Kudos on the topic: As the worlds of both engineering and FIRST evolve, it's always good to step back and ask the question, "Does this new development really jive with the mission of FRC?" Regular discussions on such topics are healthy for any community and FRC is no exception.
I do think the question as to whether or not such prefabricated parts are a good think (or should permitted) is a fantastic question - but one that goes much deeper than simply whether or not AndyMark should provide game specific items. So, backing up a bit:
* Let's face it, there will never be perfect parity in FRC. A team located in the same community as a robotics engineering firm will have some significant advantages over teams in very rural areas. Likewise, in the Seattle area, we'd have some real advantages in games requiring flight (lots of Boeing engineers around here)... There is nothing wrong with this: Programs absolutely must work with their local industries.
* Teams that philosophically believe in having a 100% student-built bot will never put up such a glorious piece of machinery as one that is near 100% mentor built.
* Overall, we need the GDC to provide rules and guidelines that allow teams to have their own approaches to the game and allow them to work within the necessary frameworks of their local communities while maintaining some sense of a level playing field. (I don't envy the members of the GDC for this.)
* Pre-fabricated items add an interesting layer to all of this. On one side, they give the less-experienced teams a chance to at least play on the same field as those teams flush with strong mentors, great facilities and cash. On the other, they potentially cut into the kids' learning experience.
* Let's face it: very few of us want to see any supplier come up with a "Read-for-competition bot-in-a-box designed by professional robotics engineers and manufactured by NASA... All you have to do is put it together - 9/16th wrench provided. Estimated time of assembly: 2 hours." (No, this is not meant as a knock against any team). There needs to be a line somewhere.
* Giving a helping hand to teams is integral to the FIRST community. How does this fit in? Certainly a team new to the game and short on mentors would be far more able to put a functional robot on the field. It's always painful to see teams at a competition whose robot doesn't even roll.
* At the same time, it's not right if it is possible to put a competitive robot forward with little or no engineering knowledge. It seems fundamental to FRC that students must be forced to develop engineering skills and knowledge in order to compete. Students who have more such ability should be able to produce products superior than what students lacking such knowledge could produce.
* At some level, we all rely on suppliers to produce products for us- every team does. It's not like we are mining metal from the ground to produce our own aluminum....
* Two AndyMark products come to mind: The Rhino Treads and the Intake System. 948 students do almost everything by hand. We have no access to CNC machines or Jet cutting.. Students are very adept with hacksaws, hand drills, etc. So, if we are going to create precise cuts and functional devices, the construction takes a lot of time... We likely would have chosen a drive system with pneumatic wheels this year, but saw the Rhinos online. After much discussion, we figured that there would be very few performance disadvantages with the Rhinos - they would do the job well. By purchasing them, we saved a tremendous amount of labor and can now focus much more on our various manipulators... Yes, I felt a little guilty when I ordered them. We chose not to go with the intake system - we figured we could do much better.
* For our intake system, we spent time looking at FRC robots over the past decade that have had very good ball intake systems and found something that the Cheesy Poofs did a few years ago that could be altered just a wee for the purposes of this game. We studied photographs and video of their robot and found plenty to make what we believe will be an outstanding ball intake. To me, this is a hugely important aspect of engineering: We don't need to invent everything from scratch. Instead, we found systems that did similar things to what we need and adapted them. Why reinvent the wheel when we can learn from somebody else?
* We did something similar for our climbing mechanism... Our mentors had spent some time talking with another team at Champs last year about their bin-grabber.. I don't remember the team number off the top of my head, but they were great: They showed us how it all worked and a mentor responded to one of our students last spring when she emailed them for more information. Yes, their bin-grabber gave us a concept for our climber. Again, this is good engineering.
* Ri3D: These teams are great as they do give us all ideas. However, I wonder how "good" we want their robots to be? (I don't have an opinion here, I just wonder...). Here is why: We had been working on two promising prototypes for our shooter (one was a catapult design, the other a single-wheel shooter). We had just gotten to the point with both designs, when we were looking at the integration with other systems on our robot -especially so space constraints. We were just trying to solve those problems -something that is very good for students to have to work through. How do we load the ball into the catapult after grabbing it with our intake? How do we secure the ball as we take it on a pretty bumpy ride through the outer-works? How do we get that big wheel to fit into the fairly small space we have on the robot? The questions were hard - but really good problems to have to figure out..... But, we then saw something on one of the Ri3D robots that would solve all of those problems and do exactly what we wanted: Shooting accurately with range, adjustable shot distances, a clean integration with our intake system and fit into the space required. So... we scrapped our own ideas and took theirs. Yes, we are learning from the experience - but we are missing out on the problem-solving that would have been absolutely necessary if we had stuck with our own promising designs.
* I guess I look at the prefabricated parts as one more piece in the continuum of "support" available for FRC teams. I don't see the current AndyMark items as harmful to the experience. However, I do think they start to flirt with that line. After all, the moment kids stop needing to actually engineer their own robot and solve the problems presented in each game is the moment that FRC lose its magic. I just hope that these discussions continue on Chief Delphi and that the GDC continues to have them as well.
(Submitting without a proofread... My wife wants me to fold laundry... I hope I didn't ramble too much.)
