YMTC - Manufacturing

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

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.

Amen. A fine model for reductio ad absurdum. QED.

If you need persuasion woven tight with logic, leave it to a software architect.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

...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.

I believe they did.

Originally Posted by <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...

Originally Posted by <R16>

During the Build Season: ...They are encouraged to use all the materials, sources and resources available to them...

[Steve W]

But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final robot is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation

I think that you missed the above phrase when looking at the rule Ken. The rules says tome to design away and learn lots. Prove your ideas but do not cut, screw, bolt, lighten, bend or otherwise do or make anything that will be put on the 2007 robot. If you do any of the above then you can only use for demo and prototype and never add to your 2007 robot.

You can however use the plans that you developed to fabricate and build after kickoff.

[Jack Jones]

FIRST Fundamentalists on the day after Kick-off?

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

FIRST Fundamentalists on the day after Kick-off?

Stone wheels? Looks great for low CG. How are they for CoF?

[KenWittlief]

After giving this some thought, and reading through the posts in this thread again, I take it the general opinion is that FIRST teams can start designing their robot for next year, right after this years championship, if thats what they want to do?

And they can build full up prototypes, and set up CNC machine programs to churn out all the parts they need, and have all the materials ready to feed the machine,

as long as the parts being used are manufactured/fabbed.... after the kickoff meeting?

If that is the case I think FIRST should really strike the word "design" from the rules "after the kickoff"

and replace it with 'fabricate and assemble" because that is what they really mean.

The only risk I see from doing this is that you might 'design' a robot in september that will use motors or other parts that will not be in this years KOP (due to changes), or parts that might not be on the allowable parts list, but based on past experience that risk is very low.

So why dont we stop pretending? Why do some many teams wait until the kickoff to really get started? We can design base frames and drive trains, and accutators, and control systems, and sophisticated sensors with complex electronics, work out all the bugs, get all our drawings ready for Jan 3rd to hand to a machinst

and then at most all that will be left to do is design a ball shooter mechanism to bolt to the rest of the robot (the prototype we already have 2 copies of), or a pole grabber, or a ball hopper, or a platform pusher...

if we do this, at least 75% of the robot can be designed and ready to go by Jan 3rd! Why do we kill ourselves every year, trying design and build a robot in only 6 weeks, when we can really spend 52 weeks on the drawing/brainstorming/CNC setup/electronics schematics/programming/parts purchasing... part of the design cycle?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

If that is the case I think FIRST should really strike the word "design" from the rules "after the kickoff"

and replace it with 'fabricate and assemble" because that is what they really mean.

Something like that is in order, just for the sake of clarity. As a result of <R15>, design and construction of prototypes is unlimited—so anything that's designed before kickoff is a prototype, until it is designated to become part of the robot on or about the kickoff day (when actual fabrication of the part begins).

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The only risk I see from doing this is that you might 'design' a robot in september that will use motors or other parts that will not be in this years KOP (due to changes), or parts that might not be on the allowable parts list, but based on past experience that risk is very low.

So why dont we stop pretending? Why do some many teams wait until the kickoff to really get started? We can design base frames and drive trains, and accutators, and control systems, and sophisticated sensors with complex electronics, work out all the bugs, get all our drawings ready for Jan 3rd to hand to a machinst

and then at most all that will be left to do is design a ball shooter mechanism to bolt to the rest of the robot (the prototype we already have 2 copies of), or a pole grabber, or a ball hopper, or a platform pusher...

if we do this, at least 75% of the robot can be designed and ready to go by Jan 3rd! Why do we kill ourselves every year, trying design and build a robot in only 6 weeks, when we can really spend 52 weeks on the drawing/brainstorming/CNC setup/electronics schematics/programming/parts purchasing... part of the design cycle?

Many teams do exactly this. Of course, like you said, they do take the risk that the prototypes don't meet the next year's requirements, but that's the risk that they take, to put themselves 3 weeks ahead for the next season.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Something like that is in order, just for the sake of clarity. As a result of <R15>, design and construction of prototypes is unlimited—so anything that's designed before kickoff is a prototype, until it is designated to become part of the robot on or about the kickoff day (when actual fabrication of the part begins).

I agree. <R16> needs rewriting as suggested.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The only risk I see from doing this is that you might 'design' a robot in september that will use motors or other parts that will not be in this years KOP (due to changes), or parts that might not be on the allowable parts list, but based on past experience that risk is very low.

Ken, how do you think that teams are practicing on week 3 after kickoff? I know that our team has not done this and we are still bolting things together as it goes in the crate.

There have been motor changes, size changes, weight changes, height changes and rule changes over the last few years. Yes you are taking a chance but if you can save even 1 weeks work then you are better off.

If your team does some of this design process (lights, remember championship) then you will be better off as a team and the kids will have learned a lot in the prototype process. Your team can take the extra time and help rookies or teams that are in need. There is a lot of benefit to this process. I believe that the team can learn more in a balanced, non time constraint environment than during a 6 week build. What's more is that we are using 52 weeks to excite and inspire. These are all bonuses. Down side is that we might get a little burnt out if we don't watch ourselves.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Steve W

... I believe that the team can learn more in a balanced, non time constraint environment than during a 6 week build. What's more is that we are using 52 weeks to excite and inspire. These are all bonuses. Down side is that we might get a little burnt out if we don't watch ourselves.

If this is what FIRST has really evolved into, I have to say, I feel like we have lost one of the core aspects of the program: The intensity, the sense of being on your toes for six weeks, that whole thing about 'the hardest thing you will ever love doing'

and FIRST should also change their website, if everyone is really working on robot designs all year round:

Originally Posted by usfirst.org

About FIRST Robotics Competition

The FIRST Robotics Competition challenges teams of young people and their mentors to solve a common problem in a six-week timeframe using a standard "kit of parts" and a common set of rules.

[eugenebrooks]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

FIRST Fundamentalists on the day after Kick-off?

I think that Jack has it right here.

Sensible engineers do not design from first principles on every project they work on. They stand on and re-use the fruits of earlier design activities. This is the meaning of the word "design" in rule 16 and this is the process that we should be engaging students in. Teams are not restricted to engaging in the design process in this manner, however, they may re-design the wheel if they want.

Rule 15 makes this interpretation of rule 16 clear.

Don't forget, we are always admonished to not "lawyer" the rules!
This applies as equally to attempts to produce restrictions that don't exist as it applies to doing away with restrictions that do exist.

This, of course, is modulo the fact that this years rules haven't been published yet. It could, in fact, be the case that we get to chip our robots out of stone this year. That could be fun...

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by eugenebrooks

I think that Jack has it right here.

Sensible engineers do not design from first principles on every project they work on. They stand on and re-use the fruits of earlier design activities.

...It could, in fact, be the case that we get to chip our robots out of stone this year. That could be fun...

You have it exactly right! We dont have time to teach HS students about boring FIRST principles: Mass, acceleration, force, energy, impulse, power, torque, metal fatigue, shear stress

when we can re use the work of someone else who already did all that hard math stuff for us 8 years ago

no time to waste, there are giant plastic trophies at stake here!

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Mass, acceleration, force, energy, impulse, power, torque, metal fatigue, shear stress

There is a lot of discussion in the technical forums here in CD regarding these principles, generated by students with input from the technical mentors. I see this every day, year round.

CD has had a lot of great stuff going on this summer in lots of areas, animation, websites, and programming as well. Team organization: fundraising, handbooks, travel as well.

The 6 week FIRST build session is an opportunity for engineers, teachers, students, and NEMs to come together and build. The robot is an obvious result of the build. The program and people may not be as obvious but they are equally as important.

The principles mentioned are taught by the teachers in the schools and can be enhanced, expanded, shown in a hands-on application by the engineers working with the teams. We can't turn off inspiration and recognition, development and learning with a switch. It is an on-going process. If it were not, there would be no need for CD except for 6 weeks out of the year.
Jane

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You have it exactly right! We dont have time to teach HS students about boring FIRST principles: Mass, acceleration, force, energy, impulse, power, torque, metal fatigue, shear stress

when we can re use the work of someone else who already did all that hard math stuff for us 8 years ago

no time to waste, there are giant plastic trophies at stake here!

(Dare I note which trophies are the really big ones?)

Ken, I see where you're going here. Eight seasons ago, IFI wasn't in the KOP, Andy Baker was only in his second season with the TechnoKats, the highest team number was 336, and nobody had played Stairway to Heaven backwards in the hopes of finding a game hint.

Why do I bring this up? Over the years, the game will change. The arm on Ockham that hoisted our tetras probably wouldn't have done so well hoisting Bob in 2004. The drivetrain we tried on Chomp this year would've probably resulted in our butts getting kicked in 2003. Zip ties dragging on the carpet this year would've resulted in a funny look, while last year they proved essential for many. 71's infamous 2002 machine would be laughed out of the inspection area for several reasons (file cards, 5' expanding rule, no flopbots, take your pick). While you can steal the basic concepts from past years' robots, you can only be so effective with them. At some point, you're going to have to fire up Inventor (or Pro/E, or SolidWorks, or...you get the idea) and create something nobody's ever seen before. Nobody had a system in their storage room to shoot a lightweight ball from twenty feet out, or a sure-fire method to climbing a ramp that steep.

I suppose the bottom line is this: While there's a lot of borrowing past concepts, there's also plenty of room for folks to innovate, inspire, and shock the heck out of us on Saturday afternoon.

[Jack Jones]

It’s not that we don’t have the time to teach first principals; it’s more that we (FIRST) don’t need to. Why should we re-invent the classroom? That’s not our job. That stuff is comparatively easy. It’s all down in black and white in the textbooks.

I have seen many book smart engineers who can’t turn a wrench without reciting “leftie-loosie”- never had an original thought - and can’t get beyond what they’ve been taught. I don’t want any part of producing a fresh batch of them.

I want my kids to learn how to get the job done, and to get it done right, rather than to show that it worked on paper. I’d like to think I know more about momentum and impulse than Tiger Woods. But do I really? We have engineers at TARDEC who’ve been taught all there is to know about metal fatigue and shear. So, explain to me why it's the guys on the shop floor who know when a part will fail. There’s a difference between learning and knowing. The latter is where I choose to invest the six weeks we have.

But this tread is supposed about manufacturing rules. Isn't it a shame when the rules work to paint us into a corrner?