pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[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.

[pacoliketaco]

I read most of this thread already, and as soon as i saw the picture, i was practically disappointed. I know that is not a very nice thing to say, but i dont see this at all to be in the spirit of FIRST. as far as i can see, swerve drive is very complex, and should only be attempted by teams with the capabilities to make one themselves. and FIRST is about learning, not buying pre-built modules from other teams. even your universal chassis, which looks very nice, i am not a fan of. my team has always had extremely limited machining capabilities (hacksaws, hand held drills, and maybe a circular saw to cut 8020) but we still manage to make effective robots. this makes me very jealous when a team comes out and says "look at our brand new CNC mill" but to me, one team making parts, and selling them to other teams is just not right. maybe if you were willing to teach other teams how to, but not to actually make the parts for them. especially something as complex as a swerve drive. whatever. i guess you are doing this to make money, which is fair. good luck with selling these, im sure they will be popular, just as AM mecanums were in 2007.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

I read most of this thread already, and as soon as i saw the picture, i was practically disappointed. I know that is not a very nice thing to say, but i dont see this at all to be in the spirit of FIRST.

However, it isn't up to you to speak on behalf of FIRST as to what that "spirit" is, is it? Why say something that you know isn't nice? I'd challenge you to find me any worthwhile description of FIRST's spirit that specifically addresses, inhibits, excludes, or discourages this practice.

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

as far as i can see, swerve drive is very complex, and should only be attempted by teams with the capabilities to make one themselves. and FIRST is about learning, not buying pre-built modules from other teams.

Sorry, but this statement is pure baloney. Why shouldn't ANYONE attempt ANYTHING they desire to in this world (provided laws aren't being broken, etc)? If the team supports this idea and this is their way in the door, I say AWESOME even though I also run one of those teams who has similar tooling resources like you speak of ... and since when does buying a pre-built anything preclude you from teaching? There are a ton of ways to learn with these..mechanically, programming, reverse engineering, pre-season training, ...

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

my team has always had extremely limited machining capabilities (hacksaws, hand held drills, and maybe a circular saw to cut 8020) but we still manage to make effective robots. this makes me very jealous when a team comes out and says "look at our brand new CNC mill"

Why let jealousy enter the picture at all? There's a ton of ways to use this as inspiration and motivation instead. I have yet to see a game in FRC that "required" swerve drive. How about "Let's find the Allentown, NJ way to out-build, out-strategize, and outplay these swerve teams using our own resources." OR "Let's deconstruct these CAD files and find a way to build our own.." Or ... geeze...be inspired by what others are able to do ... even when you believe you can "never" have "that" for your team. Who knows maybe one of your students will be inspired enough to design swerve modules in industry someday or will get to run one of those CNC's at work because he/she decided to pursue the education/opportunity because they were exposed to it through another FRC team. I mean it's possible we're all here to help make all of that happen for as many students as possible and the robot competition thingy is secondary, right?

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

but to me, one team making parts, and selling them to other teams is just not right. maybe if you were willing to teach other teams how to, but not to actually make the parts for them. especially something as complex as a swerve drive. whatever. i guess you are doing this to make money, which is fair. good luck with selling these, im sure they will be popular, just as AM mecanums were in 2007.

Hakuna Matata...to each his own. Is 221, LLC the team 221 or an offshoot thereof? I suppose you might think AndyMark is 45, which would also be false. In the end, why the heck don't you want to see the bar higher for all teams with more resources/possibilities for all? Why on earth should we stunt the growth of progress for all teams? Look at the history of design and the way things advance. More affordable, readily available resources is always a driving force for this. Why on earth should FRC be any different?

I hope after careful reflection and after you trade in jealousy for inspiration, you might reconsider your position here.

namaste

[Bob Steele]

I wish good luck to 221 in their endeavor. Engineering business is something we all need experience in along with design. If they can make these and people want and can afford them and they are within the rules... more power to them...

I know that when our team decided to design its own swerve drive this year that it was one of the best things we could have done. (We made that decision after the Kickoff)

Our team was very proud of its design and its particular way of controlling our Skunk Swerve. Everyone on the team participated in the design, fabrication and assembly of the modules. It was very much a team design.

I watched the pride our team members showed in the design and the interest they all took in the problems we encountered and how we overcame those problems in design and control.

After all, it is the process that is important....the working with mentors and looking at designs and doing the systems work to decide what approach to implement.

To me, teams do this in different ways. Teams can be very successful in using off the shelf solutions.... but how does that hurt the design? If those solutions are within the rules.... use them....

We don't have to design everything...I can also remember having to cut gears and design transmissions.... things used to be different.

Teams can be successful in many ways....
For those teams that think that this is not fair...to just purchase components and put them together.... I say, why is this unfair?

It is the way of real life. When we design machines we don't design every single bolt or gear.... or even transmission....Does anyone design their own motors? Some do.... but many rely on industries that specialize in those designs.... we check specs ... pick a motor.... and design around it.

i don't see this as unfair or unjust in any way...

Having a shifting transmission or a swerve drive or any other component does not guarantee success. It still has to be incorporated into the larger design strategy for the game...The longer you are around FIRST (or anything else for that matter... ) the simpler a design is the better... the better you know it the easier it is to repair and maintain...

Good for you 221 (and 111) see if you can be successful making and selling these items.... more teams could experience a robot with this fun type of drive...

i am just wondering when teams or individuals will start trying to market software or programs that are designed to control different aspects of the game robot.... we constantly trade them.... but why not sell these control algorithms....??? I can tell you from experience that CONTROL of a swerve drive is much more difficult than designing one...

We had fun with our drive.... we plan on continuing to refine it and use it again if the game is such that it would be a viable drive system.

Good luck to everyone
Have a great summer!!

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

as far as i can see, swerve drive is very complex, and should only be attempted by teams with the capabilities to make one themselves.

Why?

I think perhaps you are mistakenly characterizing swerve drive technology as some kind of nectar and ambrosia that only the elite gods among FIRST teams are permitted to consume.

If so, consider Team 221's gesture to be akin to Prometheus "stealing" fire from the gods and sharing it with humanity for the benefit and education of all *lesser-equipped* mankind.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a few pics this year of teams with more "pedestrian" resources who pulled off some form of swerve successfully. It is not necessary to think that advanced robot features are off limits to all but those who are characterized as the "gods of FIRST". You can become your own "gods of swerve", if you try!

FIRST is about learning, not buying pre-built modules from other teams.

Team 221 LLC is not a "team" per se. It is a legal COTS business source of parts per the FRC rules as we know them, just like AndyMark.

48 used to fabricate our own custom transmissions. I know we've learned much and gained MUCH TIME by first studying, then understanding, and finally integrating AM's COTS transmissions into our robot, as using these components has allowed us more time to develop knowledge and capability with other robot mechanisms. Even if these 221 swerve modules WERE a simple "drag, drop, and swerve" product, which they aren't, a team would still gain a ton of extra time to pursue the learning of *other* still-unfamiliar robot systems.

my team has always had extremely limited machining capabilities (hacksaws, hand held drills, and maybe a circular saw to cut 8020) but we still manage to make effective robots. this makes me very jealous when a team comes out and says "look at our brand new CNC mill"

It is commendable that your team has been able to succeed with limited access to more high-end resources, but with the availability of these modules, perhaps you no longer have to be jealous of those "CNC" folks - perhaps having one or more of these in your possession will help you better understand swerve concepts and find ways to fabricate a working swerve system using the resources at your disposal? You can learn to both appreciate AND effectively integrate high quality, precision-fabricated technology into your robot WITHOUT access to a CNC. Who needs those $35,000+ contraptions, anyway?

maybe if you were willing to teach other teams how to, but not to actually make the parts for them.

in addition to selling them as a business venture, they also offer up their product designs freely, which I think is plenty of a head start for teams who elect not to buy their product to try and learn how to design and build the modules on their own. I'd bet they'd also answer any questions people have as they attempt to pursue their initial swerve prototypes.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by pacoliketaco

I read most of this thread already, and as soon as i saw the picture, i was practically disappointed. I know that is not a very nice thing to say, but i dont see this at all to be in the spirit of FIRST. as far as i can see, swerve drive is very complex, and should only be attempted by teams with the capabilities to make one themselves.

Want to wind your own motors?

Cut your own sprockets and gears?

Build your own computer?

Design your own ASICs? (FPGAs are too "COTS.")

Mine your own copper ore, refine it, and draw your own wire?

There is nothing mystical here. Some parts are in the KOP, others are available commercially, and some have to be custom-made. There is nothing magical about any of those categories, and the appropriate allocation of parts across those categories is whatever the GDC says it is. There is no revealed truth here -- just various mechanical and electrical bits and strategies for their acquisition or construction.

[fuzzy1718]

Too all of you wo keep saying "mine your own metal, make this from scratch yada yada yada" everyone is just trying to say where do we draw the line. If you use the that arguement all you are seeing is black and white, not the gray area in between.
Yes, the GDC prevents robot in a box, but the problem is where do we draw the line on the words "complete mechanism?" You could turn this into a shooter rather easy, but how much of that shooter is already there for you? 1/2... 2/3?

Team 221 this is in no way ment to sound ofensive to you, but when you guys offer a product, simply offer parts not a complete anything. For instance with your guy's chassis why sell the whole rail, just sell the parts seperatly and let teams figure it out. Not only could you guys profit more but it would appease both sides of the arguement. You would be selling the whole thing, but teams could still build it mixing your stuff with others.

Just a thought, hope fully I don't get tared and feathered for it.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1718

Too all of you wo keep saying "mine your own metal, make this from scratch yada yada yada" everyone is just trying to say where do we draw the line. If you use the that arguement all you are seeing is black and white, not the gray area in between.
Yes, the GDC prevents robot in a box, but the problem is where do we draw the line on the words "complete mechanism?" You could turn this into a shooter rather easy, but how much of that shooter is already there for you? 1/2... 2/3?

Team 221 this is in no way ment to sound ofensive to you, but when you guys offer a product, simply offer parts not a complete anything. For instance with your guy's chassis why sell the whole rail, just sell the parts seperatly and let teams figure it out. Not only could you guys profit more but it would appease both sides of the arguement. You would be selling the whole thing, but teams could still build it mixing your stuff with others.

Just a thought, hope fully I don't get tared and feathered for it.

I won't tar and feather you, I'll disagree though.

Just as an example I will use a Joe Johnson's NBD and show what percentage of a mobility system it is compared to the percentage for these mechanisms.

First I have to define what a mobility system is. For the sake of definition I will call it the bare minimum necessary for a robot to move. This means 2 driven wheels and 2 omni wheels, a chassis, associated electronics etc.

TEAM 221 LLC (note that Team 221 is not actually an FRC team, it came out of a FIRST team that Anthony was involved with in the past and is no longer associated with FIRST other than selling parts designed for use in the competition)

2 x CIM motors
2 x swerve modules
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
2 x Potentiometer
Programming to control the swerve drive
2 x KOP Wheels


NBD

2 x CIM motors
2 x Dewalt drill transmissions
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
Default Programming
2 x KOP Wheels


Seems to me that the Swerve modules are not a significant portion of the drive system. You still have to wire them, still have to assemble them, still have to mount them. Not only that but you have to program them which everyone who does swerve says is the difficult part. Now, in my opinion this is a pretty crappy use of the swerve modules but it DOES show what is needed in a basic mobility system. I could probably assign weights to all of this but they would be highly subjective. Instead I will bring attention to the fact that the Team 221 Swerve actually requires MORE parts than a bare bones set up using Dewalts.

NBD does require you to make some modifications to the Dewalt gearbox but these are all detailed in the white paper so I count this as roughly the same as assembling something based on instructions from an educational experience, I feel this will be the sticking point for many people. Which drive train do people learn more from? To put it bluntly, Team 221 has the distinct advantage here. Programming a swerve drive to work reliably and simply is challenging from a programming point of view. NBD has the benefit of pulling the default code down from FIRST and you are up and running with minor if any changes. Mechanically speaking both teams would learn roughly the same amount assuming neither opened up their parts and toyed with them to figure out how they worked. Electronically the advantage goes to Team 221 again, they get to learn to wire up a potentiometer (or encoder). For these reasons I have to say that the NBD white paper constitutes a higher percentage of a complete mobility system than the Team 221 swerve modules. Furthermore, NBD actually causes students to learn less when assembling it.

Now, my disclaimers.

This is my OPINION, you are welcome to disagree with it and encouraged to debate it but under no circumstances are you allowed to disrespect me or my opinion based solely on your disagreement. I am more than willing to respond to someone who is willing to show me where I went wrong (in their opinion) but will be very angry if you respond by calling me an idiot or any such childish retorts.