[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

So, proceeding with this logic, if there is an engineer from Fastenal who helps with team 5555, then team 5555 cannot use Fastenal screws on their robot. This seems silly to me, therefore I think that the above logic is flawed.

Team 5555 should be able to use Fastenal screws on their robot if they are standard, off-the-shelf screws. Now, if Fastenal made custom screws that were not available to the open market (president of Uganda, team 15XX, yada yada), then those screws should only be allowed on team 5555's robot if Fastenal made those custom screws during the build season.

I completely agree. To clarify my point a bit, I meant if team 5555 used the Fastenal screws, I would expect them to list it in their bill of materials at the same price other teams can get them for. Because the engineer works for Fastenal, even though he has the ability to donate screws to the team, they would still have to count against the $3500 limit. That's all I meant to say there. The conflict of interest argument was more a general statement on ethics than anything specific to the AndyMark company. As an example, if an Innovation First engineer worked with a team, and knew the internals of the IFI controllers in and out, and knew of any hidden/undocumented features which could give his team and advantage, I'd hope he'd either not use his company knowledge for an unfair advantage, or publish the information (which IFI may not like) so everyone can use it. I'd have to say that sort of situation isn't possible with a transmission like yours, so I'd say that's a moot point.

Innovation First has a well-deserved monopoly in FIRST. Each team's kit has IFI hardware included. This is not the same as AndyMark components. While we will have some sort of minimal warranty, we cannot afford to replace every component if it breaks under an extreme load. If we were to design to this extreme restriction, then the products will be 5x the price that they need to be in order to be affordable by teams. Currently, the gearbox is designed for a 4x safety factor over the stall torques.

That makes sense, and it's good to know the safety factor. Are the specifications for the transmission avaliable?

Again, I will use the Fastenal comparison. If a Fastenal screw breaks during a FIRST competition, is Fastenal held liable for the loss? Absolutely not. The difference here between IFI and Fastenal is that teams have the option to not put Fastenal screws on their robots. If they think that Fastenal screws are not good (which is wrong, Fastenal is a great company with great products), then it is that team's choice to not use their product.

In the end, if our products are crap, then people will not buy them. This is the risk of doing business, and the foundation of capitalism.

Andy B.

Again, that makes sense. Of course Fastenal wouldn't be held liable for the loss of the match. I'm a bit tired, so my thoughts aren't coming out as fluid as I'd like them to. I think what I meant was the breakage of the components. If a screw breaks, it's no big deal to replace it. If a gear breaks or a shaft snaps, that can be a big production to replace, especially if the team doesn't have the capability to forge a new shaft or obtain a new gear. I guess the question is, would you have replacement parts available on request?

Thanks for the answers! This is turning into one of the best discussions I've seen around here in a while!