View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-12-2011, 21:38
Thad House Thad House is online now
Volunteer, WPILib Contributor
no team (Waiting for 2021)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Thousand Oaks, California
Posts: 1,087
Thad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond reputeThad House has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Custom Vs. COTS Transmissions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink View Post
This subject touches on my biggest pet peeve about FIRST rules: the prohibition, without exception, on re-use of fabricated components, existing designs, or modified COTS items. Transmissions are a great example, but the same principle applies to any number of other components & assemblies.

If we were to go to the effort and expense of developing and building our own transmission (a good thing), it would glorified scrap at the end of the season (bummer). If we just bought a COTS transmission and didn't modify it (normal business practice, but not as much of a learning experience), we would be free to re-use it in the future. This is a big disincentive against making anything you can buy. Perhaps FIRST could set some allowance for "legacy" fabricated parts - by weight, parts count, dollar value, etc.

If we were to invest in a pair of COTS shifting transmissions and then we drilled one new mounting hole in each (heaven forbid we deburred or lightened the gears) they would be unusable for future games. Perhaps FIRST could set some standards for minimum allowable modifications for re-use of COTS items - i.e., drilling holes, shortening motor shafts, etc.

I know that its easy to recycle a design by making some meaninglessly trivial modification, but that just encourages "gaming the system". Perhaps FIRST could allow re-use of designs that had been publicly posted.

I like the FRC supplier base that has developed in recent years, and we take advantage of it. However, when combined with existing FIRST rules, it creates some negative and unintended incentives. I hope FIRST will consider allowing limited re-use of legacy designs & hardware that teams creat or enhance with their own brains & hands.

Besides, the unique requirements for each game put a natural limit on the number and type of items that are worth re-cycling.
If you look at the big blue box under R22 this year, it says that if designs are posted publicly they are allowed to be reused because they are considered cots parts
__________________
All statements made are my own and not the feelings of any of my affiliated teams.
Teams 1510 and 2898 - Student 2010-2012
Team 4488 - Mentor 2013-2016
Co-developer of RobotDotNet, a .NET port of the WPILib.