What was there before AndyMark?

[JamesCH95]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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)

It's given them a much larger selection of great alliance partners.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

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.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was in response to people complaining about COTS parts trivializing the design challenges of FIRST ("buying a robot," etc), not in response to people (correctly) saying that COTS parts are a very good thing and have greatly improved FIRST.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was in response to people complaining about COTS parts trivializing the design challenges of FIRST ("buying a robot," etc), not in response to people (correctly) saying that COTS parts are a very good thing and have greatly improved FIRST.

If the statement was about the bottom 10%-20% of teams I have a really unpopular response for them: Maybe FRC isn't for you. There might be benefit in going to a different program with lower costs (FTC,VEX) while you build up the resources needed to compete in FRC. This includes mentorship, community, machining, and monetary resources.

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

There's no essentially. Justin Foss often brags that 558's robots (which won 2 districts this year) are made almost exclusively from COTS parts. There's a reason any time I need to find something on McMaster that's who I ask first.

I wouldn't jump straight to brag, but we are proud of what we are able to accomplish within our resources. FRC558 works from a decent sized build area with only a hand tools, drill press, band saw, belt sander, and drum sander. Building within a teams real resources is one of the hardest things for a team to learn to do. We operate under a couple of mottos on the design side of the team:

"Steal from the best, design the rest" (draw inspiration from what you've seen work and integrate with your design)
"Why build what you can buy?" (within reason)

There is plenty of innovation to be had with COTS parts. Part integration and using products for things they were not originally intended are found on machines every year, if you just take the time to look and talk to teams about it.

[OZ_341]

I have been around as a mentor since 2000 and I can tell you that things are so much better now and way more competitive now at every level. Every team has the ability to focus on innovative design concepts, rather simple reliability. As mentioned previously most matches were won or lost by counting how many robots were stuck driving in a circle.

In my opinion the current KOP rules more closely simulates the real world of engineering anyway. I worked as a designer in the food & packaging industries for many years. Most of the designs in our industry were a collection of COTS parts that were custom packaged for our design task. Truly custom design was only performed on about 25% of the overall production line and about half of that was outsourced.

In my industry if your boss found you spending hours designing an unproven custom gearbox when you could have purchased it from a catalog in 10 minutes, you would have a lot of explaining to do. Why not use your time to create innovative overall designs rather than solving problems that have already been solved. Its a valid question.

Its important for the kids to understand how a gearbox works, but they do not need to design it from scratch to have the full engineering experience.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

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).

Yes, that's an entire robot. It has a chassis, drive train, can pass inspection, and play in the competition. And nowhere in my post did I say that doing so "trivializes" FRC, particularly since in the very next sentence I talk about how having the fundamentals of a robot provided in the kit are a good thing since raising the floor also raises the ceiling. My team particularly benefits from the KOP. We don't have a lot of equipment, mostly hand power tools, so being able to start with the chassis is ideal for us.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by KGenson

And nowhere in my post did I say that doing so "trivializes" FRC, particularly since in the very next sentence I talk about how having the fundamentals of a robot provided in the kit are a good thing since raising the floor also raises the ceiling. My team particularly benefits from the KOP. We don't have a lot of equipment, mostly hand power tools, so being able to start with the chassis is ideal for us.

Then what exactly is "lost?" What benefit was there to a competition where most teams struggle to get something that moves?

Also, I have a hard time construing something that's not at all designed to play the specific game an "entire" robot.

[Old Guy]

Small Parts Catalog from 1996 with the winning robot from Ramp N Roll.
Some day I will tell you how this machine was involved in the creation of the term "Gracious Professionalism"

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Then what exactly is "lost?" What benefit was there to a competition where most teams struggle to get something that moves?

Also, I have a hard time construing something that's not at all designed to play the specific game an "entire" robot.

The benefit was the experience of building the chassis and drive train, of having the students innovate and work with what they were given. Of having built something completely from scratch. Now that innovation has shifted to the manipulators and autonomous mode, with the upper echelon teams also being free to develop their drive trains and chassis. I really don't see what you're arguing about. All I said was "something" was lost when they transitioned towards a more COTS oriented foundation, and that whatever was lost was offset by what was gained with respect to opening up the game to more teams.

A team can purchase everything necessary to create a robot (including elements specifically designed for the individual competition, especially Aerial Assist) and assemble it. I suppose we can argue about whether or not using AndyMark's bumper kits count as assembly, but I put that on the same level as having to cut the frame to the right size.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by KGenson

The benefit was the experience of building the chassis and drive train, of having the students innovate and work with what they were given. Of having built something completely from scratch.

I don't think the vast majority of teams are capable of making gearboxes from scratch, so I find it hard to lament the "loss" of this particular challenge.

Students still have to innovate and work with what they're given. What they're given now is strictly better, as far as I can tell, than what they were given in the past.

[FrankJ]

Judging from the issues some teams have with bumpers... Nothing is trivial.

[Ed Sparks]

As I recall, before AndyMark, there was darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Ed Sparks

As I recall, before AndyMark, there was darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

No Ed, you're confusing BC (Before COTS) with After Aerial Assist.

[OZ_341]

Originally Posted by Ed Sparks

As I recall, before AndyMark, there was darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

I think that was me.

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I don't think the vast majority of teams are capable of making gearboxes from scratch, so I find it hard to lament the "loss" of this particular challenge.

Students still have to innovate and work with what they're given. What they're given now is strictly better, as far as I can tell, than what they were given in the past.

You had a gearbox; the drill motors were attached to them.

But you're right, things are better for teams now then they were in the past.