Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

That's just it: We are at that point. That is why some of us are in this discussion. Check out the advertisement. The only thing missing is the price - which you can get by calling.

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Thank you for the advice, and we will do our best to reach out to other teams in the off-season. Utah isn't exactly a hotbed of robotics activity, but I'm sure we can find someway to collaborate. As for the business and fundraising side of things, I'm only the design guy for our team so I don't have many skills in that region. As for trying to be valuable for an alliance, one of the reasons I'm so salty about the MCC is it does virtually everything we were planning on doing to be valuable in an alliancen.


We do. I'm not bashing against all COTS parts, which as I said before have been key for many years in helping us get a functional robot out. I only dislike game-specific solutions that require little to no thought from a team. Most COTS parts make it easier to build the best robot that you can design. The MCC from WCP gives a competitive robot with no thinking involved.


No, it's not that bad of a thing. I agree that the majority of COTS parts are a mostly positive development for an individual team, as well as preparing team members for a future in engineering where many parts can be COTS.


I agree.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Not really. The problem is that when your competitors can get a robot that was designed over years with no respect for the build times with much less investment of their time. You no longer can compete if you fabricate yourself unless you literally also design what you are making over years. Basically you are foolishly following a 'rule' to the letter when your competitors are not really doing so.

So yes this allows other teams to be competitive. In fact it allows them to be more than competitive. It allows them to raise the bar so high that a six week build season is not even relevant any more. That same six week build season we keep telling people is the holy grail of keeping things even.

If this was not actually an issue I bet FIRST would not even exist. It came up often in the early days. Eventually the next goal will not just be to make it COTS. It will be to drive down the cost by any means because that's the only barrier. Then, as you see today already, you'll make the parts anywhere you can get cheap labor and shipping which is making this stuff anywhere but in your neck of the woods for a lot of people in FIRST.

So yes it drives the competition but it erodes a fundamental. Maybe we just don't care about that any more. Maybe some of us are just relics of an old sales pitch. If so that's fine.

The fact that we want to pretend that the only way to address this is to block COTS is as much the issue.
We can also go positive and just reward when the FIRST teams use less COTS as a special case and separate award - and let the competition field decide if the resulting robot is competitive against COTS.
Maybe some years it will be, maybe not, at least as long as the game each year remains secret it will block perfect matches from multi-year COTS builds.
Oh wait the market has recently floated letting the supply side know the game early - how early? Like a year or so ahead?
Surely the suppliers wouldn't build perfect COTS parts for 1 year once they know the game early.
I mean it's not like a very particular drive train element (ahem treads) would just appear at the start of a game that fits it perfectly!
No that would never happen. ;)

Sooner or later this is going to be exactly like FTC before it. Does that actually surprise anyone really considering where FTC fits between FLL and FRC? The only difference will be a larger field and bigger robots.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

In reading this thread I am also reminded that having an awesome robot is only one small piece of the puzzle.

So you buy a great COTS robot. You put it together with a single 9/16" wrench. Awesome. Time to go win a regional?

Of course not. There's so much other stuff to do. Develop a great drive team. Write the software to make the robot move. Now write the software to optimize it, give driver feedback, do autonomous modes, etc. Learn to take apart and fix every bit of the robot inside a cramped space with limited tools and not enough time. Go get some more sponsors. Plan fundraisers. Do a robot reveal video. Do your chairman's video...

We have a long to-do list between now and our first regional...

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Yes we agree on this and I pointed that out previously as well.
The question isn't really whether there's anything left to do.
The question is whether what we took off was valued at all by FIRST FRC.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

IIRC, Vex Robotics Competition involves a ton of copy-paste, most robots look identical by Championships, teams are required to use pretty much just the Vex kit, and students are still inspired.

I know the comparison is not apples to apples, but it's close. Close enough for me to appreciate that inspiration is our end goal, and the road there might not look entirely like I'd want it to.

-Mike

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Yes inspiration is very important. The other skills required to take those mostly COTS designs through evolution are important.

Is giving the students who have the resources at their disposal to fabricate a challenge not important? We can still have both of the above values and end up completely removing, even make negative, the aspect were we challenge students to fabricate. Is FIRST FRC okay with that knowing we already inspire at FLL/FTC in a similar way. Are we okay with subtracting that more adult opportunity at this level as well. Possibly forcing these students to wait until college (maybe beyond) or hope they have a great Makerspace nearby with mentoring? If we encourage the removal of fabrication then anyone that went from FLL->FTC->FRC is really coming in with an advantage. The skill sets are very much like each other because there's no boundless new technical example there anymore.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Two things.

First, some folks at AndyMark definitely have some information about the game before the kickoff. This should be news to exactly zero people who think about what it takes to have AM ready to ship game pieces to us FIRSTers the Monday after a Saturday kickoff.

Second, I think you are suggesting a level of information leak / collusion that is just not justified by the facts. I am quite sure that that tank track product has been in development at AM for years and that this is finally the year that they figured out how to make something that they could stand behind as a product. Andy and Mark have been designing FIRST robots with tank tracks for years, before many of you reading this post were even born. It shouldn't be a surprise that they've been looking for a way to make an AM tank track product.

What is more, I was in NH at the kick off and ran into Andy in the gym on game field. Practically the first think I noticed was that he was worriedly looking at the field and scratching his head, genuinely concerned because he knew that there was no way AndyMark was going to be able to meet the demand for those AM 8" pneumatic wheels yet alone AM's newly announced tank track thingy (Both predictions have been borne out by subsequent events, FWIW). But back to Andy, I am telling you, he's not that good of an actor; I don't think he'd seen that field any sooner than I had.

Bottom line... ...I'm asking you to be careful before you go casting aspersions on some good folk, least of all Andy whom I consider something close to a brother.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the game does not exist a year ahead of time. Please keep the borderline slanderous speculation bottled up.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Slander implies something criminal.
If you're going to be outraged - be informed about it.
Keep in mind I bought multiple robots from AndyMark <- if I was here to mess with them that's a poor way to do it.

I am implying nothing less than fact.
The AndyMark treads have started shipping just before a game well suited to them.

It may be speculative but it's so unusual that I really have to question the reasons.
So if Andy might explain how this timing occurred I would be interested - as it seems a little off.

Of course this could be the other way around.
Someone at GDC might of heard about the treads and made the game fit.
It would go a long way to explain why AndyMark didn't have enough tires in that case.

Finally there's possibility that someone partially disclosed an element (desired or planned) of the coming game. That it had tough terrain and they just deduced treads might be cool which wouldn't surprise me from experience. One wouldn't need to know exactly what the terrain would look like to deduce the value of treads.

Also before you go around suggesting I am speculating just to start trouble - don't bother.
Bits of information have come back to me over the years during various interactions with FIRST prior to games.
I sit on them because it's my choice to do so.

...

I just read Joe's post.
Okay option 2.

Andy didn't know but someone could have known he was working on that at FIRST.
I really am not looking to mess too much with Andy here again just to make this point:

Anyone vendor that can either influence the game decision (even unknowingly) or get pre-kickoff knowledge of it can deliver polished elements that it is entirely possible a team couldn't build themselves in the 6 weeks before bag and tag.
That would be great vendor business because it would make COTS purchases the only option to compete.

That's why I keep my mouth shut when I find out things early because I don't want that kind of stuff to happen.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I think this is what it boils down to.

The VersaPlanetary is probably the best example of this. It has enabled amazing mechanisms (which is good- inspiration and stuff), but isn't an amazing mechanism (which is good- students still have to design).

Individual COTS items that don't achieve end goals enable students to create those sweet mechanisms that do, and that's typically where the cool engineering that students learn the most from. There's very little interesting or challenging about figuring out how to get an 8mm, 2mm key shaft to 1/2" hex; it's just resource and time consuming. There's a lot that's challenging and interesting about selecting pinch distance on flywheels, moment of inertia, gear ratio, etc.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Come on man, don't kid a kidder. You're implying something untoward was involved, don't be hiding behind "I've never said that" type statements. Your original statements were not merely statements of fact of the kind "A happened, then shortly after that B happened." Own your words.

From your comments it is clear to me at least that you intended the readers to infer that AndyMark had a heads up on the 2016 game and that they then designed a COTS product to exploit that knowledge.

I have been clear on my views: I personally don't believe it.

You on the other hand want to have it both ways. I say, nay to this. Either you say, "yeah, that's what I think." or "I take it back."

I ask you to consider and respond.

Dr. Joe J.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Yes I -still- am implying something possibly untoward is involved.
That's no secret.
You can imply that it only goes towards Andy if you like but I am not.
His business does potentially stand to gain some nice bank there.

Then again his business also got publicly slammed by a bunch of people on ChiefDelphi for not being able to handle demand.
I posted in his favor then (I can look that up if you like).
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I don't think this COTS thing is panacea when the demand gets a little ugly.

So if you want to continue down there go ahead.
Point at me because the kick off secret is not as secret as you think it is.
What will that get you?
As you said - there are people that know ahead of time what's going on on both sides.
That transparently creates risk.

It can't be denied that more people asked for the disclosure of the game demands to the vendors ahead of time on ChieflDelphi when the COTS supplies were low for the treads and tires.
Releasing that information with consent would only make the cause and effect even more murky.

So which should concern me more...
1. That when we couldn't get our toys fast and cheap this got a little ugly?
2. That we traded the idea you had to be able to fend for yourself for the idea that COTS was limitless?
3. That we openly opened a can of worms by asking for pre-release of the game to only the vendors?
4. That it seems like there was some sharing of information already that allowed a synchronized event to appear?

This is a discussion about COTS. So here's what all that COTS has gotten us.
We should not forget that not all COTS supplies are limitless and now some teams are concerned they can't field a robot.
I won't blame AndyMark for that. Just like I may be making assumptions here - so many of you assumed their supply line was bottomless.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Proliferation of Purchasable, Prefabricated Parts - P4 for all you DoD acronym lovers

I like this quote, it reminded me of the Tinman in the Wizard of Oz when he's called A clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caligenous junk! - C4 :)

But I digress.

The OP for this thread has evidently touched a nerve with a few folks. I can vouch for his sincerity and I understand the reasoning behind his questions.

While I think very few, if any of us want to go back to the days of Small Parts and limited resources. There has been a natural evolution in FIRST for prefabricated purchased items. I think it comes down to some basic things that we have all seen both in FIRST and life in general.

There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots" Them's the facts, like it or not.

I always recall the days of drill motors and Small Parts and all the things that were FIRST back in the 90's and the turn of the century. There were occasions where our team at the time, 311 did exceptionally well. There were also occasions where we were, shall we say less than stellar :rolleyes

The important thing is to realize that it IS an evolutionary process. Recalling those days of dealing with limited supplies and equipment make me appreciate what we have now even more!! I believe that an influx of COTS items that are manufactured specifically for FIRST is a benefit to students in the long term.

Sure we can go through the whole process of designing something from scratch. But there are honestly only maybe 20% of teams out there with the ability and support to actually DO that and do it well. This leaves the majority of teams somewhat lacking in many ways.

If a team purchases a (insert item name here) piece for the robot then there now lies a great opportunity for students to learn from what they see and give them ideas for other things in the future. A little reverse engineering if you will. Over my years involved with FIRST I've seen far too many teams that struggle with fabrication of various components. Only to become disillusioned and frustrated in the long run.

The complete overhaul or deletion of "shop" classes in a many school districts has become a big factor in this as well. But that's a subject for a different discussion.

In recent years I see many of those same teams that used to struggle are now able to be competitive and fully partake in the competition. Much of it is a direct result of what this thread is about. When the team has success the students become more interested and inspired. Once that happens there's no telling what they can achieve!

Someone touched on this in an earlier post. It has leveled the playing field and I think that's a good thing.

The answer, IMHO is there's room for everyone. As long as the students are learning.

As long as they understand the engineering concepts behind the design.

As long as they are exposed to the principles that FIRST displays and embraces.

Then that's what's really important.

Oh one more thing. I can certainly assure that Andy is NOT a crusty, grumpy old man!

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I fully noted I was a grumpy old man on my first post to this topic :)
Anyone on my lawn right now needs to work their way through 24" of snow melting to get off.
So I will give you time before I give chase with my cane on a sled.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Don't know what the real problem is here. Having a variety of COTS products (for less resourced teams that don't have machining capabilities) or having a grumpy 40 year old putting together a COTS kit with all the parts needed in two days and rush on.

I have kids on the team that struggle putting such a thing together but they get inspired and motivated. Tell them to design something from scratch can be difficult with 15 year olds..

Having COTS doesn't mean all the work is done. Implementing them and combining several parts and stuff is a challenge already.
Well... at least.... if you let them do the work ;)

Have fun :D

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Hmm I kinda miss a topic in this thread.

What about having your team design parts for the robot in CAD. And you sent them out to a company and they mill, lathe, lasercut etc.
Is this 50% COTS?
What you all think about this? Let's maybe make a third thread ::rtm::

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

The problem is that COTS can remove a motivator to understand how the parts are made. In fairness, in the other related topic, I voted for allowing COTS at every level.

This opportunity to motivate can be just as well served by offering award or reward to the teams that take the time to spin up their shops as it can by requiring it to compete. Requiring it to compete does on the other hand keep some people out.

Both approaches can coexist until the level of play gets so high that only professionally designed COTS parts are able to play - then it's a problem. Other than a shortage of tires and treads we haven't seen that yet.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

The part of this debacle that irks me the most is how it could make FRC robots use the same basic design of a robot. This though may be a result of games becoming "samey", ie. shoot the ball into the goal. There's only so many ways you can put a sphere into a goal. The fact that we have COTS manipulators may be due to this lack of variety in the games. For the past 10 years, FIRST has had 5-6(lunacy) games involving spheres and goals, allowing teams to use designs from older games, which in my opinion is boring. The one thing Recycle Rush got right was being a unique game. It had a game piece that was only used once before in Stack Attack, and even though the game was boring, the designs were not. There weren't any viable COTS manipulators to stack the totes. I saw variety at competitions, due to a lack of reusable designs and COTS parts, which i don't expect to see as much this year. This game seems to lean towards having a low drive train and ball collector, which with COTS parts isn't a difficult feat. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a box on wheel was an alliance captain.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

There were many COTS manipulator systems available to stack the totes.

Just look at Andymark, they came out with tote stacker kit including all the necessary parts. Extrusion just had to be cut to size and assembled

http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-3098.htm

Vexpro and Competition Robot Parts also had gussets which allowed linear motion

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ve...ar-motion.html

http://www.competitionrobotparts.com...elevator-kits/

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

All of these were linear motion kids. None included any sort of mechanism that interfaced with the totes; simply parts that would help you build a constrainted linear motion track that wouldn't bind.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

There have only been two years I can think of where a COTS mechanism could have given teams a spectacular advantage: minibots in 2011, and can grabbers in 2015.

Every other season, it takes more than one mechanism to play the game at a high level, and integrating various mechanisms into a cohesive robotic system is a huge part of the challenge (that happens to mirror most of real life engineering). COTS components all the way up to subsystem scale can help a team significantly, but honestly, the more substantial the COTS subsystem, the fewer options it gives to elegantly integrate it with everything else.

As a result, there will ALWAYS be an advantage in being able to fabricate specific parts tailored to your overall robot design. You can package things more efficiently, save weight, achieve higher levels of performance, fill in gaps in the COTS offerings, and fit more functionality into a robot that isn't constrained to a set of discrete COTS parts that may or may not place nice together. You not only can do this, you MUST do this (in this era of FRC) if you want to build a truly world class robot. I don't see this changing any time soon.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Duly noted! I'll try and stay ahead of you in my walker....................:p

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I think this is a key point to all of this. I tried to touch on it somewhat but this helps to clarify much of what's being discussed.

COTS items can be used to help motivate teams with limited resources as a way to demonstrate design concepts to them.

Teams with more available resources are already going through the design process but more in a firsthand way.

And I think you're correct in that until it becomes an issue where you HAVE to actually purchase something that's professionally done then it's not a problem.

My hope is that we never actually see that time come.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Two thoughts:
1. If the major suppliers really had "insider knowledge" for the games, then (a) we could all get game pieces (b) suppliers' shelves would have been stocked with pneumatic wheels and treads this year (and REV and mecanums* last year) (c) the Ri3D teams would be obsolete. Also, conveniently ignored are the multiple accounts from Frank himself that this game wasn't really conceived until a few months ago.

2. It would be nice if all teams had a full machine shop and a full bevy of mentors to train the students. But we don't have that, and that's why FIRST is how it is. FIRST is here to reach the affluent, already college-bound students with boundless resources; it is also here to reach the poverty-stricken urban and rural students who don't see a diploma as worthwhile, and everybody in between. For low-resource teams of any socioeconomic or technologic level, COTS products can provide the difference between an embarrassing BLT dragging a chain behind it and a functional, respectable machine.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

1. Even a month is too much warning to a vendor.
It's a month more than anyone else.
If FIRST needs something available by kickoff that's what the KOP is for.
So, if anything, perhaps FIRST should have put pneumatic tires in the KOP this year.

2. Agreed as long as COTS doesn't decide between success and failure for everyone it's fine. In this case I mean specifically that the game leaves -everyone- no choice but to buy a COTS part or fail. I want people to have access to the tools and for FIRST to continue to be a good reason to strive for that. FIRST has saved many a machine shop in a school and if we give up on that too easily that help will disappear. As we dash to protect COTS we should remember that to detractors of having these resources COTS is just another reason you don't need them. The fact it helps those less fortunate is why I voted openly in the other topic to let all COTS, even robots, in. However that decision carries responsibilities to steward the gains FIRST made for so many. I can tell everyone right now - if not for the FIRST FRC requirements: Team 11/193 would not have the tools we do. By 1995 the Mount Olive High School shops were seeing insufficient upkeep. When I graduated in 1994 was the last year there was any room to cut back without losses. Much of the money that keeps the tools there running comes from mentors, sponsors and FRC11/193.

It is admirable to think forward but also make sure you're not forgetting the positive stuff that happened before.

FIRST putting game specific items like pneumatic wheels is absurd.

I do not mean to sound this mean but seriously think this through. Pneumatic wheels are very useful this year. We bought the pneumatic wheel upgrade kit for the am14u3 the day it came out. It was also $350. How could you expect Andymark to include pneumatic wheels in the KOP essentially cutting down their profits substantially. Besides the fact that pneumatic wheels are not the only way to play this game and plenty of teams are going to show up with alternatives or the kit bot. Also many lower level teams do not even know what pneumatic wheels are essentially removing the edge from more knowledgeable teams. I watched the reveal video and pneumatic wheels were the first wheels to come to mind but many low resource Teams do not think like that.

Second point our school got rid of machine shops many years ago and outsourced everything to a vocational program. If you want to be a welder for. Instance you spend half the day in the vocational school welding and the other half back at our school for normal subjects. Therefore we started our rookie year without any tools at all the only place with tools being the wood shop for stage crew and the 2 wood shops down at the middle school. All 3 which were pretty much off limits. We continue to build up our capabilities while also obtaining sponsors. Like our waterjet cutting sponsor. Yesterday actually the head of buildings and grounds came by he looked at our workspace and said "we can make this a lot better" we ended up finding out he has a full Metal shop and would help us out with welding. He agreed to make new workstations for us a table for our mill and drops for pneumatics with quick disconnects. I am willing to bet if you can sell robotics to your school district you can convince them to support you.

Back to cots discussion though.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

You mean like a multi-thousand dollar cRIO previously?
How about the game pieces?
Think about it.

Historically things were often put into the KOP to insure a more even playing field.
There's nothing very fair about the tires not being in there.

If the goal of COTS was to bring the lowest teams up, then AndyMark would have to service the teams with the least ability to make tires first. He has no such control in place now. So he sold out. If I wanted I could have bought all of Andy's tires. Then what? I cornered the market and blocked all the teams that had good reason to buy them. Now I have tires and the shop at FRC11/193 might not need those tires. Effectively blocking all the low resource teams. I wouldn't do that but I could do that and I bet many teams bought more tires than they need so, in a way, they did do that. I could have held that stock past the end of the build season then used it for my stuff for the handicapped or just liquidated it.

Keep in mind my stuff runs commodity trading for the Earth. I know how to play a market. I learned from the experts.
If profit overrides ethics you can bet you might not like what happens.

Yeap we sent Electronics to the Vocational Technical school when the Technology programs couldn't support it. In the process in 1992 they sent me from Technology I & II (Technology II was actually made form me specifically I was the only student to ever take that new class that year. It is unclear it existed after that.) to Morris County Vocational Technical where I was Valedictorian in Electronics. They also put me on the bus with a bunch of students they intended to expel and had thus given up hope on. Then a few years later the Vocational Technical school gave up on Electronics and changed it to Cisco Technology. Then the County College of Morris gave up on it and wrapped it into Mechatronics. NJIT still teaches electronics I have a friend still paying his student loans from NJIT a decade later.

Making it another guys problem usually means it is still someone's problem.
COTS is the finest example of that - you make the problem to fabricate and do the logistics for it that of a professional.

Now I want to settle this - Mount Olive is very supportive of FRC11/193 and the requirements of the competitive aspect of FIRST these days. The COTS issue runs the risk that eventually the shop requirement will no longer be a requirement at all. Having seen this I have undertaken 2 actions. One I am collecting resources to run a shop separate from this program in the event they abandon supporting their own shops. This means a shop separate from my own shop and portable. Two I am considering from the advice of someone here on ChiefDelphi offering an award from those that fabricate and learn how to fabricate what they could have bought COTS. So even if the professionals eventually make it hard for those with the spirit to fabricate to do so and potentially win - their efforts are acknowledged.

So cause and effect.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Firstly, pneumatic wheels/tank treads are not required for this game. As many teams have demonstrated, standard traction wheels are able to cross the defenses.

Secondly, pneumatic wheels are not impossible to find. Just because it isn't available at the time by our common vendors such as WCP, Vex, or AndyMark doesn't mean it is unobtainable.

If you were to buy all the stock of something from AndyMark that's fine but people will either find a similar product somewhere else or a company will step up to meet demand such as Tank Chain for tread.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

1. Yes but a whole lot of people want them, some may not have better choices. Enough demand to exhaust the most common supply chain and get some ugly remarks directed at these vendors for not being better stocked.

2. This time. The topic is general COTS. What if the next time it's something you can't just run off and get anywhere? The more complex the COTS item the more likely it's expensive and stock is limited.

3. Well aware of Tank Chain. Glad to see they were able to step up more there was a little while they weren't sure they could meet demand either. Still have to make the deliveries as well. Had a great conversation with a student where they lamented that more people found out about Tank Chain and buried that supply line as well. People are literally fishing for second and third choices because COTS leads people to think in the comfortable COTS box. Great till they can't get the comfortable COTS box.

A little courtesy reminder - I am the grumpy old man with an opinion here.
Someone want to take it up with me - take it up with me not Team 11 or 193.
I am almost 40 years old well past the point where I need permission from them to speak for myself.
I am also the only remaining active member of Team 8 which became Team 11 and that's even before Ernie.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

There is a bigger picture than any one-dimensional aspect of this topic.

Like the elephant in the famous fable, that the several blind men declared was like a tree, a wall, a leaf, a snake, a stick, a ...; FIRST FRC is no one single method of *inspiration*.

It is not all about winning tournaments. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on winning tournament matches are very weak.

It is not all about learning to write code. Arguments that focus almost solely on code development are very weak.

It is not all about learning to become a machinist or CAD user. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on part/system design and fabrication are very weak.

Et cetera.

FIRST FRC (IMO) *is* about encouraging students to recognize that any of the zillions of multi-dimensional STEM pursuits that exist can be what they choose for a career. The topics I listed above involve only a few of the tools a FIRST team/mentor can use to accomplish that. They certainly aren't the only tools; and they certainly don't have to be mastered, or even tried, by participants. If those topics are simply noticed in a positive setting, FIRST's job is nearly done.

IMO, I haven't seen anyone come up with a cogent argument about why great, heaping, helpings of COTS parts, software, and/or strategic advice, prevents anyone from helping their team and individual students choose sensible goals, and then proudly achieve them during FIRST's annual rhythm.

I have seen complaints about each of the three topics that I listed above, and about a few more, but I haven't seen anyone convincingly write that they are unable to open the eyes of students to the STEM world of possibilities.

Market forces are going to continue to drive vendors to supply what customers want. If FRC continues to grow, greater numbers of teams are going to translate into more vendors supplying what those teams want to buy.

But... Do market forces that result in useful FRC COTS items stop anyone from helping students become interested in anything? Nah, they don't.

We can stop ourselves, if we get stuck in ruts; but that is something each person among us can easily fix, if we each care to fix it.

Blake

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

^^^^ Well Said!

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

But but but ......... That was very well done! Thank You.

The best part of this discussion has been the self reflection it has warranted. Seeing, reading, and digesting the passion, commitment, and thoughts of others has been eye opening.

You are dead on. For review, I went back and read the mission statement. Here is the mission statement of FIRST. The advancement in COTS doesn't change the mission.........

Mission
The mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting Mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." Dean Kamen, Founder

Methodology
Engage kids in kindergarten through high school in exciting, Mentor-based, research and robotics programs that help them become science and technology leaders, as well as well-rounded contributors to society.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Takes a deep breath and blows the dust off this article
That article is older than a lot of you students.

No - COTS won't stop anyone from teaching shop skills if they want to teach them and if the students want to learn them.

However if your shop skills education is only being supported because you can't get everything you need for FIRST without it - then eventually COTS on the scale of whole professionally engineered systems and robots will make that not necessary and support for those shops will be lost.

We are not at that point but when we get there (notice I didn't write -if- we get there) it is very likely we will level out more than the dynamics of the field.

So in a world where your schools don't have shops <- where do your students get inspired to work with their hands?
Read the article and remember Dean doesn't have that stuff in his house because he runs a mere museum.

This is kind of dusty as well: https://web.archive.org/web/19961125...ws/960905.html

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Well, you answered your own question for a couple of areas. Rookie teams that have a couple of bucks but little experience with fabrication could build a robot fairly quickly and compete. And that is a good thing as I personally believe, as a coach, that the only thing worse than a sucky robot and/or unprepared team at a competition is no robot at all.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

The day a team decides not to fight the closing of their shop because "well, we can get everything we need from COTS components anyway," I'll eat my robot.

As I have argued earlier, the teams that already have decent shop capabilities aren't reducing the amount of custom design and building they have to do by replacing it with COTS, they're maintaining the same level of custom work, shifting that energy to other non-COTS mechanisms and using COTS parts to free up the time to complete them. I fundamentally disagree that COTS parts will ever get to a point where a team could be compelled to buy a kit and not do anything to it before taking it to competition.

The only teams that would be noticeably decreasing the amount of work they do themselves are the teams that could make a robot to effectively complete every objective in the game with no COTS parts at all. Those aren't the teams we need to be worried about.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I have only a few comments to add. Most of the arguments have been well made and I don't want to repeat (too much). In short, it's a slippery slope:

Highly modified components off the shelf can arguably go too far, but may be necessary for those teams that do not have the fabrication tools or the sponsors to do their machining. I can also see them necessary if a team finds out, very late in the season, that their original plan for a certain part has utterly failed, and their season is in jeopardy.Whether these COTS go too far can only be determined on a case by case basis. Fuzzy-fuzzy line.

An entire Robot Off The Shelf is absolutely over the line, in my opinion. This is the "absurd conclusion" of the slippery slope fallacy itself.

Many good and great teams had to go through a season or two (or in our case, four) with machines that barely moved (if at all) in the first match. I consider it one of the best things I have done with my life just to be part of this team that went from watching the elims (for years) from the bleachers to finally bringing home a banner (I like parentheses!). What we needed to learn was the process of prototyping and fabrication in the early weeks of build. That's part of the game and part of growing your team. I remember being inspired by the whole process, watching the the other respectable teams at the regionals and thinking: "we're gonna be like THOSE teams one day."

Buying a ROTS designed with the specific purpose of getting the purchasing team into a winning alliance is skipping so many steps of the process and completely bypassing the purpose of the competition. Veteran mentors: you KNOW what Dean and Woodie have to say about that.

My final input, which may have already been proposed:
Even if the ROTS , or a game-specific COTS, is sold as a "kit" of individual components, no more than a combined total of $400 of those components that are part of the said kit should be allowed per team. If that's not satisfactory, then FIRST and we need to iron out the parameters of "fairness" in COTS, and new limits should be set. All ROTS should be banned outright from competition.

This is my opinion, and does not represent the opinions of others on this team.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I believe P4 was designed and is very useful for rookie, poorly funded, and/or struggling teams. It isn't like you purchase a ROTS and then compete. You still have to do work in terms of getting it working and what not. You still have to do some work to see what COTS parts work best for your design.

As those rookie/poorly funded/struggling/all of the above teams start getting more and more experience I think that they'll naturally advance to fabricating their own parts, maybe using the COTS parts as a reference or and idea but designing and fabricating something unique to their team. They'll realize that these COTS parts are designed for more general use, and they'll want to create something specific to the game. I also think this will naturally happen because many will agree that designing and building something by yourself is much more satisfying and fun than buying a kit and putting it together :D


tl;dr P4 is for starting/struggling teams and those teams will naturally progress to fabrication from scratch as they get more experience.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Assuming you took from my statement that I meant that the team would get that decision. A school may decide that they simply had no reason to have a shop, and won't need to support it any further, just because you can go around it with COTS and still get on the field.

When there are superstar teams that leave everyone else in the dust year after year: it just furthers that point.

If your goal is just to teach the non-fabrication skills and you don't care if you are massively competitive someone can join and say 'that's good enough'. Worse if you have a shop and aren't always a superstar team anyway the school may decide the fabrication work isn't worth the cost. Maybe arguing the'll just send it all out for fabrication. The more your school as a whole is detached from actively supporting FIRST the worse the risk. A few teams have had to leave schools for a variety of reasons. It is not easy to detach from, at the minimum, a convenient roof over a team's head. One of the things you loose is a place for the shop.

It is, after all, very similar to the argument schools use to close shop programs: it's the very expensive program serving a minority of the students and it's not getting us anything. If the quality of ROTS continues to rise beyond a certain point the quality of 6 weeks of school student conducted fabrication will not compete.

High school shops were extremely common place for a very long time in the United States. Over time the arguments that protected them slowly eroded because there wasn't a way to protect something like this when: most people involved in the decision decided that there weren't great jobs locally that could compete with the items filling the shelves of Walmart in a global economy. I also frequently heard colleges did not require them to teach these fabrication skills. US FIRST (which became FIRST) provided a counter argument (intentionally or otherwise). It specifically encouraged some schools to revive programs they were abandoning with these shops because it supported the competition, which was like a sport. It turned the shops into cost equivalent of sporting fields. Once you don't need to develop your skills to play a sport why wouldn't you reduce the number of schools maintaining these fields? Why not use the one at the park or someone's grassy lot?

If you asked the students in a school loosing the shops if they were happy about it - I bet they were not. However it takes a community to keep a commitment of resources like that and the more opportunities you give the detractors to the cost the more likely the resource is at risk.

The COTS/ROTS argument is a strong argument. It allows more competition in FIRST. It allows FIRST to go to places that *might* be willing to eventually have shops. It is an inclusive argument but not carefully managed it seeks ever cheaper and more complex goods. The cheaper the goods the more likely they are made elsewhere removing the need for the skills locally. The less fabrication skills you need locally to support FIRST the less fabrication skills you need to teach and if the quality of the COTS/ROTS reaches a point you can't compete. We in America have lived this cycle. It in part created US FIRST. It was a big selling point way back at the start. I don't see any control actively in place, and the $400 control is often manipulated, that will prevent this outcome and personally I feel that it is therefore inevitable. I mean we teach students to work like this in FLL/FTC with each passing year: why would those students not wish to continue to buy systems with parts fabricated for them eliminating their effort during the 6 week season? As long as we assume it's actually a 6 week season. The competitive aspect is at best a temporary control.

I seriously doubt 20+ years ago if I had walked into the room and you told me the goal was to sell lots of parts and play a game I would have hung around for this long. I know people, by the way, that are no longer around for this reason as mentors. Why fight a situation that looks like you want to exclude people from the game on the surface? I deeply applaud all of you that continue to teach the fabrication skills but if the manufacturing power of America couldn't avoid this outcome it is highly unlikely FIRST can either. By 1996 US FIRST had already switched to FIRST. Sooner or later design will be more important than fabrication because on the scale of America we still hold leads for intellectual property. You'll just be buying the parts for that work from some place else doing some short run prototypes and best hope the logistics work out from whatever global source you selected. Based on the rate of transformation currently it will be before I die. It will be great to teach engineering in a global age but with each generation that doesn't get fabrication skills it will ignore what every old manufacturer in America I know tells me - it's a cycle - the guy over there looks great for now but just you wait till they don't get the work to you in time or there is a problem. It only needs a few generation gap in available fabrication skill knowledge for a really unpleasant issue to develop in which the guy 'over there' can dictate what you can actually accomplish. If you doubt the reality of that argument - stop buying 3D printers that promise to let you make plastic parts in your home. I mean you could just fulfill your interests by buying that from somewhere else. I figure that won't happen so some element of what I am saying here hits the mark.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

Our rookie team has designed strongly around VexPro and COTS components. While this makes it much easier for a team without access to a permanent shop-space yet easier, we still have our fair share of challenges.

It's rather impressive how far COTS components have gone over the last few years and how many options are currently available. I see this continued advancment as doing wonders for the lower resource and lower to mid-tier teams. So many people talk about wanting to "Raise the floor" of FRC. In my mind, this is arguably the easiest way to do it. As long as resources are available teaching teams how to properly design for and implement these resources, COTS components have a very significant capacity to "Inspire" more students. Having working subsystems and a functional robot that allow a team to play the game is inspiring.

Not every team has access to an engineering mentor. COTS components and knowledge on how to use them allow these teams to close the gap.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

My school recently invested $1 million in a new facility that includes a reasonable machine shop, a suite of 3D printers, and other things that make custom fabrication a major focus. We are hardly unique, or even in the forefront; I've seen many other schools and districts around the country moving in this direction. I guess I don't see the trend being that learning to build things in school is going away. We use COTS stuff extensively, like most of you, but so what? FRC is hardly becoming a "buy stuff and play a game" program. I'll bet you an ice cream sundae that I won't see three robots that look or perform the same at any of the regionals I attend this year.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I also want to respond to the idea that shop programs at schools were closed because goods have been manufactured in such a way (overseas) that jobs disappeared which required training in shop class.

I've been a shop teacher for 15 years, and I've seen many programs shut down in my city and region. My honest assessment as to why this has happened puts the blame on three things:

1) Short sightedness among administration. This could come from following the latest buzz in educationese (ironically, this cycle it's "STEM" and "STEAM" that everyone is saying), or from seeing that mouth-wateringly large space the shop occupies and imagining other uses for it. Whatever the reason, I've seen shops turned into weight rooms and student lounges as well as being subdivided into several classrooms, and I've seen hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment effectively thrown away.

2) Liability. Getting sued is a real and heavy concern for schools, teachers, and districts, and these types of classes sure look more dangerous than Lit or Math.

3) Lack of vision on the part of teachers. When we talk about these classes "serving a limited population", we're saying there are 10 students in a class. I've known teachers who were quite happy with that arrangement, and milked it. When shop class means "easy", and supervisors don't see much other than bird houses being built by the six students who show up, what else are they going to do other than assume it's a waste of resources? This is where I lay most of the blame. Shop classes have the opportunity to link academic disciplines through a new form of learning; they can provide kids with scholarships, travel opportunities, and community service challenges. Programs like FRC are one of the key ways shop programs can and should link up to real and valuable academic gains for our students.

TL/DR: if teachers make the shop programs valuable to the school and community, they will grow, not shrink. Just my opinion, of course.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

To me, it's a slight bit "Chief-delphi-ish" to stroll through this thread and see all the team numbers; a good 50-60% in the <1000's.

5511 is a mildly successful team, rookies in 2015. We had the opportunity to go to champs last year and it really opened our eyes to the possibilities and abilities of some of the greatest FRC teams. Like many other teams, we had to make brackets for our lift - and ended up using stepper bits and whatever steel plates were at Home Depot. Garage-built, low resource, student-run team down in NC. We have the RTP right next door but hadn't tapped into that until this year. The only COTS we had was the KOP because we didn't have the money or know-how to make our own.

A few of the other teams in our area have also had the chance to go to champs and see what some of the "champs-achieving" teams do. Their take-away was very different than ours: COTS COTS COTS. 3 CIM dogshifters with PTO from WCP puts you quite a bit close to that $400 limit. All vex bearing blocks with tensioners and versatubing. While these are great resources, they personally feel like overkill for a COTS part.

Our take-away from champs was different. We purchased the cheapest CNC router on the market (X-Carve at around $1100; took lots of convincing) and are relatively happy with the results. Getting the machine to breeze through aluminum was a challenge, but I can personally vouch for the learning process inspiring the other students. Getting into CAD, CAM, and all of the aspects of CNC machining for our freshman has been incredibly value - but they don't realize it yet. We could have just bought versatube for the rails and the crazy selection of gussets in order to be very competitive very quickly. Now, however, our students have skills applicable in jobs later on in life. They have learned design that isn't simply 'slap it together.'

Your opinion on the matter is your own, but just keep in mind that there are ways to achieve similar results with very low resources and some dedicated learners.

Re: Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts
 

I'm not sure if you meant to convey this, but there is a strong chance you used the phrase "greatest FRC teams." to mostly (only?) refer to teams that did well on-the-field, and not to all the teams that are great at all the many other things an FRC team is asked to do.

If I got the correct impression, and on-the-field did dominate how you were selecting who is great and who isn't, it's certainly understandable that you did; but ... I'll buy a really nice dinner for the person who gives me a magic wand I can use to get that to stop happening throughout FRC (and elsewhere).

An FRC team that exists only to build excellent robots is an FRC team that is dead. An FRC team that exists to help communities and students learn to integrate pursuing, achieving and celebrating STEM things into their lives, is an FRC team that is alive and striving to be great.

My hunch is that if you guys continue what you are doing, without letting yourselves be seduced by the bright lights and dazzle of the elimination matches, you are on your way to being a great team. A great team that uses a robot to accomplish your goals, instead of being your goal. A great team that maybe never gets a blue banner, but becomes an important part of the fabric of your community. A great team that goes beyond just engaging and training the people who are already in love with STEM things. A great team whose accomplishments last much longer than any single season.

If what I have written strikes a chord in you and your teammates, definitely keep learning from great teams whenever and wherever you meet them. And, when you are deciding whether an FRC team is great, remember to look at their robots last (if at all), not first. The robot is one tool. At best it is an *imperfect* reflection of only part of a team's success. The robot is not the team.

Blake