Team 221 LLC. Universal Chassis In Stock

[ajlapp]

Team 221 LLC. is proud to announce that our new Universal Chassis products and their related accessories are now available for purchase at Team221.com (http://www.team221.com).

Features
-Integral chain tensioning
-4-8" wheels
-Bolt-together
-All aluminum construction
-Anodized billet components

In an attempt to make our product truly universal we have assembled several packages to suite your strategy.

UC Side Rail Kit
Includes two side rails with chain tensioners and a center bearing drive. You add everything else.

Basic Chassis Package
Two side rails and a set of ladder bars give you a basic strong platform to use for rapid base development.

Rolling Chassis Package
A complete chassis with everything you need to add 6 AM Kit Wheels. Included is a pre-hardened 4140, 1/2" keyed drive shaft you can use to interface to the kit transmission or your own custom design.

Good luck teams!

[Andrew Schreiber]

Anthony, it looks nice but the cost seems prohibitive. If you don't mind me asking, what is causing the price to be so high compared to IFI's chassis metal?

[TD78]

Anthony, it looks nice but the cost seems prohibitive. If you don't mind me asking, what is causing the price to be so high compared to IFI's chassis metal?

might be from all the accessories (axle blocks, tensioners, plugs, etc).

[Tristan Lall]

As a point of clarification, is Team 221 LLC associated with FRC team 221? If not, what's the significance of the name, and if so, are you aware of the definition of "vendor" that was used in past seasons?
The VENDOR shall not be a “wholly owned subsidiary” of a team or collection of teams. While
there may be some individuals affiliated with both a team and the VENDOR, the business and
activities of the team and VENDOR must be completely separable.

For that matter, does the company meet all of the 2008 criteria for vendors? Do you have a tax ID, for example? It's pretty clear that real vendors have to be able to manage the (difficult-to-predict) demand from teams, and ship parts in a timely fashion.

Also, looking at your product page, I get the distinct impression that your assemblies costing more than $400 (USD) aren't legal per 2008 rules. You have to sell them individually, so that teams can account for them individually.

And finally, though I sometimes wonder how binding the explanatory text preceding the rules is meant to be, you may be running afoul of the stated intent of the rules by offering complete drivetrain solutions:
However, COTS items that have been specifically designed as a solution to portion of the FIRST Robotics Competition challenge may or may not fit within the FRC intent, and must be carefully considered. If the item provides general functionality that can be utilized in any of several possible configurations or applications, then it is acceptable (as the teams will still have to design their particular application of the item). However, COTS items that provide a complete solution for a major ROBOT function (e.g. a complete manipulator assembly, pre-built pneumatics circuit, or full mobility system) that require no effort other than just bolting it on to the ROBOT are against the intent of the competition, and will not be permitted.

[dlavery]

I will start out by reminding everyone that you cannot assume that rules from prior years will apply to this year's competition. But it is worth noting that, under previous rules, many of these items would be illegal for use on a FRC competition robot. Specifically, several of the cataloged items are in violation of the "no item over $400" rule. In addition, the level of "completeness" of this solution would certainly cause me to read the opening paragraphs of Section 8.3 of last year's rules very carefully. I am not saying that I know now that this solution is a definitive violation of the intent. But it would certainly cause me to have a discussion about it.

For these reasons, as well as the several other suggestions made via Bill's Blog (http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-back-with-some-advice.html) and in Section 8.3.4, I would strongly recommend that teams think seriously about making any substantial investments prior to kick-off in any parts, assemblies, components, or magic fairy dust unless you are ABSOLUTELY SURE they will be legal for use in the 2009 competition.

<edit>But that said, I do want to note that I did have a chance to see this modular frame system this summer at IRI. From an engineering and design standpoint, it is a simple, elegant solution to a common problem. The system is quite sturdy, robust, well constructed, and certain to be of interest to a number of teams for this - and other - applications. The discussion posed in the above paragraphs pertains to the philosophy of early purchases and (unknown) applicability to the particulars of the 2009 FRC competition, and should in no way be interpreted as a detraction from the quality product that Anthony has produced.</edit>

-dave



.

[Justin Montois]

Read Above^^

[Elgin Clock]

To play devil's advocate here, ajlapp on behalf of Team221 LLC never implied that the kits were for use for FIRST competitions... in this particular post at least.

To be fair too all the (old) manual quoters though, the wording on the website is a bit FIRST team biased, but like others such as Dave have mentioned (or more precisely worded: strongly advised) many many times before, I'm waiting to see the manual in '09 before ordering any parts or materials.


$0.02

[AndyB]

To play devil's advocate here, ajlapp on behalf of Team221 LLC never implied that the kits were for use for FIRST competitions... in this particular post at least.

Keywords were in this particular post at least.

http://www.team221.com/faq.html

[ajlapp]

To answer a few of the above posts.

is Team 221 LLC associated with FRC team 221?
There is no FRC221. There used to be, it was my team. It was in operation from 1999 until 2003 when it became FRC857. The name Team 221 LLC. is a reference to my old team number, which I hold dear. It is also a reasonable moniker for a robot technology company that doesn't have a specific market, but believes in learning via competition.

For that matter, does the company meet all of the 2008 criteria for vendors? Do you have a tax ID, for example? It's pretty clear that real vendors have to be able to manage the (difficult-to-predict) demand from teams, and ship parts in a timely fashion.
Team 221 LLC. is a registered business in Michigan and we do have a Federal Employer ID. We are prepared to handle the potential demand of 2000 teams without appreciable delay in shipping. All components are made in the US with the possible exception of the AM ball bearings.

The products listed on my website are intended for use by anyone interested in designing their own mobile robot. Just like Andymark, my products can be used for myriad things.

If you wanted to use my components for FIRST you'd have to carefully review the 2009 rules and follow them. I have conveniently designed my chassis around the common FIRST packaging constraints and included Andymark components in all relevant places. This makes the product familiar to most FIRSTers.

But it is worth noting that, under previous rules, many of these items would be illegal for use on a FRC competition robot. Specifically, several of the cataloged items are in violation of the "no item over $400" rule.
Any items listed on the website that exceed $400 are packages. They are simply convenient links to groups of items all costing $400 or less.

In addition, the level of "completeness" of this solution would certainly cause me to read the opening paragraphs of Section 8.3 of last year's rules very carefully.
The Rolling Chassis Package is a grouping of machined components that uses AM sprockets and spacers in conjunction with the FIRST Kit wheel to help teams get their base up and running. Aside from the custom side rails that my company produces, the majority of the remaining components can be bought or found in the kit of parts.

[AndyB]

Thanks for the information Anthony. I'm excited to see what else comes out of 221 in the future.

Warning: The rest is all in regards to rules stated in the 2008 manual, and may or may not be the same for the 2009 manual.

So say TeamX wants to buy a Rolling Chassis Package (an assembly, not a part) for $900

TeamX must take into account this purchase on their Bill of Materials.

Rolling Chassis Package: $900

can also be written:

UC Side Rail Package: $400
UC Ladder Bar Kit: $100
FIRST Wheel Adapter Kit: $400

FIRST rules say no components over $400.

COMPONENT – A ROBOT part in its most basic configuration, which can not be disassembled without damaging or destroying the part, or altering its fundamental function.

• Example 1: raw aluminum stock, pieces of steel, wood, etc., cut to the final dimensions in which they will be used on the ROBOT, would all be considered components. Bolting pieces of extruded aluminum together as a ROBOT frame would constitute a MECHANISM, and the collection of pieces would not be considered a COMPONENT.

• Example 2: a COTS (See immediately below) circuit board is used to interface to a sensor on the ROBOT, and it includes the circuit board and several electrical elements soldered to the board. The board is considered a COMPONENT, as this is the basic form in which it was purchased from the vendor, and removing any of the electrical elements would destroy the
functionality of the board.

MECHANISM – A COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts.

Theoretically, if AndyMark sold a gearbox for $600, the BOM could be broken down into individual gears, shafts, side plates, etc...

From my interpretation of the rule, Team 221's Rolling Chassis Package could be recorded on a Bill of Materials in the form of each part in the package. That would mean breaking down the package into individual rails, blocks, etc... (Fasteners don't count if under $1.00 a piece)

FIRST would consider the package a "Mechanism" and not a "Component". Would the same be true for a gearbox? Should teams be recording gearboxes in their most unassembled broken states?

Obviously, any non KOP items you purchase should be taken into consideration of the $3,500 total limit.

[Andy Baker]

Team 221 LLC. is proud to announce that our new Universal Chassis products and their related accessories are now available for purchase at Team221.com (http://www.team221.com).

Good luck teams!

I've known Anthony Lapp for over 10 years, and have the highest respect and belief in his abilities. AndyMark as a company is happy to work in coordination with Team 221, LLC, and will support their efforts. I believe in what Anthony is doing (for whatever that is worth).

With regard to parts legality, there are various ways to look at this:

1. Many people will buy these chassis and not even put them on a FIRST playing field. These people will use them for various applications, many of them not being FIRST related.

2. The discussion regarding the legality of Team 221 systems within FRC here is healthy. I recall the initial discussion regarding AndyMark.biz (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30129), where things got very detailed and passionate. The fact that the FIRST community discussed this was a very good thing. I still appreciate that various people (Eugene Brooks, Charlie Buckner, Steve Warren, and others) questioned what we were doing at that time. They helped us be sure that we covered the bases that needed to be covered.

3. Anthony displayed a Team 221 drive chassis at IRI this past summer, and got great feedback. During approximately the same time, he released his website, essentially "putting his shingle out" for the FIRST community to see what is available. This availability should not be a surprise to folks who make the rules. I hope that the parts from Team 221, LLC are legal and available to use for FRC in 2009. This will provide more options for FRC teams, continue to provide parity between teams, and raise the bar with FRC drive base technology.

Andy B.

[Doug G]

Ok this is not so much about 221 as it is a comment on how things have changed and may continue to do so...

First of all I think it is good that the growth of FIRST has in a small sense grown a new marketplace for robotics (IFI/Vex, Lego, AndyMark, 221, to name a few). It has been a godsend for myself as an educator to have such a wealth of suppliers to turn to. We use many vex kits for our robotics class and if money were available - I would love to get a few of those 221 Universal Chassis' for students to learn with.

It is quite amazing to see how much has changed since I started in 2001. It was quite a challenge back then to get a decent driving machine out on the field, I remember so vividly how we struggled to find a way to mount those darn drill transmissions. Now it can be reasonably expected that a rookie team should be able to build a drive base using the kit chassis and gearboxes in a matter of a few days. Six wheel drive bases are now commonplace along with shifting trannies, mecanums and omnis. But this to me simply means the game will drastically change this year. FIRST is known to change things up, as they have already hinted about, and this will happen in 2009. 4 years of a relatively flat field is done. Is that 6 wheel chassis with 4" or 6" going to do you any good if you need to climb up a hill or cross a barrier?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Is that 6 wheel chassis with 4" or 6" going to do you any good if you need to climb up a hill or cross a barrier?

One can only wait and see.

We've never bought anything before kickoff. Maybe this year that'll pay off.

I personally hope they change the terrain of the playing field ... if only to "level" the playing field.

[IndySam]

FIRST is known to change things up, as they have already hinted about, and this will happen in 2009. 4 years of a relatively flat field is done. Is that 6 wheel chassis with 4" or 6" going to do you any good if you need to climb up a hill or cross a barrier?
I hope you are right. I think there almost has to be a step or ramp to get over, but I think it will be limited because the standard playing field is almost a must with the size that FRC has gotten.

[mark johnson]

This is a good thing ,as it will level the playing field and close the gap between the have and have nots. Its cheaper to buy parts ,than a mill and a lathe to be able to make them . If every team in first started with this same frame some teams still would do better than others ,because of better manipulators, programmers, team stradigities ect.. . Another plus though would be teams would have more time to work on manipulators, programming, and areas they lack in rather than have a bot that can barely move ,let alone do any of the other things needed to compete.

[IKE]

I personally think this would make a great Trial/Practice Chassis for teams that got their controls systems in. Build one of these babies up and you have a great practice chassis to play around with.

[sdcantrell56]

I personally think this would make a great Trial/Practice Chassis for teams that got their controls systems in. Build one of these babies up and you have a great practice chassis to play around with.

That would be quite an expensive trial chassis. I don't know if my opinion is shared by many others, but I feel like the price of this chassis is quite prohibitive to most teams. Personally I could not imagine spending upwards of $1000 per chassis. I do think it is a nice solution and it certainly looks to be built well and is well thought out, but for most teams I just don't see how the cost could be justified.

[DarkFlame145]

Anthony, it looks nice but the cost seems prohibitive. If you don't mind me asking, what is causing the price to be so high compared to IFI's chassis metal?

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.

[EricH]

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.It's been discussed in this thread. A)rules can change, b) see the first page of the thread.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Thanks for the information Anthony. I'm excited to see what else comes out of 221 in the future.

Warning: The rest is all in regards to rules stated in the 2008 manual, and may or may not be the same for the 2009 manual.

So say TeamX wants to buy a Rolling Chassis Package (an assembly, not a part) for $900

TeamX must take into account this purchase on their Bill of Materials.

Rolling Chassis Package: $900

can also be written:

UC Side Rail Package: $400
UC Ladder Bar Kit: $100
FIRST Wheel Adapter Kit: $400

FIRST rules say no components over $400.



Theoretically, if AndyMark sold a gearbox for $600, the BOM could be broken down into individual gears, shafts, side plates, etc...

From my interpretation of the rule, Team 221's Rolling Chassis Package could be recorded on a Bill of Materials in the form of each part in the package. That would mean breaking down the package into individual rails, blocks, etc... (Fasteners don't count if under $1.00 a piece)

FIRST would consider the package a "Mechanism" and not a "Component". Would the same be true for a gearbox? Should teams be recording gearboxes in their most unassembled broken states?

Obviously, any non KOP items you purchase should be taken into consideration of the $3,500 total limit.

Not only that, but aren't we allowed to only spend 400 on one piece. Yes i know the full chassis is more then one piece, but it's a kit.

Kit or not, you can buy separate parts so you could break it down on the BOM. This leads to a question though, Team A buys a gearbox from Company B but they find the components to the gearbox cheaper from a different supplier. Team A is somehow over the 3500 budget, could they list the components from the suppliers instead of the gearbox from Company B? Just curious.

[Tristan Lall]

Kit or not, you can buy separate parts so you could break it down on the BOM. This leads to a question though, Team A buys a gearbox from Company B but they find the components to the gearbox cheaper from a different supplier. Team A is somehow over the 3500 budget, could they list the components from the suppliers instead of the gearbox from Company B? Just curious.Per 2008's <R21>, it's the cost of the things "used in the construction" of the robot. If you bought B's gearbox, you can't quote C's price for the same thing. Raw materials, however, may be prorated based on other suppliers' prices, due to <R22> via 8.3.3.1.

This got me thinking about the Team 221 chassis in general. Based upon 8.3.3.1 and the requirements for recording costs on the BOM, I can't see any legitimate way to claim that the $900 chassis is not a single item. We can't claim that every little piece (nut, bolt, plate, sprocket, etc.) of a COTS assembly is an item for BOM purposes, because the rules stipulate that we use "the purchase price" (not the price that we could have paid for a subpart alone). And the same goes for subassemblies: if the purchase price was $900 for the kit, then it wasn't (separately) $400 for the frame rails, and an additional $100 for the crossmembers, plus $400 for the wheel kits. (<R22>, via the last bullet of 8.3.3.1, reinforces this.)

My suggestion is simple: instead of adding a single $900 item to the invoice, just add the three constituent subassemblies to the invoice instead. Then you've got an <R21>- and <R22>-compliant modular system, with individual modules bought separately.

I also realize that at inspection, this would probably be treated leniently, for the sake of the team showing up with the chassis. That doesn't change the fact that the current price structure is a fundamentally incorrect way to account for the parts, according to the 2008 rules, and that offering the entire kit like this may violate some of the (debatably appropriate) philosophical principles described in the rules.

Now, with all of that said, there's an alternative that might work instead (though I certainly don't recommend it). Instead of making it a COTS part, make it a custom order. I don't think a team is prohibited from making a custom order for a box of potentially-COTS parts, under non-COTS terms. They are, after all, shipped unassembled, and many of the individual parts are not available separately from Team 221 LLC. This is a violation of the same principles as above, but is apparently not prohibited by the letter of the rules: it's therefore up to you whether you think it's appropriate. If you were to do this, you would charge whatever you wanted (with no part individually over $400), and the team would list your cost for materials, plus the price of your labour. The most perverse part of this is that by offering something on custom rather than COTS terms, there are no vendor requirements.

I hope that FIRST is revising the parts usage rules for next year, to simplify and clarify these and other issues....

[Bongle]

I hope you are right. I think there almost has to be a step or ramp to get over, but I think it will be limited because the standard playing field is almost a must with the size that FRC has gotten.

I always thought that large-footprint, fairly shallow pyramids would be a good obstacle. They'd be easy to make, stackable for easy shipping, and you could even make them somewhat mobile so teams could rearrange the terrain on the field during a match.

[Doug G]

Funny you should mention the pryamid structure idea. I was envisioning a similar obstacle(s) - but inverted. Going with the moon-fish hint - maybe a large elevated crater, like you see at mini-golf courses. Of course, back on topic, the drive train isn't affected unless it is a large "crater".

Also if you want to get into selling universal robot chassis that go beyond FIRST, I'd look into some all terrain options/solutions with suspension and pnuematic tires.

[Richard McClellan]

Funny you should mention the pryamid structure idea. I was envisioning a similar obstacle(s) - but inverted. Going with the moon-fish hint - maybe a large elevated crater, like you see at mini-golf courses. Of course, back on topic, the drive train isn't affected unless it is a large "crater".

Also if you want to get into selling universal robot chassis that go beyond FIRST, I'd look into some all terrain options/solutions with suspension and pnuematic tires.

One example of a commercial robot chassis for outdoor use is this one: http://www.gearseds.com/popup.php?product=33