Purchase/Prebuild - What's the difference?

[Ricky Q.]

Originally Posted by 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

That is correct sir, a fact shown before on these forums:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...8&postcount=67

And the AndyMark business will be a hot success, in my opinion. They will be providing something for the teams that could/want to build a similar gearbox, but haven't done so before and don't have the time to go through the whole process in the build season. But perhaps after the season they will take a closer look at the AM Gearboxes, disect them and modify them and/or make their own versions of them.

This business could be a stepping stone for teams to open their eyes up to different ideas. And purchasing something from AM or any other off the shelf product CAN add to the learning process, it can teach you "Hey maybe we should work on stuff like this in the off season",my team learned that lesson and I'm sure many others have as well. There are many lessons that can be learned from every different process in FIRST, you just have to look for them.

[seanwitte]

Other people have said it already, but how is buying a Dewalt or AndyMark transmission different than building one during the off-season and using it on the robot? The only difference is that rookie teams with the AndyMark can build a new frame and move the gearboxes in one piece. Teams using their own design, no matter how well prepared, still have to build them. I think people underestimate the effort required because they assume a proven design is easy to manufacture. We were prepared to build the gearboxes (Team 116 dual-motor dual-speed) and it still took 3 weeks to actually fabricate them.

I don't have a problem with teams buying composite parts like gearboxes. Its just smart design. What does seem odd is that its ok to buy a gearbox, but it isn't ok to build one in the Fall and use it on the FRC robot. It would be very tempting to buy a gearbox to gain an extra couple of weeks to work on the control system. Innovation in transmission design may slow down, but that extra time could raise the level of autonomous or control system development.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

I don't have a problem with teams buying composite parts like gearboxes. Its just smart design. What does seem odd is that its ok to buy a gearbox, but it isn't ok to build one in the Fall and use it on the FRC robot.

Sean makes a very good point. With the rules as they are, teams could actually be 'encouraged' to buy off the shelf products instead of developing their own. I don't think everyone will go that way, and especially the veteran teams who have developed capabilities. (Maybe there can be a way to allow some fall work to be incorporated in the next seasons machine.)

But for a new team, or one with limited engineering resources - some "off the shelf" product could be a boost to the team and allow them to concentrate on some other facets of the robot.

I first thought I was 'against' this idea, but as I have typed, I think I am more and more for it. It will level the field and make teams more competitive -and maybe a bit of success on the field will keep the students interested in their team and all of the 'hidden' benefits!!!.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

Other people have said it already, but how is buying a Dewalt or AndyMark transmission different than building one during the off-season and using it on the robot?

I think the difference is obvious. The commercial part is available to everyone at the same price, and it does not favor any team in particular. The homemade off-season part is not available to everyone, and it can give a significant advantage to a team with the ability to spend extra time with adequate tools and testing.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Let's be honest. The "transmissions" in the kit are not really that great. They must be modified and adapted to meet the needs of the team. For Pete's sake they are for drills. Not the same as what a real transmission is.

Steve,
On the contrary, I feel those drill transmissions are a relatively elegant little planetary gearbox. They pack a lot of reduction into a small area. They've also held up (in my opinion) pretty well at competition.

How exactly must they be modified and adapted to meet the needs of a team? All I've ever done is slap an output coupling or sprocket on the end of the shaft, and called it a day. Maybe my needs are just not as demanding as some people's...

What exactly is a "real transmission"?
I always thought those drill "transmissions" were real enough.

If the current kit transmission is so inadequate, would you prefer a new solution be implemented? What kind of impact would there be if FIRST put a GaryDill tranny in every kit-of-parts?

Originally Posted by Steve W

We seem to be going around in circles. I have not yet seen any pro or con against prebuilt except the rules.

What?
I've seen a great deal of great discussion over the past few days.
In this thread, and others. Maybe no one has listed out the Pro/Con in a list, but they've definitely been discussed. Going around in circles isn't necessarilly a bad thing. It's not like we as a community can make any decisions. That's up to FIRST. All we can do is discuss the philisophical implications, and know that someone, somewhere above, is reading this.

Originally Posted by Steve W

As we know, example the last 2 years that FIRST will change the rule if someone breaks it. All you need is someone to yell loud enough.

I will leave this thread open for a couple more days. If people would like it to stay open longer let me know.

Whoa...
Do you really believe that about FIRST?

I don't personally see anything to yell about.
I'll build my robot during the 6 weeks.
The other 46 weeks of the year fill up just fine with design and testing.

Also... I don't know why this thread would be closed.
I think the discussion has been top notch, and hope it continues. It is interesting to see the opinions of others in this program during the "philisophical debates" that occur.

John

"As we know, FIRST will change the rule if someone breaks it." <-- The most disappointing thing I've read on these boards in a while.

[Marc P.]

I'll second John's comments about the great discussion in this thread. All the talk is steadily persuading me that the prebuilt transmissions may be a good thing for the competition. Especially the avaliability to teams without the resources to craft their own, as it does help to level the playing field by providing enhanced drive functionality.

I do have a few more questions to throw out there though. While it looks like this type of company would fit within the guidlines of the written rules, wouldn't it require a clear seperation between the company personell and a certain team? As a seperate corporate/company entity, the transmissions can be manufactured any time during the year. If there is a team association, the company may be viewed as part of the team, and thus manufacturing would be restricted to the 6 week build period. Especially if said team uses one of the company's transmissions (which of course, I'd expect them to account for the full price in the BOM anyway). But it's really more of a company vs. team conflict of interest issue in terms of the official rules. FIRST has volunteers sign conflict of interest papers for positions which can directly affect competition, so I'd hope the same would be true of any parts provider.

The other question is in terms of a guarantee/warranty, and liability. With Innovation First, they have reps at every official event, such that in case of any problems or equipment failures, technical advice and spare parts are provided as the need arises. With these transmissions, would they be sold "as is", in that any problems encountered are the responsibility of the teams themselves, or would they come with a warranty in the unlikely event something fails, breaks, bends, shatters/otherwise falls apart. If something does fail in a big shoving match, would the company be held liable for the loss?

[seanwitte]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I think the difference is obvious. The commercial part is available to everyone at the same price, and it does not favor any team in particular. The homemade off-season part is not available to everyone, and it can give a significant advantage to a team with the ability to spend extra time with adequate tools and testing.

I understand the argument and I agree with you. I still think this is a special case because this OTS part is as good or better than what most teams are currently producing. My point was that it seems like teams that build their own gearboxes are creating something that is functionally equivalent to what will be available OTS. Those teams will have a tough choice to make. It will be interesting what people come up with to gain a competitive edge.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I think the difference is obvious. The commercial part is available to everyone at the same price, and it does not favor any team in particular. The homemade off-season part is not available to everyone, and it can give a significant advantage to a team with the ability to spend extra time with adequate tools and testing.

Alan,

You've hit the nail flush on the head.

If I spend 8 weeks in the fall designing and building a new transmission with my team, I've given my team a specific advantage that cannot be matched by any other team. This is because I now have a part that is unique to the competition. The rules we have force any unique parts to be fabricated during the 6 week build period. If I go out and purchase a prebuilt transmission, big deal, you can go buy one too.

As long as there is equal access to off the shelf parts, which the current rules ensure, there is no unfair advantage being gained by using prebuilt parts.

It will be interesting what people come up with to gain a competitive edge.

Exactly. If a whole bunch of teams start popping the AndyMark tranny under the hood, what do you think the veteran teams are going to do? They're not going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs. These teams are going to realize the gap is being shrunk, and double their efforts to create a more powerful transmission. I've been saying this for a while now, but it bears repeating. Making technology like this readily available, furthers innovation. It's not in the nature of many people in this competition to sit around and accept the common solution. They will go out and improve upon it. I for one can't wait to see what kind of new transmission designs come out of this. The AndyMark gearbox is an amazing design. Just imagine what will happen when people focus their energy on outdoing it. Just think about that for a second. Isn't that exciting? I get inspired just contemplating it. But in the words of a good friend of mine, "maybe I'm just weird".

---

On another note, teams have been using prebuilt mechanisms for years. I'm curious as where all this opposition was before Andy & Mark decided to start their company. I didn't hear anyone complaining aloud (although I'm sure someone did) when Team 47 used the Dewalt drill transmissions on their robot. The fact that Andy and Mark are affiliated with a FIRST team, should have no bearing on this situation. In fact, many FIRST engineers work for other FIRST suppliers.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I'll second John's comments about the great discussion in this thread.

I totally agree. This is a great discussion.

Originally Posted by Marc P.

...While it looks like this type of company would fit within the guidlines of the written rules, wouldn't it require a clear seperation between the company personell and a certain team? As a seperate corporate/company entity, the transmissions can be manufactured any time during the year. If there is a team association, the company may be viewed as part of the team, and thus manufacturing would be restricted to the 6 week build period. ... FIRST has volunteers sign conflict of interest papers for positions which can directly affect competition, so I'd hope the same would be true of any parts provider.

So, proceeding with this logic, if there is an engineer from Fastenal who helps with team 5555, then team 5555 cannot use Fastenal screws on their robot. I don't agree with this logic.

Team 5555 should be able to use Fastenal screws on their robot if they are standard, off-the-shelf screws. Now, if Fastenal made custom screws that were not available to the open market (president of Uganda, team 15XX, yada yada), then those screws should only be allowed on team 5555's robot if Fastenal made those custom screws during the build season.

Originally Posted by Marc P.

The other question is in terms of a guarantee/warranty, and liability. With Innovation First, they have reps at every official event, such that in case of any problems or equipment failures, technical advice and spare parts are provided as the need arises. With these transmissions, would they be sold "as is", in that any problems encountered are the responsibility of the teams themselves, or would they come with a warranty in the unlikely event something fails, breaks, bends, shatters/otherwise falls apart. If something does fail in a big shoving match, would the company be held liable for the loss?

Innovation First has a well-deserved monopoly in FIRST. Each team's kit has IFI hardware included. This is not the same as AndyMark components. While we will have some sort of minimal warranty, we cannot afford to replace every component if it breaks under an extreme load. If we were to design to this extreme restriction, then the products will be 5x the price that they need to be in order to be affordable by teams. Currently, the gearbox is designed for a 4x safety factor over the stall torques of two powerful kit motors (from 2004 kit).

Again, I will use the Fastenal comparison. If a Fastenal screw breaks during a FIRST competition, is Fastenal held liable for the loss? Absolutely not. The difference here between IFI and Fastenal is that teams have the option to not put Fastenal screws on their robots. If they think that Fastenal screws are not good (which is wrong, Fastenal is a great company with great products), then it is that team's choice to not use their product.

In the end, if our products are crap, then people will not buy them. This is the risk of doing business, and the foundation of capitalism.

Andy B.

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I will leave this thread open for a couple more days. If people would like it to stay open longer let me know.

Everyone who has participated thus far, has managed to keep their posts civil, despite the huge range of differing opinions. As long as the conversation stays this way, I see absolutely no need to close this thread.

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

So, proceeding with this logic, if there is an engineer from Fastenal who helps with team 5555, then team 5555 cannot use Fastenal screws on their robot. This seems silly to me, therefore I think that the above logic is flawed.

Team 5555 should be able to use Fastenal screws on their robot if they are standard, off-the-shelf screws. Now, if Fastenal made custom screws that were not available to the open market (president of Uganda, team 15XX, yada yada), then those screws should only be allowed on team 5555's robot if Fastenal made those custom screws during the build season.

I completely agree. To clarify my point a bit, I meant if team 5555 used the Fastenal screws, I would expect them to list it in their bill of materials at the same price other teams can get them for. Because the engineer works for Fastenal, even though he has the ability to donate screws to the team, they would still have to count against the $3500 limit. That's all I meant to say there. The conflict of interest argument was more a general statement on ethics than anything specific to the AndyMark company. As an example, if an Innovation First engineer worked with a team, and knew the internals of the IFI controllers in and out, and knew of any hidden/undocumented features which could give his team and advantage, I'd hope he'd either not use his company knowledge for an unfair advantage, or publish the information (which IFI may not like) so everyone can use it. I'd have to say that sort of situation isn't possible with a transmission like yours, so I'd say that's a moot point.

Innovation First has a well-deserved monopoly in FIRST. Each team's kit has IFI hardware included. This is not the same as AndyMark components. While we will have some sort of minimal warranty, we cannot afford to replace every component if it breaks under an extreme load. If we were to design to this extreme restriction, then the products will be 5x the price that they need to be in order to be affordable by teams. Currently, the gearbox is designed for a 4x safety factor over the stall torques.

That makes sense, and it's good to know the safety factor. Are the specifications for the transmission avaliable?

Again, I will use the Fastenal comparison. If a Fastenal screw breaks during a FIRST competition, is Fastenal held liable for the loss? Absolutely not. The difference here between IFI and Fastenal is that teams have the option to not put Fastenal screws on their robots. If they think that Fastenal screws are not good (which is wrong, Fastenal is a great company with great products), then it is that team's choice to not use their product.

In the end, if our products are crap, then people will not buy them. This is the risk of doing business, and the foundation of capitalism.

Andy B.

Again, that makes sense. Of course Fastenal wouldn't be held liable for the loss of the match. I'm a bit tired, so my thoughts aren't coming out as fluid as I'd like them to. I think what I meant was the breakage of the components. If a screw breaks, it's no big deal to replace it. If a gear breaks or a shaft snaps, that can be a big production to replace, especially if the team doesn't have the capability to forge a new shaft or obtain a new gear. I guess the question is, would you have replacement parts available on request?

Thanks for the answers! This is turning into one of the best discussions I've seen around here in a while!

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Marc P.

I completely agree. To clarify my point a bit, I meant if team 5555 used the Fastenal screws, I would expect them to list it in their bill of materials at the same price other teams can get them for. Because the engineer works for Fastenal, even though he has the ability to donate screws to the team, they would still have to count against the $3500 limit. That's all I meant to say there. ...

Are the specifications for the transmission avaliable?

...

I guess the question is, would you have replacement parts available on request?

Your point about costing the standard parts on the team's BOM is great. If team 45 uses AndyMark components, they will be noted at cost in the BOM.

We are working on specifications and prices. Within two weeks (the end of August) we plan to have this information on our webpage.

As for replacement parts, we will have them available to order on the website. We will do our best to create a fair warranty plan.

Andy B.

[Steve W]

I am out of line and will not have the thread closed. I do find it difficult to sit back and not input more. I will however bow to the wishes of others.

As for the KOP transmissions, ask how many needed replacement at the events. Teams were blowing them during practice rounds.

What I have understood, and may be wrong, is that people would rather that the playing field be more on the level side rather than teams "learn" their way up the ladder. The team I am on in 2003 built their first 3 motor shifting transmission. It took forever to get the parts from PIC and so we did not have much time to complete. With less than a week till ship we had to totally redo and build a gearbox instead. That put us at a big disadvantage for the first regional. I have to admit that it became the year that we won our first regional but we barely made it through. This year we redesigned (thanks Tristan) and again had problems getting parts. After blowing out the aluminum gears and copper gears we finally got our final gears the day before ship. The robot was finally moving at about 3 am of ship day. Not much time for practice.

Now I am not a gearbox or transmission expert but I believe that we could not order parts until we knew the motors and specs. I also know that the gears were very expensive. Now if a transmission is designed and built before season starts, would the builders not have to know what motors and what specs that they were? Would the price not be excessive unless shipped as piece parts and not assembled as one item. Even as a kit that contained all of the parts the single price , I would think, would be high. I ramble on unable to put my thoughts into words so I will stop for now. I apologize for my outbursts but my passion clouds my eyes sometimes (and my brain).

Please, let the discussions continue.

[Eric O]

OK..I have tried to read all of the above, but will admit to just skimming some for key words. And I agree that this is a good topic to bring up now before it becomes an issue, however I see one simple clarification that could be made to the rule:

There is a quantitative difference between pre-built and purchased. Purchased means that the product has been designed, manufactured and built by a Company as opposed to some other person/team/organization that wants to sell off robot parts. Correct me if I am wrong, but there is government (yes, I used that word ) paperwork which defines a company which then translates into taxes and what not. Also, if an organization becomes a company, they must pay wages to workers. And if anyone has ever added the hours it takes to build a robot and multiplied it by minimum wage....its not cheap.

It seems to me that if FIRST wanted to (or sadly needed to) clarify the rule they could say something along those lines to help them define "purchased". In this case pre-built would be anything a team made or purchased from someone other than a company before kickoff.

Eric

[Andrew]

Some other random thoughts on this subject....

Predesigning has been OK for my time in FIRST. Most teams design and prototype critical components. If FIRST changes KoP parts (like they did with the Chiphua output shaft in 2003 and the new drill motor in 2003), we have to scramble to redesign. It's a risk to invest design time up front, but generally it pays off. Since most teams are pretty free about sharing information with other teams, this seems to be a good thing all around.

CNC programming and fixtures...Under last year's rules, it would be OK for a team to come up with a design, program and debug a CNC machine and make whatever fixtures are necessary. When build phase hits (assuming no major KoP changes), the program can be dumped into the CNC machine and parts can be banged out automatically at much lower machining time.

Design for Manufacturing...designing both for function and to make it easier to manufacture takes the art of design to the next level. If you accomplish this in the off season, you can reduce the number and complexity of parts that you must make.

Competitiveness...designing and prototyping in the off season builds a team's knowledge base, which is ultimately what makes a team more competitive. Fabrication resources, OTS parts, etc. are available if you need them.

There are even other ways to save fabrication time during build phase...making fixtures in the off season, buying materials which are precut to length, designing around OTS material sizes to save cuts, ...

Whatever the rules, mature teams are going to find ways to improve their design efficiency based on knowledge of competitions past.

Finally, SLEEP...the reason that most of us spend time in the off-season getting a jump on next season is so that we can have more sleep time and more family time during build phase.