placeholder based on the prints in the chassis so you can continue on without stopping the build process. If AndyMark.Biz is incapable of supplying enough of these due to some huge wave of teams than again just like any other company teams have to look elsewhere. Especially in the case of AndyMark.Biz, this shouldn't be the issue that it is. My point in the last statement is that AndyMark have essentially provided the prints for this transmission and it wouldn't be very hard for any team to use local resources to build a similar model themselves from raw materials if one wasn't available through AndyMark. If Dr. Joe wants to use Dewalt transmissions and orders them up in week 1 but then Dewalt has a shortage and other teams can't get them in week 5 should Dr Joe have to take them off his robot???? NO.

As for question #2, that is definitely in the Gray Area. If I needed to make a part and one of our partner teams had some laying around, I would probably use it but account for the full cost of making it, be it in house or from an outside source depending on how my team was planning on getting it. If the parts are identical, it was made in the build period, and I have the capability of making another duplicate easily, why would I waste the resources to build another one when it is already made?

Lastly the question #3. If someone wants to make parts up at their own cost and risk for a company, then use them in 2005, are you really that concerned? As I said earlier, with the use of CNC equipment, ANY team can prototype a full chassis, drive system, manipulator, anything and have it completely rebuilt according to the rules on the first day of the build season and be totally legal. The chassis we have been playing with over the summer is totally water jet cut and can be re-made in about 1 hour of machine time. Since neither I nor anyone else out there has any clue what the game will be for 2005 as well as what the motors will be, creating a business is a total gamble.

Teams out there that are worried about companies like AndyMark somehow getting a 'jump' on the competition are out of touch with the resources that are available to many of the larger teams. Instead of worrying about this or any other company that wants to provide FIRST teams with parts, we ALL should see this as a resource. Just because AndyMark is providing a nice robust transmission doesn't mean you won't see 100 other designs this year that may have 4 speeds, may be lighter, may be smaller, you name it. BUT, if your team doesn't have allot of resources and you want to move beyond the Drill transmissions in the kit, something like what AndyMark is providing should be on your shopping list. We need to stop worrying that somehow teams out there are going to have some secret advantage because, they always have and they always will. FIRST isn't fair for everyone, some teams have 5 or 10 times the resources as others.

Again this is my opinion on this new company, I want to see more like it, maybe someone will provide a universal chassis. When it comes to the robot, I would rather see the entire organization as a whole move on to more advanced technology rather than every year 200 teams that can barely move 10 ft without breaking, yet they are proud of the design they built. This is what FIRST means to me: not only getting students excited about a project but also teaching them about the world they will have to work in after college. In todays world, mediocre doesn't cut it, you have to be better than the next guy out there to get ahead.

[Steve W]

I would like to request that any questioning of the rules and how they relate to AndyMark be started in another thread. I believe that Andy started this thread as an opportunity for others to share (at a nominal cost) in his and others workmanship. To bring into question legalities of the rules and the fine lines of the law does not quite fit in here with this time of celebration. There are many who applaud AndyMark and many who disagree with what he is doing. We each have our own thoughts and reasons for our belief. To discuss them would be great and welcome (please don't go overboard) in the proper thread. Why not start one?

[lupjohn]

This thread has definitely matured. I want to point out that InnovationFirst has provided the controller off the shelf for several years now. The new(2004) controller offers expanded capabilities that were not there earlier. I view AndyMark tranny as a similar component that will expand the capabilities of the off the shelf drill transmissions/FP gearboxes etc. Our team did not build the arm for various reasons part of was time spent on design and construction of an all shaft gear 4 wheel drive train using 4 of the FIRST supplied delrin gear boxes and two drill motors. A simple electrical short hampered the effectiveness of the platform but it competed both at Sacramento Regional and Nationals. The team members have decided generally to move beyond off the shelf and innovate to make up for observed failures and inefficiencies of the 2004 platform. This is a tool for them that will make a difference on other systems design and construction. They will be competing against Cheesy Poofs and Wildstang this year so a pyschological positive is being able to spend time on appendages. Time will tell. Thanks for the chance to share. LRU.

[Pat Roche]

"Teams inventing new products for other teams"––now that sounds like a worthwhile evolution to me.

I picture a time when there will be 5 or 6 gear box designs available and teams deciding which one (if any) to use, and then working on their own design for sale.

In fact, lately I have been thinking that our team should market something to do with robotics as a means of helping to fund our team. I was inspired by a group connected with Team 968 RAWC who created a robot for the police department. Also I believe that Team 696, the Circuit Breakers, made a robot for a group in India. (Edit: I forgot to mention the twin girls from Alaska who, according to Wired News, invented a robot to help rescue people who had fallen through the ice. They won a $50,000 prize in the Westinghouse Science Competition and are working on marketing their invention.)

Team 134 is doing something similar to the group from Alaska in making a remote controled robot made from previous years parts for ice rescued. Its a ongoing project that has been in progress for the past few years and is finally going into fabrication and such as we speak.

-Pat

[Rich Wong]

Christmas came earlier for one of my teams!
Today they received their AndyMark order in the mail and called me over.

It was like a mini-kickoff, we had box opening ceremony, we clapped, we danced and we rejoice! (ok, ok we got carry away….) :yikes:

It felt like Christmas!
The students were very happy. They got to see and touch good quality gear that was not homemaded with hand tools. Machining that was professionally done, holes that are straight, workmanship that the school could NOT produce in a million years.

Project ideas were flowing…. It was just like a FRC Kickoff. Their first project…. A school demo robot they can be proud of.
(sorry Andy.... no hot dog wagon this year)

This is how students can be inspired! :)

[Andy Baker]

We've recently posted entire CAD files of the AM Shifter (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter.htm), at this (http://www.andymark.biz/product_info/am-shifter/shiftboxa_asm.stp) location.

Our main intent is for a designer to easily incorporate this assembly into their robot design. However, teams can also create their own gearbox from this CAD geometry or create a derivative of this design by improving upon it.

Also, CAD files for the AM Planetary (http://www.andymark.biz/am-planetary.htm) are at this (http://www.andymark.biz/product_info/am-planetary/AMPlanetary.stp) location.

Enjoy,
Andy Baker

[ajlapp]

thanks for getting these files posted......they should be a great help for anyone who wishes to buy or adapt the designs!

is it possible to make the shifter file itemized like the planetary.

when i open the planetary file i have control over each individual component. the shifter file is just one large assembly.

if it can be done that would be awesome. otherwise no big deal.

[Madison]

I was just curious when you were planning to make those 6" wheels available, Andy :)

[Jeff K.]

I didn't read through the whole thread but I was wondering, do these gearboxes also come with motors that you can choose when you order them, or do you have to supply your own?

[Billfred]

AFAIK, you supply your motors from the kit.

[MikeDubreuil]

I was just curious when you were planning to make those 6" wheels available, Andy :)6" Trick Wheels are available! My team submitted our order about an hour ago :D

[Andy Baker]

AndyMark (http://www.andymark.biz) update:

I have had many people ask how things are going with this venture.

6" trick wheels, 8" trick wheels, wheel hubs, AM Planetaries, and AM Shifters have all been selling pretty well.

We have been doing a decent job in keeping production and assembly up with orders. Most orders have been shipped out within 1-2 days of being placed. some orders have taken longer to fill, shipping out within 5 days of receiving the order and then taking 2-3 days to get to our customer.

We have had a good range of veterans and new teams buy these products. One team bought 18 - 6" trick wheels, while another only bought 1. One team says that they are going to anodize our housing for the AM Planetary gearbox. Teams are giving us good input about what they like and how we can improve. Everyone has been patient in this new process.

It is quite a thrill.

Andy B.

[sanddrag]

AndyMark (http://www.andymark.biz) update:
One team says that they are going to anodize our housing for the AM Planetary gearbox. Oooh, good idea. That would be really slick.

[Matt Reiland]

AndyMark (http://www.andymark.biz) update:

I have had many people ask how things are going with this venture.

6" trick wheels, 8" trick wheels, wheel hubs, AM Planetaries, and AM Shifters have all been selling pretty well.

We have been doing a decent job in keeping production and assembly up with orders. Most orders have been shipped out within 1-2 days of being placed. some orders have taken longer to fill, shipping out within 5 days of receiving the order and then taking 2-3 days to get to our customer.

We have had a good range of veterans and new teams buy these products. One team bought 18 - 6" trick wheels, while another only bought 1. One team says that they are going to anodize our housing for the AM Planetary gearbox. Teams are giving us good input about what they like and how we can improve. Everyone has been patient in this new process.

It is quite a thrill.

Andy B.
Great to hear Andy

[Andy Baker]

Another update...


We now have individual trick wheel rollers for sale. In stock, there are EPDM and Acetal rollers. They are priced individually. EPDM rollers are 40 cents each and acetal rollers are 70 cents each.

On a side note, we have seen that the EPDM rollers leave black marks on the carpet. Within 3-4 weeks, we will be getting some white neoprene rollers of the same size and approximately the same durometer as the EPDM. These won't leave messy marks on carpet. These rollers will not be available for delivery until mid-March.

Also, many people have requested that we sell spare pinion gears for our AM Planetary gearbox. These gears are 15 tooth, 32 dp, 20 degree p.a., with 0.125" bore and 0.375" long.

These rollers (EPDM and acetal) and gears are available here. (http://www.andymark.biz/products.htm)

Thanks to all,
Andy Baker

[tkwetzel]

Andy - Did you know that the trick wheel hub is no longer on the products page? I do not know if this was an error made while adding the new products.

[Andy Baker]

Here are some post-season numbers and facts related to how AndyMark, Inc. performed within the FIRST community:

86 FIRST teams were customers
Teams from 21 States & Provinces bought products (MI was 1st with 11, IN 2nd with 10)
29 out of 30 Regionals had at least 1 team with AndyMark products (the only exception was Israel)
47 teams attending the Championships were AndyMark customers

All orders were sent out in a timely fashion, meeting FIRST's criteria for an "approved vendor".
Many teams thanked us for our efforts.
A couple of teams broke some parts, but had them quickly replaced.

Thanks go out to our customers, supporters, and the FIRST community for making this first year successful for us. We appreciated the lively discussion last summer and fall, along with the support and faith teams had in us during last season. We've learned many lessons and will come back stronger for the 2005-2006 FIRST season.

Sincerely,
Andy Baker

[OZ_341]

Andy:

An awesome product!!! We lost our build facility and 2 mentors this year.

This product was part of an overall strategy which allowed us to stay competitive and remain a 100% student built machine in 2005.

Thanks again for your advice and prompt service this year.

Al Ostrow

[Travis Covington]

AM is doing great things. We really appreciate all the great products you sell. We have talked to a few gear shops and they are simply amazed by the cost you guys are able to produce and sell your products at. :ahh:

[Andy Baker]

The AndyMark.biz (http://www.andymark.biz/index.htm) website has been updated. While the AM Shifter (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter2speed.htm), AM Planetary gearbox (http://www.andymark.biz/am-planetary.htm) , and Trick Wheels (http://www.andymark.biz/am-trick-al.htm) have lower prices, new products are now available.

The AM Gearbox (http://www.andymark.biz/am-gearbox.htm) is a single-speed gearbox, priced low.

The CIM Planetary gearbox (http://www.andymark.biz/cim-p-gb.htm) is a compact unit giving 181:1 reduction.

New, 6" and 8" diameter Omni-Wheels (http://www.andymark.biz/plastic-omni.htm) are available in late November. These wheels are less expensive, lighter, and smoother rolling than our Trick Wheels.

Traction Wheels (http://www.andymark.biz/traction-wheel.htm) are available, with replaceable treads.

A Mode Selector & Stop Switch (http://www.andymark.biz/mode-switch.htm) is also ready for teams who want an easy way to select their robot drive mode and quickly disable their robot during operation (used during debug and non-competition driving).

Also, we have many robot parts including 35 series Aluminum sprockets (http://www.andymark.biz/35sprockets.htm), gears, flanged bearings, 2mm key stock, and other spare parts.

For questions regarding these products, email me at andyb"at"andymark.biz.

We are looking forward to another fun year in FIRST.

Andy Baker
Mark Koors

[sanddrag]

Very exciting news. You have one broken image on the products page and a couple images flip-flopped on the AM Shifter page. You've done very well with the prices. I'm impressed by some of them. I absolutely love now being able to buy individual components like dog gears. Nice work!

[Billfred]

Awesomeness. Just plain awesomeness.

I like how you designed the dongle--a big area to hit for disabling is always a good thing, in my opinion. (For all the rookies who may be reading this thread, either get one of Andy's or build your own from the information in the IFI manual. You'll need one or the other.)

I'm also glad to see those traction wheels--they look to be quite nice. Any plans to ship them either with roughtop or naked?

[Stephen Kowski]

fantastic, i especially like the aluminum sprockets and traction wheels....

[Alex Cormier]

I'm also glad to see those traction wheels
those wheels are sweet, i got to be able to see them in person at the Battle Bots comp in Rochester. I'd buy a few to have for my next battle bot.(hint hint)

[Collin Fultz]

On behalf of all rookie (and some veteran) teams out there, I must say, "Thank you Andy Baker and Mark Koors."

FIRST has been trying to "level the playing field" and "raise the bar" for a number of years, and things like the kit tranny and chassis show that goal.

AndyMark is another great way for rookie teams to have the possibilities to build a successful, competitive robot.

Thank you both very much.

:)

[Rich Kressly]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
:)

[Charlie B]

Andy,

Thanks for your new products. I'm especially excited about the traction wheels. A couple of questions...

How might one convert your traction wheel to accommodate a 1/2" keyed shaft?

The wheels seem to be wider than one would think necessary. Is that for strength, or to keep the tread on?

What are the advantages of your single speed transmission over the kit transmission?

[Andy Baker]

Andy,

Thanks for your new products. I'm especially excited about the traction wheels. A couple of questions...

1. How might one convert your traction wheel to accommodate a 1/2" keyed shaft?

2. The wheels seem to be wider than one would think necessary. Is that for strength, or to keep the tread on?

3. What are the advantages of your single speed transmission over the kit transmission?

1. A hub would need to be made, with these features:
1/2" hole & 1/8" keyway
OD of 2.375" (or greater)
6 evenly spaced #10 clearance holes (.21), at 60 degrees from each other, on a 1.875" diameter bolt circle

We may provide this hub in the future, but we currently don't have it as a listed product.

2. Wheel widths vary as drivetrain designs vary. In FIRST, there are wide ranges of wheel designs. Some use wide wheels for more floor contact, while others use narrow wheels. This also depends on how teams wish to play the game. These Traction Wheels are a compromise between wide and narrow wheels. Also, they can easily be narrowed if a designer chooses.

3. The differences between the AM Gearbox and the Kit Transmission are as such:
to buy either, the AM Gearbox is less expensive
the AM Gearbox body is smaller than the Kit Transmission
the output shaft of the AM Gearbox is 1/2" while the Kit Transmission is 16mm
the Kit Transmission has the ability to be elegantly coupled with another Kit Transmission to create an increased reduction (for arm applications), while to do this with 2 AM Gearboxes requires some more design work
the AM Gearbox is lighter and includes gears with narrower face widths


Thank you for the interest, Charlie.

Andy Baker

[Madison]

With respect to the AM Gearbox -- when is it going to be available? :) I'll need two and they're priced significantly lower than the kit transmissions from IFI.

Also, how're we meant to mount them? I haven't looked yet at the plans for those gearboxes, but from the photos, I see no obvious mounting points.




Okay, I've looked at the plans... 1 more question, then:

Why is it asymmetric in design?


Thanks.

[Holtzman]

AndyMark

Great looking stuff. The traction wheels will be a huge time saver.

I'm a little curious about the CIM planetary though. 181:1 seems like a pretty huge reduction. ~ 25 rpm is pretty slow even for an arm. Would it be possible to remove one of the stages to reduce the amount of reduction in the planetary? If so, that would make this a very adaptable design, and definitely something worth looking into, especially since you can use a FP planetary and a CIM planetary in conjunction.

[Andy Baker]

AndyMark

Great looking stuff. The traction wheels will be a huge time saver.

I'm a little curious about the CIM planetary though. 181:1 seems like a pretty huge reduction. ~ 25 rpm is pretty slow even for an arm. Would it be possible to remove one of the stages to reduce the amount of reduction in the planetary? If so, that would make this a very adaptable design, and definitely something worth looking into, especially since you can use a FP planetary and a CIM planetary in conjunction.

Thanks for the feedback and question.

There are 4 stages of the CIM Planetary. 1 stage could be removed if the external (ring) gear was simply machined down to be shorter.

181:1 is a middle-of-the road reduction for a arm movement on a FIRST robot. 25rpm is almost 180 degrees rotation in 1 second. That is moving pretty quickly. Last year, on the TechnoKats robot, the arm reduction was 406:1. This arm could lift a tetra from the floor to above a goal in a bit over 2 seconds.

Regards,
Andy

[Billfred]

181:1 is a middle-of-the road reduction for a arm movement on a FIRST robot. 25rpm is almost 180 degrees rotation in 1 second. That is moving pretty quickly. Last year, on the TechnoKats robot, the arm reduction was 406:1. This arm could lift a tetra from the floor to above a goal in a bit over 2 seconds.

Regards,
Andy
Just for reference--45's arm, or an arm using the planetary?

[Greg Needel]

Just for reference--45's arm, or an arm using the planetary?



the planetary would lift a tetra from the floor to the top of a goal in a little over a second.

another interesting fact about the planetary that Andy hasn't said is the amount of contact in each stage of the planetary. there is over 1 inch of planet to ring gear contact on each stage making it very unlikely to break. This is caused by using 5- 3/8 dia planet gears on each stage.(correct me if i am wrong Andy just trying to remember what you told me)

[Andy Baker]

1. With respect to the AM Gearbox -- when is it going to be available? :) I'll need two and they're priced significantly lower than the kit transmissions from IFI.

2. Also, how're we meant to mount them? I haven't looked yet at the plans for those gearboxes, but from the photos, I see no obvious mounting points.

3. Why is it asymmetric in design?

Thanks.

Maddie, thanks for the questions.

1. Our AM Gearbox parts will be ready within 2-3 weeks.

2. The intent for mounting is to use the 4 holes in the corner of each side plate. These are clearance holes for 1/4-20 screws.

3. We wrestled over the asymmetrical design. The main reason is because there are some clearance advantages when this gearbox is mounted in certain types of drivetrains. This design makes it fit better into a 4-wheel Killough platform, and it also lowers the Cg in a 4wd or 6wd drivetrain. We found this configuration to be benefitial.

----------

Also... Greg's post is correct. Thanks, Greg.

Andy B.

[kmcclary]

Can anyone get through to Andymark??? One of my teams has been
trying to buy from them, but has been unable to reach them for days
regarding their order and has no clue as to what's happening.

...Now, I just got word that their outgoing machine message has been
changed to one stating they're no longer returning phone calls during
the day, only in the evenings.

We're getting VERY concerned. It may be nothing, but if they can't
answer the phone anymore, that may be an indication they're TOO
swamped under by orders. I've got a couple of leaders in panic who
are beginning to wonder if they'll see their parts in time.

I *love* their offerings, but if they're unobtainable it could be a problem
if this is our *only* solution. We're now starting to consider "Plan B"
supplier sources and design solutions, and praying we're not forced
into that.

I'm hoping this is only temporary, but I want to compare notes.
Has anyone else here had any contact problems, or promised
delivery date problems?

Thanks.

- Keith

[Matt Reiland]

We could not immediately get through either but all of our parts showed up really fast after we ordered them through the website. (we ordered quite a bit also) Give them a bit more time, maybe send an email to Andy he is very good about getting back.

[Andy Baker]

Can anyone get through to Andymark??? One of my teams has been
trying to buy from them, but has been unable to reach them for days
regarding their order and has no clue as to what's happening.



Here is our current status:

Communication:

We are returning email messages within a day. To get the best response from us, please use email at this time.

We are returning phone calls within a day or 36 hours. While this may not be fast enough for some people, we are still replying and giving feedback.

Sales:

Some parts are in very high demand. Our 28-tooth sprockets ran out of stock, but we got another batch done today. Our "AM Shifter 2" product is being shipped out within 5 working days of being ordered. It is also in high demand. Our AM Shifter (the original version) ran out of stock, as we expected people would use the "AM Shifter 2" model more. We've asked people who are ordering the AM Shifter to use the 2nd generation model... it's better, anyway. Our "Upgrade Kit" for the Kit Transmission is in very high demand, but we are keeping up with orders.

For anyone who has lead time or product concerns, email me (andyb@andymark.biz).

Thank you,
Andy

[greencactus3]

i was just wondering.. any grease or sumthing you reccomend for the gears? and the wide open design. should i be considering a lexan covering or sumthing?

[Collin Fultz]

Our "AM Shifter 2" product is being shipped out within 5 working days of being ordered. It is also in high demand. Our AM Shifter (the original version) ran out of stock, as we expected people would use the "AM Shifter 2" model more. We've asked people who are ordering the AM Shifter to use the 2nd generation model... it's better, anyway.

To clear up a misconception that I had on their website.

The AM-2 CAN use two old CIM motors (if you don't want to use the MB motor). It is simply shown on the website with a small one and a large one.

[Andy Baker]

i was just wondering.. any grease or sumthing you reccomend for the gears? and the wide open design. should i be considering a lexan covering or sumthing?

(sorry to not reply sooner)

Here are my personal opinions about greasing gearboxes... others may disagree:

(this advice is focused on the AM Shifter and AM Shifter 2)

1. I like to run them for an hour or so while still dry (no grease). This way, they "work themselves in". Some people have used lapping compounds to help this process, but these gearboxes don't need that much help. They spin very freely even while dry. These gears are not perfect (none are), but they are very good meshes with each other. The more they run, the more efficient the meshes will become. Running them dry for a while will make the gears form themselves to each other a bit. After 1 hour of running, you should see a gearbox that is more freely spinning.

2. After running a gearbox dry, adding lubrication is good, but don't put on a heavy, thick grease. While the grease will be good for the gearbox, it is also a magnet for debris. Use a light grease (Lithium) or even an oil for lubrication. Heavy grease will work, if you enclose the gearbox and keep debris out of it.

3. The Dog Shifter gear (the thing that rides on the interior hex shaft and switches back and forth between the two output gears) will run smoother if it is lightly oiled. A short squirt of WD-40 once in a while works well for this.

As for enclosing the gearbox with a sheet of polycarbonate or aluminum, that is a good idea. It keeps the gearbox cleaner and keeps things (fingers!) out of the gearbox.


Also... for an AndyMark update:

We are currently keeping up with all orders. We have sprockets and gearboxes in stock, and we will ship them out within a day or two of receiving the order.

Some of our initial "D-hole", 28 tooth gears for the Upgrade Kit (http://www.andymark.biz/kit-tran-upgd.htm) had broached holes that were not quite straight, but they are good now.

Our molded omni-wheels are rolling off the shelves. Good thing we had plenty of those made.

AM Shifters (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter2speed.htm) and the AM Shifter 2 (http://www.andymark.biz/am-shifter2speed-gen2.htm) (can handle the Mini-Bike motor as an option) are both in stock, ready for delivery.

Aluminum Sprockets (http://www.andymark.biz/35sprockets.htm) are all in stock now. Teams are buying many of the smaller sprockets (28, 32, 36 tooth) as good replacements for heavier steel sprockets. These all have 6 mounting holes on a 1.875" bolt circle for easy mounting.

Mark and I have been answering calls and emails in the evening, along with processing orders. If you get your order in before 10:00pm, it will most likely be shipped out the next day. For a while, we had a 4-5 day wait on a few fabricated parts, but we have caught up our fabrication with our orders. A few patient teams had to wait longer for some 28 tooth sprockets and the original AM Shifter, but both are in stock now.

Good luck to all,
Andy

[Andy Baker]

It's about time for an AndyMark report. Many people ask "how are you and Mark doing?" Here are some answers:

1. 326 FIRST teams bought AndyMark products in 2006. This was over 3x the number in 2005.

2. Our most reliable, most admired, and still our most expensive item is the AM Shifter. We underestimated the # of teams who wanted the original version over the AM Shifter 2, so we had to do some hustling during the middle of the build season. Some teams waited for a 2nd build of the original version, while others easily switched over to the 2nd generation.

3. 131 teams attending the Championships are our customers.

4. Some of our products were not perfect for our customers. Of those orders, we did our best to get customer satisfaction.

5. About 20% of our shipments to Canada got held up in customs. We have figured out that priority shipments (which cost more) get through easier.

6. One package was destroyed and crushed by FedEx. We have retrieved these 2 crushed AM Shifters, and they do look like they were actually run over by a large fork lift.

7. Teams from 40 different states and 2 Canadian provinces were our customers.

8. Team distribution:

teams 1-199: 43 teams as customers
teams 200-399: 43
teams 400-599: 34
teams 600-799: 16
teams 800-999: 32
teams 1000-1199: 21
teams 1200-1399: 31
teams 1400-1599: 34
teams 1600-1799: 48
teams 1800+: 16


We had a great year, and we thank everyone for helping us along our way. If anyone has any comments, questions, ideas for improvements, please PM me or post as you wish.

Thank you,
Andy Baker
Mark Koors

[Tytus Gerrish]

179's was the one that was run over by a fork lift im proud to say

[Rick TYler]

Any post-season specials, Andy?

[Billfred]

6. One package was destroyed and crushed by FedEx. We have retrieved these 2 crushed AM Shifters, and they do look like they were actually run over by a large fork lift.
Andy, you've got us all wondering now--what do two AM Shifters look like when they've met the wrong side of a forklift?

I'm glad to see AndyMark's spreading out amongst the teams. One question, though: Is there any way to get more of those battery plugs? They're quite awesome, yet some of them seem to grow legs with time. (I guess the legs sprout from the nubs that actually go into the connector.)

[Andy Baker]

179's was the one that was run over by a fork lift im proud to say

Yep, that is true.

Any post-season specials, Andy?

Well, I have 2 smashed AM Shifters for 1/2 off... how is that? :)

Actually, since we don't know what next year brings, we are essentially bagging all of our inventory until sales pick up next fall. Also, since Indiana has omitted our state inventory tax, there is no benefit for us to get rid of shelved items prematurely.

One question, though: Is there any way to get more of those battery plugs? They're quite awesome, yet some of them seem to grow legs with time.

See Mark, myself or our AndyMark booth at the Suppliers' Showcase, and we will have many of these plugs in Atlanta. (also, team 45 will have a "45-red" version available to teams)

We will be bringing many products to the Championships, including spare parts. We will have many plastic molded bodies for our omni-wheels, as some have fractured from hitting diamond plate ramps at high speeds.

Andy B.

[sanddrag]

I offer the following not as a complaint, but as a recommendation for future product success and reliability.

I have a few comments about the AM planetaries. First of all, the product for the price is extremely fair. You cannot get or make that thing for the same price, and you definitely cannot have it in the same amount of time. That is great. However, I believe there have been some quality and reliability issues. When I first took a look at it in the 2005 season, there were some burrs on the planet gears and the backplate bolts had to be torqued just right in order to avoid binding up the whole thing. After a while, it ran in and became smoother.

After one regional, an offseason, and a demonstration, one of them completely bound up. It bound up so bad that the whole side of our our drivetrain would not move no matter what we did. After pulling it out and disassembling it, I noticed that one of the planets had siezed onto it's pin, and the pin had lost its press fit with the carrier plate. Pressing the pin out of the gear and back into the plate and hand reaming out the gear a bit seemed to solve the problem. Cleaned it out, greased it up, and ran smooth as butter. I have heard of one other team with the same problem though.

Throughout use of the planetary I experienced the planet gears rubbing on the backplate causing a nice aluminum powder to mix itself in with the grease. However, it is possible that this mix may actually have some lapping properties and it may not be an entirely bad thing. A fix would be to put nylon spacers/washers between the gear and planetary much like what is done with the CIMs in the KOP gearbox.

Also, throughout use of the planetaries I have witnessed increasing play in the output shaft. You can take ahold of it and wiggle it. There seemed to have been some issues with the output shaft diameter and surface finish and the fit in the roller bearing.

One team I saw replaced the roller bearing setup with two standard ball bearings and you could load it very hard and it would not bind or wiggle or anything. It looked like a very good improvement.

Perhaps the binding and wiggling issues were isolated cases. I haven't talked to too many people who use them. But I offer my feedback based on what I have seen.

Let me put one thing on the record though: AndyMark planetary gearboxes have never let us down in a competition And you won't find a similar unit at that price anywhere, even if you made it yourself. You cannot mach the light weight, small size, and low price of the AndyMark planetary, not with a Dewalt, not with your own gearbox.

I do not intend for the above to make anyone think twice about buying it. It is a very good product. You can't go wrong purchasing an AM planetary. But, I just wanted to give feedback, because that is how we all improve.

I look forward to seeing this company grow and continue to supply FIRST with even more new and exciting products! :)

[Andy Baker]

I offer the following not as a complaint, but as a recommendation for future product success and reliability.

Thank you for the well written note and tactful input. You are correct.

We did have some quality issues with the AM Planetary gearbox this year, and this product will improve for 2007. Mark and I need to upgrade this design to make it more reliable. There are some simple things for us to do that are simple (relief the gears on top and bottom to eliminate plate contact), and some more expensive (new bearings, better polished shaft). We will definitely make the gears spin more freely, but we will investigate new bearings without committing to a change.

Andy B.

[Travis Covington]

I'd have to agree with Dave regarding the planetary problems. We were the ones he mentioned who added the ball bearings. 2 simple counterbores, and 2 ABEC 5 or 7 bearings greatly increased the planetary gearboxes performance. Side loading was no longer an issue, and they only improved with time as the gears lapped themselves in a little better. I would happily pay an additional $20 per planetary if this modification were made prior to purchase. Just something to consider.

We also had an instance of the gear siezing on the pin (on 2 seperate gearboxes, within minutes of eachother.) I also know team 254 had 2 of their gears sieze on the pins as well. It didn't happen to us in competition, but it worried us greatly. I know 254 removed them for a few matches in the finals at portland because they weren't 100% convinced that it wasn't going to sieze again. This was a fairly big concern, as Dave mentioned, because it completely locked up the entire drivetrain and in turn immobilized the robot.

[AndyB]

I remember you saying somewhere that the wheels you sell are a bit heavy and that you and your team were devising a way to lighten them. Were you successful? If so, how?