Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[Navid Shafa]

Originally Posted by Ekcrbe

The day a team decides not to fight the closing of their shop because "well, we can get everything we need from COTS components anyway," I'll eat my robot.

Our rookie team has designed strongly around VexPro and COTS components. While this makes it much easier for a team without access to a permanent shop-space yet easier, we still have our fair share of challenges.

It's rather impressive how far COTS components have gone over the last few years and how many options are currently available. I see this continued advancment as doing wonders for the lower resource and lower to mid-tier teams. So many people talk about wanting to "Raise the floor" of FRC. In my mind, this is arguably the easiest way to do it. As long as resources are available teaching teams how to properly design for and implement these resources, COTS components have a very significant capacity to "Inspire" more students. Having working subsystems and a functional robot that allow a team to play the game is inspiring.

Not every team has access to an engineering mentor. COTS components and knowledge on how to use them allow these teams to close the gap.

[mrnoble]

My school recently invested $1 million in a new facility that includes a reasonable machine shop, a suite of 3D printers, and other things that make custom fabrication a major focus. We are hardly unique, or even in the forefront; I've seen many other schools and districts around the country moving in this direction. I guess I don't see the trend being that learning to build things in school is going away. We use COTS stuff extensively, like most of you, but so what? FRC is hardly becoming a "buy stuff and play a game" program. I'll bet you an ice cream sundae that I won't see three robots that look or perform the same at any of the regionals I attend this year.

[mrnoble]

I also want to respond to the idea that shop programs at schools were closed because goods have been manufactured in such a way (overseas) that jobs disappeared which required training in shop class.

I've been a shop teacher for 15 years, and I've seen many programs shut down in my city and region. My honest assessment as to why this has happened puts the blame on three things:

1) Short sightedness among administration. This could come from following the latest buzz in educationese (ironically, this cycle it's "STEM" and "STEAM" that everyone is saying), or from seeing that mouth-wateringly large space the shop occupies and imagining other uses for it. Whatever the reason, I've seen shops turned into weight rooms and student lounges as well as being subdivided into several classrooms, and I've seen hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment effectively thrown away.

2) Liability. Getting sued is a real and heavy concern for schools, teachers, and districts, and these types of classes sure look more dangerous than Lit or Math.

3) Lack of vision on the part of teachers. When we talk about these classes "serving a limited population", we're saying there are 10 students in a class. I've known teachers who were quite happy with that arrangement, and milked it. When shop class means "easy", and supervisors don't see much other than bird houses being built by the six students who show up, what else are they going to do other than assume it's a waste of resources? This is where I lay most of the blame. Shop classes have the opportunity to link academic disciplines through a new form of learning; they can provide kids with scholarships, travel opportunities, and community service challenges. Programs like FRC are one of the key ways shop programs can and should link up to real and valuable academic gains for our students.

TL/DR: if teachers make the shop programs valuable to the school and community, they will grow, not shrink. Just my opinion, of course.

[jkelleyrtp]

To me, it's a slight bit "Chief-delphi-ish" to stroll through this thread and see all the team numbers; a good 50-60% in the <1000's.

5511 is a mildly successful team, rookies in 2015. We had the opportunity to go to champs last year and it really opened our eyes to the possibilities and abilities of some of the greatest FRC teams. Like many other teams, we had to make brackets for our lift - and ended up using stepper bits and whatever steel plates were at Home Depot. Garage-built, low resource, student-run team down in NC. We have the RTP right next door but hadn't tapped into that until this year. The only COTS we had was the KOP because we didn't have the money or know-how to make our own.

A few of the other teams in our area have also had the chance to go to champs and see what some of the "champs-achieving" teams do. Their take-away was very different than ours: COTS COTS COTS. 3 CIM dogshifters with PTO from WCP puts you quite a bit close to that $400 limit. All vex bearing blocks with tensioners and versatubing. While these are great resources, they personally feel like overkill for a COTS part.

Our take-away from champs was different. We purchased the cheapest CNC router on the market (X-Carve at around $1100; took lots of convincing) and are relatively happy with the results. Getting the machine to breeze through aluminum was a challenge, but I can personally vouch for the learning process inspiring the other students. Getting into CAD, CAM, and all of the aspects of CNC machining for our freshman has been incredibly value - but they don't realize it yet. We could have just bought versatube for the rails and the crazy selection of gussets in order to be very competitive very quickly. Now, however, our students have skills applicable in jobs later on in life. They have learned design that isn't simply 'slap it together.'

Your opinion on the matter is your own, but just keep in mind that there are ways to achieve similar results with very low resources and some dedicated learners.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by jkelleyrtp

To me, it's a slight bit "Chief-delphi-ish" to stroll through this thread and see all the team numbers; a good 50-60% in the <1000's.

5511 is a mildly successful team, rookies in 2015. We had the opportunity to go to champs last year and it really opened our eyes to the possibilities and abilities of some of the greatest FRC teams. ...

I'm not sure if you meant to convey this, but there is a strong chance you used the phrase "greatest FRC teams." to mostly (only?) refer to teams that did well on-the-field, and not to all the teams that are great at all the many other things an FRC team is asked to do.

If I got the correct impression, and on-the-field did dominate how you were selecting who is great and who isn't, it's certainly understandable that you did; but ... I'll buy a really nice dinner for the person who gives me a magic wand I can use to get that to stop happening throughout FRC (and elsewhere).

An FRC team that exists only to build excellent robots is an FRC team that is dead. An FRC team that exists to help communities and students learn to integrate pursuing, achieving and celebrating STEM things into their lives, is an FRC team that is alive and striving to be great.

My hunch is that if you guys continue what you are doing, without letting yourselves be seduced by the bright lights and dazzle of the elimination matches, you are on your way to being a great team. A great team that uses a robot to accomplish your goals, instead of being your goal. A great team that maybe never gets a blue banner, but becomes an important part of the fabric of your community. A great team that goes beyond just engaging and training the people who are already in love with STEM things. A great team whose accomplishments last much longer than any single season.

If what I have written strikes a chord in you and your teammates, definitely keep learning from great teams whenever and wherever you meet them. And, when you are deciding whether an FRC team is great, remember to look at their robots last (if at all), not first. The robot is one tool. At best it is an *imperfect* reflection of only part of a team's success. The robot is not the team.

Blake