Drive Systems... ...The FIRST Arms Race?

[Corey Balint]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I'm not so concerned about power in the drive. If the team builds it well and can control it on the field, what does it matter?

I'm more worried about people buying these new, off the shelf mecanum wheels and not knowing how to program for them correctly. What a waste.

I completley agree with Tom on this one. There are so many of these new off the shelf parts every year, that teams see, and instantly say "Oh, thats different, lets use it, its spose to work great." When in reality they have no idea what to actually do with it. I've seen teams ruin shifters and wheels and so many objects by not knowing how to control them/program/use/install them. I would much rather see teams design their own parts, possibly using the ideas of others(granted they understand them). These companies who do mass produce these parts, should include more drawings, and more information to help teams understand the use of the parts.

I personally believe that the issue lies in the lack of creativity required to move about the field. This comes from the flat fields that we have seen in recent years. Think of AIM high; an entirely flat and open fields. Yet if you look at previous year's fields, there have been midfield ramps, gates, giant teeter-totters, steps, and other elements that encouraged creative drive systems.

We can look at the common drive systems that we have been seeing lately, it is clear that the field has required nothing more than a high torque box on wheels. If FIRST were to bring back complex fields, we would see more innovation, and teams steering away from massive pushing machines, as they would be forced to use the weight more conservatively to achieve motion.

[side note: My personal idea for a challenging field would be a steel piping grid, suspended about 12 feet above the field. Bonus points would be given to teams that could play the game without touching the ground throughout the match. Even more points would be given out to teams that could intentionally change from driving to hanging based on phases of the game]

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

[side note: My personal idea for a challenging field would be a steel piping grid, suspended about 12 feet above the field. Bonus points would be given to teams that could play the game without touching the ground throughout the match. Even more points would be given out to teams that could intentionally change from driving to hanging based on phases of the game]

Monkey-bar robots would be cool.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

If memory serves me right... QC Elite has 6 motors in the drivetrain, and 4 on the arm. Ten motors all together. Super agile robot and a little bit of pushing power. Four inch IFI traction wheels, also.

This is the first year we've implemented more than 4 motors in the drivetrain.

Does anyone remember the first crab steer systems? Did they have a million motors?

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Budda648

...
Does anyone remember the first crab steer systems? Did they have a million motors?

Team 148 had a drive train for Toroid Terror in 1997 that they could turn sideways and spin the goal tree after docking with it. It wasn't exactly swerve, but it was a close cousin.

Team 47 had Swerve on its 1998 robot for Ladder Logic*.

Going from memory that year there were 2 drill motors, 2 Seat Motors, 2 window motors and 2 Delphi Power Sliding Door motor.

Joe J.
*We won 3 regionals that year and were very competitive at the Championships. That was the last year that they had 1-on-1-on-1 game format with seeding on Friday and a Double Elimination tourney with everyone in it on Saturday. For those who where there they probably remember it as the year with the Looser's Bracket from Hell. There were about 10 really great teams that ended up in the Looser's Bracket and only one was getting out to the semi-final round. I think it ended up being the TechnoKats and they went on to win it all that year.

As another aside, Raul-the-Magnificent and the rest of the Wildstang crew probably recall it has the year of the Egg Shaped Ball that cost them a National Title. They had their patented suction ball holder protecting that 1 ball they had on the Ladder with a bunch of doublers in the middle goal. The only the Egg Shaped Ball wasn't touching both rails!!! Into the Looser's Bracket from Hell they went...

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by 114ManualLabor

I personally believe that the issue lies in the lack of creativity required to move about the field.

I think Manual Labor is on to something here. Drive systems have had a chance to be perfected over the past few years due to a relatively similar playing surface each year.

I agree with everyone here who says no more restrictions

What I do agree with is making these perfected drive systems at least partially obsolete.

6wd has seen an incredible jump in popularity over the past few years. Why not make a game in which 6wd and other common systems work, but which aren't the best style for the game.

We've seen many many different types of manipulators over the years because of the different game pieces. Why not translate that to the field and drivetrains? Force teams to innovate to get a competitive edge

[Protronie]

I like the idea of NASCAR robot racing...

I agree... it seems the team with the most motors and biggest corporations
seem to have any edge. Maybe the time had come to set limits (hello restricter plates).

I've a friend in Levle Cross that's really into NASCAR. He's told me and showed me some of the tricks the race team would try to get an edge or bend a rule to its limit. Back in his day #43 was a real threat on the track.
Some of their trick really took some smart engineering.
I could see teams trying some tricky engineering here too but maybe we're getting away from what FIRST is... the robots and the games are third...

Learning to work together as a team, making friends, and learning how to deal with deadlines , problems, and challenges should be second.

Learning how to think, how to deal with people, how to lead, and learning if you set your mind to it and apply yourself, anything is possible should be first and foremost. IMHO

[Jack Jones]

Arms Race? What arms race?

[Not2B]

I like this idea. Maybe set it up to encourage an efficient drive. I'm sure there's lots of good ways to do it...

But I like this idea alot. I think alot of teams put time, weight, and MONEY into drives just to survive the matches. I think it just drives the cost up. And alot of teams just go out and buy solutions to the 4 motor drive.

Where do I sign the petition?

[Andy Baker]

Too many motors in the kit? bah. We're using 5 this year. Time will tell if we are good in 07 or not. Comparing what I see now with how we have stacked up over the last 10 years, I like our chances.

Each year, you can find teams with simple designs and low amounts of motors winning matches consistently.

More motors = designs that try to do it all = difficult to control robots = lost matches = frustration.

Sure, FIRST gave teams 16 motors in the kit. I agree it is too much, but for a different reason. If a team is silly enough to use them all, then they have other problems that will bog them down for the season (too heavy, lack of control, etc.)

Best of luck to all,
Andy B.

[Rich Kressly]

Hmmmmm, I have a few thoughts here:

1. Lots of motors in the kit means cool off season projects for many teams who can't afford extra purchases. They also mean spares for swapping the FIRST way. It certainly adds to the whole power budget decision-making thing too which is a challenge in itself.

2. I don't know about too much drive train or restricting use at all. Last year I had a rookie team that used a grand total of five motors and was pretty competitive by the off season once the bugs got worked out. This year the team is up to seven motors and that was a stretch for us. Do I feel we will be less competitive than those with custom or expensive gearboxes? No.

3. I'm all for any motors in the kit we can get. Doesn't each motor represent one more potential supplier? Isn't that one way FIRST grows? How can you ask a supplier to donate a ton of stuff then tell the teams that they can only use the motor for certain applications? Doesn't that squelch creativity and discourage potential suppliers?

4. Why are people still talking about aftermarket gearboxes in a negative way? Hasn't that been done to death? More competitive, moving robots means a higher level of exposure to the public means we are closer to achieving FIRSTs real mission. How is that bad? Without the AndyMark single speeds my rookie is using, they'd be carrying open transmissions to a regional waiting on new plates.

5. With all due respect, how can anyone equate or value levels of "inspiration" by what motors are in the kit? The inspiration comes from the interaction between students and mentors, teammates, and interaction with other teams. The tools one uses to inspire an individual is up to the "teacher".

I'm glad we have so many technically inclined folks that help the program move forward, I honestly do, but if we get tied up in kit analysis we might forget there's a student that needs our attention.

Namaste...

[monty1540]

one thing that has not been brought up, which i'm probably going to get hounded for on two counts, more on that in a few. one way to limit extremely powerful drive trains would be to go to a smaller battery, one that would need to be conserved to make it through a match, so you could go for a powerful drive train for a short period of time, or a less powerful one for a longer amount of time, perhaps extending the matches so that this became a factor more. I think the innovation that would result could be very interesting to watch. Now, the two counts on which i'll be hounded, 1. FIRST just changed the battery, so for those teams that have purchased multiple for extras, this wouldn't be too nice, and the second point, many people, including me, don't like to change the battery every two minutes during testing... we have some '05 batteries that have been through competition twice, and two off seasons, and last for about two minutes before being useless, with lower powered batteries, this would become a reality even when the batteries were new, anyway, thats just my $.02

[Gdeaver]

The Tim Allen mentality is what I think Joe is referring to. " More Power". During the off season it seams that most teams that were doing off season projects focused on drive trains. How many teams worked on manipulator development, sensor integration, or autonomous navigation? First could control the drive train arms race with a very simple rule. Limit the energy, Make it precious and expensive. ( like what is happening in the real world). Each team is allowed 2 batteries at the competition. On practice day each team submits 2 batteries at inspection and their serial number is recorded and a permanent label is affixed. Those are the only 2 batteries allowed for the entire competition. Teams can do what ever they what with the motors and mechanisms, but the energy budget is limited. If a team gets to the finals and is forced to compete with dead batteries then they pay the price for poor energy management. This generation of kids will have to face the looming energy challenges in their life time. First can help focus them on this social issue. The other way to take the focus away from the arms race is to make the autonomous period longer and more important.

[meaubry]

Just a couple of thoughts -
I believe that some parts of the robot are designed to meet the specifics of the game or the playing field. The reality is, that the drive systems can almost always be re-used from year to year, while end effectors almost always cannot.

Therefore, many of the off season and season2season improvements are focused on the drive system. With an unlimited supply of motors and alot of time - it is natural for this to happen. I'm actually surprised that nobody has developed a drive system using every motor in the kit.

I like some of the suggestions that Joe has made. Yet, I also like the increased variety and number of motors to choose from.

I think encouraging the management of power could be as much a challenge as managing size and weight. Learning to understand and deal with all of the challenges, could be very Inspirational (it simply depends on it is approached).

Alot depends on where you want to focus your attention on, and where you can save time and energy by re-using what has been proven out already.

My favorite suggestion to rebalance the reuse and elevated effort for more and more powerful drive systems, is to change the playing field such that the drive system contact surface is either slippery or moves under load. Do they make portable flooring for ice covered surfaces!

Great discussion

[Pavan Dave]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

The Tim Allen mentality is what I think Joe is referring to. " More Power". During the off season it seams that most teams that were doing off season projects focused on drive trains. How many teams worked on manipulator development, sensor integration, or autonomous navigation? First could control the drive train arms race with a very simple rule. Limit the energy, Make it precious and expensive. ( like what is happening in the real world). Each team is allowed 2 batteries at the competition. On practice day each team submits 2 batteries at inspection and their serial number is recorded and a permanent label is affixed. Those are the only 2 batteries allowed for the entire competition. Teams can do what ever they what with the motors and mechanisms, but the energy budget is limited. If a team gets to the finals and is forced to compete with dead batteries then they pay the price for poor energy management. This generation of kids will have to face the looming energy challenges in their life time. First can help focus them on this social issue. The other way to take the focus away from the arms race is to make the autonomous period longer and more important.

I understand exactly what you are saying with this and how much work is done off season (if any at all) on the base, but the thing everyone is missing out on is the fact that the manipulator and autonomous modes and other things change EVERY year and that certain subgroups on your team have a "static" position, meaning they have to think and come up with something completely new, while others just innovate older designs et cetera. That is why the BASE or DRIVE SYSTEM of teams is becoming more and more interesting every year from what I have seen on the forums (including archives) because the base usually stays constant or at least the framework or principles of it does.

I think the energy rule is limiting just as how you choose your motors because if you are limiting energy than you are saying you have to cut power from "A" and add it to "B" and that is similar to saying you can only use "N" amount of motors out of the number given for a certain operation (drive train, manipulation, et cetera).

Pavan.