pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

However, the more we standardize kit components, and make components and mechanisms easily available, the more we will standardize the games. This year was a wonderful example of that: A field full of driving boxes with trailers. The innovation was still there, but much less so than, say, 2005. Robots of all shapes and sizes opened my eyes to the possibilities that properly engineering a robot can bring far more than any of the recent driving refrigerators have.

Craig, I think the "all the robots look the same" problem doesn't come as much from the KOP and the availability of COTS subsystems as it does from the game design. I prefer games where there is no obvious winning strategy as this leads to diversity of design regardless of components. (I predict that the 2009-2010 VRC game Clean Sweep is going to be a terrific example of diversity. If someone can find the optimal strategy now, please drop me a note. ) Cool engineering and creative solutions come in all shapes and sizes.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Craig, I think the "all the robots look the same" problem doesn't come as much from the KOP and the availability of COTS subsystems as it does from the game design.

That and the fact that they won't make swerve drives a mandatory component. That's the real limiting factor to designs.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

I don't believe it's against the point of FIRST, rather, I think it dulls the educational opportunities that FIRST provides. While the point of FRC is to inspire engineering and science based educations and careers, it also provides an incredible medium for education, and getting a head start on life.

Kits like these dull the value of that education immensely, and a level playing field does nothing to mimic the real world. There are always engineering companies with better tools, more funding, and better employees than you in the real world.

Craig, to me it seems like you have a predefined and limited notion of what learning is. And you only accept that type of learning. If it doesn't fit your standard, it isn't "learning."
But, the truth is, there are many other forms of learning and many different lessons that can be achieved through FIRST, not just the one model you chose to support.

In real world engineering, a large portion of many jobs is spent figuring out how to adapt to/modify/upgrade/work with/support/repair/reverse engineer systems, solutions, and products that other people have designed and built. These could be COTS components or just items built by other groups associated with your project (or even just a different engineer). It isn't always designing from the ground up. For instance, at my last job, I spent a majority of my time developing and testing hardware and software designed to work with and replace legacy components.
And this is very much a situation where that applies. If you've ever worked with any of these types of COTS components, you'll realize that very rarely are they exactly what your team is looking for in their design. You often have to modify them in some way (changing mounting patterns, reducing weight, changing gear ratios, adding additional support/protection, etc.) in order for them to meet your design specifications. And that may call upon the drafting and machining skills you feel are being neglected here.

And beyond that, even if you don't build a specific component, products like this can open up infinite new doorways for teams. Some teams simply do not have the resources to embrace certain designs.
In 2005, my then current team (116) was faced with precisely one of those scenarios. We turned to AndyMark, and their new (at the time) omni-wheels, to help us create a holonomic drive system. We were able to push the box of what a holonomic system in FIRST looks like, and do things that hadn't been tried in FIRST before that point. We were also able to push the knowledge of virtually every sub-group of our team because of it, as it gave us new challenges in software, frame design, machining, and allowed for us to employ a new style of controls mounting. We were also able to work closely with AndyMark on improving their omni-wheels (specifically the roller materials) for future iterations.
I can tell you, for a fact, that I learned more from that drive system/robot than I did on our custom 2-speed gearboxes we had used in 2003 and 2004.

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

Learning to improvise and compete with what you have, not with a standardized kit will train you more for the real world.

In some cases, that may be true. In many, it is not.
There are many times where you have specific design requirements that MUST be met, and you do not have the in-house ability to meet those requirements at all (let alone on time or under budget). You will often have to resort to contractors and COTS components to help fill these roles. I know this for a fact, because that's exactly what we did at my last job in similar scenarios.
Beyond that, "what you have" applies to a lot more than just machine tools and CAD skills. It also applies to other resources, such as money. And money can be used to buy COTS components, such as these.

You're method of running a team is a perfectly acceptable, legal, and successful method of running a team. It teaches a number of skills and thought processes essential to virtually any engineer. But is is not the only successful, legal, acceptable, or encourageble method of running a team. There are a multitude of ways in which teams can decide on how to reach their final robot. And there are a multitude of skills, lessons, and thought processes to be taught along the way. Nobody is FORCING teams to build a swerve drive, let alone builds a swerve drive from this specific COTS item. It is just another opportunity and option presented to teams.