Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy1718
Too all of you wo keep saying "mine your own metal, make this from scratch yada yada yada" everyone is just trying to say where do we draw the line. If you use the that arguement all you are seeing is black and white, not the gray area in between.
Yes, the GDC prevents robot in a box, but the problem is where do we draw the line on the words "complete mechanism?" You could turn this into a shooter rather easy, but how much of that shooter is already there for you? 1/2... 2/3?
Team 221 this is in no way ment to sound ofensive to you, but when you guys offer a product, simply offer parts not a complete anything. For instance with your guy's chassis why sell the whole rail, just sell the parts seperatly and let teams figure it out. Not only could you guys profit more but it would appease both sides of the arguement. You would be selling the whole thing, but teams could still build it mixing your stuff with others.
Just a thought, hope fully I don't get tared and feathered for it.
|
I won't tar and feather you, I'll disagree though.
Just as an example I will use a Joe Johnson's NBD and show what percentage of a mobility system it is compared to the percentage for these mechanisms.
First I have to define what a mobility system is. For the sake of definition I will call it the bare minimum necessary for a robot to move. This means 2 driven wheels and 2 omni wheels, a chassis, associated electronics etc.
TEAM 221 LLC (note that Team 221 is not actually an FRC team, it came out of a FIRST team that Anthony was involved with in the past and is no longer associated with FIRST other than selling parts designed for use in the competition)
2 x CIM motors
2 x swerve modules
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
2 x Potentiometer
Programming to control the swerve drive
2 x KOP Wheels
NBD
2 x CIM motors
2 x Dewalt drill transmissions
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
Default Programming
2 x KOP Wheels
Seems to me that the Swerve modules are not a significant portion of the drive system. You still have to wire them, still have to assemble them, still have to mount them. Not only that but you have to program them which everyone who does swerve says is the difficult part. Now, in my opinion this is a pretty crappy use of the swerve modules but it DOES show what is needed in a basic mobility system. I could probably assign weights to all of this but they would be highly subjective. Instead I will bring attention to the fact that the Team 221 Swerve actually requires MORE parts than a bare bones set up using Dewalts.
NBD does require you to make some modifications to the Dewalt gearbox but these are all detailed in the white paper so I count this as roughly the same as assembling something based on instructions from an educational experience, I feel this will be the sticking point for many people. Which drive train do people learn more from? To put it bluntly, Team 221 has the distinct advantage here. Programming a swerve drive to work reliably and simply is challenging from a programming point of view. NBD has the benefit of pulling the default code down from FIRST and you are up and running with minor if any changes. Mechanically speaking both teams would learn roughly the same amount assuming neither opened up their parts and toyed with them to figure out how they worked. Electronically the advantage goes to Team 221 again, they get to learn to wire up a potentiometer (or encoder). For these reasons I have to say that the NBD white paper constitutes a higher percentage of a complete mobility system than the Team 221 swerve modules. Furthermore, NBD actually causes students to learn less when assembling it.
Now, my disclaimers.
This is my OPINION, you are welcome to disagree with it and encouraged to debate it but under no circumstances are you allowed to disrespect me or my opinion based solely on your disagreement. I am more than willing to respond to someone who is willing to show me where I went wrong (in their opinion) but will be very angry if you respond by calling me an idiot or any such childish retorts.