Innovations
 

I am a third-year member of team 1997, located in Roeland Park, Kansas. Throughout my years I have seen a lot of great robots but nothing I would describe as truly revolutionary. So I was wondering what all anyone has seen that has been implemented on a robot, and went on to change the way that we compete in FIRST robotics.

Basically, what are the innovations that changed the game?

Re: Innovations
 

I'll leave this to the professionals.
The last powerpoint on this page is pretty comprehensive, although it hasn't been updated since the end of the 2010 season.

Although I wasn't around to see it, the Technokats releasing their gearbox designs to the public, circa 1999, was a watershed moment in the FRC world.

Re: Innovations
 

The REAL game-changers are the ones that led to a rule change the next year.

1997: Team Hammond intentionally detaches a mechanism that scores lots of points. This device and anything like it is banned the next year.

1993(?): The robots that intentionally tip other robots are banned by 1994.

2002: FRC71 (the aforementioned Team Hammond, or the Beatty Beast) uses a walking drivetrain with filecard traction. While they weren't the only team with metal on carpet, they are probably the most famous. Metal on carpet was banned the next year due to the damage.

2005: Two of the three world champions had defensive wedges, but that isn't what got wedges banned starting in 2006. The one and only eliminations tie is, caused by each alliance tipping a member of the opposing alliance--why yes, wedges were involved. Bumpers were encouraged starting in 2006, and wedges were banned.

And then there was 469 in 2010.

Re: Innovations
 

Daniel it sounds like you need to read The Myths of Innovation by Scott Berkun. I got the recommendation from JVN's blog. There are many innovations, yet you have to open your eyes to see them and appreciate them.

357 poured their own linear slides in 2007. It was innovative enough to patent it. Or was that their battery mount, which is now a product?

To me, 1114's ball launching idea for 2008 was innovative since it not only did what others thought impossible (punch the ball over the overpass) but it also did so in such an elegant design that I'm surprised the design itself hasn't received more attention. Everything fit together so well that year on that bot.

For drive train, there's 148's nonadrive. Yet the innovation really comes from the whole design, which JVN explains on his blog. Not only is it a defensive drive train, but it's an anti-defense drive train as well.

Re: Innovations
 

47 (now 51) came up with swerve
148 came up with sheet metal gears
60 and 254? (I think 60 is their number correct me if I'm wrong) came up with drop center 6 wheel
118 co axle swerve

Re: Innovations
 

Robot flippering devices were legal until 1998 when they were finally banned. IIRC 121 had a nasty flipping device in 97 that took them to the final against Beatty.

Re: Innovations
 

You may need to check facts on those three.

I'm fairly sure that I saw Sheet Metal Gears at some point in 2006, I'm sure they were done earlier at some point.

I'm not sure if 60 and 254 necessarily came up with the drop center 6WD, they did pioneer the 'West Coast Drive' though. (WCD is much more than a drop center 6WD)

Team 217 Ran a coaxial Swerve as far back as 2002. I'm not sure if they were the first, but I believe they beat 118 to the punch.

(Note, not trying to discredit anyone, I just feel like these three may not be correct.)

Re: Innovations
 

1114's 2008 robot was certainly a beautiful piece of work, but there were plenty of teams that punched the ball over the overpass.

If anyone gets impossible points it is 469 in 2010 having the returning balls score themselves. I imagine most teams thought "Huh, that would be crazy if...", a few teams prototyped it, and exactly one really got it to work. And boy oh boy did it work.

Re: Innovations
 

I also want to touch on the fact that 47(51) did not come up with the swerve system. Steered wheel systems have been around for quite some time in academic robotics. In FRC, however, they were pioneered by 47(51) in 1998.

Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe 67 was one of the first teams to use "omni" wheels back in 1998.

Re: Innovations
 

Guys, I don't think it matters who came up with something first. Xerox came up with the mouse. Apple made the mouse into a game-changer. Microsoft made the Kinect. A bunch of hackers who were almost sued by Microsoft made the Kinect into a game changer (ironic isn't it?).

118's implementation of coaxial swerve was a game changer because of their promotion of it and its continued use. It obviously wasn't a game changer for 217 if they didn't use it after a couple of iterations.

148's implementation of sheet metal gears was publicized as being a game changer for their new drive train as well as part of the core mechanism for their 2011 bot. Who was the team in 2006 that did plate metal gears? Do they still do them and how did it revolutionize a system on their bot?

The WCD guys have found obvious success in the WCD since they don't use anything but WCD. They made WCD into a game changer, regardless of 'who did it first'.

Who did do that first? Do they still do it? Does the fact that they did it first matter? This isn't the commercial market where the first to do something can patent it and demand royalties from all of the future users, so I don't think it matters a single bit.

Re: Innovations
 

Bragging rights? Giving credit where credit is due? Yes the teams that popularized it deserve credit but the originators should also be acknowledged.

Re: Innovations
 

This idea of innovation came up at work today discussing creative solutions to problems. This reminded me of something my team developed out of necessity and why Smokey Yunick is my hero. Since most people here on CD never knew about this I thought I'd bring up an innovation we developed a few years back.

Way back in 2004 we used vacuum actuation by creating a vacuum pump from a pnuematic cylinder with some check valves and globe motor with a crank on it. The vacuum was used to actuate the systems that would otherwise be pnuematic because we needed the vacuum for our design. Having one system that did both cut significant weight from our design. Also vacuum was explicitly allowed for the first time that year and there are not any rules written governing vacuum the way pnuematics are.

Using vacuum also allowed us to use the frame of the robot as an accumulator.

This has been legal every year since, but we haven't used it because our designs haven't needed vacuum.

Re: Innovations
 

I can't find the Technokats presentation now, but both 45 and 67 had versions of omni-directional wheels in 1998.

I'm not sure how/why the past mentors of 67 developed them, because none of them are on the team anymore


To me...the innovation of 1114's robot in 2008 was the integration of an articulating roller claw into their ball launcher and how effective they used the machine that made Simbot SS(?) such a success.

Re: Innovations
 

Meh, I'd let the original teams speak for themselves then if it matters much. As far as I know, 1885 was the first team to use the camera as a visual radar for the drivers using custom-wrapped code from the cRIO in 2009 and a Java display for the driver. We were also the 'first' (I think 357 did it too) to use 4 independently actuated pneumatic linkage modules on the drive train in 2009. But neither fact matters; they were niche ideas meant for that game. Actually, given our last-place OPR at championships in 2009 I dunno that they're facts I'd advertise that we were firsts of, heh.

As for another innovation there's the multi-threaded approach to robot programming (inputs, state processing, and outputs all on separate threads). I don't think we were the first in 2006 since iirc we learned it from 116. Yet in 2008 I talked to several sensor-heavy teams at championships who also did it that way. When did that start? Was it just a natural part of the IFI controller?

Re: Innovations
 

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm mostly commenting on a process rather than your particular statements.

By your own admissions these were not successful innovations and there is really no reason to celebrate unsuccessful innovations. There is still much value in them in that you can always learn from failures (why did the linkage modules fail? What was beneficial of the camera feedback? etc.). These questions might help move forward and turn them into something worth celebrating.