Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by pilleya

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/

All of these were linear motion kids. None included any sort of mechanism that interfaced with the totes; simply parts that would help you build a constrainted linear motion track that wouldn't bind.

[Jared Russell]

There have only been two years I can think of where a COTS mechanism could have given teams a spectacular advantage: minibots in 2011, and can grabbers in 2015.

Every other season, it takes more than one mechanism to play the game at a high level, and integrating various mechanisms into a cohesive robotic system is a huge part of the challenge (that happens to mirror most of real life engineering). COTS components all the way up to subsystem scale can help a team significantly, but honestly, the more substantial the COTS subsystem, the fewer options it gives to elegantly integrate it with everything else.

As a result, there will ALWAYS be an advantage in being able to fabricate specific parts tailored to your overall robot design. You can package things more efficiently, save weight, achieve higher levels of performance, fill in gaps in the COTS offerings, and fit more functionality into a robot that isn't constrained to a set of discrete COTS parts that may or may not place nice together. You not only can do this, you MUST do this (in this era of FRC) if you want to build a truly world class robot. I don't see this changing any time soon.

[Brian C]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

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.

Duly noted! I'll try and stay ahead of you in my walker....................

[Brian C]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

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.

I think this is a key point to all of this. I tried to touch on it somewhat but this helps to clarify much of what's being discussed.

COTS items can be used to help motivate teams with limited resources as a way to demonstrate design concepts to them.

Teams with more available resources are already going through the design process but more in a firsthand way.

And I think you're correct in that until it becomes an issue where you HAVE to actually purchase something that's professionally done then it's not a problem.

My hope is that we never actually see that time come.

[Taylor]

Two thoughts:
1. If the major suppliers really had "insider knowledge" for the games, then (a) we could all get game pieces (b) suppliers' shelves would have been stocked with pneumatic wheels and treads this year (and REV and mecanums* last year) (c) the Ri3D teams would be obsolete. Also, conveniently ignored are the multiple accounts from Frank himself that this game wasn't really conceived until a few months ago.

2. It would be nice if all teams had a full machine shop and a full bevy of mentors to train the students. But we don't have that, and that's why FIRST is how it is. FIRST is here to reach the affluent, already college-bound students with boundless resources; it is also here to reach the poverty-stricken urban and rural students who don't see a diploma as worthwhile, and everybody in between. For low-resource teams of any socioeconomic or technologic level, COTS products can provide the difference between an embarrassing BLT dragging a chain behind it and a functional, respectable machine.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Taylor

...
Also, conveniently ignored are the multiple accounts from Frank himself that this game wasn't really conceived until a few months ago.

2. It would be nice if all teams had a full machine shop and a full bevy of mentors to train the students. But we don't have that, and that's why FIRST is how it is. FIRST is here to reach the affluent, already college-bound students with boundless resources; it is also here to reach the poverty-stricken urban and rural students who don't see a diploma as worthwhile, and everybody in between. For low-resource teams of any socioeconomic or technologic level, COTS products can provide the difference between an embarrassing BLT dragging a chain behind it and a functional, respectable machine.

1. Even a month is too much warning to a vendor.
It's a month more than anyone else.
If FIRST needs something available by kickoff that's what the KOP is for.
So, if anything, perhaps FIRST should have put pneumatic tires in the KOP this year.

2. Agreed as long as COTS doesn't decide between success and failure for everyone it's fine. In this case I mean specifically that the game leaves -everyone- no choice but to buy a COTS part or fail. I want people to have access to the tools and for FIRST to continue to be a good reason to strive for that. FIRST has saved many a machine shop in a school and if we give up on that too easily that help will disappear. As we dash to protect COTS we should remember that to detractors of having these resources COTS is just another reason you don't need them. The fact it helps those less fortunate is why I voted openly in the other topic to let all COTS, even robots, in. However that decision carries responsibilities to steward the gains FIRST made for so many. I can tell everyone right now - if not for the FIRST FRC requirements: Team 11/193 would not have the tools we do. By 1995 the Mount Olive High School shops were seeing insufficient upkeep. When I graduated in 1994 was the last year there was any room to cut back without losses. Much of the money that keeps the tools there running comes from mentors, sponsors and FRC11/193.

It is admirable to think forward but also make sure you're not forgetting the positive stuff that happened before.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

1. Even a month is too much warning to a vendor.
It's a month more than anyone else.
If FIRST needs something available by kickoff that's what the KOP is for.
So, if anything, perhaps FIRST should have put pneumatic tires in the KOP this year.

2. Agreed as long as COTS doesn't decide between success and failure for everyone it's fine. In this case I mean specifically that the game leaves -everyone- no choice but to buy a COTS part or fail. I want people to have access to the tools and for FIRST to continue to be a good reason to strive for that. FIRST has saved many a machine shop in a school and if we give up on that too easily that help will disappear. As we dash to protect COTS we should remember that to detractors of having these resources COTS is just another reason you don't need them. The fact it helps those less fortunate is why I voted openly in the other topic to let all COTS, even robots, in. However that decision carries responsibilities to steward the gains FIRST made for so many. I can tell everyone right now - if not for the FIRST FRC requirements: Team 11/193 would not have the tools we do. By 1995 the Mount Olive High School shops were seeing insufficient upkeep. When I graduated in 1994 was the last year there was any room to cut back without losses. Much of the money that keeps the tools there running comes from mentors, sponsors and FRC11/193.

It is admirable to think forward but also make sure you're not forgetting the positive stuff that happened before.

FIRST putting game specific items like pneumatic wheels is absurd.

I do not mean to sound this mean but seriously think this through. Pneumatic wheels are very useful this year. We bought the pneumatic wheel upgrade kit for the am14u3 the day it came out. It was also $350. How could you expect Andymark to include pneumatic wheels in the KOP essentially cutting down their profits substantially. Besides the fact that pneumatic wheels are not the only way to play this game and plenty of teams are going to show up with alternatives or the kit bot. Also many lower level teams do not even know what pneumatic wheels are essentially removing the edge from more knowledgeable teams. I watched the reveal video and pneumatic wheels were the first wheels to come to mind but many low resource Teams do not think like that.

Second point our school got rid of machine shops many years ago and outsourced everything to a vocational program. If you want to be a welder for. Instance you spend half the day in the vocational school welding and the other half back at our school for normal subjects. Therefore we started our rookie year without any tools at all the only place with tools being the wood shop for stage crew and the 2 wood shops down at the middle school. All 3 which were pretty much off limits. We continue to build up our capabilities while also obtaining sponsors. Like our waterjet cutting sponsor. Yesterday actually the head of buildings and grounds came by he looked at our workspace and said "we can make this a lot better" we ended up finding out he has a full Metal shop and would help us out with welding. He agreed to make new workstations for us a table for our mill and drops for pneumatics with quick disconnects. I am willing to bet if you can sell robotics to your school district you can convince them to support you.

Back to cots discussion though.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

FIRST putting game specific items like pneumatic wheels is absurd.

I do not mean to sound this mean but seriously think this through. Pneumatic wheels are very useful this year. We bought the pneumatic wheel upgrade kit for the am14u3 the day it came out. It was also $350. How could you expect Andymark to include pneumatic wheels in the KOP essentially cutting down their profits substantially. Besides the fact that pneumatic wheels are not the only way to play this game and plenty of teams are going to show up with alternatives or the kit bot. Also many lower level teams do not even know what pneumatic wheels are essentially removing the edge from more knowledgeable teams. I watched the reveal video and pneumatic wheels were the first wheels to come to mind but many low resource Teams do not think like that.

You mean like a multi-thousand dollar cRIO previously?
How about the game pieces?
Think about it.

Historically things were often put into the KOP to insure a more even playing field.
There's nothing very fair about the tires not being in there.

If the goal of COTS was to bring the lowest teams up, then AndyMark would have to service the teams with the least ability to make tires first. He has no such control in place now. So he sold out. If I wanted I could have bought all of Andy's tires. Then what? I cornered the market and blocked all the teams that had good reason to buy them. Now I have tires and the shop at FRC11/193 might not need those tires. Effectively blocking all the low resource teams. I wouldn't do that but I could do that and I bet many teams bought more tires than they need so, in a way, they did do that. I could have held that stock past the end of the build season then used it for my stuff for the handicapped or just liquidated it.

Keep in mind my stuff runs commodity trading for the Earth. I know how to play a market. I learned from the experts.
If profit overrides ethics you can bet you might not like what happens.

Second point our school got rid of machine shops many years ago and outsourced everything to a vocational program. If you want to be a welder for. Instance you spend half the day in the vocational school welding and the other half back at our school for normal subjects. Therefore we started our rookie year without any tools at all the only place with tools being the wood shop for stage crew and the 2 wood shops down at the middle school. All 3 which were pretty much off limits. We continue to build up our capabilities while also obtaining sponsors. Like our waterjet cutting sponsor. Yesterday actually the head of buildings and grounds came by he looked at our workspace and said "we can make this a lot better" we ended up finding out he has a full Metal shop and would help us out with welding. He agreed to make new workstations for us a table for our mill and drops for pneumatics with quick disconnects. I am willing to bet if you can sell robotics to your school district you can convince them to support you.

Back to cots discussion though.

Yeap we sent Electronics to the Vocational Technical school when the Technology programs couldn't support it. In the process in 1992 they sent me from Technology I & II (Technology II was actually made form me specifically I was the only student to ever take that new class that year. It is unclear it existed after that.) to Morris County Vocational Technical where I was Valedictorian in Electronics. They also put me on the bus with a bunch of students they intended to expel and had thus given up hope on. Then a few years later the Vocational Technical school gave up on Electronics and changed it to Cisco Technology. Then the County College of Morris gave up on it and wrapped it into Mechatronics. NJIT still teaches electronics I have a friend still paying his student loans from NJIT a decade later.

Making it another guys problem usually means it is still someone's problem.
COTS is the finest example of that - you make the problem to fabricate and do the logistics for it that of a professional.

Now I want to settle this - Mount Olive is very supportive of FRC11/193 and the requirements of the competitive aspect of FIRST these days. The COTS issue runs the risk that eventually the shop requirement will no longer be a requirement at all. Having seen this I have undertaken 2 actions. One I am collecting resources to run a shop separate from this program in the event they abandon supporting their own shops. This means a shop separate from my own shop and portable. Two I am considering from the advice of someone here on ChiefDelphi offering an award from those that fabricate and learn how to fabricate what they could have bought COTS. So even if the professionals eventually make it hard for those with the spirit to fabricate to do so and potentially win - their efforts are acknowledged.

So cause and effect.

[Peyton Yeung]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

You mean like a multi-thousand dollar cRIO previously?
How about the game pieces?
Think about it.

Historically things were often put into the KOP to insure a more even playing field.
There's nothing very fair about the tires not being in there.

If the goal of COTS was to bring the lowest teams up, then AndyMark would have to service the teams with the least ability to make tires first. He has no such control in place now. So he sold out. If I wanted I could have bought all of Andy's tires. Then what? I cornered the market and blocked all the teams that had good reason to buy them. Now I have tires and the shop at FRC11/193 might not need those tires. Effectively blocking all the low resource teams. I wouldn't do that but I could do that and I bet many teams bought more tires than they need so, in a way, they did do that. I could have held that stock past the end of the build season then used it for my stuff for the handicapped or just liquidated it.

Firstly, pneumatic wheels/tank treads are not required for this game. As many teams have demonstrated, standard traction wheels are able to cross the defenses.

Secondly, pneumatic wheels are not impossible to find. Just because it isn't available at the time by our common vendors such as WCP, Vex, or AndyMark doesn't mean it is unobtainable.

If you were to buy all the stock of something from AndyMark that's fine but people will either find a similar product somewhere else or a company will step up to meet demand such as Tank Chain for tread.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

Firstly, pneumatic wheels/tank treads are not required for this game. As many teams have
demonstrated, standard traction wheels are able to cross the defenses.

Secondly, pneumatic wheels are not impossible to find. Just because it isn't available at the time by our common vendors such as WCP, Vex, or AndyMark doesn't mean it is unobtainable.

If you were to buy all the stock of something from AndyMark that's fine but people will either find a similar product somewhere else or a company will step up to meet demand such as Tank Chain for tread.

1. Yes but a whole lot of people want them, some may not have better choices. Enough demand to exhaust the most common supply chain and get some ugly remarks directed at these vendors for not being better stocked.

2. This time. The topic is general COTS. What if the next time it's something you can't just run off and get anywhere? The more complex the COTS item the more likely it's expensive and stock is limited.

3. Well aware of Tank Chain. Glad to see they were able to step up more there was a little while they weren't sure they could meet demand either. Still have to make the deliveries as well. Had a great conversation with a student where they lamented that more people found out about Tank Chain and buried that supply line as well. People are literally fishing for second and third choices because COTS leads people to think in the comfortable COTS box. Great till they can't get the comfortable COTS box.

A little courtesy reminder - I am the grumpy old man with an opinion here.
Someone want to take it up with me - take it up with me not Team 11 or 193.
I am almost 40 years old well past the point where I need permission from them to speak for myself.
I am also the only remaining active member of Team 8 which became Team 11 and that's even before Ernie.

[gblake]

There is a bigger picture than any one-dimensional aspect of this topic.

Like the elephant in the famous fable, that the several blind men declared was like a tree, a wall, a leaf, a snake, a stick, a ...; FIRST FRC is no one single method of *inspiration*.

It is not all about winning tournaments. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on winning tournament matches are very weak.

It is not all about learning to write code. Arguments that focus almost solely on code development are very weak.

It is not all about learning to become a machinist or CAD user. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on part/system design and fabrication are very weak.

Et cetera.

FIRST FRC (IMO) *is* about encouraging students to recognize that any of the zillions of multi-dimensional STEM pursuits that exist can be what they choose for a career. The topics I listed above involve only a few of the tools a FIRST team/mentor can use to accomplish that. They certainly aren't the only tools; and they certainly don't have to be mastered, or even tried, by participants. If those topics are simply noticed in a positive setting, FIRST's job is nearly done.

IMO, I haven't seen anyone come up with a cogent argument about why great, heaping, helpings of COTS parts, software, and/or strategic advice, prevents anyone from helping their team and individual students choose sensible goals, and then proudly achieve them during FIRST's annual rhythm.

I have seen complaints about each of the three topics that I listed above, and about a few more, but I haven't seen anyone convincingly write that they are unable to open the eyes of students to the STEM world of possibilities.

Market forces are going to continue to drive vendors to supply what customers want. If FRC continues to grow, greater numbers of teams are going to translate into more vendors supplying what those teams want to buy.

But... Do market forces that result in useful FRC COTS items stop anyone from helping students become interested in anything? Nah, they don't.

We can stop ourselves, if we get stuck in ruts; but that is something each person among us can easily fix, if we each care to fix it.

Blake

[Brian C]

^^^^ Well Said!

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by gblake

There is a bigger picture than any one-dimensional aspect of this topic.

Like the elephant in the famous fable, that the several blind men declared was like a tree, a wall, a leaf, a snake, a stick, a ...; FIRST FRC is no one single method of *inspiration*.

It is not all about winning tournaments. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on winning tournament matches are very weak.

It is not all about learning to write code. Arguments that focus almost solely on code development are very weak.

It is not all about learning to become a machinist or CAD user. Arguments that focus almost exclusively on part/system design and fabrication are very weak.

Et cetera.

FIRST FRC (IMO) *is* about encouraging students to recognize that any of the zillions of multi-dimensional STEM pursuits that exist can be what they choose for a career. The topics I listed above involve only a few of the tools a FIRST team/mentor can use to accomplish that. They certainly aren't the only tools; and they certainly don't have to be mastered, or even tried, by participants. If those topics are simply noticed in a positive setting, FIRST's job is nearly done.

IMO, I haven't seen anyone come up with a cogent argument about why great, heaping, helpings of COTS parts, software, and/or strategic advice, prevents anyone from helping their team and individual students choose sensible goals, and then proudly achieve them during FIRST's annual rhythm.

I have seen complaints about each of the three topics that I listed above, and about a few more, but I haven't seen anyone convincingly write that they are unable to open the eyes of students to the STEM world of possibilities.

Market forces are going to continue to drive vendors to supply what customers want. If FRC continues to grow, greater numbers of teams are going to translate into more vendors supplying what those teams want to buy.

But... Do market forces that result in useful FRC COTS items stop anyone from helping students become interested in anything? Nah, they don't.

We can stop ourselves, if we get stuck in ruts; but that is something each person among us can easily fix, if we each care to fix it.

Blake

But but but ......... That was very well done! Thank You.

The best part of this discussion has been the self reflection it has warranted. Seeing, reading, and digesting the passion, commitment, and thoughts of others has been eye opening.

You are dead on. For review, I went back and read the mission statement. Here is the mission statement of FIRST. The advancement in COTS doesn't change the mission.........

Mission
The mission of FIRST is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting Mentor-based programs that build science, engineering, and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." Dean Kamen, Founder

Methodology
Engage kids in kindergarten through high school in exciting, Mentor-based, research and robotics programs that help them become science and technology leaders, as well as well-rounded contributors to society.

[techhelpbb]

Takes a deep breath and blows the dust off this article
That article is older than a lot of you students.

No - COTS won't stop anyone from teaching shop skills if they want to teach them and if the students want to learn them.

However if your shop skills education is only being supported because you can't get everything you need for FIRST without it - then eventually COTS on the scale of whole professionally engineered systems and robots will make that not necessary and support for those shops will be lost.

We are not at that point but when we get there (notice I didn't write -if- we get there) it is very likely we will level out more than the dynamics of the field.

So in a world where your schools don't have shops <- where do your students get inspired to work with their hands?
Read the article and remember Dean doesn't have that stuff in his house because he runs a mere museum.

This is kind of dusty as well: https://web.archive.org/web/19961125...ws/960905.html

[HolyHacker335]

Originally Posted by AndyB871

So on to my real question:

How does everyone feel about the sudden Proliferation of Purchasable, Prefabricated Parts (P4 for all you DoD acronym lovers like me)?

Well, you answered your own question for a couple of areas. Rookie teams that have a couple of bucks but little experience with fabrication could build a robot fairly quickly and compete. And that is a good thing as I personally believe, as a coach, that the only thing worse than a sucky robot and/or unprepared team at a competition is no robot at all.