What was there before AndyMark?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

At first, there was nothing.

And then Andy said: let there be decent COTS parts for FIRST!

And somehow we still got the 2007 KOP transmissions...

(They were from BB)

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

And somehow we still got the 2007 KOP transmissions...

(They were from BB)

We all make mistakes

[Tytus Gerrish]

Bosch Drill transmissions with servo gear changes.

[ebmonon36]

We spend a lot of time designing and perfecting our omni-wheels.

We started using Knex wheels as the rollers:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/16984

Those were replaced with plastic rollers:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/photos/17047

The two layers of carbon fiber (legalized in 2004) were eventually replaced with a single sheet of aluminum and plastic rollers replaced with rubber...and then we switched to AndyMark.

We used the Bosch drill transmissions in 2003 and 2004, Nothing But Dewalts (3 speeds!) from 2005 to 2007. I can remember rebuilding the Bosch transmissions every 2-3 matches at IRI in 2003. We had a horrible time with those.

Our frames were 80/20 for our first two years, a modified IFI kit frame in 2005, and in 2006 we designed our first sheet metal chassis.

Mike Trapp of Waterjet Cutting of Indiana began helping us in 2004 so we had the advantage of getting custom aluminum sprockets and gears cut for us.

[Mr. Van]

The primary reason that teams have difficulty "doing" FRC is that they design beyond their abilities. And they should.

When teams (and individuals) push the envelope, they are bound to fail, but hopefully they learn. It would be a great shame if many teams that are "struggling" stopped doing so and simply became "support" teams for those who can really "play the game".

FRC is a game of mentors. The best teams are guided by mentors who know how to balance on the knife edge of pushing the envelope and achieving success.

As for the "days before AM", I remember the challenges of just getting a drive system working in the days of Small Parts, extruded aluminum and a single 4' x 8' sheet of 1/2" plywood.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Andy A.]

I started in 2001. At the time I think Small Parts inc. was still the 'prefered' supplier. It's a little foggy, but I think you could buy from other suppliers as long as something equivalent was in SPI. Naturally, at the time, our corner of the woods didn't have anything like a Home Depot nearby. I think we had just gotten a Walmart. It was pretty rough.

Robots were a great deal more reliant on the KOP, but there was also a lot of interesting things in there that don't show up anymore. All your motors came in the kit, and lot of them had associated gearboxes and power transmission parts. Getting spares for KOP items was tough and teams traded a great deal (not using your FP motors? We'll trade you our window motors for them...). A big part of success was figuring out how to utilize the KOP and SPI catalog to maximum effect.

I've rewatched match videos from the early 2000s recently and I'll agree with JVN. Robots were slower, clumsy and the games ended up being dominated by some game breaking strategy. In 2002 95 had a 8fps robot and that was fast (two wheel drive with corner skids!). A 15+fps robot back then would have been thought impossible (and, with 30 amp breakers and a 60 amp main it'd have been challenging at best).

There were also lot of scissor lifts. Like, a lot of them. I have no idea why.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

There were also lot of scissor lifts. Like, a lot of them. I have no idea why.

I think the better question is why they've disappeared. They can be a very elegant and simple solution.

[ehfeinberg]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

There were also lot of scissor lifts. Like, a lot of them. I have no idea why.

I feel as FIRST has evolved over the last 20 or so years, teams have started to converge on similar designs. Back in the day, (really before 2010) I don't feel teams had a lot of experience building and designing different mechanisms. So they built what ever they thought would be the best for their situation. So you would get a lot of not so optimal designs for different arms or lifters, weird drives, and crazy mechanisms.

However, as FIRST has gotten older, teams have started to understand which type of mechanisms are the best. For example, if we had another game with inner tubes, almost every single team would have a elevator with a roller claw on the end. Why? Because this design was shown to be the most optimal in the past so why should a team try anything different. FIRST has transitioned from building something that works to building the most optimal design for the situation, and this is why designs have started to converge.

Shame, cause I loved the craziness of the older mechanisms, but great because the level of competitiveness has increased. I have no clue what is better or more inspiring, but this is a great topic for its own thread.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by ehfeinberg

I feel as FIRST has evolved over the last 20 or so years, teams have started to converge on similar designs. Back in the day, (really before 2010) I don't feel teams had a lot of experience building and designing different mechanisms. So they built what ever they thought would be the best for their situation. So you would get a lot of not so optimal designs for different arms or lifters, weird drives, and crazy mechanisms.

However, as FIRST has gotten older, teams have started to understand which type of mechanisms are the best. For example, if we had another game with inner tubes, almost every single team would have a elevator with a roller claw on the end. Why? Because this design was shown to be the most optimal in the past so why should a team try anything different. FIRST has transitioned from building something that works to building the most optimal design for the situation, and this is why designs have started to converge.

Shame, cause I loved the craziness of the older mechanisms, but great because the level of competitiveness has increased. I have no clue what is better or more inspiring, but this is a great topic for its own thread.

This is really true. I feel the same way. We no longer have wacky weird (but effective) designs. There's no longer weird stuff, like ball drives, swerve pods that go up and down, and other strange grabbers from team 47.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by magnets

This is really true. I feel the same way. We no longer have wacky weird (but effective) designs. There's no longer weird stuff, like ball drives, swerve pods that go up and down, and other strange grabbers from team 47.

How much of that is COTS availability, and how much of that is the game? I love the heck out of 111's lifting swerve of 2004, but when was the last time there was a game application that called for it?

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by magnets

This is really true. I feel the same way. We no longer have wacky weird (but effective) designs. There's no longer weird stuff, like ball drives, swerve pods that go up and down, and other strange grabbers from team 47.

Really? Really?!?

Articulating drive trains with various omni-directional, mecanum, and traction wheels are all the rage. 148 has a sideways drive that is activated entirely by inertia this year. 971 was experimenting with friction clutch gearboxes. There is no shortage of new and interesting software algorithms like CheesyDrive. There's been swerve drives with CIM motors inside wheels. We've had fans and ball magnets on robots, and some teams even used massive spinning weights to make their robots turn faster. Teams are 3D printing drive wheels and gearboxes.

We are in a golden age of innovation in FRC and robots today are way better than they've ever been before.

[bduddy]

Reading this topic, it's painfully obvious that most of the frequent posters on this board are completely unable to look beyond the top 10-20% of FRC teams. Again.

[Paul Copioli]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Reading this topic, it's painfully obvious that most of the frequent posters on this board are completely unable to look beyond the top 10-20% of FRC teams. Again.

Really?

The ironic part about your post is that it is in a thread started about COTS parts. COTS parts have done almost nothing for the top 10% of teams compared to what it has done for the middle 80%.

I remember the "good old days" when hardly anyone moved at a week one regional. It was painful. That is why Woodie Flowers, along with IFI, started a committee to fix the problem in 2004. I was fortunate enough to be asked to be on that committee. The #1 priority: NO Circle bots. If you don't know, it was a robot that only drove in circles. Without rehashing all the details, here are the highlights:

1. Got rid of the drill motors as primary drive motors. Replaced with 4 CIMS.

2. IFI lead designer of the Kit Chassis, making all the parts in their facility in Greenville, TX.

3. I was the lead designer of the gearbox, while I was still at FANUC Robotics.

4. I suggested bringing in the newly formed AndyMark to manufacture some of the hex shafts and gears as IFI was not experienced at that yet and the FANUC suppliers were way too expensive.

5. The majority of the operational stuff was handled between IFI, AM, and FIRST but I burned a favor with the FANUC operations manual department to make the instruction and assembly guide for the gearbox.

This single committee has changed the face of the FRC competition field more than any single entity, in my opinion.

The COTS movement, started by AM, has made it so the elite level teams (the 10% you say the majority concentrate on) had to up their game to stay on top of the pack. The biggest benefactors have been the middle 80% of teams. The teams that had the will, but not the way. The COTs movement gave them the way.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Really?

The ironic part about your post is that it is in a thread started about COTS parts. COTS parts have done almost nothing for the top 10% of teams compared to what it has done for the middle 80%.

I remember the "good old days" when hardly anyone moved at a week one regional. It was painful. That is why Woodie Flowers, along with IFI, started a committee to fix the problem in 2004. I was fortunate enough to be asked to be on that committee. The #1 priority: NO Circle bots. If you don't know, it was a robot that only drove in circles. Without rehashing all the details, here are the highlights:

1. Got rid of the drill motors as primary drive motors. Replaced with 4 CIMS.

2. IFI lead designer of the Kit Chassis, making all the parts in their facility in Greenville, TX.

3. I was the lead designer of the gearbox, while I was still at FANUC Robotics.

4. I suggested bringing in the newly formed AndyMark to manufacture some of the hex shafts and gears as IFI was not experienced at that yet and the FANUC suppliers were way too expensive.

5. The majority of the operational stuff was handled between IFI, AM, and FIRST but I burned a favor with the FANUC operations manual department to make the instruction and assembly guide for the gearbox.

This single committee has changed the face of the FRC competition field more than any single entity, in my opinion.

The COTS movement, started by AM, has made it so the elite level teams (the 10% you say the majority concentrate on) had to up their game to stay on top of the pack. The biggest benefactors have been the middle 80% of teams. The teams that had the will, but not the way. The COTs movement gave them the way.

In my mind this was the single best thing to happen in FIRST to improve the level of play. After this happened you didn't need a machine shop to actually build a robot that wouldn't throw chains and have other reliability and drive issues. This allowed everyone to focus on contributing to the alliance rather than just moving.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by bduddy

Reading this topic, it's painfully obvious that most of the frequent posters on this board are completely unable to look beyond the top 10-20% of FRC teams. Again.

Sorry, do you want teams that should be focusing on reliably achieving the game challenge to be innovating? Yeah that's a recipe for success right there.

Look at what COTs have done for the normal team:

- They can drive
- They aren't locked into whatever gear ratio they happened to guess when they initially made a gearbox (IF they could make one and didn't have to hack together some drill gearbox)
- Costs have come way down
- Innovations from top teams are actually available to them (shifting transmissions were a black art before AM, god help you about swerve drives)


What has COTS really done for teams like 118, 254, and 67? What do they have available that they couldn't have done before? (If someone from those teams could chime in here that'd be GREAT)