Re: 1986 Team Titanium 2013 Reveal
 

I am curious about the process of creating a practice bot. I have read a few threads about it, but I am looking for a first hand testimonial from a team that has similar shop capability to us, such as 1986.

Do you mind sharing any tips on how to ensure that both bots are created equally?

Or more specifically:
How do you ensure small modifications that are made post design and creation are done equivalently to both bots?

Re: 1986 Team Titanium 2013 Reveal
 

In my experience, Practice Bots don't need to be equivalent in every way. Our practice bot ends up being our spare parts for the regionals that we take part in, so the functional parts of the robot have to be exact and if possible are fabricated alongside the real robots parts. The parts of the robot that are especially difficult to modularize (like the frame or wiring) usually suffers in comparison to our real robot. Practice bots give ever team a huge edge on the competition and I would recommend them highly. To insure accuracy in the practice bot "CADing" the robot before and after you build the robot is a must. I would recommend building the two robots side by side like 1986 recommends below me. Our team splits into sub teams and each team builds one version of their subsystem and then another, with V1 going on the practice robot after they finish fabricating and mounting the final version of the subsystem.

Just my 2 cents

Re: 1986 Team Titanium 2013 Reveal
 

That is a fairly large topic but I can offer some thoughts. Our philosophy is that a practice bot is a big investment, and for it to have its full benefit and value, it must be essentially identical. Its purpose is to train drivers on the subtleties and fine points of operating the robot, and differences matter. You cannot know which small difference may turn out to be important, or how small differences might be affecting your practice in ways you don't discern. The whole benefit of making a PB diminishes rapidly if it does not accurately represent the comp. bot. Its other purpose is to give you a platform to make design changes or additions later in the season. Small differences, especially the ones you didn't remember, can cause modifications to not fit or work as planned or tested. It is VERY easy to allow a PB to slip in terms of quality or features or schedule when you are tired and under deadline pressure. We try hard to be vigilant in keeping it on track so that it has its full value when we need it. A PB that takes 2-3 weeks to finish or update after ship day has lost much of its value. That is the time it is most needed to prepare for competition. A PB that is missing a capability or has a difference that the drivers must accommodate has also lost much of its value.

We build both bots essentially side by side, keeping all design aspects identical. We fabricate all parts together in two sets. Almost any fabrication step is much more efficiently done at the same time. Some of the comp. bot parts are diverted to paint while the PB parts go right to assembly. We keep the PB 2-3 days ahead of the comp bot, so that details can be worked out and practiced or small improvements made before we do them again on the comp bot. We do allow control wiring quality to suffer some on the PB, as long as it does not effect functionality. (This year even wiring was important to keep the weight and center of gravity identical for climbing behavior.) If we make a major or minor design change or improvement, we do it twice. We are vigilant about keeping both bots in sync. A small list of "we'll change the practice bot later" can quickly become a large list of differences that matter but never get done. You just develop a mindset that everything you do, you do twice, even the changes and corrections. It is easy to think of the practice bot as inferior or less important, but when you are preparing for competition, you want it to function just as well and be just as reliable as the comp. bot.

Around the beginning of week 5 our focus shifts from keeping the practice bot ahead, to getting the comp bot finished, so we shift our efforts. By that time the practice bot is complete enough that it can be finished quickly when needed, and it becomes important to finish comp. bot details for testing and bagging. After bagging it is very tempting to let down and rest, but we try to remember the build season is not over until the practice bot is finished, and that it is needed ASAP, so we keep going.

I guess to answer your question, there is no secret to knowing HOW to create two bots equally. Everyone knows how to make two things the same. The much harder part is remaining convinced that it is worthwhile to do, when you are tired and stressed and behind schedule.

A couple other thoughts about taking the step of building a practice bot. Don't do it unless you feel you have the manpower and resources to pull it off. It could jeopardize the quality and on-time completion of your comp. bot if it diverts resources you can't really afford. Or, if attempted but not finished, it can be a waste of money, parts, and effort that yields no benefit.

On the other hand, don't be afraid to try it when you feel you're ready. Building two identical bots does NOT take twice the time and effort of building one (it does, however, take twice the money.) There are many efficiencies to making multiple parts at the same time and doing assembly steps twice at the same time. Steps can be quickly repeated and are usually easier the second time. Young members can help much more when they have an example to copy. The first time we built a practice bot, I remember looking back and thinking that it was significantly less than twice the work of building one bot.

Make no mistake, it is a lot of extra work in a process that is already hard to finish in the time available. But when you are ready, it is certainly a pivotal step in taking your team to the next level of competition.

Re: 1986 Team Titanium 2013 Reveal
 

195 creates a "twin bot" each season. When the CAD design generates the prints everything is then manufactured in the shop by the students three times. Once for the competition twin, once for the practice twin and usually a spare.
As soon as the competition Bot is assembled, there is no rest for the weary, the students begin to assemble the twin bot EXACTLY THE SAME as the original. That is why we call it a "twin".
Minor design or mechanical modifications do happen occasionally, but primarily the twin bot helps with the fine tuning of programming and of course drive practice. When a modification is made, it is kept on a list and changes made to the competition bot just prior to rolling out on the field. But these are usually minor (moving the battery, changing wheel, etc). Major design modifications are not possible given the time constraints at competitions.
In summary, I would say that building the twin has proven to be very successful. The learning process continues for much longer. I will caution you though, get ready for additional fund raising, because it is expensive to build two!

Looking forward to meeting you all!
Sandra Brino
Mentor FIRST team 195

Re: 1986 Team Titanium 2013 Reveal
 

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for. I imagine this will be a topic for our team this offseason and want to be at least somewhat prepared for it.

As always, I will be cheering you on at Championships. Good luck!