FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff

[cgmv123]

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...before-kickoff

Here are a few things we want to make you aware of before Kickoff.

Share Your FIRST Stories: You’ve Got Them, We Want Them!

Do you have a story about how FIRST has made a positive impact in your life? We’re calling all student participants, Mentors, Coaches, parents, and Volunteers to share their experiences.

These stories will be used in many different ways- from FIRST promotional content, to the opportunity to be showcased at the FIRST Championship in St. Louis. For more information and to submit your story, please visit the Share Your FIRST Stories Website. We can’t wait to hear from you!

Founder’s Broadcast

You are invited! The Founder’s Reception is a night for FIRST to thank and celebrate our amazing mentors, hosted by FIRST Founder Dean Kamen. However, many mentors never get to experience this event first hand. This year, we’re bringing the event to you! Friday, January 2, 2015, starting at 7:00 PM EST the FIRST community can tune into a live broadcast from the Founder’s Reception. Hear from veteran and rookie mentors about their expectations for the upcoming season and FIRST sponsors about why it’s important for them to be involved. We’ll also have a special “last night before Kickoff” interview with FRC Director Frank Merrick, where he’ll release some new details about the 2015 FRC Season! Don’t miss it. Tune in at this link: http://www.streamingmeeting.com/webc...IRST_Founders/.

Post Your Designs

This is the only rule we’ll tell you ahead of time:

R13 Software and mechanical/electrical designs created before Kickoff are only permitted if the source files (complete information sufficient to produce the design) are available publicly prior to Kickoff.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by cgmv123

R13 Software and mechanical/electrical designs created before Kickoff are only permitted if the source files (complete information sufficient to produce the design) are available publicly prior to Kickoff.

I'm glad to see that this rule is no longer ex post facto.

[Thad House]

If the rest of the manual is like the new R13, it is going to be so much nicer. Simpler and clearer is the way to go.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

I'm glad to see that this rule is no longer ex post facto.

Now teams have only 3 days (one of which is a holiday) to make a decision and act on a rule released prior to kickoff (which has never been done before), without knowing the game? But we have a week during build season to do our window shopping on FIRST Choice....

Some teams may want to make a decision about open-sourcing their past designs only after the new game is announced, and I don't in any way fault them for that. It's strategic, and is not uncommon in the business world. But now, the new rule makes it a philosophical decision instead of a strategic one, which I'm not necessarily in favor of.

Also, what constitutes "publicly available?" If it's not posted, but you (or anyone else) ask for it, and I e-mail it to you, is that publicly available? If I post it at some obscure link online that no one will ever find, but is not behind any sort of password or restriction, is that publicly available? What if I sat in front of the grocery store next to the girl scouts selling cookies, and I had a table full of free flash drives with our robot files on it?

[D.Allred]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

... What if I sat in front of the grocery store next to the girl scouts selling cookies, and I had a table full of free flash drives with our robot files on it?

I'll take a flash drive and a box of Thin Mints please!

David

[Travis Schuh]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Now teams have only 3 days (one of which is a holiday) to make a decision and act on a rule released prior to kickoff (which has never been done before), without knowing the game? But we have a week during build season to do our window shopping on FIRST Choice....

I don't see how R13 this year is that much different than last year, except more explicit and clearer. How would you be able to use a design that met the 2014 rule but didn't meet the now stated 2015 rule?

2014 R13:

ROBOT elements created before Kickoff are not permitted. ROBOT elements, including software, that are designed
before Kickoff are not permitted.

Exceptions include the following:
D. software and designs with source files publicly available prior to Kickoff.

For reference, 2013 R16.

2013 R16

ROBOT elements, including software, that are designed or created before Kickoff are not permitted, unless they are
publicly available prior to Kickoff.

I think there is a clear trend that teams can make a reasonable plan based off of. I see the blog more as a polite reminder with time to act, rather than a change of course. I appreciate the reminder.

[magnets]

If you wanted to, you could release toolpaths for some nonstandard CNC machine that nobody has that would cut out your parts. Technically, it's enough information to make the part. Then, you could put this information on a computer in the middle of the woods in a public park. Finally, you could put assembly instructions together, save them as a word perfect file, upload it to google drive, and post the link to that google drive document in the middle of a 10,000 page pdf document on one of your team's websites with hundreds of thousands of fake links.

That is obviously not the intent of the rule.

[Travis Schuh]

With teams required to release designs before re-using them, I bet there are a lot of designs (both CAD and code) out there that are great resources, but not well publicized. A lot of top teams re-use drive base designs from year to year with minimal change, so I would expect to see a lot of drive bases out there, but I don't know where to look.

Is there a way to link this stuff into TheBlueAlliance similar to how robot photos are now linked? I don't think it makes sense to re-host everything, but a central searchable place that points to all the appropriate places would be very nice.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by Travis Schuh

With teams required to release designs before re-using them, I bet there are a lot of designs (both CAD and code) out there that are great resources, but not well publicized. A lot of top teams re-use drive base designs from year to year with minimal change, so I would expect to see a lot of drive bases out there, but I don't know where to look.

Is there a way to link this stuff into TheBlueAlliance similar to how robot photos are now linked? I don't think it makes sense to re-host everything, but a central searchable place that points to all the appropriate places would be very nice.

www.frcdesigns.com ?

[FrankJ]

As others have said, it is really not a new rule. Maybe it would be better off as part of the manual that gets released before kick off. But it means that if you design a gear box, publish enough information that a reasonable person could make it, you can use the same plans. You also cannot use critical information you withhold. Something that was a little unclear in previous years rules blue box descriptions.

Like a good many rules in First, it is relying on the GP on teams to fully follow the rule.

[aldaeron]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

But it means that if you design a gear box, publish enough information that a reasonable person could make it, you can use the same plans. You also cannot use critical information you withhold. Something that was a little unclear in previous years rules blue box descriptions.

Like a good many rules in First, it is relying on the GP on teams to fully follow the rule.

This explains what I was going for pretty well.

<digress>
I worked as a Mechanical Design Engineer for 8 years in Aerospace. The released drawing package must be standalone and unambiguous at all times. The customer can pull their design and have someone else make it at any time (and they sometimes do!). Perhaps this makes me a little more "detailed" than many others with regard to documentation.
</digress>

Most drawing packages I have seen in industry include a STEP modeled to nominal dimensions without tolerance.

From the many STEPs I have seen on CD, things often missing are:
- Fastener details (.190 nominal shank is a #10, but is it 24 or 32 TPI?) (Please don't model the threads and make me count them. It makes so many more faces for the STEP importer!)
- Bolts, screws, snap rings, etc missing (I can see a feature for retaining the shaft but no idea what goes there)
- Vendor specific parts missing (where can I buy it?)
- Lubricant/epoxy/thread-locker/etc callout missing
- Tight tolerance parts (+/- .005 assumed, but a few parts are probably +/- .001)

I don't think you need a full ANSI-Y14.5 compliant drawing to accompany your STEP file. But a quick spreadsheet of the parts and where to buy them and a 1 page write-up on how to assemble the parts (including any weird things about the assembly) would cover it IMO.

As my first boss always said: "Use your best engineering judgement"

-matto-

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

This explains what I was going for pretty well.

<digress>
I worked as a Mechanical Design Engineer for 8 years in Aerospace. The released drawing package must be standalone and unambiguous at all times. The customer can pull their design and have someone else make it at any time (and they sometimes do!). Perhaps this makes me a little more "detailed" than many others with regard to documentation.
</digress>

Most drawing packages I have seen in industry include a STEP modeled to nominal dimensions without tolerance.

From the many STEPs I have seen on CD, things often missing are:
- Fastener details (.190 nominal shank is a #10, but is it 24 or 32 TPI?) (Please don't model the threads and make me count them. It makes so many more faces for the STEP importer!)
- Bolts, screws, snap rings, etc missing (I can see a feature for retaining the shaft but no idea what goes there)
- Vendor specific parts missing (where can I buy it?)
- Lubricant/epoxy/thread-locker/etc callout missing
- Tight tolerance parts (+/- .005 assumed, but a few parts are probably +/- .001)

I don't think you need a full ANSI-Y14.5 compliant drawing to accompany your STEP file. But a quick spreadsheet of the parts and where to buy them and a 1 page write-up on how to assemble the parts (including any weird things about the assembly) would cover it IMO.

As my first boss always said: "Use your best engineering judgement"

-matto-

A lot of the information you list (especially threadcount on screws) is often stuff where you have a fair bit of leeway in implementation, though. I don't think leaving bolts/rivets out of your CAD really constitutes "withholding critical information."

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

This explains what I was going for pretty well.

<digress>
I worked as a Mechanical Design Engineer for 8 years in Aerospace. The released drawing package must be standalone and unambiguous at all times. The customer can pull their design and have someone else make it at any time (and they sometimes do!). Perhaps this makes me a little more "detailed" than many others with regard to documentation.
</digress>
...
-matto-

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. Do realize that publishing a complete package like that is not a trivial task. Even for professionals with years of experience. Which is why design packages often come with project engineers to implement them. I would consider a good faith effort acceptable. Also GP would dictate that the originator be receptive for reasonable requests for more information.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I know people are playing devil's advocate here but for those of you seriously questioning how much to publish. The way I see it is that you should publish what you use to build it. If you use a CAD file then publish the stp. I can't imagine an LRI going through a teams posted documents and determining if something is complete or not.

HQ is encouraging teams to share their designs, so share your designs.

Also in the past the determination between using an old design and redesigning something based on an unpublished design was so vague it barely mattered.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Also in the past the determination between using an old design and redesigning something based on an unpublished design was so vague it barely mattered.

This is something I've never understood. I've seen tons of teams use the same drive base year after year after year. Sure, they may have changed the overall dimensions, or adjusted the gear ratio, or changed the diameter of the wheels, but it's obvious that the design was based off of last year's design.

I do think it's fine to learn from previous years. We had success with a roller claw in 2007, so we didn't bother prototyping another type of grabber in 2011. My question is, where do we draw the line? If I make a WCD in the offseason, can I make the robot 1" wider, use different wheels, and change the gears in my gearbox and use this during build season without posting the design?