Is powder coating and annodizing worthwhile?

[waialua359]

How about doing it in-house?

Better yet, train students and have those students train other students once they're an alumni.

5 years and counting.

[ebarker]

Ask yourself "what are we trying to accomplish ?".

Looking good during the competition is a good reason.

Having a nice 'showbot' after the competition is a good reason.

This year we anodized, did graphics and all the rest. Since our regional we have showed it in front of a total of 30,000 across several events. It helps a lot with the roadshow.

Back to your basic question - what are you trying to accomplish ?

.

[sgreco]

It seems that most people are adbising to anodize/powdercoat if you have time. This is good advice, but depending on the resources for your team, it may not be the right choice. My team has reasonable resources, I would consider us fortunate, but we are slow when it comes to building and designing. We've only ever anodized once, and that was for our swerve modules in 2009. For us, anodizing is a ice to have, but we know the build season is short, and until we improve our schedule, we go into a build season assuming we won't anodize.

It's really a matter of what's right for your team. Karthik would tell you to analyze your team's resources, and make sure you don't try what you aren't capable of. This is great advice.

[AdamHeard]

Here's a point I haven't seen raised. Relationship between practice bots and powdercoating.

The fact that we make a practice bot means there is no stress to start assembly of comp bot early in season, we often won't even start until week 5.

[XaulZan11]

Some many take this the wrong way or overexaggerate this but: A powder coated robot has an advantage of getting picked over a non-powder coated robot, for me atleast. Depending on the depth of the regional, your third robot may just be playing defense and won't be asked to score much. If the regional is very shallow, you may just want your 3rd partner not to lose you the regional (with red cards this year, this was a factor). So, you essentially want a smart teams that understands the rules and won't get penalties or get in you and your scoring partner's way. If a team took the time and effort to find someone to powder coat and scheduled it, the team is probably more likely to be smart, to read the rules, and think about strategy than an equally good robot but looks messy and sloppely put together. Its a very minor factor in the grand scheme of alliance selection, but there is a practical advantage to powder coated (or just a clean, good looking) robot. (This can also be applied to pit organization, team shirts, team cheers, interaction with team members in the stand...your preformance on the field is not the only thing that matters in getting selected, especially as 3rd robot).

[PAR_WIG1350]

According to the wikipedia article on anodizing, the dyes can be screen printed on to create patterns/designs/images. Has anybody experimented with this? it sounds cool.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by PAR_WIG1350

According to the wikipedia article on anodizing, the dyes can be screen printed on to create patterns/designs/images. Has anybody experimented with this? it sounds cool.

Basically anodizing opens up the aluminum to accept the dye. You can screen print or digitally print dye sublimation inks and then transfer these into the aluminum like a regular anodizing dye.

Colors Inc here in Indy is a great sponsor of central Indiana Teams. They same day anodize parts for teams here. They also have the capability to print dye sub inks and transfer to AI parts.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

Some many take this the wrong way or overexaggerate this but: A powder coated robot has an advantage of getting picked over a non-powder coated robot, for me atleast. Depending on the depth of the regional, your third robot may just be playing defense and won't be asked to score much. If the regional is very shallow, you may just want your 3rd partner not to lose you the regional (with red cards this year, this was a factor). So, you essentially want a smart teams that understands the rules and won't get penalties or get in you and your scoring partner's way. If a team took the time and effort to find someone to powder coat and scheduled it, the team is probably more likely to be smart, to read the rules, and think about strategy than an equally good robot but looks messy and sloppely put together. Its a very minor factor in the grand scheme of alliance selection, but there is a practical advantage to powder coated (or just a clean, good looking) robot. (This can also be applied to pit organization, team shirts, team cheers, interaction with team members in the stand...your preformance on the field is not the only thing that matters in getting selected, especially as 3rd robot).

Teams that pick partners on superficial criteria, such as paint, are most likely teams that aren't going far in the elims anyways.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Teams that pick partners on superficial criteria, such as paint, are most likely teams that aren't going far in the elims anyways.

I think you missed his point. I can see what John is talking about.

If I'm about to select a third robot for my alliance, and I see two teams with similar scouting data, and I know nothing more about them, I too would be inclined to pick the robot that looks more professional. It hints at the possibility of a more professional team overall. This leads to the possibility of a better pit crew and overall competition team. More professional looking doesn't have to mean painted, just neater and more organized/polished team.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I think you missed his point. I can see what John is talking about.

If I'm about to select a third robot for my alliance, and I see two teams with similar scouting data, and I know nothing more about them, I too would be inclined to pick the robot that looks more professional. It hints at the possibility of a more professional team overall. This leads to the possibility of a better pit crew and overall competition team. More professional looking doesn't have to mean painted, just neater and more organized/polished team.

While I agree that with 2 even teams (through scouting) the better painted might be the better choice.

That said, however, My point is that XaulZan11 talked about teams with painted robots being smarter ...

If a team took the time and effort to find someone to powder coat and scheduled it, the team is probably more likely to be smart, to read the rules, and think about strategy than an equally good robot but looks messy and sloppely put together

... when it may have been smarter not to spend the time powdercoating and instead had more driver practice / robot tweaking.

It appeared to me that XaulZan11 assumes that looks = quality, when that may not be the case.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

It appeared to me that XaulZan11 assumes that looks = quality, when that may not be the case.

Obviously I'm not going to pick a team that can barely drive but has nice powder coated over a team that can score 3 tubes a match but looks like crap. But, if the decision is between two teams with 6 wheel drives and similar driver abilities, the team that has a powdercoated, more organized looking robot, more organized pit is *probably* less likely to not understand the rules, get penalities or break down. Of course I'm not saying a good paint job causes a team to not to break down, but I think it is correlated with not breaking down. If a team takes the effort to make their robot look good, they are probably more likely to understand the rules and have a better built robot.

Midwest last year was very very shallow with a lot of teams just struggling to drive. There were probably only 10-12 teams that could kick balls over 1 bump and only a few more who could consistently score from the first zone. Once we knew we would be one of the top seeds and had the top seeds pretty well ranked, we knew we needed to find a team that simply wouldn't hurt us by breaking down or causing penalties. 3352 stood out as a basic kit bot, but appeared clean and well built and had an organized pit. So, we picked them after picking 16 (who lost Kansas City earlier that year due to penalties by their 3rd partner) and won the regional. 3352 never broke down and never got any penalties and did everything we asked of them.

Again, these factors are like the last resort tie-breaker. Of course, we have extensive scouting data to make our decisions, but when your in a shallow regional/district and your picking the 22-24th best robot, and you simply can't decide between a couple of teams, these factors, such as powdercoating, do matter.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Teams that pick partners on superficial criteria, such as paint, are most likely teams that aren't going far in the elims anyways.

I wouldn't consider it superficial.

When it comes to a 3rd robot at regionals, often it's a darn hard choice if you're one of the higher seeds. It's usually less about ability, and more about their chance of breaking down.

Our scouts will track teams via data watching the matches, but myself, the pit crew, and some of the scouts will also make note of our perception of team's build quality, battery setup, tool setup, pit organization, etc. as we walk around the pits.

When you're looking for a robot that can drive from point A to B, and more importantly *finish* the match, these factors do weigh in.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I wouldn't consider it superficial.

When it comes to a 3rd robot at regionals, often it's a darn hard choice if you're one of the higher seeds. It's usually less about ability, and more about their chance of breaking down.

Our scouts will track teams via data watching the matches, but myself, the pit crew, and some of the scouts will also make note of our perception of team's build quality, battery setup, tool setup, pit organization, etc. as we walk around the pits.

When you're looking for a robot that can drive from point A to B, and more importantly *finish* the match, these factors do weigh in.

You posted while I was posting

Paint jobs are superficial.
They do not score or provide defense.
And it doesn't add to (very many) strategies.
It also has little to do with robots breaking down, and in fact they may be more prone to breaking down since there was less time to tweak the robot (It was at the paint shop geting annodized after all).

Paint jobs are a luxury ... one that many teams (mine included) typically cannot afford (both economically and timewise). The only game I required some paint on our robot was 'overdrive', because I knew that we would not be able to see the robot below a specific level (middle barrier), so I had 2 posts painted different colors (we could see them over the barrier and they told us location and orientation).

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

You posted while I was posting

Paint jobs are superficial.
They do not score or provide defense.
And it doesn't add to (very many) strategies.
It also has little to do with robots breaking down, and in fact they may be more prone to breaking down since there was less time to tweak the robot (It was at the paint shop geting annodized after all).

Paint jobs are a luxury ... one that many teams (mine included) typically cannot afford (both economically and timewise). The only game I required some paint on our robot was 'overdrive', because I knew that we would not be able to see the robot below a specific level (middle barrier), so I had 2 posts painted different colors (we could see them over the barrier and they told us location and orientation).

The paint itself provides no substantial point scoring advantage, but it's more often than not when you see a robot that is just totally decked out and color coordinated, it is a reliable robot made by a team that has their act together. Sure, I've seen powdercoated robots that perform poorly, but it's usually not the case. Especially when you're specifically talking about late round alliance selections at regionals.

The former lead mentor of 973 thoroughly believed that powdercoating had zero competitive advantage, but he loved my introduction of it to the team. Why? Well, before then on 973 getting a single robot done and shipped was considered success. The students on the team, and many mentors, doubted the group's ability to make two robots, and powdercoat the competition one. When it happened, it was a great lesson to the students in setting and achieving goals. Deciding to powdercoat was almost a symbol to the team of the greatness we were pursuing.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Our scouts will track teams via data watching the matches, but myself, the pit crew, and some of the scouts will also make note of our perception of team's build quality, battery setup, tool setup, pit organization, etc. as we walk around the pits.

Strangely enough... we've found bumper quality to be an almost 1:1 indicator of robot quality. This year it seemed like whenever we scouted a robot we didn't know much about we could guess how they'd perform during the pre-match just based on how well their bumpers were put together.

Professional tight bumpers = the robot will probably perform well this match.
Shoddy loose bumpers = the robot probably won'r even link up.

I wish I had kept stats on this, but it was a surprisingly accurate indicator (with a few notable exceptions in both directions).

-John