YMTC - Manufacturing

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

YIKES!

WHAT?!

HOLY COW! YIKES!

no more using battery holders or motor mounts or modular electronics boxes that were designed in previous years?

No more using designs posted by other teams on CD from previous years?!

YIKES! (this changes everything)

Quoted was rule 16 but if you look at previous rule you will read:

<R15> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their robots. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and
conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS items they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS assembled prior to the Kick-off presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but MAY NOT be used on the final ROBOT.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

YIKES! WHAT?! HOLY COW! YIKES! YIKES! (this changes everything)

No, it does not. Be sure to read <R15> also:

<R15> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their robots. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS items they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS assembled prior to the Kick-off presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but MAY NOT be used on the final ROBOT.

Originally Posted by Steve W

Let me add another element to the question.According to this rule :
<R22> Individual COMPONENTS from robots entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2006 robots IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition.

If the Red Team competes in an off season event, would it be classified as a FIRST event and would the parts be allowed in the 2007 season if the rules remain the same as 2006?

The important part of <R22> is "IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition."

If a team fabricates a custom part for the 2006 Wonderland competition, they can't use it on the 2007 robot.

If a team uses a Globe Motor in the 2006 Wonderland competition, and the same Globe Motor model is a legal part in the 2007 FIRST kit, then that same exact motor can be used on a 2007 FIRST Robot.

Of course, that is if the fabrication rules are similar to what we knew in 2006.

AB

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by boiler

We have (as compared to some other FIRST teams) a pretty limited budget - $19K this past season.

Pretty rich compared to many. I work with a team who's never had that much.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I hope there are not too many teams who cannot afford to spend the allowable amount on their robots - what is the cap these days? $3.5k?

As was noted above, a lot of teams budget their limited funds in ways that preclude expensive but convenient parts. A $300 expense for transmissions is a difficult thing for more teams than you might imagine.

Now that I think more about it, with the kit transmissions available, there isn't really the risk that the teams that can spend a few hundred dollars more will dramatically outclass the others. That would have been a bigger issue a few years ago, back when we had the Bosch motors and their slightly inelegant transmission mount and crossed-axis output as the no-cost option.

[Matt Krass]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Let me add another element to the question.According to this rule :
<R22> Individual COMPONENTS from robots entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2006 robots IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition.

If the Red Team competes in an off season event, would it be classified as a FIRST event and would the parts be allowed in the 2007 season if the rules remain the same as 2006?

Wouldn't the very nature of an off-season exclude it from "FIRST event"? I mean yes, it's an event, played (mostly) by FIRST rules, with FIRST teams, but does FIRST officially endorse it? I don't think so in the case of most/all of them, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And as such doesn't that mean they are not legal FIRST events?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Quoted was rule 16 but if you look at previous rule you will read:

<R15> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their robots. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and
conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS items they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS assembled prior to the Kick-off presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but MAY NOT be used on the final ROBOT.

ok, you can design and build a proof of concept mechanism, or even prototypes, but the other rule says you must 'design' all the parts you need after the kickoff meeting.

If you copy a tranmission design from CD that another team posted in a white paper from previous years, or even if you want to re-use a transmission that your team designed two years ago, it sure sounds to me like FIRST is saying "No! we want this years team to design anything that is not in the KOP and is not COTS themselves"

And I take that to mean, even if they have to reinvent what the team has done in previous years.

Originally Posted by <R16>
During the Build Season: During the period between the Kick-off and robot shipment deadline, teams are to design and fabricate all the components and mechanisms required to complete their robot.

I can certainly see the reason for doing that. If you have a team that has been around for 5 or 10 years, it would be very easy to reuse great subsystem designs from previous years. But the students on the team this year would not be able to go through the design cycle for those parts of the robot, they would not have to brainstorm and think about the best way to build even simple things like a battery holder or a motor mount

and isnt that what the whole idea of this program is? To present the students with a interesting and difficult design challenge, and have them tackle it, from start to finish?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

ok, you can design and build a proof of concept mechanism, or even prototypes, but the other rule says you must 'design' all the parts you need after the kickoff meeting.

If you copy a tranmission design from CD that another team posted in a white paper from previous years, or even if you want to re-use a transmission that your team designed two years ago, it sure sounds to me like FIRST is saying "No! we want this years team to design anything that is not in the KOP and is not COTS themselves"

And I take that to mean, even if they have to reinvent what the team has done in previous years.

I read 'design' as used in <R16> to mean 'decide how to build'. Design doesn't have to mean 'invent' or even 'improve'.

As a wise man once said, "steal from the best, then invent the rest!"

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by <R16>

During the Build Season: During the period between the Kick-off and robot shipment deadline, teams are to design and fabricate all the components and mechanisms required to complete their robot.

This obviously can't be taken as strictly as you suggest, Ken. Many of the "components and mechanisms" used on a robot are purchased, not designed and fabricated. If we were to go all rule-lawyerish and follow it to the letter, it would keep us from using things like off-the-shelf bolts and chains. There's enough fuzziness in the word "design" to satisfy me that pulling out last year's battery holder plans for this year's robot won't violate the rule.

I think the intent of the rule is clear, especially when coupled with what <R15> says about pre-season prototypes immediately before it. Using existing documentation and raw materials to fabricate a pre-engineered design is not prohibited.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Richard

I read 'design' as used in <R16> to mean 'decide how to build'. Design doesn't have to mean 'invent' or even 'improve'.

I think you are saying the same thing I am, but you dont realize you are saying it.

Ok, we have a battery holder on a robot from two years ago. Back then a couple students were presented with the problem "We gotta attach the battery to this surface, in this orientation, with access to the wires here and here".

If they did a real design cycle on the task, they would figure out the mass of the battery, the acceleration it would experience when the robot hit a solid object going 15 fps, with 2" bumpers on the robot, how much force that will create on the holder

and then look at the specs for sheet metal and alum, and the shear strength of #8 and #10 and 3/8" bolts..... and designed a battery holder that will keep that 10 lb lump of lead where its suppose to be, no matter what.

Ok, now its this year - I dont see anyway I can honestly say "design a battery holder" means "get the drawings from two years ago and hand them to the machinist on the shop floor".

If they dont go through the same design cycle / exercise, then they have no idea why the battery holder is the way it is.

and the rule that we have quoted a few times now says all "designing" for this years robot must be done after this years kickoff meeting. If you can buy something off the shelf, or pull it out of the KOP, then you dont need to design that part of the system

but you would still have to go through a bit of work to analyse the thing you are buying to make sure it will work as intended.

That battery holder you end up copying from two years ago, or from another team, for all you know it may have broken in every single match.

Engineering is a single point position of responsibility - if we are showing students what its like to be an engineer, then they cannot let something onto the robot that they cannot explain, verify, or say with understanding "this will work, this will do what it needs to do".

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Ok, now its this year - I dont see anyway I can honestly say "design a battery holder" means "get the drawings from two years ago and hand them to the machinist on the shop floor".

If they dont go through the same design cycle / exercise, then they have no idea why the battery holder is the way it is.

and the rule that we have quoted a few times now says all "designing" for this years robot must be done after this years kickoff meeting.

This has already been refuted a few posts ago. You seem to be the only person only looking at R16 and not R15, so where is the "we"?. Teams can prototype and design in the fall, according to R15.

If you wish to run your team this way, then that is your choice. However, please don't tell teams that using prior designs is illegal. Teams do not have to re-invent the battery holder each year.

The GDC gives us a new game each January, with new challenges. If the game is so easy that all a veteran team has to do is pull the prints from the previous year, then the GDC didn't make a good game. On the other hand, if we all had to re-format our brains, start from scratch with un-used designs we would see many non-movable boat anchors on the FIRST playing field.

It is simply ridiculous to say that FIRST does not want us to re-use proven (or even foolish) designs, or share designs between teams. Teams and individuals have been highly recognized and awarded for doing such things. Teams have won Chairman's Awards and individuals have won Woodie Flowers Awards for doing exactly these gracious acts.

Students on teams without engineering mentors learn from other teams this way. Making teams re-design from scratch is not only stupid, but against the ideals of the engineering iterative process.

Andy B.

[KenWittlief]

I did not write the rules. I can see that many people are saying "It cant really means what it says"

but is that because we are convinced that is not what FIRST wants, or because we dont want it to say what it says?

Not every team has people hanging out on CD, so we can all wink at each other and say " the rule doesnt really mean what it says, so go ahead a re-use designs and subsystems from last year, as long as you have a machinist make new parts between kickoff and ship date"

so, if FIRST really means "go ahead and design all year long for next year and re-use and copy whatever you want" then they should say that - and say it clearly.

Teams I have been on, prototypes and proof of concept stuff was made of cardboard and plywood and two by fours, or using the edu bot, or whatever we had laying around. If the concept worked then we designed something similar, with metal or plastics, using approved materials and motors and parts. Nothing ever went from prototype to shipped robot with no changes.

[Pavan Dave]

From my knowledge, it is against the rules to have it made before the season. (R15/R16) I think you should just make them and try to see if your sponsor can spare you some time on the machines during the build period.

Also, to my knowledge, designing during the off season is done by many teams, and that it is a part of of their Robotics Program. Therefore I believe that it abides by all rules and it should be accepted.

Pavan, 118 Electrical.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I did not write the rules. I can see that many people are saying "It cant really means what it says"

but is that because we are convinced that is not what FIRST wants, or because we dont want it to say what it says?

I don't think any of us are saying "It can't really mean what it says." However, it certainly can't mean what you think it says. You're taking the word "design" to have a very narrow meaning, but as I stated earlier, that choice of meaning leads to an interpretation of the rule that prevents things we know are explicitly permitted.

The design process doesn't have to incorporate the first-principles analysis you presented as an example. Researching existing solutions and using them where appropriate is also a perfectly valid design methodology.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The design process doesn't have to incorporate the first-principles analysis you presented as an example. Researching existing solutions and using them where appropriate is also a perfectly valid design methodology.

Im trying really hard to find a way to agree with this (seriously). I know how things are done on many teams, and I know about design sharing and white papers and all that stuff

but when I look at that rule, if it said "must design your robot" then I would happily concede that re-using old subsystems designs, or battery mounts (an individual component) was in line with the rules. A system level design often does reuse older subsystem designs for parts of it functionality

but because its says "all the components and mechanisms" I see red flags waving everywhere.

If I goto Comp USA and buy a laptop computer, in no sense of the word (in my vocabulary) did I 'design' that computer. [I know we are allowed to use COTS subsystems, Im trying to clarifiy the word 'design' here]

If I copy a schematic from a website and wire the parts together, what would people think if I told them "I designed this" ? They would think I was taking credit for someone else's work.

The purpose of these You Make The Call threads is to discuss rules from FIRST that are sometimes vague, confusing or downright contradictory. How a leader runs their team is not up to them, its up to FIRST - its all contained in the rules they hand down.

If nothing else there should be a section in the rule book on re-use of old designs (not only single components, like the other contradictory rule addresses), and use of designs from white papers, internet websites...

going back to the original scenario in this thread, if a team has designed a transmission in the off season, with the intention of using it for the upcoming season, and they have it down to drawings that can be handed to a machinist to be fabricated on Jan 3rd, then I think they have clearly violated the spirit of the 'design starts at kickoff' part of this rule. If they have already gone that far, when the parts are actually machined is irrelevant.

Thats my call. (I do concede this rule is vague, confusing, and contradicts other rules from this year, along with going against many common FIRST team practices).

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Im trying really hard to find a way to agree with this (seriously).

The easiest way is to recognize that you're fixated on a specific belief about what is meant by the word "design", and that changing that belief to handle a broader concept will make all your concerns evaporate.

If you stop insisting that the verb "design" must mean "devise a solution to address a requirement", and start accepting that "find a solution to address a requirement" is a valid meaning, we'll all be on the same page with respect to <R16>.

If I goto Comp USA and buy a laptop computer, in no sense of the word (in my vocabulary) did I 'design' that computer. [I know we are allowed to use COTS subsystems, Im trying to clarifiy the word 'design' here]

But if you then go on to use that computer as a component to solve a specific problem, you can claim to have designed a solution to that problem.

If I copy a schematic from a website and wire the parts together, what would people think if I told them "I designed this" ? They would think I was taking credit for someone else's work.

You did not create the schematic. However, if the finished circuit is being used as a functional part of a larger work of your own devising, you can legitimately say you designed the function to use that circuit.

This is not wordsmithing in order to get around a restriction. This is recognizing that the so-called restriction does not exist, and thereby understanding what the word must mean in context in order to keep the rule from saying the thing that is not.