COTS: How far should it go?
 

This is meant to compliment a similar thread - just adding a poll... "COTS" has come to stand for a huge variety (and level of complexity) of products. Is there a point at which we should set a limit for just how much "prefabrication" we can purchase? If so, where?

Here are some links to specific items that I'm including in the poll:

* Kit of Parts Chassis: http://www.andymark.com/AM14U3-p/am-14u3.htm
* AndyMark Intake System: http://www.andymark.com/System-p/am-3312.htm
* AndyMark Rhino Track: http://www.andymark.com/Rhino-p/am-3322.htm
* West Coast Products MMC Robot kit: http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/
* AndyMark Dart Actuator: http://www.andymark.com/DART-p/am-3072a.htm

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

By limiting the value of any single cots item to $400, First is limiting the complexity of what you can buy.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

I think that to an extent, COTS stuff being available allows newer teams to be able to compete more effectively. A fully functioning subsystem would be where I draw the line, but the intake example you gave isn't even close to fully functioning, and definitely requires a lot of work from a team to adapt to their particular design and plans.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Just a quick note: This isn't a "kit", no more than any Ri3D robot is a "kit". You can't just click the "buy" button and receive a collection of MCC Robot parts ready to snap together. It's a design.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Of course Andymark has this. More than the $400.00 limit, but you could break it down to sub-assemblies and be legal. Ignoring for the moment that it is KOP & by definition legal.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Actually, no... as you mentioned in a different post, limiting the value limits how the item can be sold and packaged, but not what you can buy. As an example, the Rhino Drive system is $399. However, that only includes the pieces for one side of the robot. Unless you are going to drive around on a single track, you need two. In other words, you are really purchasing an $800 part - in two separate purchases. I'm certain the folks at WCP are smart enough to do something like this - or sell each "kit" by charging folks for each individual piece in the kit.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

I don't think you are correct here... From their advertisement (follow the link), in bright red letters:

*Kits will be available for purchase, please email support@wcproducts.net for more info*

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

I believe it should be limited to what is necessary to field a robot: a chassis and a drive train.

In most games, a robot that is a driving chassis and nothing more is difficult to find a place for on an alliance, but it's still something. It still gives the team a reason to compete and it gives them something to root for.

FIRST aims to inspire students to explore and educate students about STEM fields. Teams should be challenged to form their own solutions to each game. The challenge is what helps students learn. Inspiration comes in many forms and from many sources, not just a robot that performs well on the field. Teams with few resources and little experience may struggle, but no journey to success comes without a few bumps in the road.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Didn't RC clarify that by that he meant some of the custom brackets they'd found useful in making it would be available? Which, might actually be useful to teams who have problems making them on their own.

Otherwise I don't see much more than a bunch of VP gussets and tube put together in a clever way.


And as far as I'm concerned - given that, in the years I've been doing this, and the hundreds of teams I interact with every year, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of teams are woefully unprepared for FRC. So either we make the challenge easier (COTS buy a bot) or we move the teams to an easier competition. Since HQ seems violently opposed to the latter I fully support the former.[1] [2]




[1] I'd support the latter more.

[2] Fact: robots that fail to achieve the game objectives consistently do NOT achieve inspiration. Our goal is inspiration. Therefore our goal is to make sure that teams are at least reliably capable of achieving the game challenge.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Please state your proof of the above "fact".

I believe your "fact" is more of an "opinion"

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Suppose my team shows up at a competition. Suppose we unbag a robot that's nothing but kit parts. Maybe even that WCP MCC.

Suppose we then proceed to win the regional.*

Would the reaction be:

(a) "Hey, that's not fair! You used a COTS robot!"
(b) "Wow, that's amazing, you did all that with a COTS robot!"

*And if your reaction to this statement is "pfffff, yeah right" - then what's the problem??

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Ironically I am voting that all COTS parts should be available. :confused:

Why?

I think FIRST FRC needs to question what it is and what it aspires to be occasionally as a health check.

I vote we open Pandora's box because the adults and businesses are too clever and basically have already done so.

The issue of whether we value custom fabrication and all that goes into it, and how, should be separate from simply hurting the most disadvantaged from showing up with something.

I can see someone wealthy buying themselves a victory like this. I also see that when that happens it's time for a new health check.

I do place one restriction on this. Under no circumstances should any COTS robot part vendor be allowed to know each game before kickoff. Sorry Andy - if you are involved in field logistics that might be an issue for you. This will hopefully keep the status quo for a bit longer.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

Andrew seems to be echoing how R.C. responded to these concerns in the original thread:

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

I think limiting bought solutions was the intent of the rule. Other years (not applicable to this year) had verbiage to that effect. It is admittedly an imperfect rule. First has also put loop holes in it that allow things like swerve drive modules & Mechanum wheels to be priced individually rather than a set although one of them isn't particularly useful.

Re: COTS: How far should it go?
 

You ever worked with a team that consistently failed to build a competitive robot? Seen the type of beating that losing constantly and missing eliminations brings? Ever tried to bring people up from that?

Winning feels good, it's inspiring. Going out and going 0-12 blows. It beats you up and you start to question if you're good enough. You start to think "I'm not smart enough for this" which is exactly the battle we're trying to fight. I never worked with a team that went 0-12... but did come close a few times. And let me tell, as an adult, someone who had, at that point, been involved in successful FRC teams for year, it rattled me. And I'm a lot more confident in my abilities than kids who have to deal with wondering if their house is gonna get broken into that night (again) who don't have clean water to drink or food on the table.

I'll stand by my claim.