Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?

[dlavery]

All of the sudden I am really longing for the "good ol' days" when you could only build your robot from the stuff in the kit, the specific additional parts list, and $425 of parts from Small Parts. And that was ALL you could use to build your robot. I know that some didn't like the limitations at the time, but I really enjoyed that approach. It made you THINK about how to use the limited materials that were available for use. You had no choice, you HAD to get creative - buying a subsystem off the shelf just wasn't in the cards. And all these debates about what we could or could not buy, barter or trade as a finished solution would have been moot - they just weren't allowed.

Ahh, well. Now we got all these new-fangled shifting transmissions, and fancy-schmancy multi-motor drive trains, and gol-danged 'struded al-new-min-ium stuff, and all that. And everyone is thinking about how to grab whole sections of their robot as quick as they can, and have the entire thing bolted together three hours after kick-off. Just doesn't seem the same to me.

Too bad we can't halt progress. If only we could go back to the good ol' days. Guess I'll just go back to walking barefoot to the one-room school house. Through five feet of snow. Uphill. Both ways. (grumble, mutter, grumble ...)

-dave

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by dlavery

All of the sudden I am really longing for the "good ol' days" when you could only build your robot from the stuff in the kit, the specific additional parts list, and $425 of parts from Small Parts.
-dave

Dave No! I beg you NO! Don't do it, we'll rebel, we'll revolt! Now don't get me wrong, Small Parts is a great company that is a very reliable easy place to order stuff from and they have some really cool stuff that no where else does, BUT they are over priced and the selection is quite limited. The removal of the "parts from Small Parts only rule" and "additional parts list" was one of the best things I think ever happened to the robot rules. In 2002 our drive system failed miserably because we couldn't order steel gears because all Small Parts had was brass and that's the only place we could order from since they were not on the additional parts list.

Being limited by parts availability is one of the worst, most frustrating constraints in all of builidng robots. Let teams be limited by their imaginations and size and weight and strategy constraints, not by the availability (disavailability ?) of parts.

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Not that that's a bad rule, but like Bill Gold said, it's not an actual rule.

Just a thought....
If FIRST did choose to implement that restriction, teams wouldn't be able to stock up on parts in advance--a screw, a piece of aluminum angle, a gearbox--they would all have to be bought after the kickoff date. For the first two items, at least, that would be wholly impractical. But consider the implications of FIRST saying that every item with a legitimate value of less than $20 (USD) could be procured at any time, from any source; and furthermore, that raw materials could be bought in advance. All other materials would have to be bought after the kickoff. It would allow little things like hardware to be readied in anticipation for the season, while clearly requiring that the big items be built or bought after the kickoff.

Personally I would hope that all the teams would try to do their best to uphold the values of FIRST. Unfortunately to try to play on the possibilities of what could be done to circumvent the rules would be infinite....there are only so many things FIRST can control with these type of rules. This rule you propose is only effective if you assume everyone is doing their best to follow the rules. What happens when they try to circumvent those rules? well then we have to make another rule.....and around and around we go making up rules we do not have the resources to patrol...

If a team wanted to get around certain rules they could because FIRST doesn't have the resources to patrol this. Unfortunately you have to assume that ppl are going to do the right thing or else we all will dip down into a paranoid state....All I'm saying this rule you propose is simply unrealistic, and you must rely on the fact that people are doing positive things with this experience/opportunity....there are simply too many rules that people could find a loopholes in, and I am not prepared to go on a witch hunt for these types of rules....

This all goes back is the competition just a competition? Well then let's start clamping down or we can understand the competition is a portion but there are other parts to this (Chairman's Award/Engineering Inspiration)....you won't win either of these awards with an off-the-shelf part....the only possible benefit will occur in the competition, and if that is your only goal I personally believe you have missed something.

[Max Lobovsky]

Personally, I don't see where the whole debate about buying stuff came from. There has been no evidence given of the loose restrictions on purchasing having a negative effect, and considering that even if it is going to be a problem, it isn't going to be something that is going to destroy FIRST. So, just wait until something bad happens, we can fix it then. It isn't really as bad as it sounds, its not like someone is just going to start manufacturing complete FIRST robots out of the blue, so I think we can wait a bit before judging.

As I have hinted at in various posts, I'm still a bit unhappy about the whole distribution of skill, not money. But that topic has been discussed enough so that it would appear not much is going to change....

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

Personally, I don't see where the whole debate about buying stuff came from. There has been no evidence given of the loose restrictions on purchasing having a negative effect, and considering that even if it is going to be a problem, it isn't going to be something that is going to destroy FIRST. So, just wait until something bad happens, we can fix it then. It isn't really as bad as it sounds, its not like someone is just going to start manufacturing complete FIRST robots out of the blue, so I think we can wait a bit before judging.

No, but using pre-fab components gives teams a far greater edge over teams who build from scratch. Since it's inception, team 38 built every component possible from scratch. We worked late nights/early mornings throughout the build season to finish the robot on time, working all-nighters and 48 hour shifts the 2-3 days before shipping, and it still wasn't quite done.

Now, compare that to a team (I don't know of any, but this thread is about the hypothetical implications anyway) who buys "off the shelf" assemblies, bolts/welds together a robot of parts in 3 weeks, the bulk of the design and bug checking having already been done by the manufacturers of these "off the shelf" parts. What's left but three weeks of practice, more bug checking, testing, etc, while teams building from scratch struggle to finish.

So while it may not be a problem now (or it may be, I don't know what other teams build/purchase policies are, only my own), it may be in the future as FIRST grows. While it may not matter to me personally, as I get more inspiration out of the build season than competition, I can see how some people might be disappointed watching their 6 weeks of hard work get knocked out of the standings by a robot of pre-built parts.

I do understand that it makes logistical sense to purchase parts that are tested, proven, and affordable, and I don't deny the benefits thereof in terms of building a successful robot. But how would things like the X-Prize be if one team decided they could (hypothetically) just buy the plans for the space shuttle from NASA, or the Soyuz from Russia. Sure, they would accomplish the set goal, but how would that help our efforts of developing new and better ways of getting into space?

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

its not like someone is just going to start manufacturing complete FIRST robots out of the blue

Oh you haven't heard of my new company?














j/k Sorry, couldn't resist. lol

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

Personally I would hope that all the teams would try to do their best to uphold the values of FIRST. Unfortunately to try to play on the possibilities of what could be done to circumvent the rules would be infinite....there are only so many things FIRST can control with these type of rules. This rule you propose is only effective if you assume everyone is doing their best to follow the rules. What happens when they try to circumvent those rules? well then we have to make another rule.....and around and around we go making up rules we do not have the resources to patrol...

If a team wanted to get around certain rules they could because FIRST doesn't have the resources to patrol this. Unfortunately you have to assume that ppl are going to do the right thing or else we all will dip down into a paranoid state....All I'm saying this rule you propose is simply unrealistic, and you must rely on the fact that people are doing positive things with this experience/opportunity....there are simply too many rules that people could find a loopholes in, and I am not prepared to go on a witch hunt for these types of rules....

This all goes back is the competition just a competition? Well then let's start clamping down or we can understand the competition is a portion but there are other parts to this (Chairman's Award/Engineering Inspiration)....you won't win either of these awards with an off-the-shelf part....the only possible benefit will occur in the competition, and if that is your only goal I personally believe you have missed something.

The point isn't to write rules to impose upon those who would break them anyway. It's to have rules that are understood uniformly by all.

The rules must be clearly defined, so that we don't have situations where a difference of opinion, or a misunderstanding causes friction between parties acting in good faith. Look at the 60/254 situation: it was within the rules, but some argued vehemently that it was against the "spirit of FIRST" and would lead to the competition's ruin.

If those (or any other) teams wanted to cheat, no rule would prevent it. That hypothetical proposition in my last post referred to the situation that MikeDubreuil mentioned, wherein a team buys all of its parts after the start of the season. It isn't meant to prevent cheating--it's meant to suggest a concrete limit to what can and cannot be done before the Kickoff (a limit which is obviously ill-defined--hence this thread).

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I do understand that it makes logistical sense to purchase parts that are tested, proven, and affordable, and I don't deny the benefits thereof in terms of building a successful robot. But how would things like the X-Prize be if one team decided they could (hypothetically) just buy the plans for the space shuttle from NASA, or the Soyuz from Russia. Sure, they would accomplish the set goal, but how would that help our efforts of developing new and better ways of getting into space?

How does a team strike a balance between innovation and practicality? If an X-Prize team could build and launch a space shuttle or a Soyuz within the constraints of that competition, and could do so profitably--then that would be excellent. Of course, it simply isn't possible. And that's a clear message that innovation is needed.

Contrast that with FIRST. While the pinnacle of robot design does tend to rise from year to year, there is no comparable situation where nothing exists to accomplish the task (as in the X-Prize analogy). For this reason, a team may well be justified in believing that a derivative work would suffice, where a full-blown innovation is simply too risky. We don't require innovation; we simply encourage it.

Some teams have the means to innovate wildly, and still manage to build upon their failures (188 team members may recall Blizzard 4, late in the 2003 build season...)--others are too busy going about FIRST's business through more mundane means. Either way, they need to be well informed of the expectations that they will have to meet, so that they can choose a comfortable level of risk and innovation, and also so that the FIRST community understands and accepts their actions at face value, without the controversy that permeates this topic.

[Raul]

Originally Posted by dlavery

All of the sudden I am really longing for the "good ol' days" when you could only build your robot from the stuff in the kit, the specific additional parts list, and $425 of parts from Small Parts. And that was ALL you could use to build your robot. I know that some didn't like the limitations at the time, but I really enjoyed that approach. It made you THINK about how to use the limited materials that were available for use. You had no choice, you HAD to get creative - buying a subsystem off the shelf just wasn't in the cards. And all these debates about what we could or could not buy, barter or trade as a finished solution would have been moot - they just weren't allowed.

Ahh, well. Now we got all these new-fangled shifting transmissions, and fancy-schmancy multi-motor drive trains, and gol-danged 'struded al-new-min-ium stuff, and all that. And everyone is thinking about how to grab whole sections of their robot as quick as they can, and have the entire thing bolted together three hours after kick-off. Just doesn't seem the same to me.

Too bad we can't halt progress. If only we could go back to the good ol' days. Guess I'll just go back to walking barefoot to the one-room school house. Through five feet of snow. Uphill. Both ways. (grumble, mutter, grumble ...)

-dave

I agree with you Dave. Bring back the good old days. I enjoyed the simple days of working thru the challenge of limited resources with the students.
The only exceptions I would ask for would be to use someone other than Small Parts (who cannot handle orders from so many teams at once) and to allow raw materials and hardware from anywhere and anytime.

Raul

[Andrew]

We actually discussed plans for building an entire FIRST robot drive platform and selling to FIRST teams within the $3500 limit and mainly using FIRST kit parts.

<R68> Additional Parts must be generally available from suppliers such that any other FIRST team, if it so desires, may also obtain them at the same price. (A specific device fabricated by a team from non-2004 Kit materials does not have to be available to others, however, the materials it is made from must be available to other teams.)

You would have to make this option available to over 1000 teams and you would have to fill the orders, probably by week three of the build phase.

The interpretation that I apply to this has to do with the word "obtain." If I place an order, but the parts are not made available to me before the end of the build phase, I would have to say that, retroactively, I could not "obtain" these parts, whereas other teams could. Hence, all teams that did get these parts would be in violation of this rule and have to remove them.

We ran into this problem in the bad, old Small Parts daze. In the last couple of years, FIRST had to open up the rules to allow equivalent suppliers since not all teams could "obtain" the same set of parts from SPI when stock ran out.

We calculated the amount of machining time necessary to make this happen, the cost of materials which we would have to have on hand, the number of CNC machines and fixtures which would be required, etc. The up front investment was going to be significant.

The other option was to pre-build and store inventory. Either way, you're talking about a large initial investment.

If FIRST changed the rules so that a minor redesign was required, the cost associated with either trashed inventory or retooling during the build phase was extremely high. Also, how much inventory? You might get 1000 orders or you might get 50.

So, from a business plan stand-point, this kind of company doesn't make any sense. It is almost guaranteed to result in either an inability to fill all orders or a large loss. Even if not in every year, certainly in some years.

The chances of making a profit at this, without fore-knowledge from FIRST, are slim.

Now, if the company were separate from any team, you might negotiate with FIRST for some up front information to make this work. However, if any member of this hypothetical company were part of a FIRST team, the conflict of interest would be extreme.

It would be similar to the situation where Innovation FIRST might field a team engineered by IFI personnel.

And hey, we already have the situation where "insiders to FIRST" are making "bolt on robot parts." It's the kit gearbox!

In short, if a company, run by FIRST-ers with an existing team, were to market a product, they would need to satisfy up to 1000 orders with a very short delivery time. This either requires either inventory or very large manufacturing capabilities.

The other option, teams building modules for each other, was already covered under the "manufacturing alliance" debate.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

Mike,
There was no part of last year’s manual that stated “Every part on your shipped robot must be obtained during the build time.” That is an incorrect statement. It says in Rule <R09> “Mechanisms from previous year’s robots may not be used, however, individual off-the-shelf components from previous year’s robots may be re-used to save the cost of re-purchase of these parts IF they meet ALL of the 2004 Additional Parts and Materials Rules.” <R09> later says that if you use a part from an old robot its cost must (obviously) be factored into your robot’s budget for inspection. This makes it pretty clear that your statement ““Every part on your shipped robot must be obtained during the build time” is incorrect.

Yeah, I think I forgot about that part of the new rule, convieniently because I don't like it. It should have read every part of your shipped robot must be a new part unless it's an off the shelf item.

(I realize the wording of the rule includes off the shelf item from your old robot, but that's unenforcable)

I believe that if AndyMark or GaryDill or any other team forms a corporation, which I assume is what’s happening here (for tax, liability, and other issues), they’re legally within their right to do so in this capitalist society we live in.

Originally in my post I said they could sell it at a combined price. I guess I see no reason why they should give anything other than a total price.

I think we could make life so much easier if FIRST didn't include rules that allow only certain old parts. I don't want to go back to the day where we only had Small Parts, they were slow and expensive. However, I also have a hard time saying everything on your robot must be obtained during the build.

It would be dishonest for me to say that we didn't put fasteners on our robot that we obtained before kick off. Or that we didn't have sheets of polycarbonate laying around that we didn't use on the shipped robot.

Therefore, I would like to see a new rule:

1.) All parts on a shipped robot must have been obtained during the build season, with the following exceptions:
a.) Fasteners- machine screws, wood screws, bolts, nuts
b.) Raw Stock- Sheets of aluminum, polycarbonate, channeled metal

[Stephen Kowski]

Originally Posted by Raul

I agree with you Dave. Bring back the good old days. I enjoyed the simple days of working thru the challenge of limited resources with the students.
The only exceptions I would ask for would be to use someone other than Small Parts (who cannot handle orders from so many teams at once) and to allow raw materials and hardware from anywhere and anytime.

Raul

I think this is taking a turn for the worse....uh oh

[Bill Gold]

I’m second-guessing the effectiveness of my words, so I’ll try to clarify my original post.

My intent when quoting <R09> from this past year was to highlight the “individual off-the-shelf components” part. This rule wasn’t new in 2004, rule M1 in the section 4 (The Robot) PDF says the same thing with regard to off-the-shelf components, and although I don’t have one in front of me, I’m 90% sure that 2002 had a similar rule.

Using the most recent language (2004 manual), the company JoeBob should be treated exactly like any other corporation. So a transmission fabricated before the build period, as long as it was purchased from a company that made their products available to all teams, would be a legal component on your robot.

Andrew brought up the scenario of this company not being able to fill all orders, and thus preventing the components’ usage by teams whose orders were filled. I do not believe that this is a valid argument. If team X needed a 0.7M gear we would have to turn to PIC to obtain it (since they don’t have access to wire edm or a gear cutting machine). PIC usually has a 2-3 week lead time, but I’ve heard cases where teams haven’t gotten their gears until after the build period. Does this mean that Team A’s transmission that features a gear received from PIC is illegal to use because Team X didn’t get their part in time? I don’t think the answer is yes. I think it sucks for Team X that they will have to redesign their robot a little, but Team A shouldn’t be punished because their order was filled. I, personally, feel that any such company should be prepared for about 200 teams ordering their products.

Like Andrew said, this is going to cost a lot of money the way things are right now, and an even larger amount of money if FIRST changes the motors (as FIRST has done in the past with the FP motor, since it depends on the leftover stock at FP).

I really haven’t made up my mind on how I feel about this ready to use transmission purchasing. On one hand I think it’s a great idea, especially for teams how only have hacksaws, hand drills, and hammers. But like Dave and Raul said, I miss the good old days of everyone being forced to use the same catalog, or the same source. That made robots like CD 2000 and others so much more amazing, seeing what they did with the exact same catalog as I was looking at.

I'm not sure if I lost an additional $0.02 here, or if it was the same $0.02 as I spent earlier in the thread...

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

If team X needed a 0.7M gear we would have to turn to PIC to obtain it (since they don’t have access to wire edm or a gear cutting machine). PIC usually has a 2-3 week lead time, but I’ve heard cases where teams haven’t gotten their gears until after the build period. Does this mean that Team A’s transmission that features a gear received from PIC is illegal to use because Team X didn’t get their part in time? I don’t think the answer is yes. I think it sucks for Team X that they will have to redesign their robot a little, but Team A shouldn’t be punished because their order was filled. I, personally, feel that any such company should be prepared for about 200 teams ordering their products.

Like Andrew said, this is going to cost a lot of money the way things are right now, and an even larger amount of money if FIRST changes the motors (as FIRST has done in the past with the FP motor, since it depends on the leftover stock at FP).

I really haven’t made up my mind on how I feel about this ready to use transmission purchasing. On one hand I think it’s a great idea, especially for teams how only have hacksaws, hand drills, and hammers. But like Dave and Raul said, I miss the good old days of everyone being forced to use the same catalog, or the same source. That made robots like CD 2000 and others so much more amazing, seeing what they did with the exact same catalog as I was looking at.

Since PIC took nearly 5 weeks (last January) to ship something that they had originally promised in less than 2, would it be fair to order something in December, and ask PIC to please have it ready by January 10^th, and to ship it some time that week, so that it was received (and hence "obtained") no later than the 17^th? Or would it be yet another case of violating the spirit, but not the letter, of the law?

Or better still, if a team can buy from any company, why not set up a shell company (e.g. "Team 188 Inc."), and instruct the company to buy the parts whenever it pleases, and have them in stock. Then the afternoon of the kickoff, it would sell the parts to the team for $1. This is obviously not a "nice" thing to do, but under the rules we're now formulating, it seems completely legal.

Also, back in the good old days, when a team couldn't get a gear they wanted from Small Parts, they had two options: re-engineer the thing, or EDM the gear (from universally allowed raw stock). Not every team has access to an EDM, and for a one-off job, it can be expensive. But if the choice were between scrapping the gearbox, and using an EDM, most teams would grudgingly accept the latter. But those teams without the means to choose the EDM would actually suffer if the playing field were leveled in the proposed manner.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

Andrew brought up the scenario of this company not being able to fill all orders, and thus preventing the components’ usage by teams whose orders were filled. I do not believe that this is a valid argument. If team X needed a 0.7M gear we would have to turn to PIC to obtain it (since they don’t have access to wire edm or a gear cutting machine). PIC usually has a 2-3 week lead time, but I’ve heard cases where teams haven’t gotten their gears until after the build period. Does this mean that Team A’s transmission that features a gear received from PIC is illegal to use because Team X didn’t get their part in time? I don’t think the answer is yes. I think it sucks for Team X that they will have to redesign their robot a little, but Team A shouldn’t be punished because their order was filled. I, personally, feel that any such company should be prepared for about 200 teams ordering their products.

I'm not fully going to disagree with your disagreement to my original argument. But,...

Stock Drive also sells 0.7 module gears. Plus, there are 0.7 module gears in the kit (in the drill motor transmissions). There are also overseas suppliers of 0.7 module gears. Theoretically, there are enough 0.7 module gears available to all teams during the build phase. This is not a sole-source item.

On the other hand, supplying 1000+ teams with two FIRST-custom-built gearboxes may result in a permanent undersupply. Since this is a sole-source item, it can be determined whether, theoretically, all teams can receive their parts within the six week build phase. If they cannot, then, technically, the parts are -not- available to all teams and violate the rule.

I will also note that the rule states that the item must be "generally available ... from suppliers..." which would bar sole source items.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Or better still, if a team can buy from any company, why not set up a shell company (e.g. "Team 188 Inc."), and instruct the company to buy the parts whenever it pleases, and have them in stock. Then the afternoon of the kickoff, it would sell the parts to the team for $1. This is obviously not a "nice" thing to do, but under the rules we're now formulating, it seems completely legal.

Under the 2004 rules I would argue that this shell company would be illegal unless its services are offered to other teams across Canada, America, Mexico, Brazil, England, and wherever else the next international teams pop up. Well, I should say that it would be illegal to record the cost of a certain gear/sprocket as $1 against your $3,500 limit. I’m not sure if that was the intended result of this scenario, but I think that this kind of circumventing of the spirit of the rule would be inappropriate. The idea of a shell company is also unnecessary under the current rules, since you can stock up on components (like raw materials, gears stock from any catalog, sprockets stock from any catalog, etc.) legally in the off-season. Any modifications to the stock products obviously have to be done after the kickoff.

Andrew,
You’re correct that 0.7M gears weren’t the best item for me to use in my example. I only used them because of experiences and stories from teams.

Another interesting question would be “does the JoeBob company have to make a concerted effort to advertise their product(s) to ALL FIRST teams?” I would think that the answer to this is “no.” It isn’t fair at all, but think about all the teams who don’t know about any catalog other than MSC/SPI and who don’t have a member here on ChiefDelphi. I didn’t know about the Sheppard catalog that some teams bought their tank treads from until long after the build period, but their products were available to me. Things like this make me lean even farther towards FIRST only allowing certain catalogs/sources for teams to buy their components from. Maybe not necessarily that you must have purchased the item from that catalog, but only the items listed in the catalog(s) which can be purchased from any other outfit. [Darn] am I glad I’m not writing the rules…