Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?

[Steve W]

In the other threads there has been discussion on purchasing pre-built trannies, arms, legs, frames etc. The question I am asking is - What is the difference of a team building a function ahead of time so that they can concentrate on other things during build, or purchasing a part built by another team (most likely built before season starts)?

[Max Lobovsky]

Building it ahead of time is illegal. You could purchase a part ahead of time and not build it into any part of the robot ahead of time, though. Its clearly in the rules, all construction must be done during the 6 weeks.

Additionally, I think you might have a slightly skewed view of the FIRST world. A large majority of teams will never be able to build many custom parts. No amount of time will turn some scrap metal, a hand drill, a hacksaw, and meager funding into a precision piece of metal work.

[Stephen Kowski]

you can prototype something ahead of time and prove it out....at least then you know exactly how you want to build it during the six weeks. ways to improve lighten etc, but you know it works....like 60 & 254 did....they knew their drive train worked well so they could work on other aspects.

The difference? imho you can tailor the part to exactly what you want instead of a purchased solution, which may or may not to exactly what you want.

[Tristan Lall]

Actually, there's a real inconsistency in the rules on this point. Steve is correct to point out that purchasing a part is permitted at any time (by virtue of not being disallowed). Since one might purchase a part from a store, or from a team, or from something in between (e.g. AndyMark), this raises a problem with teams pre-building parts.

Let's say that teams X and Y decided that it would be beneficial to collaborate on gearbox design for the 2005 season. They work together on the design, but build them totally separately. (This takes place in the Autumn of 2004.) Under the current rules, any prototypes built by X, for X, in advance of the season are not eligible for inclusion on the robot (and similarly, the rules prohibit Y from doing the same thing). If, however, X sells its gearbox to Y, and Y sells its gearbox to X, they both now possess purchased parts, and may therefore use them freely, before and during the competition season. Obviously this little formality makes an end-run right around the existing rule. (Consider: how is this different from buying from AndyMark before the season starts? Does AndyMark intend to sell to teams before the season starts?)

Now, let's extend the thought experiment. What if X and Y collaborated on robot design in advance of the season. Once again, they design together, and X builds and sells a robot to Y, while Y builds and sells a robot to X. Now what? (Of course, I'm fully aware that there are obvious disadvantages to designing a robot without the benefit of knowing the game. That's irrelevant to the analogy--plenty of robots don't exhibit much more than a box on wheels design, which is rather universal every year.)

Dave Lavery says that cloned robots make his job of scouting easier--true enough. But will his small gain be overshadowed by the fact that those teams could theoretically have 6 weeks of solid practice, on a proven robot, if the 2005 game design happened to suit their pre-built machines?

As we've seen already, different people have differing opinions regarding the 60-254 collaboration (which took place during the regular time period); similarly, not everyone is sold on the sale of standardized gearboxes by Andy Baker & company. Unless a clear rule is instituted by FIRST (preferably in September, well in advance of the season, and preferably based on some consultation with the teams, though the Team Forums have obviously passed), various people--all claiming a monopoly on gracious professionalism--are going to have a bit of a disagreement on this very subject. We don't really want that to happen, since all it serves to do is make a farce of the rules and the competition.

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

Additionally, I think you might have a slightly skewed view of the FIRST world. A large majority of teams will never be able to build many custom parts. No amount of time will turn some scrap metal, a hand drill, a hacksaw, and meager funding into a precision piece of metal work.

Isn't that the point? What they can't build, they can buy (in advance), try (in advance), and use (during competition). And doesn't that create a potential source of revenue for those teams that can build them?

[Billfred]

(resists the urge to go off-topic)

By purchasing, you've got a finished Billfred Industries gearbox, which you know you can mate up to a kit motor of your choosing and rock.

By building in advance, you've got a challenge. It may not look as pretty as the BI gearbox, it might not be as cheap, it might not even work for a couple of months. But when you've sorted it out, you've got a gearbox that you know works for you. And while everyone else is using Billfred Industries gearboxes, you're going to get lots of cool looks, respect from everyone who's tried it before, and perhaps the odd comment...

Originally Posted by Somebody...maybe

I wish I had two extra hands, so I could give those gearboxes four thumbs up!

(sorry, had to put in the Rick James reference)

[Marc P.]

I've been watching these discussions for a while, and it seems the biggest argument seems to be where to draw the line. Should team X be able to buy a complete arm mechanism from team Y? Should just the parts and plans be for sale, or a fully functional assembly? I think that's the root of the matter, and sort of questions the role of FIRST in general- is it about the robots, or the inspiration? Yes, you can be inspired by a robot built of premade parts, and yes, you can be inspired by building the robot yourself.

Personally, I'm inspired by getting aluminum dust and shavings stuck to my hands with tap magic while milling out the mounts for our drill motors, or chopping some extruded aluminum to piece together into an arm. That doesn't mean I can't be inspired by other things or in other ways too. I think if you can make a part in house for similar/less cost, in a reasonable time period, do it. That's not to say other parts can't be purchased, but in my opinion, the line should be drawn at functionality. I don't think anyone can honestly expect teams to fabricate their own motors, so we buy them. Same goes for chain, pneumatics, etc. etc. Similarly, if there's a certain mount you designed but can't fabricate because you don't have CNC, or a good enough mill, or a lathe, or whatever, you can send the order out to a machine shop, and purchase that part. Again, the same goes for sprockets, gears, etc. Even certain advanced mechanisms, e.g. the dewalt transmission can be purchased- because it's technically a raw material. The transmission by itself is not good for much until it's changed and tweaked to work with a particular setup.

Where I draw the line is at complete bolt-on assemblies. Team X has a fool proof hanging mechanism with a 99.9% successful hang rate. It's for sale at $150. It needs a 4" by 8" footprint to bolt on to the chasis, and plug in cables 1 and 2 into pwms 7 and 8 on the RC respectively, and copy these lines of C into your code. I think that's wrong. For one thing, it's not fair to the teams who did design/build/test their own mechanisms, and if everyone purchased it, what challange would there be if everyone has the same capability to hang? If it were sold as a kit, I'd say that's better, but still has the same fairness implications. There would be more inspiration and thought in building it, but even then it would be the same as building a pre-designed lego kit (which by no means I'm saying isn't fun, just not the same as building from scratch). Now, if team X made avaliable a whitepaper describing the functions of how and why the hanger works, that's the best solution. Teams can take that and change/tweak it to their bots, perhaps purchasing individual components from team X, and asking advice in assembly. Just like is done with gearboxes now, ideas can be taken and changed to suit a particular purpose. I know we've seen a number of modified technokat geargoxes, and will probably see a lot of Whos C Tek gearboxes next year. But a complete bolt-on assembly just seems like a waste of thinking power. I know many teams don't have the resources or technology to build certain complex features, but half the fun is figuring out ways around limitations- using tools in unconventional ways to get extraordinary results- which, to me, is the ultimate form of inspiration.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As we've seen already, different people have differing opinions regarding the 60-254 collaboration (which took place during the regular time period); similarly, not everyone is sold on the sale of standardized gearboxes by Andy Baker & company.

pssst....i know ive mentioned this before, but there is already a prebuilt transmission INCLUDED IN THE KIT.....you don't have to build or buy a thing it comes right in the kit....if baker wants to sell these transmissions he has every right to do so....it is legal, unless you take away the bosch transmission and everyone has to make their own transmission from scratch which many teams cannot do....there is no need for a ruling they made it last year with 60/254....it is legal

[Steve W]

Just a thought. If we don't know what is in the KOP then how can gearboxes be built when the motors and their specs are not known? Also if Team 188 builds a gearbox before build season and sells it to themselves as well as others, does that break the rules?

Please do not refer to Andy on this thread. I / we don't want any finger pointing and the issues go far beyond Andy. No offence Andy.

Many questions so little time. Curious minds would like to know.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Just a thought. If we don't know what is in the KOP then how can gearboxes be built when the motors and their specs are not known? Also if Team 188 builds a gearbox before build season and sells it to themselves as well as others, does that break the rules?

Please do not refer to Andy on this thread. I / we don't want any finger pointing and the issues go far beyond Andy. No offence Andy.

Many questions so little time. Curious minds would like to know.

Steve,
You're blurring the lines here.

When I buy a gearbox from AndyMark the company, I'm not buying a gearbox from the Technokats we all know and love.

I am buying from a company, not from a team.
As far as I'm concerned, this is the important distinction to make.

Let's consider 3 scenarios:
Option A:
Gary Dillard offers to sell me two (really sweet) genuine SPAM-180 gearboxes. These gearboxes are built pre-season in the SPAM "summer-sweatshops", I mean... "summer learning camps". This offer is for me only.

Option B:
Gary Dillard teams up with JVN (during the 6 weeks) to design the new "Division by SPAM" gearbox. They also co-design something called the "uber-arm". During the 6 weeks -- SPAM builds the gearboxes, DBZ builds the uber-arms. They swap parts. (Think 60+254 with a twist).

Option C:
Gary Dillard forms a new company called "GaryDill", and premakes gearboxes. He then posts an advertisement and offers to sell these to any FIRST teams that want them for the small price of $299.99 each.

Which of these options is okay?

I say, options B & C are valid.

Here is why:
In option B, the parts being sold were made DURING the 6 weeks. This doesn't vary much from the collaboration we saw this season, which was ruled perfectly okay by FIRST.

In options C, the parts being sold are available to everyone. GaryDill is no different from McMaster-Carr. Buying parts like this is perfectly acceptable.


In option C, Gary takes a risk by premaking gearboxes that may or may not be allowed in the 2005 game. It's his risk to take.

I feel there are important distinctions to be made here.

$.02
John


PS - As far as I know: There is no 229-180 collaboration. GaryDill is not an actual company. I have recieved no illicit offers to purchase SPAMy gearboxes.

PPS - I chose Gary for my little examples because he's a cool guy, and SPAM builds wicked sweet gearboxes.
Seriously man, you wanna collaborate, give me a call .

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by JVN

Gary Dillard offers to sell me two (really sweet) genuine SPAM-180 gearboxes. These gearboxes are built pre-season in the SPAM "summer-sweatshops", I mean... "summer learning camps". This offer is for me only.

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

[Joe Matt]

Guys, I think it isn't a problem with the rules, but more of another clash of FIRST logic, the 'kids should build and learn' over the 'mentors should build kids learn' ideas. Well, from the last perspective, it's fine, I mean, it's the final experience that counts. BUT the problem many have is in the first camp, those who think this is another thing that kids can't learn about and build. I'm in that camp. Sure, you can buy a radio and take it apart to learn about it, but nothing is better than building a radio for yourselves, because not only do you learn about the radio, but you also learn about other aspects of it, such as design, ease of use, and other things.

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

I know I will sound like a dead coon on the side of the road but that very last statement is not necessarily true at all. I have come to live by one rule in FIRST, that is: It doesn't matter how you build your robot. Whether it be by students building with nails and 2x4's or buying all prebuilt parts, it doesn't matter. As long as the students are being inspired, FIRST is doing its mission.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

I feel that using an AndyMark transmission is no different than standardizing your own drive train. Sure, we may not have designed it, the kids will still bennifit from the design and manafacturing of the other compnents. Was the incoming freshman around when the drivetrain was standardized two years ago?

On my team I do control type stuff, software and electronics. Last year we experimented with a new drive train and limited success. I have been telling members of my team about the miracles of Omni wheels for a while. I have very little experience in the shop therefore I probably coun't make them. Buying them and throwing them on our old robot to show their bennifets is the best way to convince the team to use them.
During the Fall semester there are plans for my team to go back to the drawing board and standardize a "drivetrain platform". Buying an AndyMark transmission will give us quite a boost in the redesign. Perhaps, we will use it, maybe we won't. Either way we will get a chance to play with a successful transmission that: combines the power of the drill and Chip and is capable of shifting. We have never concentrated on shifting, but we have tried to marry the drill and Chip.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by JosephM

...Sure, you can buy a radio and take it apart to learn about it, but nothing is better than building a radio for yourselves, because not only do you learn about the radio, but you also learn about other aspects of it, such as design, ease of use, and other things...

in the case of the andymark transmission, i think (and i could be wrong) that the majority of the teams that have the ability to build a gearbox will build one, even if there is one already for sale. the teams that this will appeal to are the ones who might have otherwise used the FIRST provided gearbox. this is simply a way to level the playing field for those of us who don't have a machine shop and an engineering firm at their disposal.

the same could be said of any other drive train components (i.e. frames, wheels, sprockets, etc.). i don't think that anyone needs to be worried about a team simply buying a whole robot, as i doubt that any team(s) could stratigize, design, build, and perfect an end effect, much less a whole robot, in time to market it to FIRST teams during the build season.

[Tytus Gerrish]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

Help Me Please! I havent Eaten in Days