YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Team Red is designing a new transmission. The plans are completed by June 30, 2006. The prototype must be built and tested by November. Parts are ordered. Not just for the prototype but also for the competition bot. This is legal under the 2006 rules. Now some of the parts need machining which a sponsor has graciously offered to do. Now comes the question. Because of the cost to the sponsor it would be easier to do all parts at once rather than some now and some after kickoff. If the sponsor manufactures the parts for the 2007 bot and keeps them till Wednesday after kickoff, would that be considered as illegal under the 2006 rules? I understand that the 2007 rules may differ and that they cannot be counted into the equation.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I would have to believe that it is a violation of the rules. While I can understand the advantages to the sponsor for doing all of the parts at the same time, it is still fabrication of a non-COTS part outside of the build window.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Too easy:

<R15> ...absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation.

Whether the build team had them in their hot little hands before or after kick-off is irrelevant. The parts would be intended for the final robot and could not be customized ahead of time.

Loophole?:

The sponsor could add those machined parts to their normal inventory and offer them for sale to the general public. However, IMO, that would violate not only the spirit of the rule but the letter of the rule as well, since it would not change the fact that those parts were intended for use in that team's final robot.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Personally, it doesn't matter to me- as long as it was done for cost and not time savings. According to R16, this example would be against the rules. The parts were fabricated outside of the build season.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I had a similar thought, but I think there is a way.

If the sponsor offered the machined parts for sale only for the purpose of meeting the FIRST requirements (but they knowingly do not expect to sell any) then I would agree, they are severely bending the rules

however, this transmission is being designed in the off season, for a robot that may not have a drivetrain like previous years. In that perspective it is a general purpose transmission. If the sponsor company was willing to manufacture the complete transmission, and offer it for sale through normal robot-hobby-educational channels (so that any team can buy the whole transmission)

then I think they are very much in compliance with the spirit of the rules, and in line with the spirit of FIRST interteam cooperation.

That would be the best of both worlds. Your team gets to design a transmission the way they want it, based on their experience over the years, and by producing many of them it will drive the cost down.

Other teams would be able to use it, but I suspect the team that designed it would have the best understanding of how to take full advantage of its characteristics and design functions.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I agree, but to be legal, you'd have to be ready to make and ship transmissions to all the teams in FIRST in short order. Either you're going to have to have a lot of machining capacity, or you're going to have to build a few hundred transmissions. Neither particularly sounds like it's worth the trouble.

(But hey, if someone wants to go through the trouble of creating a legit business (and the other requirements for a FIRST-legal supplier under the most recent rule set), I don't see the trouble.)

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

931 was in a similar situation last year. We built four copies of a custom transmission (look here) as an aid to learning about holonomic drive. After 2006 kickoff we decided to use the transmission on our competition robot, so we built four more copies during build season.

To comply with <R15> we did all of the fabrication of competition robot parts, including machining provided by our sponsor, within the 6-week build period. This required our sponsor to repeat set-ups. Clearly they would have saved significant time by making eight copies of each required component during Summer 2005, and they proposed doing that in case we wanted to use the parts in competition. Knowing the rules I had to tell them we could only accept parts for our competition robot that were fabricated between kick-off and shipping deadline, or during a fix-it window.

This left us with several transmissions that could have functioned as spares, but were not legal spares per the rules. Lucky for us, we never needed spare transmission parts.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Heh... who would be crazy enough to do that?

AB

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I think that's quite akin to the homologation rules that you find (or used to find) in stock-car racing series. Those rules specified that manufacturers had to produce and offer for sale a certain number of examples of the car that would compete. Often 50 or more. Teams and manufacturers tried every conceivable way to bend the rules, for the same reasons. For example, they would build enough parts for 50 cars, but not assemble them—and were rejected.

So, what if FIRST introduced a homologation rule? Build and offer for sale a certain number of examples, and you can do your fabrication in batches. Something tells me that that would further tip the balance squarely in favour of the teams with the best funding or resources (who can afford to buy expensive components off-the-shelf, or commit resources to a production run). Maybe that's not really what we want to see—it would be as if teams had to either buy into one of the prebuilt designs to realize the significant savings in time and labour, but at the same time, they would be diminishing the amount of engineering that they do on their own. That's probably shifting the balance too far in favour of kit-built robots, as opposed to scratch-built ones.

As for the situation Steve referred to, it's illegal, but I think that his intention was to release them to the team on Wednesday after the kickoff to make up for the time that it would have taken, had the machining been started on the Saturday of the kickoff. The rules don't allow for that solution, even though it's roughly equivalent. And I say roughly, because a team could order one batch of parts with half to be held in reserve, but reject that batch on the basis of the half that they use as a prototype. Then they could repeat that cycle as many times as necessary, each time always having enough parts for the real robot ready. Furthermore, it would allow a team to avoid the delays imposed upon them by their sponsor's schedule—there's no special consideration in the rules for a sponsor being unable to maintain their committments.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Heroes. :)

Thanks, Andy and Mark!

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I hope there are not too many teams who cannot afford to spend the allowable amount on their robots - what is the cap these days? $3.5k?

if a team is going to sell a transmission as a COTS kit to other teams, it cant be expensive, because they have to use the same price on their bill o materials as they charge other teams for the same transmission.

so the incentive would be to psuedo-mass produce an inexpensive robust COTS mechanism, that any team could afford (as a small part of their total robot BOM budget).

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I think you'd be surprised. We have (as compared to some other FIRST teams) a pretty limited budget - $19K this past season. We were faced with the choice of using the money we did have for the robot or to enter another regional. We decided that it would be not only good exposure for our team adn its members, but in the spirit of FIRST, to go to both Boilermaker and W.Mich. So subtract $10k for registration and KOP, $3.5k for charter bus, $2k for room & board, and $2.5k for tools and supplies - not much left over for the bot itself.
But we still had fun! And the completely student-designed, student-built robot was a source of more pride for the team members than perhaps anything else they'd done in their lives.

Sorry, off-topic. I'll stop now.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Umm, what about the design part of R16? Designing the transmission outside the build season is also not allowed, or??

Don

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

YIKES!

WHAT?!

HOLY COW! YIKES!

no more using battery holders or motor mounts or modular electronics boxes that were designed in previous years?

No more using designs posted by other teams on CD from previous years?!

YIKES! (this changes everything)

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Let me add another element to the question.According to this rule :
<R22> Individual COMPONENTS from robots entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2006 robots IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition.

If the Red Team competes in an off season event, would it be classified as a FIRST event and would the parts be allowed in the 2007 season if the rules remain the same as 2006?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Quoted was rule 16 but if you look at previous rule you will read:

<R15> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their robots. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and
conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS items they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS assembled prior to the Kick-off presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but MAY NOT be used on the final ROBOT.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

No, it does not. Be sure to read <R15> also:

<R15> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their robots. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS items they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS assembled prior to the Kick-off presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but MAY NOT be used on the final ROBOT.


The important part of <R22> is "IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition."

If a team fabricates a custom part for the 2006 Wonderland competition, they can't use it on the 2007 robot.

If a team uses a Globe Motor in the 2006 Wonderland competition, and the same Globe Motor model is a legal part in the 2007 FIRST kit, then that same exact motor can be used on a 2007 FIRST Robot.

Of course, that is if the fabrication rules are similar to what we knew in 2006.

AB

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Pretty rich compared to many. I work with a team who's never had that much.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

As was noted above, a lot of teams budget their limited funds in ways that preclude expensive but convenient parts. A $300 expense for transmissions is a difficult thing for more teams than you might imagine.

Now that I think more about it, with the kit transmissions available, there isn't really the risk that the teams that can spend a few hundred dollars more will dramatically outclass the others. That would have been a bigger issue a few years ago, back when we had the Bosch motors and their slightly inelegant transmission mount and crossed-axis output as the no-cost option.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Wouldn't the very nature of an off-season exclude it from "FIRST event"? I mean yes, it's an event, played (mostly) by FIRST rules, with FIRST teams, but does FIRST officially endorse it? I don't think so in the case of most/all of them, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And as such doesn't that mean they are not legal FIRST events?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

ok, you can design and build a proof of concept mechanism, or even prototypes, but the other rule says you must 'design' all the parts you need after the kickoff meeting.

If you copy a tranmission design from CD that another team posted in a white paper from previous years, or even if you want to re-use a transmission that your team designed two years ago, it sure sounds to me like FIRST is saying "No! we want this years team to design anything that is not in the KOP and is not COTS themselves"

And I take that to mean, even if they have to reinvent what the team has done in previous years.

I can certainly see the reason for doing that. If you have a team that has been around for 5 or 10 years, it would be very easy to reuse great subsystem designs from previous years. But the students on the team this year would not be able to go through the design cycle for those parts of the robot, they would not have to brainstorm and think about the best way to build even simple things like a battery holder or a motor mount

and isnt that what the whole idea of this program is? To present the students with a interesting and difficult design challenge, and have them tackle it, from start to finish?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I read 'design' as used in <R16> to mean 'decide how to build'. Design doesn't have to mean 'invent' or even 'improve'.

As a wise man once said, "steal from the best, then invent the rest!"

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

This obviously can't be taken as strictly as you suggest, Ken. Many of the "components and mechanisms" used on a robot are purchased, not designed and fabricated. If we were to go all rule-lawyerish and follow it to the letter, it would keep us from using things like off-the-shelf bolts and chains. There's enough fuzziness in the word "design" to satisfy me that pulling out last year's battery holder plans for this year's robot won't violate the rule.

I think the intent of the rule is clear, especially when coupled with what <R15> says about pre-season prototypes immediately before it. Using existing documentation and raw materials to fabricate a pre-engineered design is not prohibited.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I think you are saying the same thing I am, but you dont realize you are saying it.

Ok, we have a battery holder on a robot from two years ago. Back then a couple students were presented with the problem "We gotta attach the battery to this surface, in this orientation, with access to the wires here and here".

If they did a real design cycle on the task, they would figure out the mass of the battery, the acceleration it would experience when the robot hit a solid object going 15 fps, with 2" bumpers on the robot, how much force that will create on the holder

and then look at the specs for sheet metal and alum, and the shear strength of #8 and #10 and 3/8" bolts..... and designed a battery holder that will keep that 10 lb lump of lead where its suppose to be, no matter what.

Ok, now its this year - I dont see anyway I can honestly say "design a battery holder" means "get the drawings from two years ago and hand them to the machinist on the shop floor".

If they dont go through the same design cycle / exercise, then they have no idea why the battery holder is the way it is.

and the rule that we have quoted a few times now says all "designing" for this years robot must be done after this years kickoff meeting. If you can buy something off the shelf, or pull it out of the KOP, then you dont need to design that part of the system

but you would still have to go through a bit of work to analyse the thing you are buying to make sure it will work as intended.

That battery holder you end up copying from two years ago, or from another team, for all you know it may have broken in every single match.

Engineering is a single point position of responsibility - if we are showing students what its like to be an engineer, then they cannot let something onto the robot that they cannot explain, verify, or say with understanding "this will work, this will do what it needs to do".

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

This has already been refuted a few posts ago. You seem to be the only person only looking at R16 and not R15, so where is the "we"?. Teams can prototype and design in the fall, according to R15.

If you wish to run your team this way, then that is your choice. However, please don't tell teams that using prior designs is illegal. Teams do not have to re-invent the battery holder each year.

The GDC gives us a new game each January, with new challenges. If the game is so easy that all a veteran team has to do is pull the prints from the previous year, then the GDC didn't make a good game. On the other hand, if we all had to re-format our brains, start from scratch with un-used designs we would see many non-movable boat anchors on the FIRST playing field.

It is simply ridiculous to say that FIRST does not want us to re-use proven (or even foolish) designs, or share designs between teams. Teams and individuals have been highly recognized and awarded for doing such things. Teams have won Chairman's Awards and individuals have won Woodie Flowers Awards for doing exactly these gracious acts.

Students on teams without engineering mentors learn from other teams this way. Making teams re-design from scratch is not only stupid, but against the ideals of the engineering iterative process.

Andy B.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I did not write the rules. I can see that many people are saying "It cant really means what it says"

but is that because we are convinced that is not what FIRST wants, or because we dont want it to say what it says?

Not every team has people hanging out on CD, so we can all wink at each other and say " the rule doesnt really mean what it says, so go ahead a re-use designs and subsystems from last year, as long as you have a machinist make new parts between kickoff and ship date"

so, if FIRST really means "go ahead and design all year long for next year and re-use and copy whatever you want" then they should say that - and say it clearly.

Teams I have been on, prototypes and proof of concept stuff was made of cardboard and plywood and two by fours, or using the edu bot, or whatever we had laying around. If the concept worked then we designed something similar, with metal or plastics, using approved materials and motors and parts. Nothing ever went from prototype to shipped robot with no changes.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

From my knowledge, it is against the rules to have it made before the season. (R15/R16) I think you should just make them and try to see if your sponsor can spare you some time on the machines during the build period.

Also, to my knowledge, designing during the off season is done by many teams, and that it is a part of of their Robotics Program. Therefore I believe that it abides by all rules and it should be accepted.

Pavan, 118 Electrical.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I don't think any of us are saying "It can't really mean what it says." However, it certainly can't mean what you think it says. You're taking the word "design" to have a very narrow meaning, but as I stated earlier, that choice of meaning leads to an interpretation of the rule that prevents things we know are explicitly permitted.

The design process doesn't have to incorporate the first-principles analysis you presented as an example. Researching existing solutions and using them where appropriate is also a perfectly valid design methodology.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Im trying really hard to find a way to agree with this (seriously). I know how things are done on many teams, and I know about design sharing and white papers and all that stuff

but when I look at that rule, if it said "must design your robot" then I would happily concede that re-using old subsystems designs, or battery mounts (an individual component) was in line with the rules. A system level design often does reuse older subsystem designs for parts of it functionality

but because its says "all the components and mechanisms" I see red flags waving everywhere.

If I goto Comp USA and buy a laptop computer, in no sense of the word (in my vocabulary) did I 'design' that computer. [I know we are allowed to use COTS subsystems, Im trying to clarifiy the word 'design' here]

If I copy a schematic from a website and wire the parts together, what would people think if I told them "I designed this" ? They would think I was taking credit for someone else's work.

The purpose of these You Make The Call threads is to discuss rules from FIRST that are sometimes vague, confusing or downright contradictory. How a leader runs their team is not up to them, its up to FIRST - its all contained in the rules they hand down.

If nothing else there should be a section in the rule book on re-use of old designs (not only single components, like the other contradictory rule addresses), and use of designs from white papers, internet websites...

going back to the original scenario in this thread, if a team has designed a transmission in the off season, with the intention of using it for the upcoming season, and they have it down to drawings that can be handed to a machinist to be fabricated on Jan 3rd, then I think they have clearly violated the spirit of the 'design starts at kickoff' part of this rule. If they have already gone that far, when the parts are actually machined is irrelevant.

Thats my call. (I do concede this rule is vague, confusing, and contradicts other rules from this year, along with going against many common FIRST team practices).

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

The easiest way is to recognize that you're fixated on a specific belief about what is meant by the word "design", and that changing that belief to handle a broader concept will make all your concerns evaporate.

If you stop insisting that the verb "design" must mean "devise a solution to address a requirement", and start accepting that "find a solution to address a requirement" is a valid meaning, we'll all be on the same page with respect to <R16>.

But if you then go on to use that computer as a component to solve a specific problem, you can claim to have designed a solution to that problem.

You did not create the schematic. However, if the finished circuit is being used as a functional part of a larger work of your own devising, you can legitimately say you designed the function to use that circuit.

This is not wordsmithing in order to get around a restriction. This is recognizing that the so-called restriction does not exist, and thereby understanding what the word must mean in context in order to keep the rule from saying the thing that is not.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Amen. A fine model for reductio ad absurdum. QED.

If you need persuasion woven tight with logic, leave it to a software architect.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I believe they did.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation

I think that you missed the above phrase when looking at the rule Ken. The rules says tome to design away and learn lots. Prove your ideas but do not cut, screw, bolt, lighten, bend or otherwise do or make anything that will be put on the 2007 robot. If you do any of the above then you can only use for demo and prototype and never add to your 2007 robot.

You can however use the plans that you developed to fabricate and build after kickoff.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

FIRST Fundamentalists on the day after Kick-off?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Stone wheels? Looks great for low CG. How are they for CoF?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

After giving this some thought, and reading through the posts in this thread again, I take it the general opinion is that FIRST teams can start designing their robot for next year, right after this years championship, if thats what they want to do?

And they can build full up prototypes, and set up CNC machine programs to churn out all the parts they need, and have all the materials ready to feed the machine,

as long as the parts being used are manufactured/fabbed.... after the kickoff meeting?

If that is the case I think FIRST should really strike the word "design" from the rules "after the kickoff"

and replace it with 'fabricate and assemble" because that is what they really mean.

The only risk I see from doing this is that you might 'design' a robot in september that will use motors or other parts that will not be in this years KOP (due to changes), or parts that might not be on the allowable parts list, but based on past experience that risk is very low.

So why dont we stop pretending? Why do some many teams wait until the kickoff to really get started? We can design base frames and drive trains, and accutators, and control systems, and sophisticated sensors with complex electronics, work out all the bugs, get all our drawings ready for Jan 3rd to hand to a machinst

and then at most all that will be left to do is design a ball shooter mechanism to bolt to the rest of the robot (the prototype we already have 2 copies of), or a pole grabber, or a ball hopper, or a platform pusher...

if we do this, at least 75% of the robot can be designed and ready to go by Jan 3rd! Why do we kill ourselves every year, trying design and build a robot in only 6 weeks, when we can really spend 52 weeks on the drawing/brainstorming/CNC setup/electronics schematics/programming/parts purchasing... part of the design cycle?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Something like that is in order, just for the sake of clarity. As a result of <R15>, design and construction of prototypes is unlimited—so anything that's designed before kickoff is a prototype, until it is designated to become part of the robot on or about the kickoff day (when actual fabrication of the part begins).

Many teams do exactly this. Of course, like you said, they do take the risk that the prototypes don't meet the next year's requirements, but that's the risk that they take, to put themselves 3 weeks ahead for the next season.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I agree. <R16> needs rewriting as suggested.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

Ken, how do you think that teams are practicing on week 3 after kickoff? I know that our team has not done this and we are still bolting things together as it goes in the crate.

There have been motor changes, size changes, weight changes, height changes and rule changes over the last few years. Yes you are taking a chance but if you can save even 1 weeks work then you are better off.

If your team does some of this design process (lights, remember championship) then you will be better off as a team and the kids will have learned a lot in the prototype process. Your team can take the extra time and help rookies or teams that are in need. There is a lot of benefit to this process. I believe that the team can learn more in a balanced, non time constraint environment than during a 6 week build. What's more is that we are using 52 weeks to excite and inspire. These are all bonuses. Down side is that we might get a little burnt out if we don't watch ourselves.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

If this is what FIRST has really evolved into, I have to say, I feel like we have lost one of the core aspects of the program: The intensity, the sense of being on your toes for six weeks, that whole thing about 'the hardest thing you will ever love doing'

and FIRST should also change their website, if everyone is really working on robot designs all year round:

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I think that Jack has it right here.

Sensible engineers do not design from first principles on every project they work on. They stand on and re-use the fruits of earlier design activities. This is the meaning of the word "design" in rule 16 and this is the process that we should be engaging students in. Teams are not restricted to engaging in the design process in this manner, however, they may re-design the wheel if they want.

Rule 15 makes this interpretation of rule 16 clear.

Don't forget, we are always admonished to not "lawyer" the rules!
This applies as equally to attempts to produce restrictions that don't exist as it applies to doing away with restrictions that do exist.

This, of course, is modulo the fact that this years rules haven't been published yet. It could, in fact, be the case that we get to chip our robots out of stone this year. That could be fun...

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

You have it exactly right! We dont have time to teach HS students about boring FIRST principles: Mass, acceleration, force, energy, impulse, power, torque, metal fatigue, shear stress

when we can re use the work of someone else who already did all that hard math stuff for us 8 years ago

no time to waste, there are giant plastic trophies at stake here!

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

There is a lot of discussion in the technical forums here in CD regarding these principles, generated by students with input from the technical mentors. I see this every day, year round.

CD has had a lot of great stuff going on this summer in lots of areas, animation, websites, and programming as well. Team organization: fundraising, handbooks, travel as well.

The 6 week FIRST build session is an opportunity for engineers, teachers, students, and NEMs to come together and build. The robot is an obvious result of the build. The program and people may not be as obvious but they are equally as important.

The principles mentioned are taught by the teachers in the schools and can be enhanced, expanded, shown in a hands-on application by the engineers working with the teams. We can't turn off inspiration and recognition, development and learning with a switch. It is an on-going process. If it were not, there would be no need for CD except for 6 weeks out of the year.
Jane

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

(Dare I note which trophies are the really big ones?)

Ken, I see where you're going here. Eight seasons ago, IFI wasn't in the KOP, Andy Baker was only in his second season with the TechnoKats, the highest team number was 336, and nobody had played Stairway to Heaven backwards in the hopes of finding a game hint.

Why do I bring this up? Over the years, the game will change. The arm on Ockham that hoisted our tetras probably wouldn't have done so well hoisting Bob in 2004. The drivetrain we tried on Chomp this year would've probably resulted in our butts getting kicked in 2003. Zip ties dragging on the carpet this year would've resulted in a funny look, while last year they proved essential for many. 71's infamous 2002 machine would be laughed out of the inspection area for several reasons (file cards, 5' expanding rule, no flopbots, take your pick). While you can steal the basic concepts from past years' robots, you can only be so effective with them. At some point, you're going to have to fire up Inventor (or Pro/E, or SolidWorks, or...you get the idea) and create something nobody's ever seen before. Nobody had a system in their storage room to shoot a lightweight ball from twenty feet out, or a sure-fire method to climbing a ramp that steep.

I suppose the bottom line is this: While there's a lot of borrowing past concepts, there's also plenty of room for folks to innovate, inspire, and shock the heck out of us on Saturday afternoon.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

It’s not that we don’t have the time to teach first principals; it’s more that we (FIRST) don’t need to. Why should we re-invent the classroom? That’s not our job. That stuff is comparatively easy. It’s all down in black and white in the textbooks.

I have seen many book smart engineers who can’t turn a wrench without reciting “leftie-loosie”- never had an original thought - and can’t get beyond what they’ve been taught. I don’t want any part of producing a fresh batch of them.

I want my kids to learn how to get the job done, and to get it done right, rather than to show that it worked on paper. I’d like to think I know more about momentum and impulse than Tiger Woods. But do I really? We have engineers at TARDEC who’ve been taught all there is to know about metal fatigue and shear. So, explain to me why it's the guys on the shop floor who know when a part will fail. There’s a difference between learning and knowing. The latter is where I choose to invest the six weeks we have.

But this tread is supposed about manufacturing rules. Isn't it a shame when the rules work to paint us into a corrner?

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

FIRST is so much more than FRC. If you think the Robotics Competition is the core aspect of FIRST, I think you're missing a lot.

Re: YMTC - Manufacturing
 

I think that there is lots of room to teach all of these things,
and we do, while making use of the design of a mechanism
from a prior year if it worked well and applies to the current
seasons game. We go through the design in detail, and there
is no shortage of learning opportunities for the students as a
result. Additionally, there has never been a shortage of entirely
new mechanisms to design and build in any given year, and we
stay very busy during the six week build period as a result.

Eugene