[Andy Baker]

I've been quiet on this issue due to various reasons. Obviously, you guys know where I stand on it.

However, I do want to bring up a few points.

1. About a year ago, I proposed to other TechnoKat adult team leaders that we make and sell standard gearboxes to other teams. The leaders of the team decided not to do this. At the same time they said that they had no problem with any individual doing this. Other TechnoKats who have been involved with this gearbox design have been asked to join this side-business company, they have declined. If anyone has any objection to this effort, leave the TechnoKats out if it. Your issue is with myself and Mark, not the rest of the team 45. Address your issues to us.

2. Shifting gearbox designs have been around for a long time. Shifting gearbox designs made specifically for FIRST robots have been around for a few years. They even have been posted, detail for detail, on the internet, on a few websites (and, btw, team 45 started this effort). At the same time, there are thousands of companies who design and sell gearboxes. Also, there will be over 1000 FIRST teams in 2005. What if an engineer who worked for one of these existing companies realized this opportunity and convinced his/her company to take a risk and create a standard gearbox, similar to these designs, for FIRST teams? What if that engineer also helped mentor a FIRST team? I see this situation as inevitable. Someone is going to do this. Why not Mark and I?

3. Teams seemed to be worried about this event (a couple of FIRST people making standard FIRST mechanical components) happening. I am not sure why. Is it because they think that the team I am on will now have an unfair advantage? If they do, they are not looking at the situation as I see it. Think about it. If I want my team to have an unfair advantage, I will side on the issue that says "bring back the old build restrictions", that Raul and Dave (and some others) are wishing for. All in all, if I want team 45 to win more, I wish for that. Honestly, we can still create a dual-speed, shift-on-the-fly gearbox out of raw materials and a few parts from SPI. Can your team? No offense, but we did pretty well as a team back when these restrictions were in place. Now that I think about it, we did better then (in 98 and 99) than we did when FIRST started opening up the build rules. My point here is that if the "old rules" were in place, the divide between high-resource teams and low-resource teams would be dramatically worse than it is now.

Maybe I am missing something. What is the problem? Is there another reason that this is being opposed? Is this bad for FIRST? Are students suddenly going to be un-inspired?

Maybe I am just too simple of a guy. My intentions are simple. I see an opportunity. If I don't do something here, someone else will. The plan of Mark and I is to build standard, shift-on-the-fly gearboxes about 20 or 50 at a time. We will also be building 8" omni-wheels 20 or 50 at a time. We will put them on a physical shelf*, and sell them to people who want to buy them. If the president of Uganda wants one, we will sell him one. If team 15XX wants three, we will sell them three. We will do our best to realize the supply and demand. If we run out of parts and cannot supply to customers (either the president of Uganda or team 15XX), then we will estimate when we will have some more on our shelf. Once our supply dips below our decided-upon inventory level, then we will have more made. I am not a complex guy, and this is not a complex thing.

* - it might be a table or a box. However, if you want a shelf, it can be a shelf. I can now picture 50 gearboxes, lined up on a shelf, waiting for customers.

I see this as a risk on our part, as a company. FIRST is fairly predictable. We are betting that there will be a need for wheeled robots that have a hard time turning (hence the omni-wheels). We are also betting that some FIRST teams want a reliable, lightweight, and cost-effective solution to changing speeds and torques while moving their mechanism.

This is a risk. Life is full of risks. FIRST is life... therefore, FIRST is full of risks.

Andy B.