Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
There are a great many real-world engineering jobs that involve the spec'ing, selection, and integration of COTS components. Not all engineers work on the component design level.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery
I do think there is a difference between a generic-use COTS robot part (a gearbox) and a game-specific COTS robot part (an intake). That may be the distinction that upsets some people.
|
I agree, and note that the difference in opinion in this thread is not whether or not we should use COTS. Many haved waxed eloquently about the benefits of standing on the shoulders of giants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PayneTrain
The product of FIRST is not necessarily the robots. It's the teams behind the robots...
Sure, FIRST has a crafted mission and vision for its program, but teams should also have their own mission and vision for their own program. The meaning of participation in FIRST is whatever the participant defines it to be, which is why it can be all things for all people.
In terms of the spectrum of the relationship suppliers have with FRC teams, they really are not crossing a line for me until they are boxing up MCC kits and selling them as a separate SKU.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi
If there is a market for it, if it is cost effective for the company, and if the prices fall within the rules, let the free market do its thing... Business is business.
|
What we should agree on is that a line should be drawn somewhere (and perhaps the $400 part limit is already good enough. If FIRST's rules allow certain behaviors, and many FRC teams see a competitive advantage, it is hard to fault a team for pursuing those advantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJohnston
The WestCoast Products 2016 MCC robot is designed with the intent of ensuring teams have a greater chance of not only being chosen for an alliance in the eliminations routs, but also leading their own alliance as a part of the top 8 seeds." And later, "We show that teams can build a competitive robot in a matter of days."
This fundamentally changes FRC.... In other words, with zero engineering skills, a team can build a robot that is better than the vast majority of their competitors - without having to spend six weeks working their tails off designing the thing.... most teams hoping to qualify for Champs will find that their most effective path is through purchasing of a pre-engineered kit.
Moreover, I would suggest that teams who worked hard for six weeks and build a solid robot would be very "uninspired" if beaten by a team that bought the kit and qualified for Champs. The true benefit and value of first comes in the engineering that happens over the six weeks of build. The time the kids and mentors exchange ideas as to how to best engineer a robot to solve the game.... It's the time that the kids have to work in high-stress situations and yet still function as a team... It's the repeated failures that ultimately lead to success.... The events? they are nothing more than the fun reward at the end.
|
Ri3D has pushed into and been embraced by our FIRST culture. As a coach, I have had to adapt to that change. In order to continue using FIRST's platform to inspire students, there certainly has been more struggle for students to explore their own ideas first. Thankfully, we've learned how to re-structure our design process to accomodate (and gain from Ri3D) allowing for more creativity to flow out in the analysis of different solutions and customizing our own.
The tendency towards more game-specific COTS feels like it moves in a similar direction. I agree with PayneDrive that each team will use FIRST to accomplish its own goals, but as FRC evolves, the range of options of what FRC CAN be used for changes as well.
Is it realistic for a team that wants students to primarily struggle through their own designs (as opposed to doing a lot of analysis of existing designs) to use FRC as a platform?
No team (or company) is an island, and together, discussions like this help us to better reflect on how we WANT to evolve as a STEM-inspiring program, instead of letting major changes happen without notice.