Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I do think there is a difference between a generic-use COTS robot part (a gearbox) and a game-specific COTS robot part (an intake). That may be the distinction that upsets some people.

The interesting thing about the intake mechanism AndyMark is selling is that while it seems like a game specific thing, if you look at the last ten or so games for FRC, you could use it as is in probably 7 of them as is, and the other 3 (2007, 2011, 2015) you could modify it a bit for use in, say, a roller claw. So while it may look like something game specific, really a roller intake is just another common component of a robot. That's a big difference in selling that versus, say, a variety of 7, 8, and 10" flywheel ball shooters.

[AndyB871]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Different strokes for different folks. It's all about the evolution of the individual team and how far mentors can/want to take them.

Who benefited the most. The team who bought a swerve drive from the vendor? Or the team that engineered or re-engineered the idea?

Yes, cots equal the playing field. I'm fine with that. But it's the journey not the destination. Don't buy all cots at the expense of learning.

Nicely said. Maybe that's what I was getting at all along?

The only cots speciality parts we used was the kit bot which we modified to use Mecanum wheels, competition robot parts roller kit, Rev gussets, and a banebots p80 gearbox.

Yeah, Those kinds of parts I'm all about. We buy COTS parts too, like gearboxes and the like, linear slides etc etc. I think part of the problem is that I'm still new to the whole "leading the organization thing". I'm just a software guy (Blame it on the software right?), so I've got relatively little experience designing physical stuff. But now I've slipped into a leadership role for the team itself and I've got some freedom to actually make choices that can affect where we're going.

I won't lie, that still kind-of scares me. I'm starting to ramble -- and I know it -- Sorry about that. I suppose I wanted to see how other teams approach the problem. I like to hear from people who have lots more experience than I do and try to understand how they think.

Thanks for the discussion so far everyone.

[PayneTrain]

The product of FIRST is not necessarily the robots. It's the teams behind the robots. FIRST wanted to expand their program almost two decades ago beyond its very narrow scope of industrial partners adopting schools and turned the relationship almost entirely upside down.

There is some sort of spectrum that every aspect of FIRST operates on. While expansion definitely has its own spectrum and I have my own opinions on it, let's talk about a side effect of the current level of expansion.

You may believe that the line has been crossed in terms of the relationship suppliers have with creating specialized products that cater to FRC teams, and you are right to have an opinion on it. One of the great things about FIRST is that I really think it can be all things to all people. The goals one team has may not just be different in sheer scope or difficulty, but may diverge at an even earlier fork in the road. Some teams do not operate under the idea that FIRST trains the next generation of engineers. Some teams recognize it as an opportunity to show kids the potential of STEM fields. Some teams find FRC to be one of the most high profile and effective programs at the high school level that can build teamwork and leadership skills. Others find it a great enabler of community service.

Sure, FIRST has a crafted mission and vision for its program, but teams should also have their own mission and vision for their own program. The meaning of participation in FIRST is whatever the participant defines it to be, which is why it can be all things for all people.

In terms of the spectrum of the relationship suppliers have with FRC teams, they really are not crossing a line for me until they are boxing up MCC kits and selling them as a separate SKU. Even then, the construction of an FRC robot can very well be a tiny fraction of the execution of the entire technical division of the team.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Different strokes for different folks. It's all about the evolution of the individual team and how far mentors can/want to take them.

Who benefited the most. The team who bought a swerve drive from the vendor? Or the team that engineered or re-engineered the idea?

Yes, cots equal the playing field. I'm fine with that. But it's the journey not the destination. Don't buy all cots at the expense of learning.

I'll say this. I don't think many teams buy COTS without a good reason. I know that on 68, we finally made the switch to COTS drive transmissions in 2014 after making them custom every year prior. Could we have made custom transmissions again that year? Sure. So why didn't we? Because that was something we knew we could buy a reliable COTS version of, and doing so would allow us to focus our efforts on other custom mechanisms and get parts out of the CAD lab and into the shop faster. That year, in no small part due to the amount of time we saved and the manpower buying COTS freed up for other things, we finally fulfilled our perpetual goal of having almost-identical practice and competition robots. Did it prevent some students on our team from learning about transmission design? I suppose, but it also allowed them to be more involved with learning other things and it improved our build season schedule and performance overall.

I think that was a trade worth making, and I suspect other teams that seem like they should be able to get by without as many COTS parts are evaluating their choices similarly. They aren't shorting their students out of the chance at learning, but rather allowing them to move on from systems that would otherwise consume a large part of their build season and inhibit having a functional or competitive robot. Whatever stage of development or competitiveness a team is at, they can move one rung further up the ladder and help their students learn something new by pushing their competitive ceiling with COTS parts.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I do think there is a difference between a generic-use COTS robot part (a gearbox) and a game-specific COTS robot part (an intake). That may be the distinction that upsets some people.

I think this is a common feeling on the matter.

I think this is a fantastic discussion to bring up. I do think it is only a matter of time before companies start selling kits to make game specific systems (intake, climber, shooter...) that could be combined to build a complete robot. The past few years have brought companies building complete robots, providing CAD drawings and selling kits of the more challenging to produce parts for these robot systems. The next step is for companies to explicitly sell robot systems along with step by step instructions.

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't think anyone wants to sell teams prefabbed game solutions (that wouldn't be any fun!).

I think it would be fun for the company if they could sell them for a significant profit.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think this is a common feeling on the matter.

I think this is a fantastic discussion to bring up. I do think it is only a matter of time before companies start selling kits to make game specific systems (intake, climber, shooter...) that could be combined to build a complete robot. The past few years have brought companies building complete robots, providing CAD drawings and selling kits of the more challenging to produce parts for these robot systems. The next step is for companies to explicitly sell robot systems along with step by step instructions.

If there is a market for it, if it is cost effective for the company, and if the prices fall within the rules, let the free market do its thing.

Nobody forces anyone to buy anything.

Do people take issue with companies making a profit?

Heck, if I had the start up money and the man power, I'd be selling my own game specific kits. Business is business.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

If there is a market for it, if it is cost effective for the company, and if the prices fall within the rules, let the free market do its thing.

I agree with everything in your post (I have no problems at all with the current suppliers), except this. If FIRST (either HQ or the teams/community) decided they don't want 'purchasable robots' something could be done.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think this is a common feeling on the matter.

I think this is a fantastic discussion to bring up. I do think it is only a matter of time before companies start selling kits to make game specific systems (intake, climber, shooter...) that could be combined to build a complete robot. The past few years have brought companies building complete robots, providing CAD drawings and selling kits of the more challenging to produce parts for these robot systems. The next step is for companies to explicitly sell robot systems along with step by step instructions.



I think it would be fun for the company if they could sell them for a significant profit.

I do not think companies will ever sell a robot in a box. Not for moral reasons but because cots parts can't be more then $400. A robot in a box is worth more then $400.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I agree with everything in your post (I have no problems at all with the current suppliers), except this. If FIRST (either HQ or the teams/community) decided they don't want 'purchasable robots' something could be done.

Sure, something could be done. But I have a hard time agreeing with any statements that something should be done if such a scenario exists in the future.

FIRST already has price per component rules in place, how much further would you want them to go with such restrictions? How would they be defined/enforced?

If the community doesn't want something, then those people don't need to purchase the hypothetical components. Telling others to not buy something just sounds a bit ludicrous to me.

[IronicDeadBird]

I'm just going to be jumping all over the place so sorry if you get lost in dyslexic translation.

One lesson that I feel is applicable outside of STEAM (STEAM) and FRC is that in the real world, when you need a wagon you don't need to invent a wheel because it has already been done. Humanity has built upon itself and made advances because it utilizes what we have learned.
Also generalizing mistakes like that is risky bidnizz. After seeing students struggle to raise money if a proposed idea for a robot is a flat waste of money I'm not going to back the idea.
You can absolutely buy a robot which looks like it can compete, but that won't be seen until competition. Even then just because you have a competition ready robot doesn't mean you will actually win. I am not going to discourage teams from using COTS parts, but if you do go into competition with a Kit Rhino with grabber and you plan on winning then you better find a way to stand out in case you aren't a captain of an alliance. Some teams will fail to realize this and while they will come to competition people will find that will they might have a robot that gets the job done, its utilization on the floor is its only really "valued" depending upon exactly how many other identical robots are out there.
From my short time in FRC and on Chief Delphi I have come to the conclusion that the "Spirit of First" is whatever reasons someone has for joining it. Some people like seeing the glow of joy in a students eye, some people like the environment, some people like giving back to the community. FIRST robotics is amazing because of all the random things you can learn and take away from it. I just feel this is just another instance of something that happens often in the real world that also crops up in FRC. I wouldn't fight it I would just take the time to show students that this is sometimes the way of the world, and while I don't always agree with the world I still have to live with it.

I won't lie it is a mixed bag completely, but it tracking what sells out has made my life easier in the scout department.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Sure, something could be done. But I have a hard time agreeing with any statements that something should be done if such a scenario exists in the future.

FIRST already has price per component rules in place, how much further would you want them to go with such restrictions? How would they be defined/enforced?

If the community doesn't want something, then those people don't need to purchase the hypothetical components. Telling others to not buy something just sounds a bit ludicrous to me.

I have yet to take any stance on if pre-fab systems should be allowed or not. I was just responding to those who have expressed concerns over pre-fab game specific systems and doubt that they will ever be sold, by predicting they will likely become a reality in the near future.

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

I do not think companies will ever sell a robot in a box. Not for moral reasons but because cots parts can't be more then $400. A robot in a box is worth more then $400.

If I was a brilliant designer and had the manufacturing capabilities, I would look at designing a game specific subsystems using mainly the current COTS parts. Then sell a kit containing the 'custom' parts and instructions on how to assemble the 'custom' parts in the kit with standard COTS parts (sold separately). I believe these would be legal if each kit was priced under $400.

[MrJohnston]

Kudos on the topic: As the worlds of both engineering and FIRST evolve, it's always good to step back and ask the question, "Does this new development really jive with the mission of FRC?" Regular discussions on such topics are healthy for any community and FRC is no exception.

I do think the question as to whether or not such prefabricated parts are a good think (or should permitted) is a fantastic question - but one that goes much deeper than simply whether or not AndyMark should provide game specific items. So, backing up a bit:

* Let's face it, there will never be perfect parity in FRC. A team located in the same community as a robotics engineering firm will have some significant advantages over teams in very rural areas. Likewise, in the Seattle area, we'd have some real advantages in games requiring flight (lots of Boeing engineers around here)... There is nothing wrong with this: Programs absolutely must work with their local industries.

* Teams that philosophically believe in having a 100% student-built bot will never put up such a glorious piece of machinery as one that is near 100% mentor built.

* Overall, we need the GDC to provide rules and guidelines that allow teams to have their own approaches to the game and allow them to work within the necessary frameworks of their local communities while maintaining some sense of a level playing field. (I don't envy the members of the GDC for this.)

* Pre-fabricated items add an interesting layer to all of this. On one side, they give the less-experienced teams a chance to at least play on the same field as those teams flush with strong mentors, great facilities and cash. On the other, they potentially cut into the kids' learning experience.

* Let's face it: very few of us want to see any supplier come up with a "Read-for-competition bot-in-a-box designed by professional robotics engineers and manufactured by NASA... All you have to do is put it together - 9/16th wrench provided. Estimated time of assembly: 2 hours." (No, this is not meant as a knock against any team). There needs to be a line somewhere.

* Giving a helping hand to teams is integral to the FIRST community. How does this fit in? Certainly a team new to the game and short on mentors would be far more able to put a functional robot on the field. It's always painful to see teams at a competition whose robot doesn't even roll.

* At the same time, it's not right if it is possible to put a competitive robot forward with little or no engineering knowledge. It seems fundamental to FRC that students must be forced to develop engineering skills and knowledge in order to compete. Students who have more such ability should be able to produce products superior than what students lacking such knowledge could produce.

* At some level, we all rely on suppliers to produce products for us- every team does. It's not like we are mining metal from the ground to produce our own aluminum....

* Two AndyMark products come to mind: The Rhino Treads and the Intake System. 948 students do almost everything by hand. We have no access to CNC machines or Jet cutting.. Students are very adept with hacksaws, hand drills, etc. So, if we are going to create precise cuts and functional devices, the construction takes a lot of time... We likely would have chosen a drive system with pneumatic wheels this year, but saw the Rhinos online. After much discussion, we figured that there would be very few performance disadvantages with the Rhinos - they would do the job well. By purchasing them, we saved a tremendous amount of labor and can now focus much more on our various manipulators... Yes, I felt a little guilty when I ordered them. We chose not to go with the intake system - we figured we could do much better.

* For our intake system, we spent time looking at FRC robots over the past decade that have had very good ball intake systems and found something that the Cheesy Poofs did a few years ago that could be altered just a wee for the purposes of this game. We studied photographs and video of their robot and found plenty to make what we believe will be an outstanding ball intake. To me, this is a hugely important aspect of engineering: We don't need to invent everything from scratch. Instead, we found systems that did similar things to what we need and adapted them. Why reinvent the wheel when we can learn from somebody else?

* We did something similar for our climbing mechanism... Our mentors had spent some time talking with another team at Champs last year about their bin-grabber.. I don't remember the team number off the top of my head, but they were great: They showed us how it all worked and a mentor responded to one of our students last spring when she emailed them for more information. Yes, their bin-grabber gave us a concept for our climber. Again, this is good engineering.

* Ri3D: These teams are great as they do give us all ideas. However, I wonder how "good" we want their robots to be? (I don't have an opinion here, I just wonder...). Here is why: We had been working on two promising prototypes for our shooter (one was a catapult design, the other a single-wheel shooter). We had just gotten to the point with both designs, when we were looking at the integration with other systems on our robot -especially so space constraints. We were just trying to solve those problems -something that is very good for students to have to work through. How do we load the ball into the catapult after grabbing it with our intake? How do we secure the ball as we take it on a pretty bumpy ride through the outer-works? How do we get that big wheel to fit into the fairly small space we have on the robot? The questions were hard - but really good problems to have to figure out..... But, we then saw something on one of the Ri3D robots that would solve all of those problems and do exactly what we wanted: Shooting accurately with range, adjustable shot distances, a clean integration with our intake system and fit into the space required. So... we scrapped our own ideas and took theirs. Yes, we are learning from the experience - but we are missing out on the problem-solving that would have been absolutely necessary if we had stuck with our own promising designs.

* I guess I look at the prefabricated parts as one more piece in the continuum of "support" available for FRC teams. I don't see the current AndyMark items as harmful to the experience. However, I do think they start to flirt with that line. After all, the moment kids stop needing to actually engineer their own robot and solve the problems presented in each game is the moment that FRC lose its magic. I just hope that these discussions continue on Chief Delphi and that the GDC continues to have them as well.

(Submitting without a proofread... My wife wants me to fold laundry... I hope I didn't ramble too much.)

[Sperkowsky]

Just figured the largest player in the space Andymark is owned by Andy Baker a wwfa winner. It's not like this guy doesn't understand the program and want kids to learn.

[Andy A.]

I'm ambivalent about it. On one hand I like that more teams get more access to more capable mechanisms for less effort, time and money. That's all great. On the other hand it's lead to what I've started jokingly calling the 'hex shaft mono-culture'. Lord knows 95 has reaped the benefits of that as much as any team, and I'm not convinced there's really anything wrong with it so long as no aspect of it is obligatory (you don't have to buy gearboxes, after all).

[EricH]

I like it. Of course, that won't really go into why... so here I go.

It brings the bottom up, making our collective product better and more exciting. A rookie team can buy a bunch of parts and get something that works.

But, at the same time, those parts can provide a foundation for "design-your-own". You can, after the season, take them apart and dissect the design. What is better: to buy 4 swerve modules, slap them on a frame, add in programming, and call it a day, or to buy ONE swerve module, take it to pieces and back to learn why it is doing what it's doing, and then design a custom one that better fits the team (or buy the other three later)?


My team likes custom--we do a lot of building. But we don't have a lot of precision equipment in the shop--we're still getting our mill online. Paul and John get quite a few orders from us for gearboxes and similar items--but those go onto custom framing welded together. And we have absolutely no qualms about copying something we've seen someone else, or ourselves, do in the past--though we do tend to do the rework to make it work with whatever we're doing that particular year.