Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

In the other threads there has been discussion on purchasing pre-built trannies, arms, legs, frames etc. The question I am asking is - What is the difference of a team building a function ahead of time so that they can concentrate on other things during build, or purchasing a part built by another team (most likely built before season starts)?

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Building it ahead of time is illegal. You could purchase a part ahead of time and not build it into any part of the robot ahead of time, though. Its clearly in the rules, all construction must be done during the 6 weeks.

Additionally, I think you might have a slightly skewed view of the FIRST world. A large majority of teams will never be able to build many custom parts. No amount of time will turn some scrap metal, a hand drill, a hacksaw, and meager funding into a precision piece of metal work.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

you can prototype something ahead of time and prove it out....at least then you know exactly how you want to build it during the six weeks. ways to improve lighten etc, but you know it works....like 60 & 254 did....they knew their drive train worked well so they could work on other aspects.

The difference? imho you can tailor the part to exactly what you want instead of a purchased solution, which may or may not to exactly what you want.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Actually, there's a real inconsistency in the rules on this point. Steve is correct to point out that purchasing a part is permitted at any time (by virtue of not being disallowed). Since one might purchase a part from a store, or from a team, or from something in between (e.g. AndyMark), this raises a problem with teams pre-building parts.

Let's say that teams X and Y decided that it would be beneficial to collaborate on gearbox design for the 2005 season. They work together on the design, but build them totally separately. (This takes place in the Autumn of 2004.) Under the current rules, any prototypes built by X, for X, in advance of the season are not eligible for inclusion on the robot (and similarly, the rules prohibit Y from doing the same thing). If, however, X sells its gearbox to Y, and Y sells its gearbox to X, they both now possess purchased parts, and may therefore use them freely, before and during the competition season. Obviously this little formality makes an end-run right around the existing rule. (Consider: how is this different from buying from AndyMark before the season starts? Does AndyMark intend to sell to teams before the season starts?)

Now, let's extend the thought experiment. What if X and Y collaborated on robot design in advance of the season. Once again, they design together, and X builds and sells a robot to Y, while Y builds and sells a robot to X. Now what? (Of course, I'm fully aware that there are obvious disadvantages to designing a robot without the benefit of knowing the game. That's irrelevant to the analogy--plenty of robots don't exhibit much more than a box on wheels design, which is rather universal every year.)

Dave Lavery says that cloned robots make his job of scouting easier--true enough. But will his small gain be overshadowed by the fact that those teams could theoretically have 6 weeks of solid practice, on a proven robot, if the 2005 game design happened to suit their pre-built machines?

As we've seen already, different people have differing opinions regarding the 60-254 collaboration (which took place during the regular time period); similarly, not everyone is sold on the sale of standardized gearboxes by Andy Baker & company. Unless a clear rule is instituted by FIRST (preferably in September, well in advance of the season, and preferably based on some consultation with the teams, though the Team Forums have obviously passed), various people--all claiming a monopoly on gracious professionalism--are going to have a bit of a disagreement on this very subject. We don't really want that to happen, since all it serves to do is make a farce of the rules and the competition.

Isn't that the point? What they can't build, they can buy (in advance), try (in advance), and use (during competition). And doesn't that create a potential source of revenue for those teams that can build them?

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

(resists the urge to go off-topic)

By purchasing, you've got a finished Billfred Industries gearbox, which you know you can mate up to a kit motor of your choosing and rock.

By building in advance, you've got a challenge. It may not look as pretty as the BI gearbox, it might not be as cheap, it might not even work for a couple of months. But when you've sorted it out, you've got a gearbox that you know works for you. And while everyone else is using Billfred Industries gearboxes, you're going to get lots of cool looks, respect from everyone who's tried it before, and perhaps the odd comment...

(sorry, had to put in the Rick James reference)

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

pssst....i know ive mentioned this before, but there is already a prebuilt transmission INCLUDED IN THE KIT.....you don't have to build or buy a thing it comes right in the kit....if baker wants to sell these transmissions he has every right to do so....it is legal, unless you take away the bosch transmission and everyone has to make their own transmission from scratch which many teams cannot do....there is no need for a ruling they made it last year with 60/254....it is legal

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Just a thought. If we don't know what is in the KOP then how can gearboxes be built when the motors and their specs are not known? Also if Team 188 builds a gearbox before build season and sells it to themselves as well as others, does that break the rules?

Please do not refer to Andy on this thread. I / we don't want any finger pointing and the issues go far beyond Andy. No offence Andy.

Many questions so little time. Curious minds would like to know. :)

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Where do you draw the line if you allow pre building, though? If pre-building is allowed, a team could concievably take the previous year's robot and adapt it for the new game. This would eitehr cause them to a. make some awesome end-effectors, or b. finish in 2 weeks and practice for the remaining four. That leaves rookies and teams that had bad robots the year before at a disadvantage.

And I know this was in a different topic, but who says people can't learn from purchasing a gearbox? It's up to them whether they teach the kids why and how it works or they just put it in their robot.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I've been watching these discussions for a while, and it seems the biggest argument seems to be where to draw the line. Should team X be able to buy a complete arm mechanism from team Y? Should just the parts and plans be for sale, or a fully functional assembly? I think that's the root of the matter, and sort of questions the role of FIRST in general- is it about the robots, or the inspiration? Yes, you can be inspired by a robot built of premade parts, and yes, you can be inspired by building the robot yourself.

Personally, I'm inspired by getting aluminum dust and shavings stuck to my hands with tap magic while milling out the mounts for our drill motors, or chopping some extruded aluminum to piece together into an arm. That doesn't mean I can't be inspired by other things or in other ways too. I think if you can make a part in house for similar/less cost, in a reasonable time period, do it. That's not to say other parts can't be purchased, but in my opinion, the line should be drawn at functionality. I don't think anyone can honestly expect teams to fabricate their own motors, so we buy them. Same goes for chain, pneumatics, etc. etc. Similarly, if there's a certain mount you designed but can't fabricate because you don't have CNC, or a good enough mill, or a lathe, or whatever, you can send the order out to a machine shop, and purchase that part. Again, the same goes for sprockets, gears, etc. Even certain advanced mechanisms, e.g. the dewalt transmission can be purchased- because it's technically a raw material. The transmission by itself is not good for much until it's changed and tweaked to work with a particular setup.

Where I draw the line is at complete bolt-on assemblies. Team X has a fool proof hanging mechanism with a 99.9% successful hang rate. It's for sale at $150. It needs a 4" by 8" footprint to bolt on to the chasis, and plug in cables 1 and 2 into pwms 7 and 8 on the RC respectively, and copy these lines of C into your code. I think that's wrong. For one thing, it's not fair to the teams who did design/build/test their own mechanisms, and if everyone purchased it, what challange would there be if everyone has the same capability to hang? If it were sold as a kit, I'd say that's better, but still has the same fairness implications. There would be more inspiration and thought in building it, but even then it would be the same as building a pre-designed lego kit (which by no means I'm saying isn't fun, just not the same as building from scratch). Now, if team X made avaliable a whitepaper describing the functions of how and why the hanger works, that's the best solution. Teams can take that and change/tweak it to their bots, perhaps purchasing individual components from team X, and asking advice in assembly. Just like is done with gearboxes now, ideas can be taken and changed to suit a particular purpose. I know we've seen a number of modified technokat geargoxes, and will probably see a lot of Whos C Tek gearboxes next year. But a complete bolt-on assembly just seems like a waste of thinking power. I know many teams don't have the resources or technology to build certain complex features, but half the fun is figuring out ways around limitations- using tools in unconventional ways to get extraordinary results- which, to me, is the ultimate form of inspiration.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Steve,
You're blurring the lines here.

When I buy a gearbox from AndyMark the company, I'm not buying a gearbox from the Technokats we all know and love.

I am buying from a company, not from a team.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the important distinction to make.

Let's consider 3 scenarios:
Option A:
Gary Dillard offers to sell me two (really sweet) genuine SPAM-180 gearboxes. These gearboxes are built pre-season in the SPAM "summer-sweatshops", I mean... "summer learning camps". This offer is for me only.

Option B:
Gary Dillard teams up with JVN (during the 6 weeks) to design the new "Division by SPAM" gearbox. They also co-design something called the "uber-arm". During the 6 weeks -- SPAM builds the gearboxes, DBZ builds the uber-arms. They swap parts. (Think 60+254 with a twist).

Option C:
Gary Dillard forms a new company called "GaryDill", and premakes gearboxes. He then posts an advertisement and offers to sell these to any FIRST teams that want them for the small price of $299.99 each.

Which of these options is okay?

I say, options B & C are valid.

Here is why:
In option B, the parts being sold were made DURING the 6 weeks. This doesn't vary much from the collaboration we saw this season, which was ruled perfectly okay by FIRST.

In options C, the parts being sold are available to everyone. GaryDill is no different from McMaster-Carr. Buying parts like this is perfectly acceptable.


In option C, Gary takes a risk by premaking gearboxes that may or may not be allowed in the 2005 game. It's his risk to take.

I feel there are important distinctions to be made here.

$.02
John


PS - As far as I know: There is no 229-180 collaboration. GaryDill is not an actual company. I have recieved no illicit offers to purchase SPAMy gearboxes.

PPS - I chose Gary for my little examples because he's a cool guy, and SPAM builds wicked sweet gearboxes.
Seriously man, you wanna collaborate, give me a call ;).

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Don't worry about my references above to Andy Baker--he's just "along for the ride" like the rest of us. Nobody of consequence knows what's going to be in the kit next year, so any gearbox bought or built before the season would risk being rendered useless. That's why I'd wondered whether Andy was going to be selling them in advance.


There used to be a rule which stated that previous robots' parts couldn't be used. I don't remember if it was "streamlined" out last year.


The Bosch transmissions were provided in the kit like every other motor, so their inclusion in next year's kit is not guaranteed. The same problem arises with a custom-built or an off-the-shelf design.

Also, since you brought it up, 60 and 254 forced FIRST's hand with the collaboration issue. There was no appropriate rule in place, and it seemed that by the time FIRST knew what had happened, they'd already built the two robots (actually four, if practice robots are counted). It was simply not possible for FIRST to have made any other decision for last season. It isn't unlikely that FIRST will codify something a little more explicit this time around, whether or not they indeed do allow that type of collaboration (and indications from last season seem to point to it being allowed next year).


I think that the lines are already blurred here. It appears that the gearbox being marketed by AndyMark is an adaptation of the 2004 TechnoKat design--tried and tested last year by the TechnoKats themselves. While technically we aren't buying from the organization known as the "TechoKats Robotics Team", the implication (intentional or not) is clearly that we're getting a TechnoKat gearbox. It may possibly make for an interesting situation, deciding when a person belongs to the company, and when he belongs to the team.

Regarding the three options, what about an auction? Only one team gets the gearboxes, but everyone has the opportunity. Is that kosher? And what if a "company" sells to everybody, but offers a special price break to teams from Canada, or teams from Toronto, or a few especially friendly teams? What if that price break were $298.99 off? And what if "GaryDill" sponsored 180 or 229?

While one individual may have answers to all of those questions, bear in mind that someone else's answers may be different. And barring a ruling from FIRST, or some frightfully elegant logic, it will be very difficult to settle on a common interpretation of what is fair, and what is not.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I have a feeling that Dave is designing this years game to screw up any plans AndyMark has for selling drive systems. Mabey it's just my huntch. But I feel this will be addressed in Janurary.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I don't think the rules are unclear at all. I have said this before and I will stress it again, only those looking for loop holes will find the rules unclear and inconsistent.

Here are the rules in a nutshell:
Every part on your shipped robot must be obtained during the build time.
It really is that simple folks.

I built a prototype pre-season. Do I really need to buy all new parts?
100% YES

AndyMark-
If AndyMark wants to sell you a tranny, you need to buy it after kick off. Or you can't include it on your robot. (Yes, you can buy one pre-season to play with, however, the one on your robot needs to be a new one.)
How do they bill it?
When they bill the transmission there is a real judgment call that needs to be made, "is an AndyMark transmission an off the shelf item?"
I feel the answer is no. That means teams must account for both parts and labor. AndyMark can bill the item however they would like. My recommendation is to bill for both parts and labor.

Pre-built-
Pre-built means: a team buying a mechanism from someone during build season. During build season means you did not have the parts producing that mechanism in your teams possession prior to kick off. Therefore, NO 100% can you just slightly modify last year's robot to this years game. You can use new parts to recreate the mechanism, but those parts have to be NEW TO YOU.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

This is, of course, making the (quite possibly incorrect) assumption that new language isn’t introduced by FIRST for 2005+ with regard to either collaboration or declaring that “off the shelf” components only refer to certain companies and catalogs and exclude others (like the AndyMark or GaryDill corporations).

Mike,
There was no part of last year’s manual that stated “Every part on your shipped robot must be obtained during the build time.” That is an incorrect statement. It says in Rule <R09> “Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used, however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.” <R09> later says that if you use a part from an old robot its cost must (obviously) be factored into your robot’s budget for inspection. This makes it pretty clear that your statement ““Every part on your shipped robot must be obtained during the build time” is incorrect.

I believe that if AndyMark or GaryDill or any other team forms a corporation, which I assume is what’s happening here (for tax, liability, and other issues), they’re legally within their right to do so in this capitalist society we live in. I do not believe that any such corporation should be treated any different (in the 2004 off the shelf rules of FIRST) than MSC, McMaster, Skyway, Grainger, etc. FIRST is obviously within their right to say that we’re only allowed to use a certain source for off the shelf parts, but that would probably be against their apparent goal of opening things up to teams. My quick $0.02…

-Bill

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Not that that's a bad rule, but like Bill Gold said, it's not an actual rule.

Just a thought....
If FIRST did choose to implement that restriction, teams wouldn't be able to stock up on parts in advance--a screw, a piece of aluminum angle, a gearbox--they would all have to be bought after the kickoff date. For the first two items, at least, that would be wholly impractical. But consider the implications of FIRST saying that every item with a legitimate value of less than $20 (USD) could be procured at any time, from any source; and furthermore, that raw materials could be bought in advance. All other materials would have to be bought after the kickoff. It would allow little things like hardware to be readied in anticipation for the season, while clearly requiring that the big items be built or bought after the kickoff.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

All of the sudden I am really longing for the "good ol' days" when you could only build your robot from the stuff in the kit, the specific additional parts list, and $425 of parts from Small Parts. And that was ALL you could use to build your robot. I know that some didn't like the limitations at the time, but I really enjoyed that approach. It made you THINK about how to use the limited materials that were available for use. You had no choice, you HAD to get creative - buying a subsystem off the shelf just wasn't in the cards. And all these debates about what we could or could not buy, barter or trade as a finished solution would have been moot - they just weren't allowed.

Ahh, well. Now we got all these new-fangled shifting transmissions, and fancy-schmancy multi-motor drive trains, and gol-danged 'struded al-new-min-ium stuff, and all that. And everyone is thinking about how to grab whole sections of their robot as quick as they can, and have the entire thing bolted together three hours after kick-off. Just doesn't seem the same to me.

Too bad we can't halt progress. If only we could go back to the good ol' days. Guess I'll just go back to walking barefoot to the one-room school house. Through five feet of snow. Uphill. Both ways. (grumble, mutter, grumble ...)

-dave

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Dave No! I beg you NO! Don't do it, we'll rebel, we'll revolt! Now don't get me wrong, Small Parts is a great company that is a very reliable easy place to order stuff from and they have some really cool stuff that no where else does, BUT they are over priced and the selection is quite limited. The removal of the "parts from Small Parts only rule" and "additional parts list" was one of the best things I think ever happened to the robot rules. In 2002 our drive system failed miserably because we couldn't order steel gears because all Small Parts had was brass and that's the only place we could order from since they were not on the additional parts list.

Being limited by parts availability is one of the worst, most frustrating constraints in all of builidng robots. Let teams be limited by their imaginations and size and weight and strategy constraints, not by the availability (disavailability ?) of parts.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Personally I would hope that all the teams would try to do their best to uphold the values of FIRST. Unfortunately to try to play on the possibilities of what could be done to circumvent the rules would be infinite....there are only so many things FIRST can control with these type of rules. This rule you propose is only effective if you assume everyone is doing their best to follow the rules. What happens when they try to circumvent those rules? well then we have to make another rule.....and around and around we go making up rules we do not have the resources to patrol...

If a team wanted to get around certain rules they could because FIRST doesn't have the resources to patrol this. Unfortunately you have to assume that ppl are going to do the right thing or else we all will dip down into a paranoid state....All I'm saying this rule you propose is simply unrealistic, and you must rely on the fact that people are doing positive things with this experience/opportunity....there are simply too many rules that people could find a loopholes in, and I am not prepared to go on a witch hunt for these types of rules....

This all goes back is the competition just a competition? Well then let's start clamping down or we can understand the competition is a portion but there are other parts to this (Chairman's Award/Engineering Inspiration)....you won't win either of these awards with an off-the-shelf part....the only possible benefit will occur in the competition, and if that is your only goal I personally believe you have missed something.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Personally, I don't see where the whole debate about buying stuff came from. There has been no evidence given of the loose restrictions on purchasing having a negative effect, and considering that even if it is going to be a problem, it isn't going to be something that is going to destroy FIRST. So, just wait until something bad happens, we can fix it then. It isn't really as bad as it sounds, its not like someone is just going to start manufacturing complete FIRST robots out of the blue, so I think we can wait a bit before judging.

As I have hinted at in various posts, I'm still a bit unhappy about the whole distribution of skill, not money. But that topic has been discussed enough so that it would appear not much is going to change....

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

No, but using pre-fab components gives teams a far greater edge over teams who build from scratch. Since it's inception, team 38 built every component possible from scratch. We worked late nights/early mornings throughout the build season to finish the robot on time, working all-nighters and 48 hour shifts the 2-3 days before shipping, and it still wasn't quite done.

Now, compare that to a team (I don't know of any, but this thread is about the hypothetical implications anyway) who buys "off the shelf" assemblies, bolts/welds together a robot of parts in 3 weeks, the bulk of the design and bug checking having already been done by the manufacturers of these "off the shelf" parts. What's left but three weeks of practice, more bug checking, testing, etc, while teams building from scratch struggle to finish.

So while it may not be a problem now (or it may be, I don't know what other teams build/purchase policies are, only my own), it may be in the future as FIRST grows. While it may not matter to me personally, as I get more inspiration out of the build season than competition, I can see how some people might be disappointed watching their 6 weeks of hard work get knocked out of the standings by a robot of pre-built parts.

I do understand that it makes logistical sense to purchase parts that are tested, proven, and affordable, and I don't deny the benefits thereof in terms of building a successful robot. But how would things like the X-Prize be if one team decided they could (hypothetically) just buy the plans for the space shuttle from NASA, or the Soyuz from Russia. Sure, they would accomplish the set goal, but how would that help our efforts of developing new and better ways of getting into space?

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Oh you haven't heard of my new company?














j/k Sorry, couldn't resist. lol

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

The point isn't to write rules to impose upon those who would break them anyway. It's to have rules that are understood uniformly by all.

The rules must be clearly defined, so that we don't have situations where a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding causes friction between parties acting in good faith. Look at the 60/254 situation: it was within the rules, but some argued vehemently that it was against the "spirit of FIRST" and would lead to the competition's ruin.

If those (or any other) teams wanted to cheat, no rule would prevent it. That hypothetical proposition in my last post referred to the situation that MikeDubreuil mentioned, wherein a team buys all of its parts after the start of the season. It isn't meant to prevent cheating--it's meant to suggest a concrete limit to what can and cannot be done before the Kickoff (a limit which is obviously ill-defined--hence this thread).


How does a team strike a balance between innovation and practicality? If an X-Prize team could build and launch a space shuttle or a Soyuz within the constraints of that competition, and could do so profitably--then that would be excellent. Of course, it simply isn't possible. And that's a clear message that innovation is needed.

Contrast that with FIRST. While the pinnacle of robot design does tend to rise from year to year, there is no comparable situation where nothing exists to accomplish the task (as in the X-Prize analogy). For this reason, a team may well be justified in believing that a derivative work would suffice, where a full-blown innovation is simply too risky. We don't require innovation; we simply encourage it.

Some teams have the means to innovate wildly, and still manage to build upon their failures (188 team members may recall Blizzard 4, late in the 2003 build season...)--others are too busy going about FIRST's business through more mundane means. Either way, they need to be well informed of the expectations that they will have to meet, so that they can choose a comfortable level of risk and innovation, and also so that the FIRST community understands and accepts their actions at face value, without the controversy that permeates this topic.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I agree with you Dave. Bring back the good old days. I enjoyed the simple days of working thru the challenge of limited resources with the students.
The only exceptions I would ask for would be to use someone other than Small Parts (who cannot handle orders from so many teams at once) and to allow raw materials and hardware from anywhere and anytime.

Raul

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

We actually discussed plans for building an entire FIRST robot drive platform and selling to FIRST teams within the $3500 limit and mainly using FIRST kit parts.

You would have to make this option available to over 1000 teams and you would have to fill the orders, probably by week three of the build phase.

The interpretation that I apply to this has to do with the word "obtain." If I place an order, but the parts are not made available to me before the end of the build phase, I would have to say that, retroactively, I could not "obtain" these parts, whereas other teams could. Hence, all teams that did get these parts would be in violation of this rule and have to remove them.

We ran into this problem in the bad, old Small Parts daze. In the last couple of years, FIRST had to open up the rules to allow equivalent suppliers since not all teams could "obtain" the same set of parts from SPI when stock ran out.

We calculated the amount of machining time necessary to make this happen, the cost of materials which we would have to have on hand, the number of CNC machines and fixtures which would be required, etc. The up front investment was going to be significant.

The other option was to pre-build and store inventory. Either way, you're talking about a large initial investment.

If FIRST changed the rules so that a minor redesign was required, the cost associated with either trashed inventory or retooling during the build phase was extremely high. Also, how much inventory? You might get 1000 orders or you might get 50.

So, from a business plan stand-point, this kind of company doesn't make any sense. It is almost guaranteed to result in either an inability to fill all orders or a large loss. Even if not in every year, certainly in some years.

The chances of making a profit at this, without fore-knowledge from FIRST, are slim.

Now, if the company were separate from any team, you might negotiate with FIRST for some up front information to make this work. However, if any member of this hypothetical company were part of a FIRST team, the conflict of interest would be extreme.

It would be similar to the situation where Innovation FIRST might field a team engineered by IFI personnel.

And hey, we already have the situation where "insiders to FIRST" are making "bolt on robot parts." It's the kit gearbox!

In short, if a company, run by FIRST-ers with an existing team, were to market a product, they would need to satisfy up to 1000 orders with a very short delivery time. This either requires either inventory or very large manufacturing capabilities.

The other option, teams building modules for each other, was already covered under the "manufacturing alliance" debate.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Yeah, I think I forgot about that part of the new rule, convieniently because I don't like it. It should have read every part of your shipped robot must be a new part unless it's an off the shelf item.

(I realize the wording of the rule includes off the shelf item from your old robot, but that's unenforcable)

Originally in my post I said they could sell it at a combined price. I guess I see no reason why they should give anything other than a total price.

I think we could make life so much easier if FIRST didn't include rules that allow only certain old parts. I don't want to go back to the day where we only had Small Parts, they were slow and expensive. However, I also have a hard time saying everything on your robot must be obtained during the build.

It would be dishonest for me to say that we didn't put fasteners on our robot that we obtained before kick off. Or that we didn't have sheets of polycarbonate laying around that we didn't use on the shipped robot.

Therefore, I would like to see a new rule:

1.) All parts on a shipped robot must have been obtained during the build season, with the following exceptions:
a.) Fasteners- machine screws, wood screws, bolts, nuts
b.) Raw Stock- Sheets of aluminum, polycarbonate, channeled metal

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I think this is taking a turn for the worse....uh oh :ahh:

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I’m second-guessing the effectiveness of my words, so I’ll try to clarify my original post.

My intent when quoting <R09> from this past year was to highlight the “individual off-the-shelf components” part. This rule wasn’t new in 2004, rule M1 in the section 4 (The Robot) PDF says the same thing with regard to off-the-shelf components, and although I don’t have one in front of me, I’m 90% sure that 2002 had a similar rule.

Using the most recent language (2004 manual), the company JoeBob should be treated exactly like any other corporation. So a transmission fabricated before the build period, as long as it was purchased from a company that made their products available to all teams, would be a legal component on your robot.

Andrew brought up the scenario of this company not being able to fill all orders, and thus preventing the components’ usage by teams whose orders were filled. I do not believe that this is a valid argument. If team X needed a 0.7M gear we would have to turn to PIC to obtain it (since they don’t have access to wire edm or a gear cutting machine). PIC usually has a 2-3 week lead time, but I’ve heard cases where teams haven’t gotten their gears until after the build period. Does this mean that Team A’s transmission that features a gear received from PIC is illegal to use because Team X didn’t get their part in time? I don’t think the answer is yes. I think it sucks for Team X that they will have to redesign their robot a little, but Team A shouldn’t be punished because their order was filled. I, personally, feel that any such company should be prepared for about 200 teams ordering their products.

Like Andrew said, this is going to cost a lot of money the way things are right now, and an even larger amount of money if FIRST changes the motors (as FIRST has done in the past with the FP motor, since it depends on the leftover stock at FP).

I really haven’t made up my mind on how I feel about this ready to use transmission purchasing. On one hand I think it’s a great idea, especially for teams how only have hacksaws, hand drills, and hammers. But like Dave and Raul said, I miss the good old days of everyone being forced to use the same catalog, or the same source. That made robots like CD 2000 and others so much more amazing, seeing what they did with the exact same catalog as I was looking at.

I'm not sure if I lost an additional $0.02 here, or if it was the same $0.02 as I spent earlier in the thread...

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Since PIC took nearly 5 weeks (last January) to ship something that they had originally promised in less than 2, would it be fair to order something in December, and ask PIC to please have it ready by January 10^th, and to ship it some time that week, so that it was received (and hence "obtained") no later than the 17^th? Or would it be yet another case of violating the spirit, but not the letter, of the law?

Or better still, if a team can buy from any company, why not set up a shell company (e.g. "Team 188 Inc."), and instruct the company to buy the parts whenever it pleases, and have them in stock. Then the afternoon of the kickoff, it would sell the parts to the team for $1. This is obviously not a "nice" thing to do, but under the rules we're now formulating, it seems completely legal.

Also, back in the good old days, when a team couldn't get a gear they wanted from Small Parts, they had two options: re-engineer the thing, or EDM the gear (from universally allowed raw stock). Not every team has access to an EDM, and for a one-off job, it can be expensive. But if the choice were between scrapping the gearbox, and using an EDM, most teams would grudgingly accept the latter. But those teams without the means to choose the EDM would actually suffer if the playing field were leveled in the proposed manner.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I'm not fully going to disagree with your disagreement to my original argument. But,...

Stock Drive also sells 0.7 module gears. Plus, there are 0.7 module gears in the kit (in the drill motor transmissions). There are also overseas suppliers of 0.7 module gears. Theoretically, there are enough 0.7 module gears available to all teams during the build phase. This is not a sole-source item.

On the other hand, supplying 1000+ teams with two FIRST-custom-built gearboxes may result in a permanent undersupply. Since this is a sole-source item, it can be determined whether, theoretically, all teams can receive their parts within the six week build phase. If they cannot, then, technically, the parts are -not- available to all teams and violate the rule.

I will also note that the rule states that the item must be "generally available ... from suppliers..." which would bar sole source items.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Under the 2004 rules I would argue that this shell company would be illegal unless its services are offered to other teams across Canada, America, Mexico, Brazil, England, and wherever else the next international teams pop up. Well, I should say that it would be illegal to record the cost of a certain gear/sprocket as $1 against your $3,500 limit. I’m not sure if that was the intended result of this scenario, but I think that this kind of circumventing of the spirit of the rule would be inappropriate. The idea of a shell company is also unnecessary under the current rules, since you can stock up on components (like raw materials, gears stock from any catalog, sprockets stock from any catalog, etc.) legally in the off-season. Any modifications to the stock products obviously have to be done after the kickoff.

Andrew,
You’re correct that 0.7M gears weren’t the best item for me to use in my example. I only used them because of experiences and stories from teams.

Another interesting question would be “does the JoeBob company have to make a concerted effort to advertise their product(s) to ALL FIRST teams?” I would think that the answer to this is “no.” It isn’t fair at all, but think about all the teams who don’t know about any catalog other than MSC/SPI and who don’t have a member here on ChiefDelphi. I didn’t know about the Sheppard catalog that some teams bought their tank treads from until long after the build period, but their products were available to me. Things like this make me lean even farther towards FIRST only allowing certain catalogs/sources for teams to buy their components from. Maybe not necessarily that you must have purchased the item from that catalog, but only the items listed in the catalog(s) which can be purchased from any other outfit. [Darn] am I glad I’m not writing the rules…

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

The shell company idea is solely to point out a potential pitfall in one of the proposed solutions to this problem. Regarding the $1, and the sole-source concept:

<R68> Additional Parts must be generally available from suppliers such that any other FIRST team, if it so desires, may also obtain them at the same price. (A specific device fabricated by a team from non-2004 Kit materials does not have to be available to others, however, the materials it is made from must be available to other teams.)

So they would have to make it available; but that's not the same thing as known. If a store has a sale and doesn't tell me, the items are still available, but I might not know about it--I'm in absolutely no position to demand (after the fact) that they also permit me to pay the reduced price. Furthermore, I'm in no position to demand that anyone who benefited from the sale was doing so unfairly. Worse still, if a team-affiliated company decided, "we'll make two of these gearboxes", and sold them to a team, and declared the gearboxes to be out of stock, and out of production, could anyone make a case against them without somehow distinguishing them from a normal company? (After all, real companies can declare things to be out of stock and/or out of production too; we can't protest their decisions.)

While last season's <R68> is appropriate for last season, if any significant changes are made to this portion of the rules, it might be wise to clarify the exact nature of "obtain[ing] them at the same price", for the express reason of closing that loophole. Limiting sources is the easy way out--but is there a better way?

It is obvious that these scenarios are not necessarily examples of wholesome behaviour. They are examples of possible behaviour, however, and some may even be justified as potential alternate interpretations of the rules. Therefore, despite the difficulty of making rules for FIRST, it does nobody any good to say "but they'll be gracious and professional" and allow the possibility that teams will interpret something in an unexpected fashion. If at all feasible, the most correct course of action is to spell out any expectations clearly and precisely.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I've been quiet on this issue due to various reasons. Obviously, you guys know where I stand on it.

However, I do want to bring up a few points.

1. About a year ago, I proposed to other TechnoKat adult team leaders that we make and sell standard gearboxes to other teams. The leaders of the team decided not to do this. At the same time they said that they had no problem with any individual doing this. Other TechnoKats who have been involved with this gearbox design have been asked to join this side-business company, they have declined. If anyone has any objection to this effort, leave the TechnoKats out if it. Your issue is with myself and Mark, not the rest of the team 45. Address your issues to us.

2. Shifting gearbox designs have been around for a long time. Shifting gearbox designs made specifically for FIRST robots have been around for a few years. They even have been posted, detail for detail, on the internet, on a few websites (and, btw, team 45 started this effort). At the same time, there are thousands of companies who design and sell gearboxes. Also, there will be over 1000 FIRST teams in 2005. What if an engineer who worked for one of these existing companies realized this opportunity and convinced his/her company to take a risk and create a standard gearbox, similar to these designs, for FIRST teams? What if that engineer also helped mentor a FIRST team? I see this situation as inevitable. Someone is going to do this. Why not Mark and I?

3. Teams seemed to be worried about this event (a couple of FIRST people making standard FIRST mechanical components) happening. I am not sure why. Is it because they think that the team I am on will now have an unfair advantage? If they do, they are not looking at the situation as I see it. Think about it. If I want my team to have an unfair advantage, I will side on the issue that says "bring back the old build restrictions", that Raul and Dave (and some others) are wishing for. All in all, if I want team 45 to win more, I wish for that. Honestly, we can still create a dual-speed, shift-on-the-fly gearbox out of raw materials and a few parts from SPI. Can your team? No offense, but we did pretty well as a team back when these restrictions were in place. Now that I think about it, we did better then (in 98 and 99) than we did when FIRST started opening up the build rules. My point here is that if the "old rules" were in place, the divide between high-resource teams and low-resource teams would be dramatically worse than it is now.

Maybe I am missing something. What is the problem? Is there another reason that this is being opposed? Is this bad for FIRST? Are students suddenly going to be un-inspired?

Maybe I am just too simple of a guy. My intentions are simple. I see an opportunity. If I don't do something here, someone else will. The plan of Mark and I is to build standard, shift-on-the-fly gearboxes about 20 or 50 at a time. We will also be building 8" omni-wheels 20 or 50 at a time. We will put them on a physical shelf*, and sell them to people who want to buy them. If the president of Uganda wants one, we will sell him one. If team 15XX wants three, we will sell them three. We will do our best to realize the supply and demand. If we run out of parts and cannot supply to customers (either the president of Uganda or team 15XX), then we will estimate when we will have some more on our shelf. Once our supply dips below our decided-upon inventory level, then we will have more made. I am not a complex guy, and this is not a complex thing.

* - it might be a table or a box. However, if you want a shelf, it can be a shelf. I can now picture 50 gearboxes, lined up on a shelf, waiting for customers.

I see this as a risk on our part, as a company. FIRST is fairly predictable. We are betting that there will be a need for wheeled robots that have a hard time turning (hence the omni-wheels). We are also betting that some FIRST teams want a reliable, lightweight, and cost-effective solution to changing speeds and torques while moving their mechanism.

This is a risk. Life is full of risks. FIRST is life... therefore, FIRST is full of risks.

Andy B.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Mr. Baker, I really don't see a problem either. As I said in the thread about the picture of the 2004 GB that you posted, the only issue that this gearbox brings up is the one of the unfair distribution of skill. And, in a way, you are remedying this by making your excellent gearbox designs available to all teams (hopefully at a reasonable price).

BTW, I'd be very interested in seeing the omniwheels you are going to be selling. If you keep making this kind of stuff, 1257 may end up with a robot that's half TechnoKat at heart. (Not that there is anything wrong with it. Right now our robot is half whatever company makes the modular aluminum construction system we used. Same thing.)

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I'll be in for 2 gear boxes and 2 omnis. Personally, I can't wait for them to hit the shelves :D

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Andy

I think maybe you should be thinking 200 or 500 at a time.

I'll take two, as every other purchaser will, cause one doesn't do anything.

The $3500 rule will start to become the limiting factor in these types of items, but for now, GO FOR IT.

Best of luck.

Mr. Bill

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Everyone is ordering yet no price qouted yet. I hope that they fall under the maximum for a single part.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

What kind of businessman would Andy be if they didn't?

Silly Steve... Andy could sell the gearbox as individual pieces, off the shelf, some assembly required.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Guys, I think it isn't a problem with the rules, but more of another clash of FIRST logic, the 'kids should build and learn' over the 'mentors should build kids learn' ideas. Well, from the last perspective, it's fine, I mean, it's the final experience that counts. BUT the problem many have is in the first camp, those who think this is another thing that kids can't learn about and build. I'm in that camp. Sure, you can buy a radio and take it apart to learn about it, but nothing is better than building a radio for yourselves, because not only do you learn about the radio, but you also learn about other aspects of it, such as design, ease of use, and other things.

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I feel that using an AndyMark transmission is no different than standardizing your own drive train. Sure, we may not have designed it, the kids will still bennifit from the design and manafacturing of the other compnents. Was the incoming freshman around when the drivetrain was standardized two years ago?

On my team I do control type stuff, software and electronics. Last year we experimented with a new drive train and limited success. I have been telling members of my team about the miracles of Omni wheels for a while. I have very little experience in the shop therefore I probably coun't make them. Buying them and throwing them on our old robot to show their bennifets is the best way to convince the team to use them.
During the Fall semester there are plans for my team to go back to the drawing board and standardize a "drivetrain platform". Buying an AndyMark transmission will give us quite a boost in the redesign. Perhaps, we will use it, maybe we won't. Either way we will get a chance to play with a successful transmission that: combines the power of the drill and Chip and is capable of shifting. We have never concentrated on shifting, but we have tried to marry the drill and Chip.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

in the case of the andymark transmission, i think (and i could be wrong) that the majority of the teams that have the ability to build a gearbox will build one, even if there is one already for sale. the teams that this will appeal to are the ones who might have otherwise used the FIRST provided gearbox. this is simply a way to level the playing field for those of us who don't have a machine shop and an engineering firm at their disposal.

the same could be said of any other drive train components (i.e. frames, wheels, sprockets, etc.). i don't think that anyone needs to be worried about a team simply buying a whole robot, as i doubt that any team(s) could stratigize, design, build, and perfect an end effect, much less a whole robot, in time to market it to FIRST teams during the build season.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Help Me Please! I havent Eaten in Days :(

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Oh gosh... i dont want to go to jail :ahh:

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I may be wrong but I believe that Innovation FIRST was started by engineers that worked with a FIRST team and decided to build a better control box specifically for FIRST. This does not appear to be any different from AndyMark, engineers that decided to start their own business to help FIRST teams

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

That is correct sir, a fact shown before on these forums:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=67

And the AndyMark business will be a hot success, in my opinion. They will be providing something for the teams that could/want to build a similar gearbox, but haven't done so before and don't have the time to go through the whole process in the build season. But perhaps after the season they will take a closer look at the AM Gearboxes, disect them and modify them and/or make their own versions of them.

This business could be a stepping stone for teams to open their eyes up to different ideas. And purchasing something from AM or any other off the shelf product CAN add to the learning process, it can teach you "Hey maybe we should work on stuff like this in the off season",my team learned that lesson and I'm sure many others have as well. There are many lessons that can be learned from every different process in FIRST, you just have to look for them.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Other people have said it already, but how is buying a Dewalt or AndyMark transmission different than building one during the off-season and using it on the robot? The only difference is that rookie teams with the AndyMark can build a new frame and move the gearboxes in one piece. Teams using their own design, no matter how well prepared, still have to build them. I think people underestimate the effort required because they assume a proven design is easy to manufacture. We were prepared to build the gearboxes (Team 116 dual-motor dual-speed) and it still took 3 weeks to actually fabricate them.

I don't have a problem with teams buying composite parts like gearboxes. Its just smart design. What does seem odd is that its ok to buy a gearbox, but it isn't ok to build one in the Fall and use it on the FRC robot. It would be very tempting to buy a gearbox to gain an extra couple of weeks to work on the control system. Innovation in transmission design may slow down, but that extra time could raise the level of autonomous or control system development.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Sean makes a very good point. With the rules as they are, teams could actually be 'encouraged' to buy off the shelf products instead of developing their own. I don't think everyone will go that way, and especially the veteran teams who have developed capabilities. (Maybe there can be a way to allow some fall work to be incorporated in the next seasons machine.)

But for a new team, or one with limited engineering resources - some "off the shelf" product could be a boost to the team and allow them to concentrate on some other facets of the robot.

I first thought I was 'against' this idea, but as I have typed, I think I am more and more for it. It will level the field and make teams more competitive -and maybe a bit of success on the field will keep the students interested in their team and all of the 'hidden' benefits!!!.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I think the difference is obvious. The commercial part is available to everyone at the same price, and it does not favor any team in particular. The homemade off-season part is not available to everyone, and it can give a significant advantage to a team with the ability to spend extra time with adequate tools and testing.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Steve,
On the contrary, I feel those drill transmissions are a relatively elegant little planetary gearbox. They pack a lot of reduction into a small area. They've also held up (in my opinion) pretty well at competition.

How exactly must they be modified and adapted to meet the needs of a team? All I've ever done is slap an output coupling or sprocket on the end of the shaft, and called it a day. Maybe my needs are just not as demanding as some people's...

What exactly is a "real transmission"?
I always thought those drill "transmissions" were real enough.

If the current kit transmission is so inadequate, would you prefer a new solution be implemented? What kind of impact would there be if FIRST put a GaryDill tranny in every kit-of-parts?

What?
I've seen a great deal of great discussion over the past few days.
In this thread, and others. Maybe no one has listed out the Pro/Con in a list, but they've definitely been discussed. Going around in circles isn't necessarilly a bad thing. It's not like we as a community can make any decisions. That's up to FIRST. All we can do is discuss the philisophical implications, and know that someone, somewhere above, is reading this.

Whoa...
Do you really believe that about FIRST?

I don't personally see anything to yell about.
I'll build my robot during the 6 weeks.
The other 46 weeks of the year fill up just fine with design and testing.

Also... I don't know why this thread would be closed.
I think the discussion has been top notch, and hope it continues. It is interesting to see the opinions of others in this program during the "philisophical debates" that occur.

John

"As we know, FIRST will change the rule if someone breaks it." <-- The most disappointing thing I've read on these boards in a while.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I'll second John's comments about the great discussion in this thread. All the talk is steadily persuading me that the prebuilt transmissions may be a good thing for the competition. Especially the avaliability to teams without the resources to craft their own, as it does help to level the playing field by providing enhanced drive functionality.

I do have a few more questions to throw out there though. While it looks like this type of company would fit within the guidlines of the written rules, wouldn't it require a clear seperation between the company personell and a certain team? As a seperate corporate/company entity, the transmissions can be manufactured any time during the year. If there is a team association, the company may be viewed as part of the team, and thus manufacturing would be restricted to the 6 week build period. Especially if said team uses one of the company's transmissions (which of course, I'd expect them to account for the full price in the BOM anyway). But it's really more of a company vs. team conflict of interest issue in terms of the official rules. FIRST has volunteers sign conflict of interest papers for positions which can directly affect competition, so I'd hope the same would be true of any parts provider.

The other question is in terms of a guarantee/warranty, and liability. With Innovation First, they have reps at every official event, such that in case of any problems or equipment failures, technical advice and spare parts are provided as the need arises. With these transmissions, would they be sold "as is", in that any problems encountered are the responsibility of the teams themselves, or would they come with a warranty in the unlikely event something fails, breaks, bends, shatters/otherwise falls apart. If something does fail in a big shoving match, would the company be held liable for the loss?

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I understand the argument and I agree with you. I still think this is a special case because this OTS part is as good or better than what most teams are currently producing. My point was that it seems like teams that build their own gearboxes are creating something that is functionally equivalent to what will be available OTS. Those teams will have a tough choice to make. It will be interesting what people come up with to gain a competitive edge.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Alan,

You've hit the nail flush on the head.

If I spend 8 weeks in the fall designing and building a new transmission with my team, I've given my team a specific advantage that cannot be matched by any other team. This is because I now have a part that is unique to the competition. The rules we have force any unique parts to be fabricated during the 6 week build period. If I go out and purchase a prebuilt transmission, big deal, you can go buy one too.

As long as there is equal access to off the shelf parts, which the current rules ensure, there is no unfair advantage being gained by using prebuilt parts.

Exactly. If a whole bunch of teams start popping the AndyMark tranny under the hood, what do you think the veteran teams are going to do? They're not going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs. These teams are going to realize the gap is being shrunk, and double their efforts to create a more powerful transmission. I've been saying this for a while now, but it bears repeating. Making technology like this readily available, furthers innovation. It's not in the nature of many people in this competition to sit around and accept the common solution. They will go out and improve upon it. I for one can't wait to see what kind of new transmission designs come out of this. The AndyMark gearbox is an amazing design. Just imagine what will happen when people focus their energy on outdoing it. Just think about that for a second. Isn't that exciting? I get inspired just contemplating it. But in the words of a good friend of mine, "maybe I'm just weird".

---

On another note, teams have been using prebuilt mechanisms for years. I'm curious as where all this opposition was before Andy & Mark decided to start their company. I didn't hear anyone complaining aloud (although I'm sure someone did) when Team 47 used the Dewalt drill transmissions on their robot. The fact that Andy and Mark are affiliated with a FIRST team, should have no bearing on this situation. In fact, many FIRST engineers work for other FIRST suppliers.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I totally agree. This is a great discussion.


So, proceeding with this logic, if there is an engineer from Fastenal who helps with team 5555, then team 5555 cannot use Fastenal screws on their robot. I don't agree with this logic.

Team 5555 should be able to use Fastenal screws on their robot if they are standard, off-the-shelf screws. Now, if Fastenal made custom screws that were not available to the open market (president of Uganda, team 15XX, yada yada), then those screws should only be allowed on team 5555's robot if Fastenal made those custom screws during the build season.


Innovation First has a well-deserved monopoly in FIRST. Each team's kit has IFI hardware included. This is not the same as AndyMark components. While we will have some sort of minimal warranty, we cannot afford to replace every component if it breaks under an extreme load. If we were to design to this extreme restriction, then the products will be 5x the price that they need to be in order to be affordable by teams. Currently, the gearbox is designed for a 4x safety factor over the stall torques of two powerful kit motors (from 2004 kit).

Again, I will use the Fastenal comparison. If a Fastenal screw breaks during a FIRST competition, is Fastenal held liable for the loss? Absolutely not. The difference here between IFI and Fastenal is that teams have the option to not put Fastenal screws on their robots. If they think that Fastenal screws are not good (which is wrong, Fastenal is a great company with great products), then it is that team's choice to not use their product.

In the end, if our products are crap, then people will not buy them. This is the risk of doing business, and the foundation of capitalism.

Andy B.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Everyone who has participated thus far, has managed to keep their posts civil, despite the huge range of differing opinions. As long as the conversation stays this way, I see absolutely no need to close this thread.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I completely agree. To clarify my point a bit, I meant if team 5555 used the Fastenal screws, I would expect them to list it in their bill of materials at the same price other teams can get them for. Because the engineer works for Fastenal, even though he has the ability to donate screws to the team, they would still have to count against the $3500 limit. That's all I meant to say there. The conflict of interest argument was more a general statement on ethics than anything specific to the AndyMark company. As an example, if an Innovation First engineer worked with a team, and knew the internals of the IFI controllers in and out, and knew of any hidden/undocumented features which could give his team and advantage, I'd hope he'd either not use his company knowledge for an unfair advantage, or publish the information (which IFI may not like) so everyone can use it. I'd have to say that sort of situation isn't possible with a transmission like yours, so I'd say that's a moot point.

That makes sense, and it's good to know the safety factor. Are the specifications for the transmission avaliable?

Again, that makes sense. Of course Fastenal wouldn't be held liable for the loss of the match. I'm a bit tired, so my thoughts aren't coming out as fluid as I'd like them to. I think what I meant was the breakage of the components. If a screw breaks, it's no big deal to replace it. If a gear breaks or a shaft snaps, that can be a big production to replace, especially if the team doesn't have the capability to forge a new shaft or obtain a new gear. I guess the question is, would you have replacement parts available on request?

Thanks for the answers! This is turning into one of the best discussions I've seen around here in a while!

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Your point about costing the standard parts on the team's BOM is great. If team 45 uses AndyMark components, they will be noted at cost in the BOM.

We are working on specifications and prices. Within two weeks (the end of August) we plan to have this information on our webpage.

As for replacement parts, we will have them available to order on the website. We will do our best to create a fair warranty plan.

Andy B.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I am out of line and will not have the thread closed. I do find it difficult to sit back and not input more. I will however bow to the wishes of others.

As for the KOP transmissions, ask how many needed replacement at the events. Teams were blowing them during practice rounds.

What I have understood, and may be wrong, is that people would rather that the playing field be more on the level side rather than teams "learn" their way up the ladder. The team I am on in 2003 built their first 3 motor shifting transmission. It took forever to get the parts from PIC and so we did not have much time to complete. With less than a week till ship we had to totally redo and build a gearbox instead. That put us at a big disadvantage for the first regional. I have to admit that it became the year that we won our first regional but we barely made it through. This year we redesigned (thanks Tristan) and again had problems getting parts. After blowing out the aluminum gears and copper gears we finally got our final gears the day before ship. The robot was finally moving at about 3 am of ship day. Not much time for practice.

Now I am not a gearbox or transmission expert but I believe that we could not order parts until we knew the motors and specs. I also know that the gears were very expensive. Now if a transmission is designed and built before season starts, would the builders not have to know what motors and what specs that they were? Would the price not be excessive unless shipped as piece parts and not assembled as one item. Even as a kit that contained all of the parts the single price , I would think, would be high. I ramble on unable to put my thoughts into words so I will stop for now. I apologize for my outbursts but my passion clouds my eyes sometimes (and my brain).

Please, let the discussions continue. :o

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

OK..I have tried to read all of the above, but will admit to just skimming some for key words. And I agree that this is a good topic to bring up now before it becomes an issue, however I see one simple clarification that could be made to the rule:

There is a quantitative difference between pre-built and purchased. Purchased means that the product has been designed, manufactured and built by a Company as opposed to some other person/team/organization that wants to sell off robot parts. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is government (yes, I used that word :ahh: ) paperwork which defines a company which then translates into taxes and what not. Also, if an organization becomes a company, they must pay wages to workers. And if anyone has ever added the hours it takes to build a robot and multiplied it by minimum wage....its not cheap.

It seems to me that if FIRST wanted to (or sadly needed to) clarify the rule they could say something along those lines to help them define "purchased". In this case pre-built would be anything a team made or purchased from someone other than a company before kickoff.

Eric

Purchase/Prebuild/Predesign - What's the difference?
 

Some other random thoughts on this subject....

Predesigning has been OK for my time in FIRST. Most teams design and prototype critical components. If FIRST changes KoP parts (like they did with the Chiphua output shaft in 2003 and the new drill motor in 2003), we have to scramble to redesign. It's a risk to invest design time up front, but generally it pays off. Since most teams are pretty free about sharing information with other teams, this seems to be a good thing all around.

CNC programming and fixtures...Under last year's rules, it would be OK for a team to come up with a design, program and debug a CNC machine and make whatever fixtures are necessary. When build phase hits (assuming no major KoP changes), the program can be dumped into the CNC machine and parts can be banged out automatically at much lower machining time.

Design for Manufacturing...designing both for function and to make it easier to manufacture takes the art of design to the next level. If you accomplish this in the off season, you can reduce the number and complexity of parts that you must make.

Competitiveness...designing and prototyping in the off season builds a team's knowledge base, which is ultimately what makes a team more competitive. Fabrication resources, OTS parts, etc. are available if you need them.

There are even other ways to save fabrication time during build phase...making fixtures in the off season, buying materials which are precut to length, designing around OTS material sizes to save cuts, ...

Whatever the rules, mature teams are going to find ways to improve their design efficiency based on knowledge of competitions past.

Finally, SLEEP...the reason that most of us spend time in the off-season getting a jump on next season is so that we can have more sleep time and more family time during build phase.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild/Predesign - What's the difference?
 

This has been a great discussion. I admit that I have never been a fan of replacing "creativity" with "plug-and-play someone elses idea" but the discussion has helped me to understand that the buy-a-transmission route is not necessarily something that will hurt creativity. So I'm more positive on the idea than ever before, and I'll quit grumbling to myself now...

Karthik's comments on this topic and Andy's capitalism comment hit home for me. Thanks guys.

I hope FIRST will make sure their rules and team guidance capture this sort of evolution of the game. It should be clear to every team (even to those who don't have CD addicts) what is available, how to best obtain the hardware, and how it is to be accounted for within the rules.

Maybe something on the FIRST website that includes "non-FIRST systems that you can buy for your FIRST robot."

As far as people from AndyMark helping specific teams, I say have at it. I'm expecting them to SPONSOR a team in the 2007 season :).

Ken

Re: Purchase/Prebuild/Predesign - What's the difference?
 

Ahem. 2006!!

-dave

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

I have two questions. Can you use pieces you have prepared for use? Like if i had a 1" by 2" piece of Plexiglas and i cut it in half in preparation for the robot is it OK? Also what are the rules on reusing pieces? I want to reuse the electrical enclosure that I'm making next year. Ill remove everything in the box even take the box apart into its components but i want to reuse it.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

To cut raw material to approximate size (legality) or for storage is OK. If however you are cutting to exact sizes then it is illegal. Again with part 2 of your question there are legalities involved and they are year dependent.As of last year, I believe, that the rule was only specific KOP's were allowed from other robots.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

So the electrical box would most likely have to be redone. As for cutting the plexiglass, cutting a 1x2 piece in half would sound eerily close to fabrication before Kickoff. (A few inches of plexiglass can be cut after Kickoff with ease. Now, if you had enough aluminum to cover the student parking lots of the University of South Carolina, and you had to cut it in half to get it to fit inside your storage area, that would probably be a different story. Anyone with good sense would know that you weren't fabricating in that case, you were housekeeping.)

(Actually, now that I think of it, you probably could get enough aluminum to cover the student parking lots to fit inside a storage closet uncut. There isn't that much anymore. :rolleyes: )

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

...and the correct answer is: NO ONE KNOWS!

It has been said before many times, but it bears repeating again - you can NOT assume that last year's rules for a certain situation will still be valid for the same situation next year. Elements of the robot construction and materials use rules are modified every year based on changes in the available materials, alterations in the kit of parts, design changes forced by the game, venue limitations, refinement of the "legal use" definitions, to prevent teams from obtaining an unfair advantage by starting construction prior to kick-off, and just to play with our minds. Assuming that you can prepare parts prior to kick-off, or re-use parts from last year, is tempting the fates. The very fact that parts are rumored to be being re-used may be sufficient reason for the rule-makers to change a rule to prevent the re-use of that very part (not that they would ever be that devious! :rolleyes: ).

-dave

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Ive come to this conclusion. If i alter anything into a otherwise readily available and legal piece than the alteration is legal. So i can buy a 1 x 1 piece of Plexiglas before competition and it would be legal so cutting a 2 x 1 piece in half is also legal. Applying the same idea to reusing parts the piece would have to be buy able. So no i can't reuse the box (unless something changes in the rules) however i can reuse components in the box (lights, keypad, etc...). Overall this seems pretty reasonable.

Re: Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?
 

Go back two messages. Read it. Now read it again. Your conclusion is based on potentially invalid assumptions that may end up biting you in the rear if you are not careful.

-dave