What was there before AndyMark?

[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.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by 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".

I respectfully disagree with this mindset.

[rant]
The most inspiration-creating thing for any team that I have seen has always been success on the competition field. However, you did not reference "inspiration", you were talking about "learning", so I will talk about that instead.

In my time in FRC, the lion's share the big learning moments that I have had have come from continuous iterations on designs, not from spectacular fails. Sure, I learned things from these failures, and some of them were certainly necessary for my advancement. However, I should not strive to fail just for the learning opportunity, but rather take my small failures in stride as I incrementally build up my knowledge.

I see no difference for FRC teams.

Many, many teams build beyond their abilities. They often do not realize that their robot will not perform successfully until after their first qualification match. They struggle through competition, do not get selected for elims, then pack up and go home. Maybe when they get back, they look at their robot, and learn a small handful of things about why the design failed.

Then there are the teams that, from day 1 of build, choose less aggressive designs. These teams build robots to play these unglorifying "support" roles that everyone seems to look down upon, but which nevertheless are crucial for successful alliances. These teams may actually get a chance to test out their designs in week 5, and when these designs fail for an unexpected reason, the team still has a week to work out the bugs. These are the teams go to competitions, win more matches than they lose, and get picked for elims. The kids walk away proud that they were successful, and they have probably learned more than the average team, because they had dozens of small failures along the way, each of which required a unique solution.

Why in the world do so many people think that the first team I described is better off than the second? The teams that build "support" robots will still work to tweak, iterate, improve, and practice with these designs, just like any other team. The "chair" as an inbounding device (love it) is not an endpoint, but a starting point. Most teams never even reach their starting point because they strive too hard for the complicated designs.

(Clearly, not all teams fall into one of the above two categories, I illustrate these because I think that the sole difference between the two is the mindset of the leaders on the teams)

[/rant]

I would be surprised if my team didn't build "support role" type robots for the next 2 years, and maybe longer. I'd like to see someone try to tell any one of my kids that they were less inspired or that they learned less this year than the students on other teams who actually built shooters. They will probably laugh right in this person's face.

[Chris Fultz]

I started with 234 in 2001, and that was in the transition between very limited materials and only Small Parts, to being able to use a part from any supplier as long as you could get it from small parts, to more open, to where we are today.

I think one of the major breakthru's was when Andy Baker posted drawings of his/team 45's gearboxes. That was a big event because nobody was sharing designs before that. Then Andy and Mark started selling some things, and IFI started selling more things, and it has taken off.

I do think it is interesting that we were so excited to be able to buy gearboxes, then shifting gearboxes, 2 motor and 3 motor versions, etc. and we have done that for several seasons.

And then for 2014 we built our own again.

Circle of Life.

[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.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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



(They were from BB)

The 07 KOP transmissions were great gearboxes, save for a manufacturing defect. The carrier plates were not properly heat treated. Once the problem was identified, banebots went above and beyond to provide teams with replacement carrier plates in time for the first week of regionals.



I don't know how much it cost banebots to solve that problem, but the experience left me with a very high impression of the commitment to customers. Anyone can run into a manufacturing glitch when scaling up production. Banebots set a great example of how to deal with it.



I stumbled upon our old Bosch drill motors from our 04 drivetrain the other day. It reminded me to be amazed by how the FRC COTS industry has grown over the past decade.



Jason

[KevinG]

I participated in FIRST way back from 1999 to 2001, then went off to college and became an engineer. Last year I came back. Wow. What a difference.

When I participated teams lived or died based on their chassis. I was lucky enough to be part of a team that could get something welded from a sponsor, other teams had to make do with wood or even fiberglass. The "best" teams had 80/20 chassis that let them do whatever they wanted. Drive trains where the other killer. Everything else was secondary to making sure your chassis and drive train were solid. These days you get that in the box.

SmallParts was king. The robots were far more mechanical-focused back then, with no autonomous period. The best motors were drill motors and the van door motor, and teams had to be cautioned against using set screws because they inevitably slipped. Keyways were a rarity since the motors themselves weren't keyed. The idea of buying a gearbox pre-made for everything was completely alien.

Are things better than they were before? Yes and no. I think something is lost when you can literally buy an entire robot and spend a few days assembling everything. But that's offset by the fact that raising the floor also raises the ceiling. Instead of starting with nothing teams can start with a kit bot, and IMO that offers a lot of possibility. We're a much more technologically advanced community now, with programming and automation taking a bigger role than before. The barrier to entry is far lower, and anything that exposes more students to FRC is a good thing.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by KGenson

I think something is lost when you can literally buy an entire robot and spend a few days assembling everything.

I don't know where people are getting this, unless by "entire robot" they mean "something that drives" and not much else.

Not that "something that drives" can't be an extremely productive part of an alliance, of course, but it certainly doesn't trivialize FRC (or even come close).

[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.

[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)

[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.