pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[kramarczyk]

Hardware alone does not a robot make.

As Yoda once said, "Control, control, you must learn control."

[sgreco]

Originally Posted by kramarczyk

Hardware alone does not a robot make.

As Yoda once said, "Control, control, you must learn control."

I am a hardware person, but I couln't agree more.

Chris, I'm going to have to go with Craig on this one. It's not really about making compettions fair, it's not about equal opportunity or teams doing similar designs. It's about learning and teaching...so to the point...is swerve cool? I guess so. But let me warn teams out there, swerve isn't always as big an advantage as it seems to be. There's a reason only 3 different teams have on nationals with a swerve drive. Swerve is a weight commitment that can severely take away from other parts of the robot if not done properly. I'm not saying don't do swerve, I'm just saying it isn't as big an advantage as people think.(heck my teams done swerve the past two years). Skid steer teams are at pretty much no diadvantage to swerve teams. It's hard to tell on regolith, but in 2008 the two most manuverable teams were 1114 and 968, both skid steer teams.

Swerve is cool to do and it's a good learning experience, but don't think you're at any sort of dissadvantage if you can't do it.

That being said, that swerve module looks really nice and it's great to see teams experimenting with things like this, good work.

[ajlapp]

Thanks for all of the comments so far, the debate over COTS items is an old one and will probably continue for a long time.

That said, the pictured module is an assembly of many components and does not fully represent how the final kit style product will be sold.

Some cool stuff going on with the current design....

-it uses the KIT transmission components, including gears and shafts
-it can use the KIT wheel as pictured
-it is constructed of over 50% currently available COTS components, including many Andymark items, like hubs, sprockets and spacers
-many gear ratios are achievable using Toughbox change gears from Andymark
-has feedback points for pivot rotation and wheel speed/location
-can utilize the US Digital Encoder utilized on KIT transmission
-has been adapted from highly successful designs used by Wildstang

This last point is my favorite. Just like Universal Chassis, which was developed by students and mentors from frc27, Team RUSH....over ten years of work by students and mentors has gone into the Wildstang swerve modules and many of those features have been directly included in this product.

[Taylor]

If this module is available at a reasonable price, I could certainly see our team purchasing a set for offseason testing, research, and development use. The students have fallen in love with the idea of swerve drive, but as a team we're struggling with the concept. This could serve as a training tool as *one* way to make a swerve. I'd be willing to put down money that says if we do purchase a 221 set, it will not go on our 2010 FRC robot as is - the kids would want to modify/improve it to suit our needs. Furthermore, it would probably take us a couple years to get our heads wrapped around the system that WildStang has been refining since 1868.

Remember the immortal words of Mr. Beatty: The three most important parts of any robot are drive system, drive system, and drive system.

[Jared Russell]

I, like many of you I suspect, felt uncomfortable when I saw this for some reason. I knew it was just a matter of time until somebody offered a swerve kit. But that still didn't prepare me for actually seeing it.

My first reaction was, this has gone too far. Traditionally in FRC, mastering the swerve was a result of years of iteration, piles of aluminum shavings, and many sleepless nights for programmers. Effective swerve teams were like an exclusive club. Now anybody who can afford it can just order a working swerve system* from a catalog!

...

* it was at this point in my train of thought that I realized the flaw in my thinking.

This is not a working swerve system that is for sale. It is a single wheel pod. I know from experience and observation that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making a 3DOF drive train. It is no more a "full mobility system" than an AndyMark shifter:

1. Effectively mounting the pods, steering motors, and steering sensors is a nontrivial exercise.
2. Writing effective control software is a very challenging task, especially with non-coaxial systems that need to limit pod rotations.
3. This is by no means the only way to do swerve.
4. Many of the teams who successfully utilize swerve year after year (71, 111, 118, 1625 come to mind) have another hidden talent: they are masters of weight reduction. Swerve drives represent a huge weight (not to mention motor) investment, and require special attention to drive, chassis, and scoring mechanism weight in order to be good choices.

But of course, maybe somebody will offer a kit that does #1. And maybe WildStang (or anybody else) decides to offer their swerve code up to anyone. And maybe in a couple years ultra-light weight versions (with coaxial options) show up. And maybe...

The point is, even though this is not a "full mobility system", the mechanisms available to FIRST teams are certainly moving in that direction. How will we, as a community, react to this change?

Personally, I embrace it. For many reasons. One, the FIRST component price limit will keep things from getting too out of hand. Simply put, vendors won't sell what isn't profitable. Two, we're always just a GDC curveball away from forgetting about this stuff anyhow. And finally (and most importantly), are students really less inspired when they use a COTS item? If they want to succeed, they will still need to understand it, assemble it, control it, and maintain it. The fact that it was machined using resources not normally available to some of them is irrelevant.

A lot of people on here talk about how FIRST is expanding too quickly and hanging a lot of under supported teams out to dry. For these same people to critique the availability of new components that said teams could otherwise not fabricate strikes me as hypocritical.

[Akash Rastogi]

Consumer priced swerve modules are also in the works from myself, Sean and RC. Guess we'll continue that even after seeing this.

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Consumer priced swerve modules are also in the works from myself, Sean and RC. Guess we'll continue that even after seeing this.

Competition is not a bad thing. For anyone.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Competition is not a bad thing. For anyone.

I agree, competition makes products BETTER and usually winds up making the companies involved gather a larger collective market share than they could individually without competition.

For the somewhat moral issue of having a swerve module that we can just purchase rather than build, I can go either way on this one. First pass at the design looks great though! Once it hits production and is for sale, will you post the CAD files somewhere?

(Pro) We really should be able to push the limits of the cRIO given better mechanical systems relative to what a team can build with a less than perfect shop. Any robotics group these days is all about 'autonomous this' and 'software that'. The group I meet with in Fairfax once a month is all about line following, maze solving, and swerving around cones ... forget anything that's technically complicated to build. Even the robots that win awards at FRC competitions these days seem to do alot with automation, regardless of what the award is for. With a COTS swerve module, I expect that in the longer term we'll have more capability to attract software and systems engineering mentors to teams who may otherwise not have them due to limited mechanical capabilities.

(Con) In some ways it feels like something's missing when one doesn't understand the sweat and toil that goes into designing something if it's just given as a present for Christmas. Then, 3 days later when it's broken one may wonder how he/she is going to go get another one rather than fixing what is already in front of them...after all, it wasn't designed in house, none of the design decisions are understood, and we may very well have hot glue holding on the sprockets if it's given to the programmers to fix come competition time () . This metaphor is an extremely common example of what happens in industry with COTS items, especially software. I just spent 260 hours debugging a problem that's plagued us for months in our 6million+ lines of code, and every piece of it had to do with COTS software. 260 hours, plus what others have spent on other problems with it over the last several years ... at our equivalent hourly rate, would it have been less expensive to make our own implementation of this software? It is truly hard to tell at this point, but at least I wouldn't have spent so much time stressing over it at work .

[Rich Kressly]

Along with progress comes change. I used to have to wait over an hour for a baked potato, but the microwave changed all of that. However, sometimes I still use the oven and wait that hour because I like what I get from doing things "old school".

Make your own choices for your own team. I ranted on in more detail somewhere else in a similar thread. There in ZERO educational loss here, you just need to think differently about HOW to teach/learn with your team.

Can we also be careful about defining "issue" types? There is no moral issue here at all. There are potential rule, team, and design implications, but nothing at all here suggests any realistic moral issue. So let's all think carefully when choosing our words.

Bottom line for us is this...
By elevating what ANY team can do, we also push those outstanding teams to go even further. Isn't that a very healthy thing? Whining on and on about how things used to be is a lost cause in today's world. Go ahead and spend a moment reflecting on what "was" and honor it for what it was, but don't waste too much time because it'd be far more productive to look squarely at the present and best decide how you want to proceed.

With all of this said, just because something is made commercially available doesn't mean it will be legal in future rules. Right? [insert discussion about carts, horses, and patience here as we're not even sure about a few things yet, are we?]

I also find it a little funny that the whiners in these threads almost never include those outstanding teams and individuals who are/were the pioneers in these areas. Heck, if my team ever designs something so cool that someone else sees a need to mass produce, I'll dance in the street ... then go try and figure out what is next for us.

By the way, isn't this the way industry and real-world engineering really work as well? I also think that 221 LLC's honoring of the design origin here is a pretty classy act.

[AndyB]

Craig, I see your point. I agree that we all learn a lot more from completing the design process than just bolting on and going... and I understand your concern.

However, it's not as if teams don't already use bolt on products. I'd venture to say over half of FRC teams use the KOP chassis and gearboxes every year. Is this really that different of a concept than purchasing pre-designed crab modules? At least with 221's modules, teams are still forced to design a frame and steering system (or so I'm assuming).

I like the idea of making these available to teams who lack machining capabilities... just how I appreciate the availability of pre-built spur gearboxes, planetary gearboxes, 2-speed gearboxes, and mecanum wheels.

It does sound like this product will likely come in pieces and require assembly, and I'd imagine that students would still gain quite a bit of knowledge from working with the system. Personally, I've probably learned more by looking at other teams' designs than any other process.

Keep in mind that not all teams have a Craig Hickman at their disposal.

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Bottom line for us is this... By elevating what ANY team can do, we also push those outstanding teams to go even further.

+1

[Ryan Dognaux]

This. Is. Awesome. I would love to see one of these in person (hopefully at IRI)

It's also good to see that the timeless debate of using off the shelf solutions is still alive and well. I think it's a great thing to level the playing field for teams that may (or may not) understand the concepts of a swerve drive but do not have the machining ability to create one. As Mr. Taylor said, it's a great opportunity for teams to acquire these, learn from them and potentially modify them to meet their own needs.

Originally Posted by Taylor

Furthermore, it would probably take us a couple years to get our heads wrapped around the system that WildStang has been refining since 1868.

I actually found a picture of this 1868 early Wildstang concept -

[ajlapp]

For the somewhat moral issue of having a swerve module that we can just purchase rather than build, I can go either way on this one. First pass at the design looks great though! Once it hits production and is for sale, will you post the CAD files somewhere?

Yes. Team 221 LLC. considers itself a limited open-source organization. We currently offer drawings and solid models for most Universal Chassis products on our website. We will continue this practice with the Wild Swerve.

Consumer priced swerve modules are also in the works from myself, Sean and RC. Guess we'll continue that even after seeing this.

Please do. Also, If you're not ready to start a company, source components, build prototypes, invest and endure lots of criticism contact Team 221 LLC. offline. We're continually designing and considering new product concepts for all types of robot/engineering applications.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Anthony, glad to see this. You do like to cause debates don't you? Here is my take on the whole issue, no one says you have to use it. If FIRST came out and said that we can't manufacture anything anymore it all has to be COTS I think we would all laugh at them. Craig if you don't want to use it don't. More importantly, who said even if you DID use it that you had to use it for a drive train? Seems to me there are some parts in there that could be used for a turret or a ball shooter.

What is the estimated weight? Sensor options? Motor options? (Can I use a FP through a Planetary if I want to?) Will individual parts be available? 6" wheels are too big, when (if ever) will you get around to offering us an option to use smaller wheels? It really does look great Anthony, keep up the good work.

[thefro526]

These Swerve Modules are pretty awesome.... If they would've been availible in years past I think I would've definitely considered using them.

But this brings up a good question that we as a community may need to address and some of us have already addressed in this thread. At what point in time do we draw the line between what we buy and use and what we don't?

[Cory]

Originally Posted by thefro526

These Swerve Modules are pretty awesome.... If they would've been availible in years past I think I would've definitely considered using them.

But this brings up a good question that we as a community may need to address and some of us have already addressed in this thread. At what point in time do we draw the line between what we buy and use and what we don't?

We draw the line wherever the GDC defines the line to be.

In the past that has been that "complete mobility systems" are not allowed.

I'm not sure why people care so much. Let's say this is legal. How many teams are going to buy it? 10? 50? I'd guess almost certainly no more than that. There probably aren't more than 100 teams who even construct a swerve drive in a given year. It's not like they can just purchase this and allot 2 days to drivetrain construction/assembly, since it was a COTS item. There's going to be TONS of time associated with programming, and a good amount with mounting everything. I see nothing "unfair" here.

I would hope that this drive system could help those teams that choose to make a swerve, and end up with a system that is not robust and not very functional. Instead of cobbling something together, they could use this.

The more robots that drive reliably, the better.