pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 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.

What do you do after making a design public?
Improve it!

What do you do when you give your opponents a weapon?
Come up with a better one or a way to beat it!

What is Wildstang going to do, you ask?
Make their drivetrains better!

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, we can all have a swerve drive similar to 111's. We still do not have their experience with it. They have built swerving machines for as long as I can remember, they know the strengths and weaknesses of this style of play. They know how to integrate these strengths into their strategy.

A good robot is only half the formula for winning. Again using my favorite example of a good robot and an amazing strategy, 1114 in 2008 was NOT the best robot. They were the best team. They had a great strategy and a robot designed to implement that strategy. Yes we can now all have a 111 style drive, we can all have shifting transmissions, we can all have PID loops in our controls. Doesn't change the fact that unless you know how to use something it does you no good.


(As usual, my disclaimers about not picking on 1114 apply here. They were a fantastic machine but they did not win because of that.)

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

What does WildStang have?

Let's see:

• 14 years of experience
• A two time Championship winning coach (probably the second most intimidating coach in FIRST)
• Some of the best programmers in the competition
• Some of the best robot designers in the competition

I think they'll be okay.
Maybe when team221 has those things for sale Stang will be in trouble.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by JVN

Let's see:[list]
[*]A two time Championship winning coach (probably the second most intimidating coach in FIRST)

Gotta ask, who's #1

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Aren_Hill

Gotta ask, who's #1

In my opinion, * Beatty. I don't care if 71 puts out a 120lb block of steel that doesn't move, when they are on the field you respect their ability to beat you.


(For any of you who don't get the *, it is commonly used as a wildcard operator, so I am saying that any Beatty scares me)

[Collin Fultz]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

In my opinion, Bill Beatty. I don't care if 71 puts out a 120lb block of steel that doesn't move, when they are on the field you respect their ability to beat you.

While I agree that you have to give Mr. Bill all of the respect he has earned, Brian Beatty is actually the drive coach for 71, not Bill.

[Aren_Hill]

I'd say from my experience its either Raul Olivera or Paul Copioli

Only intimidating the first couple times lol after you get over that they're simply formidable

[Akash Rastogi]

I've heard that Patton can be quite intimidating as well as Raul. And yes, Brian Beatty is pretty awesome and intimidating to work with.

[Enigma's puzzle]

I just think that putting the designs out there publicly was there own choice. However, someone cutting you all of the pieces and sending it to you in a nice box, is a completely different application. At least you then had to integrate it,and had the opportunity to fix and/or diminish flaws in the original design, unlike the pre-made one the only thing you have to work out is the steering, and they provide that if you want it. I believe we are getting too close to the complete mobility system. My team is beginning to look into a swerve drive, and I personally hope they take the time to make there own, instead of this off the shelf model. But that is my own humble opinion.


(However i did see the "Revolution design". Which in my opinion at least gives you a sporting dilemma of driving and turning the module.)

And I would definately have to say Kyle Hughes is the most intimidating female coach, and could even rank up there with these heavy weights you are throwing out there, with the always terrific RUSH strategy.

[EricH]

If any Beatty, Copioli, Olivera (there are two, one in tie-dye and one not), or Baker is behind the opposite glass, you really need to have your A game. If more than one of the above is behind the opposite glass, you better hope that another of the above is next to you and you have your A game.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

I just think that putting the designs out there publicly was there own choice. However, someone cutting you all of the pieces and sending it to you in a nice box, is a completely different application. At least you then had to integrate it,and had the opportunity to fix and/or diminish flaws in the original design, unlike the pre-made one the only thing you have to work out is the steering, and they provide that if you want it. I believe we are getting too close to the complete mobility system. My team is beginning to look into a swerve drive, and I personally hope they take the time to make there own, instead of this off the shelf model. But that is my own humble opinion.


(However i did see the "Revolution design". Which in my opinion at least gives you a sporting dilemma of driving and turning the module.)

And I would definately have to say Kyle Hughes is the most intimidating female coach, and could even rank up there with these heavy weights you are throwing out there, with the always terrific RUSH strategy.

First, yes Mrs Hughes is intimidating, having had the chance to compete as a student on RUSH and as a College Mentor against RUSH I can safely say that she knows how to win.

Now, on to the main topic. I am not intentionally blowing you off but I would like to say search before you post. The very topic you bring up has been discussed dozens of times. Just search through some of Team221's other products to see one of these debates. It has been beaten to death.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by EricH

If any Beatty, Copioli, Olivera (there are two, one in tie-dye and one not), or Baker is behind the opposite glass, you really need to have your A game. If more than one of the above is behind the opposite glass, you better hope that another of the above is next to you and you have your A game.

The chance to work with these coaches is actually one of the reasons I pushed so hard for my team to go to IRI this year. It's too bad I had to work against Mr. Beatty instead of with him. That gave me the shivers.

(Of course, Beatty won.)

[jspatz1]

I am not an expert on past FRC rules, don't have them in front of me, and don't have the greatest memory....but, isn't there a rule that says you may not use pre-engineered mechanisms expressly designed to fulfill a primary function of the robot? I don't remember the exact language, but it sure seems to me that systems such as this have crossed that line, wherever it is. As a 4th year team, we have finally gotten ourselves to the point in experience and expertise that we are in the process of developing our own swerve drive. It is a bit discouraging to realize that if you are a team with enough money, you can skip all the engineering and learning, and just buy the major subsystems of your robot.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Enigma's puzzle

What does WildStang have?

Stronger competition.

Just to be clear, that's a good thing.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

I am not an expert on past FRC rules, don't have them in front of me, and don't have the greatest memory....but, isn't there a rule that says you may not use pre-engineered mechanisms expressly designed to fulfill a primary function of the robot? I don't remember the exact language, but it sure seems to me that systems such as this have crossed that line, wherever it is. As a 4th year team, we have finally gotten ourselves to the point in experience and expertise that we are in the process of developing our own swerve drive. It is a bit discouraging to realize that if you are a team with enough money, you can skip all the engineering and learning, and just buy the major subsystems of your robot.

The rule in question for 2009 would be this. No one knows what will happen to it in 2010, so you probably shouldn't buy a Wild Swerve with the expectation that you can use it in 2010 or whatever.

However, COTS items that have been specifically designed as a solution to portion of the FIRST Robotics Competition challenge may or may not fit within the FRC intent, and must be carefully considered. If the item provides general functionality that can be utilized in any of several possible configurations or applications, then it is acceptable (as the teams will still have to design their particular application of the item). However, COTS items that provide a complete solution for a major ROBOT function (e.g. a complete manipulator assembly, pre-built pneumatics circuit, or full mobility system) that require no effort other than just bolting it on to the ROBOT are against the intent of the competition, and will not be permitted.

People arguing for the Wild Swerve say that this still takes assembly, you have to design a frame to mount it to, and the hardest part of swerve is controlling it. I don't have a side on the issue other than encouraging my team to buy Wild Swerve modules if the 2010 game calls for them rather than using our own, if the modules are legal.

Regardless there are disadvantages to non coaxial swerve drives such as this one (wire wrap is a major concern with turning the modules, you are required to use all 4 of your CIMs which may not be ideal in games like Lunacy or Overdrive where you might want less or more, no shifting option, possible drop in efficiency of turning in place with swerve, control, control), so don't let this discourage the building of your own swerve.