pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[keehun]

Dean probably won't care because like he doesn't care if mentors do everything from planning to building... He emphasizes the INSPIRATION model..

[GarrettF2395]

I come from a team with very limited resource's (Our best tool is a drill press that hardly works).
For months now, we has been trying to figure out someway to make a swerve drive of our own.
But due to a lack of equipment, we haven't been able to come up with a product that would work in competition.

But after seeing this, I'm really excited, because we may get our chance!
Having a working swerve drive that we can assemble, study, tinker with, and program, would be amazing!
You can only learn so much from looking at pictures, and listening to people talk about how they built their drive.

This product would give my team the hands on learning they need to design and build their own swerve in the future.
If we are able to purchase this product in the off season, with enough time to debug and work out the kinks; AND we get a machine shop as a sponsor, I believe we would build our own next season (Game and GDC permitting).

So to those of you that think this isn't in the spirit of FIRST, because it decreases the learning experience.
I believe that, at least with my team, it provokes learning.
It gives you the best learning tool out there, a hands on tool.
A tool that for some teams, like mine, was thought to be out of reach at the moment.

Originally Posted by Teamcap.2395

So to those of you that think this isn't in the spirit of FIRST, because it decreases the learning experience.
I believe that, at least with my team, it provokes learning.
It gives you the best learning tool out there, a hands on tool.
A tool that for some teams, like mine, was thought to be out of reach at the moment.

Originally Posted by keehun

Dean probably won't care because like he doesn't care if mentors do everything from planning to building... He emphasizes the INSPIRATION model..

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

The goal of FIRST can be met with a set of legos, the robot is just a medium. But the education that comes with it, that is truly special.

[NorviewsVeteran]

I'm going to finally get my feet wet in this one, and hope they don't get bitten off by something.

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.

Once this 'standardized kit' hits the retail shelves, doesn't it become the standard? So that you can improve on the system, or move on to the next challenge?

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

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.

Completely disagree. These kits do not change the fact that different "companies" still have access to better resources. No amount of COTS components will ever change that.

Until FRC kits come with CNC machines, state of the art build facilities, a $10,000 voucher for McMaster, and clones of Paul Copioli and Andy Baker, a level playing field will never be an issue. Moreover, "raising the bar" of the competition is absolutely a major part of the real world.

What industry do you know of where the competition never gains access to new and previously unattainable technologies and the leaders never have to worry about stepping up their game?

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.

Completely disagree. Real world engineering is often more about evaluating and selecting available off the shelf components than it is innovating from scratch. Innovation is best suited to filling the gaps between what is already available, not re-creating what you're too stubborn to use.

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

The goal of FIRST can be met with a set of legos, the robot is just a medium. But the education that comes with it, that is truly special.

This is your opinion, and I respect it, but I have to completely disagree. The goal of FIRST is inspiration. Anyone who tells you that watching a LEGO League robot is 100% as inspiring as watching 1114 hurdle trackballs, 67 fill a trailer, or 25 light up the high goal is lying. The size, speed, and power of full sized FRC robots are much more sublime. People go to the zoo to see the lions and tigers, not the ants.

Inspiration is showing what true professionals can do and lighting enough of the way so that students can connect the dots between their lives and the life of a professional engineer. College and hands-on training will get them there; we only need to show them the way.

[Andrew Schreiber]

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

The goal of FIRST can be met with a set of legos, the robot is just a medium. But the education that comes with it, that is truly special.

Craig, do you feel that this in any way negatively impacts the inspirational aspects of FIRST? I would argue that it doesn't, if anything it makes FIRST more inspiring. There is a quote by Ken Patton where he says that he was awestruck by seeing a team moving sideways (I can't find the quote right now) If Ken Patton is impressed by it I would say that a high school student would be pretty awed by it too. Now take that student who was just awed and give them this kit with the sole instruction, "figure out how it works" Those kids will feel pride when they figure it out or when they understand someone explaining it.

[insert rant about FIRST not being about education] Seriously, write out what FIRST means, write out the definitions of each of those words then tell me where education fits in.

Craig is correct though, in the real world there will be companies orders of magnitude your size that you have to compete with, I know where I work we have that problem. We solve it by being innovative and agile. FIRST teams can use this same approach. There will always be the Wildstangs and the Beattys of the world, that is a fact of life, you just have to remember that it is possible to bring the giant down. My company has pulled contracts away from a company that is actually 300 times our size. Do something unique, anyone who tells you that everything has been invented is a fool.

Craig, I hate it when posts confuse me, I didn't know whether to agree or disagree.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by CraigHickman

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

The goal of FIRST can be met with a set of legos, the robot is just a medium. But the education that comes with it, that is truly special.

Craig,

The real world is all about integrating what you have, or can easily make with what you can buy. How is this any different?

Teams are forced to weigh the benefits of a COTS system which requires little manufacturing time/effort vs full scale development of their own systems.

In real life if you can use a COTS item in place of a custom one, you do it. If you don't, your company is losing money, and you are failing to do your job as an engineer.

In my eyes, if the goal is to inspire students to become engineers, we want to teach them engineering. Things like drafting and machining are great, and basic knowledge of them is essential in becoming an engineer, but being an engineer is very different than being a machinist or a drafter. It seems like the method you propose is much more along the lines of saying we should teach the students how to CAD and machine their own designs, starting with nothing, and going all the way to the finished product.

Engineers are "concerned with developing economical and safe solutions to practical problems, by applying mathematics and scientific knowledge while considering technical constraints". In the real world, the #1 constraint is cost. If it costs too much, you didn't do your job. Basically what I'm trying to say is that making the coolest mechanism in the world that perfectly achieves the functionality of whatever device you are designing does not necessarily mean one would be a "good" engineer. If said device costs 10x more to manufacture than a simpler solution integrating COTS parts, and only performs 10% better, that's poor engineering.

Originally Posted by Jared341

What industry do you know of where the competition never gains access to new and previously unattainable technologies and the leaders never have to worry about stepping up their game?

This is your opinion, and I respect it, but I have to completely disagree. The goal of FIRST is inspiration. Anyone who tells you that watching a LEGO League robot is 100% as inspiring as watching 1114 hurdle trackballs, 67 fill a trailer, or 25 light up the high goal is lying. The size, speed, and power of full sized FRC robots are much more sublime. People go to the zoo to see the lions and tigers, not the ants.

Inspiration is showing what true professionals can do and lighting enough of the way so that students can connect the dots between their lives and the life of a professional engineer. College and hands-on training will get them there; we only need to show them the way.

Never made a claim about stagnant industries. And I never said it would be AS inspiring, but rather could still be inspiring. If not so, then why do we have FLL? Is it not a jumping point to farm interest for FRC teams?

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Craig, do you feel that this in any way negatively impacts the inspirational aspects of FIRST?

Nope. The inspiration of FIRST has grown to such a momentous pace that it would take something fairly catastrophic to change that. 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.

[gorrilla]

I guess I'll jump in here too...

I think its great that there's a product like this available,
I know my team would buy it..
If we hadent gone and designed our own Crab-Drive....

Sure,It could be easier,lighter,stronger etc..Than what we are building,But theres always a certain "pride" or sense of accomplishement that you get when you see something YOU designed and built function exactly how you want it too......

Which Im sure you would probobly get if you bought a set of these, As you still have to put it together and make it work...which is not the easiest thing to do....


Its just a SMALL part of an entire crab-system when you think about it....

But, Is there really a difference in learning? Does it matter that much if someone buys these? Is any advantage gained now that you have one? I dont think so.......

IMHO, I see no difference between this and buying a AM-shifter or omni-wheel...

my .02

[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.

[IKE]

Originally Posted by Jared341

Until FRC kits come with CNC machines, state of the art build facilities, a $10,000 voucher for McMaster, and clones of Paul Copioli and Andy Baker, a level playing field will never be an issue.

Anxiously awaiting PC and AB clones. I saw the JVN one, but heard it was limited edition and not included in next years kit. Is AndyMark supplying AB clones?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...light=JVN+doll

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by IKE

Anxiously awaiting PC and AB clones. I saw the JVN one, but heard it was limited edition and not included in next years kit. Is AndyMark supplying AB clones?

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...light=JVN+doll

I'll take a AB Bobble-Head any day!

[Enigma's puzzle]

So here is the real kicker.

Now that anyone one with a little cash and some programing prowess can have a Swerve drive quite similar to WildStang, What does WildStang have? So much hard work to perfect, suddenly handed to the opposition? Not that they aren't smart enough to come up with new ideas.