COTS: How far should it go?

[MrJohnston]

This is meant to compliment a similar thread - just adding a poll... "COTS" has come to stand for a huge variety (and level of complexity) of products. Is there a point at which we should set a limit for just how much "prefabrication" we can purchase? If so, where?

Here are some links to specific items that I'm including in the poll:

* Kit of Parts Chassis: http://www.andymark.com/AM14U3-p/am-14u3.htm
* AndyMark Intake System: http://www.andymark.com/System-p/am-3312.htm
* AndyMark Rhino Track: http://www.andymark.com/Rhino-p/am-3322.htm
* West Coast Products MMC Robot kit: http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/
* AndyMark Dart Actuator: http://www.andymark.com/DART-p/am-3072a.htm

[FrankJ]

By limiting the value of any single cots item to $400, First is limiting the complexity of what you can buy.

[Breadbocks]

I think that to an extent, COTS stuff being available allows newer teams to be able to compete more effectively. A fully functioning subsystem would be where I draw the line, but the intake example you gave isn't even close to fully functioning, and definitely requires a lot of work from a team to adapt to their particular design and plans.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

By limiting the value of any single cots item to $400, First is limiting the complexity of what you can buy.

Actually, no... as you mentioned in a different post, limiting the value limits how the item can be sold and packaged, but not what you can buy. As an example, the Rhino Drive system is $399. However, that only includes the pieces for one side of the robot. Unless you are going to drive around on a single track, you need two. In other words, you are really purchasing an $800 part - in two separate purchases. I'm certain the folks at WCP are smart enough to do something like this - or sell each "kit" by charging folks for each individual piece in the kit.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Actually, no... as you mentioned in a different post, limiting the value limits how the item can be sold and packaged, but not what you can buy. As an example, the Rhino Drive system is $399. However, that only includes the pieces for one side of the robot. Unless you are going to drive around on a single track, you need two. In other words, you are really purchasing an $800 part - in two separate purchases. I'm certain the folks at WCP are smart enough to do something like this - or sell each "kit" by charging folks for each individual piece in the kit.

I think limiting bought solutions was the intent of the rule. Other years (not applicable to this year) had verbiage to that effect. It is admittedly an imperfect rule. First has also put loop holes in it that allow things like swerve drive modules & Mechanum wheels to be priced individually rather than a set although one of them isn't particularly useful.

[notmattlythgoe]

Why do so many people have problems with Cots? Sometimes I want to take a nap and there is no bed nearby.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

* West Coast Products MMC Robot kit: http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

Just a quick note: This isn't a "kit", no more than any Ri3D robot is a "kit". You can't just click the "buy" button and receive a collection of MCC Robot parts ready to snap together. It's a design.

[FrankJ]

Of course Andymark has this. More than the $400.00 limit, but you could break it down to sub-assemblies and be legal. Ignoring for the moment that it is KOP & by definition legal.

[Dan Petrovic]

I believe it should be limited to what is necessary to field a robot: a chassis and a drive train.

In most games, a robot that is a driving chassis and nothing more is difficult to find a place for on an alliance, but it's still something. It still gives the team a reason to compete and it gives them something to root for.

FIRST aims to inspire students to explore and educate students about STEM fields. Teams should be challenged to form their own solutions to each game. The challenge is what helps students learn. Inspiration comes in many forms and from many sources, not just a robot that performs well on the field. Teams with few resources and little experience may struggle, but no journey to success comes without a few bumps in the road.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Just a quick note: This isn't a "kit", no more than any Ri3D robot is a "kit". You can't just click the "buy" button and receive a collection of MCC Robot parts ready to snap together. It's a design.

I don't think you are correct here... From their advertisement (follow the link), in bright red letters:

*Kits will be available for purchase, please email support@wcproducts.net for more info*

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I don't think you are correct here... From their advertisement (follow the link), in bright red letters:

*Kits will be available for purchase, please email support@wcproducts.net for more info*

Didn't RC clarify that by that he meant some of the custom brackets they'd found useful in making it would be available? Which, might actually be useful to teams who have problems making them on their own.

Otherwise I don't see much more than a bunch of VP gussets and tube put together in a clever way.


And as far as I'm concerned - given that, in the years I've been doing this, and the hundreds of teams I interact with every year, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of teams are woefully unprepared for FRC. So either we make the challenge easier (COTS buy a bot) or we move the teams to an easier competition. Since HQ seems violently opposed to the latter I fully support the former.[1] [2]




[1] I'd support the latter more.

[2] Fact: robots that fail to achieve the game objectives consistently do NOT achieve inspiration. Our goal is inspiration. Therefore our goal is to make sure that teams are at least reliably capable of achieving the game challenge.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

[2] Fact: robots that fail to achieve the game objectives consistently do NOT achieve inspiration.

Please state your proof of the above "fact".

I believe your "fact" is more of an "opinion"

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Please state your proof of the above "fact".

I believe your "fact" is more of an "opinion"

You ever worked with a team that consistently failed to build a competitive robot? Seen the type of beating that losing constantly and missing eliminations brings? Ever tried to bring people up from that?

Winning feels good, it's inspiring. Going out and going 0-12 blows. It beats you up and you start to question if you're good enough. You start to think "I'm not smart enough for this" which is exactly the battle we're trying to fight. I never worked with a team that went 0-12... but did come close a few times. And let me tell, as an adult, someone who had, at that point, been involved in successful FRC teams for year, it rattled me. And I'm a lot more confident in my abilities than kids who have to deal with wondering if their house is gonna get broken into that night (again) who don't have clean water to drink or food on the table.

I'll stand by my claim.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

. Going out and going 0-12 blows. It beats you up and you start to question if you're good enough. You start to think "I'm not smart enough for this" which is exactly the battle we're trying to fight.
.

This is absolutely true - and a large part of the reason that it is imperative that FRC teams support one-another... There absolutely should be support built into the system - the only question is 'How much'?

I answered "yes" to most of the above items. I like the KOP Chassis. I like having COTS gearboxes and actuators... I overall like Ri3D.... However, I do think a line has to be drawn somewhere. When I look at the WCP robot, it looks like they are selling as a "kit" all the parts (plus assembly directions) to a robot that would be very competitive. They also advertise that it can be assembled in "a few days.".... It seems to me to be too much. What I like about the KOP Chassis is that it gets a team rolling, only needing a little bit of "know how." Then, less-experienced teams can become productive with the addition of one or two manipulators. The description (and endorsements) of the WCP robot suggest that a team with very little knowledge and effort can immediately become a force at district and regional events. This goes too far... If there is going to be a "kit," it should be something that allows a robot to be productive/useful - but not "competitive."


Teams don't need to be an alliance captain to have a good weekend. However, they so need to feel useful in a match. And, yes, having two or three wins out of 12 is way better than going 0-12.

I really don't know how I feel about the Rhino drive or the AndyMark intake system... I do think this

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Teams don't need to be an alliance captain to have a good weekend. However, they so need to feel useful in a match. And, yes, having two or three wins out of 12 is way better than going 0-12.

I've always put this metric at "played in the afternoon on Saturday once in 2 or 3 years. It's by no means dominant. But it's demonstrating that they CAN do it. That's how you change their lives. And that's our entire job as mentors and volunteers, "hey kid, you can do this". If we have to simplify the problem a bit (or a lot) who cares? At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the student designed the gearbox that drove the robot. It matters if they feel STEM is a viable career choice for them. [1]




[1] And they don't need to decide to go into STEM, that's not a failure. You can lead a horse to water and all that jazz. Except, maybe in this case, we're just showing the horse a different stream that it didn't think was there before.