Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

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.

Originally Posted by Andrew

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.

The shell company idea is solely to point out a potential pitfall in one of the proposed solutions to this problem. Regarding the $1, and the sole-source concept:

<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.)

So they would have to make it available; but that's not the same thing as known. If a store has a sale and doesn't tell me, the items are still available, but I might not know about it--I'm in absolutely no position to demand (after the fact) that they also permit me to pay the reduced price. Furthermore, I'm in no position to demand that anyone who benefited from the sale was doing so unfairly. Worse still, if a team-affiliated company decided, "we'll make two of these gearboxes", and sold them to a team, and declared the gearboxes to be out of stock, and out of production, could anyone make a case against them without somehow distinguishing them from a normal company? (After all, real companies can declare things to be out of stock and/or out of production too; we can't protest their decisions.)

While last season's <R68> is appropriate for last season, if any significant changes are made to this portion of the rules, it might be wise to clarify the exact nature of "obtain[ing] them at the same price", for the express reason of closing that loophole. Limiting sources is the easy way out--but is there a better way?

It is obvious that these scenarios are not necessarily examples of wholesome behaviour. They are examples of possible behaviour, however, and some may even be justified as potential alternate interpretations of the rules. Therefore, despite the difficulty of making rules for FIRST, it does nobody any good to say "but they'll be gracious and professional" and allow the possibility that teams will interpret something in an unexpected fashion. If at all feasible, the most correct course of action is to spell out any expectations clearly and precisely.

[Andy Baker]

I've been quiet on this issue due to various reasons. Obviously, you guys know where I stand on it.

However, I do want to bring up a few points.

1. About a year ago, I proposed to other TechnoKat adult team leaders that we make and sell standard gearboxes to other teams. The leaders of the team decided not to do this. At the same time they said that they had no problem with any individual doing this. Other TechnoKats who have been involved with this gearbox design have been asked to join this side-business company, they have declined. If anyone has any objection to this effort, leave the TechnoKats out if it. Your issue is with myself and Mark, not the rest of the team 45. Address your issues to us.

2. Shifting gearbox designs have been around for a long time. Shifting gearbox designs made specifically for FIRST robots have been around for a few years. They even have been posted, detail for detail, on the internet, on a few websites (and, btw, team 45 started this effort). At the same time, there are thousands of companies who design and sell gearboxes. Also, there will be over 1000 FIRST teams in 2005. What if an engineer who worked for one of these existing companies realized this opportunity and convinced his/her company to take a risk and create a standard gearbox, similar to these designs, for FIRST teams? What if that engineer also helped mentor a FIRST team? I see this situation as inevitable. Someone is going to do this. Why not Mark and I?

3. Teams seemed to be worried about this event (a couple of FIRST people making standard FIRST mechanical components) happening. I am not sure why. Is it because they think that the team I am on will now have an unfair advantage? If they do, they are not looking at the situation as I see it. Think about it. If I want my team to have an unfair advantage, I will side on the issue that says "bring back the old build restrictions", that Raul and Dave (and some others) are wishing for. All in all, if I want team 45 to win more, I wish for that. Honestly, we can still create a dual-speed, shift-on-the-fly gearbox out of raw materials and a few parts from SPI. Can your team? No offense, but we did pretty well as a team back when these restrictions were in place. Now that I think about it, we did better then (in 98 and 99) than we did when FIRST started opening up the build rules. My point here is that if the "old rules" were in place, the divide between high-resource teams and low-resource teams would be dramatically worse than it is now.

Maybe I am missing something. What is the problem? Is there another reason that this is being opposed? Is this bad for FIRST? Are students suddenly going to be un-inspired?

Maybe I am just too simple of a guy. My intentions are simple. I see an opportunity. If I don't do something here, someone else will. The plan of Mark and I is to build standard, shift-on-the-fly gearboxes about 20 or 50 at a time. We will also be building 8" omni-wheels 20 or 50 at a time. We will put them on a physical shelf*, and sell them to people who want to buy them. If the president of Uganda wants one, we will sell him one. If team 15XX wants three, we will sell them three. We will do our best to realize the supply and demand. If we run out of parts and cannot supply to customers (either the president of Uganda or team 15XX), then we will estimate when we will have some more on our shelf. Once our supply dips below our decided-upon inventory level, then we will have more made. I am not a complex guy, and this is not a complex thing.

* - it might be a table or a box. However, if you want a shelf, it can be a shelf. I can now picture 50 gearboxes, lined up on a shelf, waiting for customers.

I see this as a risk on our part, as a company. FIRST is fairly predictable. We are betting that there will be a need for wheeled robots that have a hard time turning (hence the omni-wheels). We are also betting that some FIRST teams want a reliable, lightweight, and cost-effective solution to changing speeds and torques while moving their mechanism.

This is a risk. Life is full of risks. FIRST is life... therefore, FIRST is full of risks.

Andy B.

[Max Lobovsky]

Mr. Baker, I really don't see a problem either. As I said in the thread about the picture of the 2004 GB that you posted, the only issue that this gearbox brings up is the one of the unfair distribution of skill. And, in a way, you are remedying this by making your excellent gearbox designs available to all teams (hopefully at a reasonable price).

BTW, I'd be very interested in seeing the omniwheels you are going to be selling. If you keep making this kind of stuff, 1257 may end up with a robot that's half TechnoKat at heart. (Not that there is anything wrong with it. Right now our robot is half whatever company makes the modular aluminum construction system we used. Same thing.)

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

The plan of Mark and I is to build standard, shift-on-the-fly gearboxes about 20 or 50 at a time. We will also be building 8" omni-wheels 20 or 50 at a time. We will put them on a physical shelf*, and sell them to people who want to buy them. If the president of Uganda wants one, we will sell him one. If team 15XX wants three, we will sell them three.

I'll be in for 2 gear boxes and 2 omnis. Personally, I can't wait for them to hit the shelves

[Bill Beatty]

Andy

I think maybe you should be thinking 200 or 500 at a time.

I'll take two, as every other purchaser will, cause one doesn't do anything.

The $3500 rule will start to become the limiting factor in these types of items, but for now, GO FOR IT.

Best of luck.

Mr. Bill

[Steve W]

Everyone is ordering yet no price qouted yet. I hope that they fall under the maximum for a single part.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Everyone is ordering yet no price qouted yet. I hope that they fall under the maximum for a single part.

What kind of businessman would Andy be if they didn't?

Silly Steve... Andy could sell the gearbox as individual pieces, off the shelf, some assembly required.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by JVN

Gary Dillard offers to sell me two (really sweet) genuine SPAM-180 gearboxes. These gearboxes are built pre-season in the SPAM "summer-sweatshops", I mean... "summer learning camps". This offer is for me only.

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

[Joe Matt]

Guys, I think it isn't a problem with the rules, but more of another clash of FIRST logic, the 'kids should build and learn' over the 'mentors should build kids learn' ideas. Well, from the last perspective, it's fine, I mean, it's the final experience that counts. BUT the problem many have is in the first camp, those who think this is another thing that kids can't learn about and build. I'm in that camp. Sure, you can buy a radio and take it apart to learn about it, but nothing is better than building a radio for yourselves, because not only do you learn about the radio, but you also learn about other aspects of it, such as design, ease of use, and other things.

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

I know I will sound like a dead coon on the side of the road but that very last statement is not necessarily true at all. I have come to live by one rule in FIRST, that is: It doesn't matter how you build your robot. Whether it be by students building with nails and 2x4's or buying all prebuilt parts, it doesn't matter. As long as the students are being inspired, FIRST is doing its mission.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Is it against FIRST's rules? No. Will it help teams with money issues? Yes. But will it help kids in the long run, probably not.

I feel that using an AndyMark transmission is no different than standardizing your own drive train. Sure, we may not have designed it, the kids will still bennifit from the design and manafacturing of the other compnents. Was the incoming freshman around when the drivetrain was standardized two years ago?

On my team I do control type stuff, software and electronics. Last year we experimented with a new drive train and limited success. I have been telling members of my team about the miracles of Omni wheels for a while. I have very little experience in the shop therefore I probably coun't make them. Buying them and throwing them on our old robot to show their bennifets is the best way to convince the team to use them.
During the Fall semester there are plans for my team to go back to the drawing board and standardize a "drivetrain platform". Buying an AndyMark transmission will give us quite a boost in the redesign. Perhaps, we will use it, maybe we won't. Either way we will get a chance to play with a successful transmission that: combines the power of the drill and Chip and is capable of shifting. We have never concentrated on shifting, but we have tried to marry the drill and Chip.

[RogerR]

Originally Posted by JosephM

...Sure, you can buy a radio and take it apart to learn about it, but nothing is better than building a radio for yourselves, because not only do you learn about the radio, but you also learn about other aspects of it, such as design, ease of use, and other things...

in the case of the andymark transmission, i think (and i could be wrong) that the majority of the teams that have the ability to build a gearbox will build one, even if there is one already for sale. the teams that this will appeal to are the ones who might have otherwise used the FIRST provided gearbox. this is simply a way to level the playing field for those of us who don't have a machine shop and an engineering firm at their disposal.

the same could be said of any other drive train components (i.e. frames, wheels, sprockets, etc.). i don't think that anyone needs to be worried about a team simply buying a whole robot, as i doubt that any team(s) could stratigize, design, build, and perfect an end effect, much less a whole robot, in time to market it to FIRST teams during the build season.

[Tytus Gerrish]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

Help Me Please! I havent Eaten in Days

[Arefin Bari]

Originally Posted by Gary Dillard

JVN knows that there has never been any proof of our alleged sweatshops. All of our gearboxes are built under strict supervision with OSHA compliance. The red color splattered inside is a special lithium grease and nothing else. Tytus was terminated because of issues unrelated to his whistleblowing in regards to this matter, and Arefin is under court order not to disclose anything he knows about our shop practices.

Oh gosh... i dont want to go to jail

[Andy Brockway]

I may be wrong but I believe that Innovation FIRST was started by engineers that worked with a FIRST team and decided to build a better control box specifically for FIRST. This does not appear to be any different from AndyMark, engineers that decided to start their own business to help FIRST teams