Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[Michael Corsetto]

IIRC, Vex Robotics Competition involves a ton of copy-paste, most robots look identical by Championships, teams are required to use pretty much just the Vex kit, and students are still inspired.

I know the comparison is not apples to apples, but it's close. Close enough for me to appreciate that inspiration is our end goal, and the road there might not look entirely like I'd want it to.

-Mike

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

IIRC, Vex Robotics Competition involves a ton of copy-paste, most robots look identical by Championships, teams are required to use pretty much just the Vex kit, and students are still inspired.

I know the comparison is not apples to apples, but it's close. Close enough for me to appreciate that inspiration is our end goal, and the road there might not look entirely like I'd want it to.

-Mike

Yes inspiration is very important. The other skills required to take those mostly COTS designs through evolution are important.

Is giving the students who have the resources at their disposal to fabricate a challenge not important? We can still have both of the above values and end up completely removing, even make negative, the aspect were we challenge students to fabricate. Is FIRST FRC okay with that knowing we already inspire at FLL/FTC in a similar way. Are we okay with subtracting that more adult opportunity at this level as well. Possibly forcing these students to wait until college (maybe beyond) or hope they have a great Makerspace nearby with mentoring? If we encourage the removal of fabrication then anyone that went from FLL->FTC->FRC is really coming in with an advantage. The skill sets are very much like each other because there's no boundless new technical example there anymore.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

<snip>
Maybe some years it will be, maybe not, at least as long as the game each year remains secret it will block perfect matches from multi-year COTS builds.
Oh wait the market has recently floated letting the supply side know the game early - how early? Like a year or so ahead?
Surely the suppliers wouldn't build perfect COTS parts for 1 year once they know the game early.
I mean it's not like a very particular drive train element (ahem treads) would just appear at the start of a game that fits it perfectly!
No that would never happen.

<snip>

Two things.

First, some folks at AndyMark definitely have some information about the game before the kickoff. This should be news to exactly zero people who think about what it takes to have AM ready to ship game pieces to us FIRSTers the Monday after a Saturday kickoff.

Second, I think you are suggesting a level of information leak / collusion that is just not justified by the facts. I am quite sure that that tank track product has been in development at AM for years and that this is finally the year that they figured out how to make something that they could stand behind as a product. Andy and Mark have been designing FIRST robots with tank tracks for years, before many of you reading this post were even born. It shouldn't be a surprise that they've been looking for a way to make an AM tank track product.

What is more, I was in NH at the kick off and ran into Andy in the gym on game field. Practically the first think I noticed was that he was worriedly looking at the field and scratching his head, genuinely concerned because he knew that there was no way AndyMark was going to be able to meet the demand for those AM 8" pneumatic wheels yet alone AM's newly announced tank track thingy (Both predictions have been borne out by subsequent events, FWIW). But back to Andy, I am telling you, he's not that good of an actor; I don't think he'd seen that field any sooner than I had.

Bottom line... ...I'm asking you to be careful before you go casting aspersions on some good folk, least of all Andy whom I consider something close to a brother.

Dr. Joe J.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

Oh wait the market has recently floated letting the supply side know the game early - how early? Like a year or so ahead?
Surely the suppliers wouldn't build perfect COTS parts for 1 year once they know the game early.
I mean it's not like a very particular drive train element (ahem treads) would just appear at the start of a game that fits it perfectly!
No that would never happen.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the game does not exist a year ahead of time. Please keep the borderline slanderous speculation bottled up.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the game does not exist a year ahead of time. Please keep the borderline slanderous speculation bottled up.

Slander implies something criminal.
If you're going to be outraged - be informed about it.
Keep in mind I bought multiple robots from AndyMark <- if I was here to mess with them that's a poor way to do it.

I am implying nothing less than fact.
The AndyMark treads have started shipping just before a game well suited to them.

It may be speculative but it's so unusual that I really have to question the reasons.
So if Andy might explain how this timing occurred I would be interested - as it seems a little off.

Of course this could be the other way around.
Someone at GDC might of heard about the treads and made the game fit.
It would go a long way to explain why AndyMark didn't have enough tires in that case.

Finally there's possibility that someone partially disclosed an element (desired or planned) of the coming game. That it had tough terrain and they just deduced treads might be cool which wouldn't surprise me from experience. One wouldn't need to know exactly what the terrain would look like to deduce the value of treads.

Also before you go around suggesting I am speculating just to start trouble - don't bother.
Bits of information have come back to me over the years during various interactions with FIRST prior to games.
I sit on them because it's my choice to do so.

...

I just read Joe's post.
Okay option 2.

Andy didn't know but someone could have known he was working on that at FIRST.
I really am not looking to mess too much with Andy here again just to make this point:

Anyone vendor that can either influence the game decision (even unknowingly) or get pre-kickoff knowledge of it can deliver polished elements that it is entirely possible a team couldn't build themselves in the 6 weeks before bag and tag.
That would be great vendor business because it would make COTS purchases the only option to compete.

That's why I keep my mouth shut when I find out things early because I don't want that kind of stuff to happen.

[ThaddeusMaximus]

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 what it boils down to.

The VersaPlanetary is probably the best example of this. It has enabled amazing mechanisms (which is good- inspiration and stuff), but isn't an amazing mechanism (which is good- students still have to design).

Individual COTS items that don't achieve end goals enable students to create those sweet mechanisms that do, and that's typically where the cool engineering that students learn the most from. There's very little interesting or challenging about figuring out how to get an 8mm, 2mm key shaft to 1/2" hex; it's just resource and time consuming. There's a lot that's challenging and interesting about selecting pinch distance on flywheels, moment of inertia, gear ratio, etc.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

<snip>
I am implying nothing less than fact.
The AndyMark treads have started shipping just before a game well suited to them.
<snip>

Come on man, don't kid a kidder. You're implying something untoward was involved, don't be hiding behind "I've never said that" type statements. Your original statements were not merely statements of fact of the kind "A happened, then shortly after that B happened." Own your words.

From your comments it is clear to me at least that you intended the readers to infer that AndyMark had a heads up on the 2016 game and that they then designed a COTS product to exploit that knowledge.

I have been clear on my views: I personally don't believe it.

You on the other hand want to have it both ways. I say, nay to this. Either you say, "yeah, that's what I think." or "I take it back."

I ask you to consider and respond.

Dr. Joe J.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Come on man, don't kid a kidder. You're implying something untoward was involved, don't be hiding behind "I've never said that" type statements. Your original statements were not merely statements of fact of the kind "A happened, then shortly after that B happened." Own your words.
...
Dr. Joe J.

Yes I -still- am implying something possibly untoward is involved.
That's no secret.
You can imply that it only goes towards Andy if you like but I am not.
His business does potentially stand to gain some nice bank there.

Then again his business also got publicly slammed by a bunch of people on ChiefDelphi for not being able to handle demand.
I posted in his favor then (I can look that up if you like).
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I don't think this COTS thing is panacea when the demand gets a little ugly.

So if you want to continue down there go ahead.
Point at me because the kick off secret is not as secret as you think it is.
What will that get you?
As you said - there are people that know ahead of time what's going on on both sides.
That transparently creates risk.

It can't be denied that more people asked for the disclosure of the game demands to the vendors ahead of time on ChieflDelphi when the COTS supplies were low for the treads and tires.
Releasing that information with consent would only make the cause and effect even more murky.

So which should concern me more...
1. That when we couldn't get our toys fast and cheap this got a little ugly?
2. That we traded the idea you had to be able to fend for yourself for the idea that COTS was limitless?
3. That we openly opened a can of worms by asking for pre-release of the game to only the vendors?
4. That it seems like there was some sharing of information already that allowed a synchronized event to appear?

This is a discussion about COTS. So here's what all that COTS has gotten us.
We should not forget that not all COTS supplies are limitless and now some teams are concerned they can't field a robot.
I won't blame AndyMark for that. Just like I may be making assumptions here - so many of you assumed their supply line was bottomless.

[Brian C]

Proliferation of Purchasable, Prefabricated Parts - P4 for all you DoD acronym lovers

I like this quote, it reminded me of the Tinman in the Wizard of Oz when he's called A clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caligenous junk! - C4

But I digress.

The OP for this thread has evidently touched a nerve with a few folks. I can vouch for his sincerity and I understand the reasoning behind his questions.

While I think very few, if any of us want to go back to the days of Small Parts and limited resources. There has been a natural evolution in FIRST for prefabricated purchased items. I think it comes down to some basic things that we have all seen both in FIRST and life in general.

There will always be the "haves" and the "have nots" Them's the facts, like it or not.

I always recall the days of drill motors and Small Parts and all the things that were FIRST back in the 90's and the turn of the century. There were occasions where our team at the time, 311 did exceptionally well. There were also occasions where we were, shall we say less than stellar :rolleyes

The important thing is to realize that it IS an evolutionary process. Recalling those days of dealing with limited supplies and equipment make me appreciate what we have now even more!! I believe that an influx of COTS items that are manufactured specifically for FIRST is a benefit to students in the long term.

Sure we can go through the whole process of designing something from scratch. But there are honestly only maybe 20% of teams out there with the ability and support to actually DO that and do it well. This leaves the majority of teams somewhat lacking in many ways.

If a team purchases a (insert item name here) piece for the robot then there now lies a great opportunity for students to learn from what they see and give them ideas for other things in the future. A little reverse engineering if you will. Over my years involved with FIRST I've seen far too many teams that struggle with fabrication of various components. Only to become disillusioned and frustrated in the long run.

The complete overhaul or deletion of "shop" classes in a many school districts has become a big factor in this as well. But that's a subject for a different discussion.

In recent years I see many of those same teams that used to struggle are now able to be competitive and fully partake in the competition. Much of it is a direct result of what this thread is about. When the team has success the students become more interested and inspired. Once that happens there's no telling what they can achieve!

Someone touched on this in an earlier post. It has leveled the playing field and I think that's a good thing.

The answer, IMHO is there's room for everyone. As long as the students are learning.

As long as they understand the engineering concepts behind the design.

As long as they are exposed to the principles that FIRST displays and embraces.

Then that's what's really important.

Oh one more thing. I can certainly assure that Andy is NOT a crusty, grumpy old man!

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Brian C

Proliferation of Purchasable, Prefabricated Parts - P4 for all you DoD acronym lovers

I like this quote, it reminded me of the Tinman in the Wizard of Oz when he's called A clinking, clanking, clattering collection of caligenous junk! - C4

...

I can certainly assure that Andy is NOT a crusty, grumpy old man!

I fully noted I was a grumpy old man on my first post to this topic
Anyone on my lawn right now needs to work their way through 24" of snow melting to get off.
So I will give you time before I give chase with my cane on a sled.

[RonnyV]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

I just put a AndyMark AM14U2 together with a complete RoboRIO control system, NavX, part of a pneumatic system, encoders and co-processor in 2 days. With the co-processor being the longest delay.
At some point it's possible some teams - if they plan really carefully - could be done in < 2 weeks.
So what is the project too big then?
I can see this actually getting boring.

Don't know what the real problem is here. Having a variety of COTS products (for less resourced teams that don't have machining capabilities) or having a grumpy 40 year old putting together a COTS kit with all the parts needed in two days and rush on.

I have kids on the team that struggle putting such a thing together but they get inspired and motivated. Tell them to design something from scratch can be difficult with 15 year olds..

Having COTS doesn't mean all the work is done. Implementing them and combining several parts and stuff is a challenge already.
Well... at least.... if you let them do the work

Have fun

[RonnyV]

Hmm I kinda miss a topic in this thread.

What about having your team design parts for the robot in CAD. And you sent them out to a company and they mill, lathe, lasercut etc.
Is this 50% COTS?
What you all think about this? Let's maybe make a third thread

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by RonnyV

Don't know what the real problem is here. Having a variety of COTS products (for less resourced teams that don't have machining capabilities) or having a grumpy 40 year old putting together a COTS kit with all the parts needed in two days and rush on.

The problem is that COTS can remove a motivator to understand how the parts are made. In fairness, in the other related topic, I voted for allowing COTS at every level.

This opportunity to motivate can be just as well served by offering award or reward to the teams that take the time to spin up their shops as it can by requiring it to compete. Requiring it to compete does on the other hand keep some people out.

Both approaches can coexist until the level of play gets so high that only professionally designed COTS parts are able to play - then it's a problem. Other than a shortage of tires and treads we haven't seen that yet.

[muffinofsteel]

The part of this debacle that irks me the most is how it could make FRC robots use the same basic design of a robot. This though may be a result of games becoming "samey", ie. shoot the ball into the goal. There's only so many ways you can put a sphere into a goal. The fact that we have COTS manipulators may be due to this lack of variety in the games. For the past 10 years, FIRST has had 5-6(lunacy) games involving spheres and goals, allowing teams to use designs from older games, which in my opinion is boring. The one thing Recycle Rush got right was being a unique game. It had a game piece that was only used once before in Stack Attack, and even though the game was boring, the designs were not. There weren't any viable COTS manipulators to stack the totes. I saw variety at competitions, due to a lack of reusable designs and COTS parts, which i don't expect to see as much this year. This game seems to lean towards having a low drive train and ball collector, which with COTS parts isn't a difficult feat. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a box on wheel was an alliance captain.

[pilleya]

Originally Posted by muffinofsteel

There weren't any viable COTS manipulators to stack the totes.

There were many COTS manipulator systems available to stack the totes.

Just look at Andymark, they came out with tote stacker kit including all the necessary parts. Extrusion just had to be cut to size and assembled

http://www.andymark.com/product-p/am-3098.htm

Vexpro and Competition Robot Parts also had gussets which allowed linear motion

http://www.vexrobotics.com/vexpro/ve...ar-motion.html

http://www.competitionrobotparts.com...elevator-kits/