[Foster]

One of the constant threads here on CD, and in the competitive robotics world, is the sustainability of teams. We have great plans, we will change the world, we get some money, we get roboteers involved, we play, we get crushed, we do a second year, we get crushed, everyone is disenfranchised, things fall apart ....

We've all seen this or have lived this. We track teams through the data (thanks Mark for your magic): birth, life for a year or two, death.

The purpose of this note is to ask about the sustainability of teams with the new COTS parts. Great teams have closed due to the loss of the lead / major sponsor. But most teams have closed because of the technology. They build crappy robots and loose interest.

I'd like to look back 5 years (don't want to back to the early days of "we had corn to drive on and we were happy to have it") of the technology, and forward to the next few years. I've watched/been part of the advance of commercial off the shelf parts (yay Smallparts!) in the last few years. IFI controls, Kitbot, Kitbot+, all of the AndyMark parts, Banebots, NI, new AndyMark, VEXPro line, assorted "maker parts" new NI controls, etc.

Last years epiphany was the multiple "robots in less time than you can imagine". Robots by the 3 days guys, IFI/VEX engineers and others. COTS, lots of smarts and *poof* there is a competitive robot. Teams followed that lead. And at events, there were no longer "deadbots" but robots that moved and scored. While some derided the clone bots, there were teams that would not have been competitive, were a good asset in alliances and overall had a good season.

So this bring me to my point (finally!!), does the huge improvement in COTS parts improve the possibility of improved sustainability? While FIRST has never been about building a robot, does the ability for new teams to use COTS part and build a successful robot get them on the path of being sustainable?