Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[AndyB871]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

Andy, I don't take your post as a bash, so please don't take mine as a bash either.

Haha, no worries, I don't. I was just a little worried that the discussion would turn into a flame war before the _real_ discussion started, so I was a bit defensive (plus I'd just finished shoveling after the snowpacolypse so...) . Reading the discussion now (and holy cow it's exploded over the last day) I'm really stoked with where this discussion is going.

I'm seeing lots and lots of great opinions, and even a sort of consensus about COTS parts.

As I Read further, I'm starting to see my viewpoint change a bit too with the way people frame the issue.

This is one of my favorite replies so far

Originally Posted by JesseK

In developing new products, I simply hope that suppliers do not encourage sacrificing resiliency in problem solving for convenience in executing a solution. Students who are taught that mindset are terrible Engineers, expecting where to be told a solution and the complaining when it doesn't "just work by pressing the button". "Business is Business" is a cop-out when it goes that far.

And I think that's the center of my worry too. Problem solving is important and you can't start problem solving by trying to design an airliner, you've got to start small. Where better to start that process than at the lowest (reasonble ) level possible?

For example, to jump into software-land. We're using Java now, and Java has a hozillion great libraries for everything under the sun, INCLUDING lots of fantastic FRC open-source projects that we could leverage. This is a LOT like COTS mech/electrical parts.

I let my students use these libraries, even if (and when) they do find them on their own, but under one condition. I get them to understand the concepts and reasons WHY that library existed.

NAVx MXP is a great example; No one is going to expect every student to understand sensor fusion, and kalman filtering, on top of a robust I/O protocol. That's Crazytown. I'm sure some particularly bright students might be able to get it. I don't expect them to reverse-engineer anything, but I do help them understand what a Filter is, and why it's important.

A yearly project for new students is to build a simple complementary filter that eats gyro data & a single magnetometer and produce a smoothed heading. This is a simple (mathematically too) project that helps them understand just what's happening under the hood. Once that project is done, the concepts are understood, I give the go-ahead and they pull in the NAVX libraries and navigate away! No re-designing the wheel, the guys at kauailabs did a fantastic job, better than we can expect to in 6 weeks, so by all means lets leverage that.

That is how I feel about larger COTS Parts. If you use them, that's great, just make sure the backup knowledge is there, the why, the question to the answer.

Thanks again guys for the fun discussion

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Software is getting to the point where not much needs to be done to get it to work. GRIP is a fantastic example of that this year. It takes most of the effort in getting vision code down to a bare minimum. That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. For many other non FRC projects, vision has always been a hassle. Whether it's getting libraries to be recognized correctly, installing OpenCV, or cluttering code, it's never been quite as straightforward as I would have liked. With GRIP though, I don't think I will ever have to worry about that again. Although it only supports exports to FRC network tables, it seems like it shouldn't be too difficult to modify the export so that it can be used in non FRC projects. Does it take a lot of the work out of getting vision code? Absolutely! Would I ever go back or tell students to go back to hard coding it for the sake of doing it manually? Probably not. Especially since it makes it easier to transition into more advanced concepts. As new platforms make things easier to code, new things will likely emerge to take it's place.

[Dalas]

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but this is just going way too far.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Dalas

http://www.wcproducts.net/mcc2016/

I wasn't going to comment on this thread, but this is just going way too far.

How is it different from a robot in 3 days?

All of the parts are COTS parts, save for a few custom gussets.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

How is it different from a robot in 3 days?

All of the parts are COTS parts, save for a few custom gussets.

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings full CAD models.

According to that site:

*We will be updating this page, more info will be going up this weekend* *Kits will be available for purchase, please email support@wcproducts.net for more info*

I would regard their intent as completely different to Ri3D (even the AndyMark team, who use a lot of AM products).

That's not a criticism of WCP or this product, but I think it would be unfair to the Ri3D teams to group the two together. This is clearly one step beyond what they do, and what the KOP does.

EDITED: Apparently totally wrong, struck through comment

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings.

Not even close to true. Actually, thank you for reminding me to post the 'Snow Problem CAD model. You can find that here (or in my signature).

[Joe Johnson]

A lot of good discussion here. Thanks to everyone for being so respectful and for not getting devolving into name calling. I respect that in the Chief Delphi crowd. Thanks.

As to my views, listen, I design gearboxes for a living and I am SO GLAD to be out of the gearbox biz for FIRST. Having so many great gearboxes that we can just order lets the team focus on implementing their ideas rather than the details of involutes, center distances, ...

It is not just in the mechanical world that things are getting easier and better.

Coding:
What about compilers? Why should we steal the experience of writing in assembly from our kids?

Electronics:
What about MEMS sensors? Why back in my day, we didn't have none of these new fangled gyros telling us what our angular rate was, no sir e bob. We had to LOOK at our robots and tell THEM what direction they were headed.

Coding (again):
PID loops implemented in WPI libraries? What? and steal the experience of writing an anti-wind up integral term from the coding team? Are you nuts?

Design:
What about CAD? Why are we taking away the experience of hand drawing section views to discover interferences?

Electronics (again):
Beaglebones? Raspberry Pis? Teenseys? Arduinos? Bla! Why teams should layout their own 6808 boards. Puts hair on your chest!

The tools get easier and better in every field. These enable better and better solutions. For everyone. The top teams, the bottom teams, and the middle teams.

I think it is more inspirational. Period.

So, I'm all for them.

Dr. Joe J.

[gblake]

The teams don't exist to make the competitions the best they can be. The competitions exist to make the teams the best they can be.

If you are using prefabricated parts to produce better students in a better team, then I think there is a very good chance we see eye to eye. If your group is using prefab parts for a different reason, I might be harder to convince. YMMV.

Much of what I have read here seems to revolve around where people fall in this spectrum.


Blake

[gblake]

I hope I'm not repeating something already written:

Let's follow current trends to one of their likely conclusions.

I pretty sure that in the not too distant future, some company, people, or person will sell a full, high-performance, does-great-on-the-field, FRC robot (the moving vehicle, the software, and the operator controls). They will sell it in the form of a bill-of-materials, plus instructions, plus published software, plus parts ready to be assembled. They will offer it sometime in the middle of build season.

When that happens will FRC be alive and well? Or will that be the beginning of the end?

Discuss ...

Blake

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by gblake

I hope I'm not repeating something already written:

Let's follow current trends to one of their likely conclusions.

I pretty sure that in the not too distant future, some company, people, or person will sell a full, high-performance, does-great-on-the-field, FRC robot (the moving vehicle, the software, and the operator controls). They will sell it in the form of a bill-of-materials, plus instructions, plus published software, plus parts ready to be assembled. They will offer it sometime in the middle of build season.

When that happens will FRC be alive and well? Or will that be the beginning of the end?

Discuss ...

Blake

Im fairly confident that if it ever came to that, FIRST would just modify the rules as needed. They may even just ban the entire kit to make a point so other companies don't try the same thing.

[Foster]

Originally Posted by gblake

I hope I'm not repeating something already written:

Let's follow current trends to one of their likely conclusions.

I pretty sure that in the not too distant future, some company, people, or person will sell a full, high-performance, does-great-on-the-field, FRC robot (the moving vehicle, the software, and the operator controls). They will sell it in the form of a bill-of-materials, plus instructions, plus published software, plus parts ready to be assembled. They will offer it sometime in the middle of build season.

When that happens will FRC be alive and well? Or will that be the beginning of the end?

Discuss ...

Blake

I can see two things
-- The ads will say, "Act now and the first kits will ship with a free 3 member drive team.
-- The "mentor built robot" threads will be "kits assembled by mentors" thread
all which will occur well after the first water game. So I'm not worried about full kits like this for many years.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by gblake

I pretty sure that in the not too distant future, some company, people, or person will sell a full, high-performance, does-great-on-the-field, FRC robot (the moving vehicle, the software, and the operator controls). They will sell it in the form of a bill-of-materials, plus instructions, plus published software, plus parts ready to be assembled. They will offer it sometime in the middle of build season.

Blake

There's a few likely outcomes I can see coming from something like that:

1. Teams will buy it and still not be able to assemble it correctly.
2. Teams will not bother to read the rules and not be able to use it correctly.
3. Teams will not be able to drive it correctly because they didn't read the manual.
4. Teams will replace what I've often seen as CSA: that magical few kids who are the keystones of the team, with a series of support calls to these people.
5. Teams won't be able to fix it in the pits because they really will have no idea what they have and it will be so expensive the team won't be able to risk it.
6. Teams will find the shipping and availability dates restrictive.

In reality we already have something like this.
Buy any CNC machine too expensive for your team.
It's a robot, you did not build, that you probably have to do some assembly and repair on.
If you break it you also probably can't fix it yourself.

Will FIRST go on? Sure it will.
Will the people that do this not exploit their opportunities to the fullest? Yes.
Might they show up while other teams are trying to be custom and do more engineering and fabrication are delayed? Yes.
Would I want to mentor that team? Not at all and they wouldn't need my help either.
So since they don't need mentors there goes the community involvement.

People do this today. There are teams where the mentors build the robots and there are teams that basically send most of the robot out to be constructed. I guess maybe the goal is to focus merely on design? Maybe the goal is merely to focus on driving? Maybe the goal is to make it look like you are getting more out of this than you really are.

In any event if FIRST lets that go on in the extreme without putting some controls in place all they will have is: donors, purchasing, drivers and volunteers. The control doesn't need to be to stop it - just give award and reward where other teams can show they went the extra mile to fabricate and engineer themselves. Otherwise, sooner or later, this outside professional involvement will raise the bar so high that when the kids do participate the adults making money will have them locked out.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by gblake

I hope I'm not repeating something already written:

Let's follow current trends to one of their likely conclusions.

I pretty sure that in the not too distant future, some company, people, or person will sell a full, high-performance, does-great-on-the-field, FRC robot (the moving vehicle, the software, and the operator controls). They will sell it in the form of a bill-of-materials, plus instructions, plus published software, plus parts ready to be assembled. They will offer it sometime in the middle of build season.

When that happens will FRC be alive and well? Or will that be the beginning of the end?

Discuss ...

Blake

Well, if it costs more than $400, no FRC team will be able to use it. If it costs less than $400.. well, that would be pretty amazing. So I think FRC will be fine.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Well, if it costs more than $400, no FRC team will be able to use it. If it costs less than $400.. well, that would be pretty amazing. So I think FRC will be fine.

What if they give them away for free, but charge $400 for each of the plastic screws that break all the time?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

What if they give them away for free, but charge $400 for each of the plastic screws that break all the time?

because it's that hard to make/buy your own...