Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Only Team Indiana doesn't release their CAD files.

2 years ago, Vex had Built Blitz, which had teams of some of the most brilliant minds in FIRST designing and building robots in 3 days for the 2014 game. There was a thread raising a stink about it here. The topic isn't new, but the MCC isn't as competitive as the Team JVN robot was in 2014(No offense to RC or any of the WCP team that worked on the MCC bot ). I don't understand why people will continue to say that ideas like WCP's MCC bot and Ri3D are going "too far". Being able to see cool ideas work early in the season is great for drawing inspiration from and building on top of. Sometimes we need to give our kids an idea of what's been done before so they can think beyond and better.

A very healthy way to look at these quick build activities coming from suppliers and other large organizations is that it can serve as an opportunity for a few mentors in FRC to offer their experience, musings, and obsessions over the sport to students they don't even know. Everyone on these assignments has volunteered their time to FIRST programs in one way or another and now they have found a way that both encourages their business model and a type of corporate social responsibility.

[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.

[MrJohnston]

Here is where I feel the WCP robot and the Ri3D robots differ:
* With Ri3d, it is understood that they are merely examples, ideas - not something that teams are meant to copy.
* With the WCP robot, it is meant to be sold in a kit as a competitive robot. From their advertisement: "A Minimum Competitive Robot is a robot specifically engineered to be a vaulable asset to any alliance, while still being simple and accessible to any team, regardless of experience or resources. The WestCoast Products 2016 MCC robot is designed with the intent of ensuring teams have a greater chance of not only being chosen for an alliance in the eliminations routs, but also leading their own alliance as a part of the top 8 seeds." And later, "We show that teams can build a competitive robot in a matter of days."

This fundamentally changes FRC. I've been to enough district and regional events to say that I agree with the assessment of the ability of this robot: It will be one of the stronger ones at most events. (Think top ten, but generally not top three or four.) In other words, with zero engineering skills, a team can build a robot that is better than the vast majority of their competitors - without having to spend six weeks working their tails off designing the thing. Instead, they can build it "in a few days" and have several weeks to practice driving. most teams hoping to qualify for Champs will find that their most effective path is through purchasing of a pre-engineered kit.

"It inspires kids." No, it excites them. It's like the kid in my math class who wants extra credit for an "A" when he's really earning a "D-." Moreover, I would suggest that teams who worked hard for six weeks and build a solid robot would be very "uninspired" if beaten by a team that bought the kit and qualified for Champs. The true benefit and value of first comes in the engineering that happens over the six weeks of build. The time the kids and mentors exchange ideas as to how to best engineer a robot to solve the game.... It's the time that the kids have to work in high-stress situations and yet still function as a team... It's the repeated failures that ultimately lead to success.... The events? they are nothing more than the fun reward at the end.

I recognize that I may think very differently than many folks about this - I have plenty of personality flaws and I don't mean to insult anybody... However, in my mind, this just seems fundamentally wrong...

Consider the next steps:
* AndyMark, a competitor, produces a better MCC robot.
* WCP, to outdo AndyMark, produces a kit for a high goal shooter - that integrates perfectly with their kit..
* Etc.

"It raises the floor for all teams." I disagree. It makes the robots on the field prettier. It does not do anything to raise the level of engineering on FRC teams.

[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.

[JABianchi]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There are a great many real-world engineering jobs that involve the spec'ing, selection, and integration of COTS components. Not all engineers work on the component design level.

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 agree, and note that the difference in opinion in this thread is not whether or not we should use COTS. Many haved waxed eloquently about the benefits of standing on the shoulders of giants.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

The product of FIRST is not necessarily the robots. It's the teams behind the robots...

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.

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... Business is business.

What we should agree on is that a line should be drawn somewhere (and perhaps the $400 part limit is already good enough. If FIRST's rules allow certain behaviors, and many FRC teams see a competitive advantage, it is hard to fault a team for pursuing those advantages.

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

The WestCoast Products 2016 MCC robot is designed with the intent of ensuring teams have a greater chance of not only being chosen for an alliance in the eliminations routs, but also leading their own alliance as a part of the top 8 seeds." And later, "We show that teams can build a competitive robot in a matter of days."

This fundamentally changes FRC.... In other words, with zero engineering skills, a team can build a robot that is better than the vast majority of their competitors - without having to spend six weeks working their tails off designing the thing.... most teams hoping to qualify for Champs will find that their most effective path is through purchasing of a pre-engineered kit.

Moreover, I would suggest that teams who worked hard for six weeks and build a solid robot would be very "uninspired" if beaten by a team that bought the kit and qualified for Champs. The true benefit and value of first comes in the engineering that happens over the six weeks of build. The time the kids and mentors exchange ideas as to how to best engineer a robot to solve the game.... It's the time that the kids have to work in high-stress situations and yet still function as a team... It's the repeated failures that ultimately lead to success.... The events? they are nothing more than the fun reward at the end.

Ri3D has pushed into and been embraced by our FIRST culture. As a coach, I have had to adapt to that change. In order to continue using FIRST's platform to inspire students, there certainly has been more struggle for students to explore their own ideas first. Thankfully, we've learned how to re-structure our design process to accomodate (and gain from Ri3D) allowing for more creativity to flow out in the analysis of different solutions and customizing our own.

The tendency towards more game-specific COTS feels like it moves in a similar direction. I agree with PayneDrive that each team will use FIRST to accomplish its own goals, but as FRC evolves, the range of options of what FRC CAN be used for changes as well.

Is it realistic for a team that wants students to primarily struggle through their own designs (as opposed to doing a lot of analysis of existing designs) to use FRC as a platform?

No team (or company) is an island, and together, discussions like this help us to better reflect on how we WANT to evolve as a STEM-inspiring program, instead of letting major changes happen without notice.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by SirSquirl999

I you really think about it, all parts are prefabricated, as they are made with tools that are purchased fully made. A real fist team makes their own tools before they start building. Now thats engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Gingery

Start with the charcoal forge...

Oh you thought you were kidding should probably mention there are 4 generations of machinists and fabricators in my family.
I have hammers for nails time forgot that my relatives forged.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by squirrleluvr123

well technically they didn't fabricate those parts themselves unless they got the wood from the handle of a tree which they planted themselves, of a tree species that they evolved themselves from a barren planet of which they brought life by themselves, where the planet was formed by the creation of a universe they brought forward for theirselves. So technically you'd have to be God to not use prefabricated parts.

In the best of humor....
In that case bio-engineering the tool bearer applies as prefabricated.
After all your hands and body are often the tools you use to do your work.

So are you implying someone is a tool ?

To be honest there's a difference between a raw material and a part or tool.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of my relatives used a stick to make a tool handle at all.
Seems a big waste of time today but for them they probably would have had it handy.
Working raw wood was actually something I was shown by my Dad as a kid - little did I know people would want tables that looked like that today I ruined me some nice rustic furniture in my youth.

[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...

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

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

They are reverse pipe threaded, made of stainless steel, are split, bored down the middle and expand with a set screw down the bore and break once a match at the exact end
If you substitute your own your warranty is also void.

Used to be a military contractor you'd be surprised the stunts I have seen.

[Dalas]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

Moreover, I would suggest that teams who worked hard for six weeks and build a solid robot would be very "uninspired" if beaten by a team that bought the kit and qualified for Champs.

I absolutely agree with this. As student design lead on a very low-resource team (we were reduced to cutting parts for our custom chassis with hacksaws after our only bandsaw broke earlier this build season) I find it very frustrating when we spend time coming up with the perfect design or cutting the perfect parts, only to find that a team with less engineering experience but more money can buy a kit and defeat us easily. I feel it goes against the spirit of FIRST for a team to be more competitive by not building the best robot they can, but buying one instead. Yes, this is the way many things work in the real world, but is it really what FIRST wants to encourage?

Obviously I cannot speak badly about all prefabricated parts and designs. The KOP chassis, prefab gearboxes, and easily available mechanum/omni wheels have always been a huge help to our low-resource team and we could not have built a robot without them. Ri3D teams, as well, are always an inspiration for both concept and specific designs. The difference, in my opinion, is that the KOP and Ri3D give you a basic level of functionality while encouraging teams to continue work to improve. The KOP chassis is, on its own, obviously not a viable design. Ri3D teams give great inspiration, but it is up to your team to fabricate the robot theirself. The MCC, on the other hand, is a functional, competitive robot that requires little-to-no engineering knowledge or design skills to create. The MCC does not even require you to read the robot rules. As a team member, I find it very demoralizing that we could perform better in competition by buying a kit and sleeping in than if we got up early to build our own.