Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

I believe Adam is talking about the idea of reusing a certain amount of physical parts from a previous year. It's an interesting idea since at first glance it seems to go against the nature of the competition as it currently exists. I think I like the idea since it would help the finance situation for some teams. I don't really see a world class team creating, for example, a set of awesomely light / compact / machining intensive swerve modules and reusing them every year. Instead they'd probably choose to make subtle improvements and fabricate the new version each season. But I could see a team benefiting from the ability to reuse a C-Channel with a couple of holes drilled in it.

The idea of publishing your design to legally use it in competition only appears in the manual regarding software (2009-2012 rules). The manual doesn't really provide an answer as to whether publishing CAD drawings makes it legal to reuse a design. But as others have said, it's basically a moot point since you can make a trivial modification and then be technically legal.

It should simply be legal to design stuff before the build season.

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

I have read the entire thread and appreciate the nuances presented. However, I feel I need to comment.

I would ask all who have offerred opinions to recall we are MENTORS and as such have the RESPONSIBILITY to teach, not only engineering principles, but engineering ethics in the spirit of the engineering canon and also the spirit, if not the letter, oft FIRST principles and rules.

Repackaging of items prior to kickoff should pass the oft-quoted "make your grandma proud".

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

In general I'm pretty good with the idea that everything is designed, built and programmed during build season... the designing, building and programming is done based on what you learned in the off season, and might be really similar to something that you've built before, but I like the simplicity of the rule.

Where it did bother me, though, was in the needless waste of certain items, most noticably bumpers. We'd do it... we'd slice up new plywood, purchase new pool noodles, buy new fabric and label it (or not) as required. It wasn't a big waste when we only needed one set of bumpers every year, but it did seem a bit needless to build two sets every year when they could have been cut down or modified.

So from a game persepective, I'm good with the rules as they are, but from a cost and waste persepective, a modification of this type makes sense.

Jason

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

I've never had that problem, since my kids always want to try something extreme!

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

Jason, I never even considered this until you mentioned it.

Reusing bumpers provides absolutely no competitive advantage to teams. In addition, being able to make one set and reuse it might result in much nicer bumpers - I know we'd probably put more work into them if we could reuse them multiple years.

Dear FIRST - ALLOW bumper reuse!!!!

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

I agree with your assertion in principle simply because it is consistent, but let's be honest, posting software for others to use is much more beneficial to others than posting a mechanical CAD design.

The software may be used by almost anyone; even if it is posted for a language/environment your team does not use. Algorithms and data structures can be translated. Moreover, even if the software runs on a platform other than the cRIO, the platform is very likely available to you (*).

The benefit to other teams if you post your CAD files is predicated on the other teams having access to the same manufacturing facilities as yours. A design of a custom chassis that requires access to a laser cutter, a turret punch, and a CNC brake does not help most other teams. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that posting the CAD design largely benefits the team posting the design since they'd be able to re-use it and others with similar capabilities would do their own thing.

-Scott

(*) If the software runs on a device that is a custom circuit, the rules
that the custom circuit must be fabricated during the build season (assuming the Gerbers, schematics, and other files were posted to make them COTS too). The lead times for affordable PCB manufacture and assembly make this difficult, and that practicality leads implementation towards COTS computing platforms such as the Raspberry PI, BeagleBone, Arduino, etc.

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

I agree. But in accordance with your statement, having, say, 254's codebase doesn't really help me directly unless I configure a system exactly like theirs with the same sensors, etc. However, it does give me something entertaining to look at and which to draw ideas from for the next season, much like openly distributed CAD designs :)

I will concede that replicating a sensor setup is a bit easier than replciating an entire machine shop for any team that wished to go the carbon copy route, although I don't know why any team would. :)

Re: Philosophies on design reuse
 

Agreed. I learn quite a bit each year from the mechanical pics, posts, and designs shared by others (my degree is in EE with a minor in CS).

And while I "ooh" and "ah" as I look through the latest 148 design each year, I know that the sharing of their SolidWorks files won't affect my team as directly as someone who posts software.

But, this is the nature of the beast. That being said, I believe that sharing a design file, regardless of the contents, should allow the contents to be considered COTS. It is just consistent and simple, despite my view of the difference in global utility.