Go to Post Or you can always say "we programmed it that way." - probizzle [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Technical Discussion
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2013, 11:02
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,633
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Hill View Post
Never underestimate the price breaks of super mass production. Also, engineers spend A LOT of time just shaving off any dollar they can. For example, in 2012, over 400000 Ford F-150s were sold. So for every dollar off their BoM cost saves $400,000, well worth spending the time on. However, in FRC, price has the habit of playing second fiddle to other things like size and weight. If we REALLY tried to, I bet we could really drive down the price of an FRC robot. It's just not a priority.
Not that the other explanations aren't very true as well, but personally, I also try to crash my car less than I do my robot. (I also drop it off fewer pyramids and drive it off fewer bridges, even accounting for the vastly different velocities and distances.)

Be safe, everyone.
__________________
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-10-2013, 19:49
MrBasse MrBasse is offline
Registered User
FRC #3572 (Wavelength)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Norton Shores, MI
Posts: 678
MrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond reputeMrBasse has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Line View Post

$500 robots sound nice, don't they?
You guys spend more than $500 on your robots? If we add the price of all three years robots our team wouldn't hit the $3500 season limit... This year, I actually listed KOP items (including the cRIO) on our BOM to try to make it and still didn't get there.

Maybe we need to step up our fundraising a notch or two to find out what we are really capable of...

At the same time, we've never had a major breakdown that couldn't be fixed with a little time or a few rubber bands. We had two repairs this year, a pneumatic solenoid block and two wheels. The pneumatics weren't properly tested and we had a defective solenoid, and the wheels were the result of a 6 foot dismount from the pyramid. Even then, we replaced the wheels because the had a small crack and we had an hour to kill, not because they were destroyed.

I think in average design for these robots, teams just need to think about what they are asking the machine to do. If it is strong enough to do the task, it should be able to handle any abuse a 16 year old with a joystick can throw at it.
__________________
Andrew Basse
Coach - FRC Team 3572 - Wavelength

Last edited by MrBasse : 03-10-2013 at 19:53. Reason: I wanted to
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2013, 10:47
colin340 colin340 is offline
human
AKA: Colin Nobles
FRC #0148
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: May 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: rochester
Posts: 432
colin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond reputecolin340 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to colin340
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Montois View Post
A few things to consider first is that most of the parts FRC teams use are rated in industry to be used much longer then they will ever see in FRC. For example ball bearings have life ratings in the millions of rotations (As long as they are used within load and speed ranges) and pneumatics are rated in miles of equivalent travel. So we don't need to change much because we are already operating well within the expected life of those parts.
Yes, they should last but remember, this program is about high school kids with hammers. Proper installation (no inner race pressure) and support pressure is a big part of this. ALSO TEAM STOP APPLYING SO MUCH SIDE LOAD TO YOUR CYLINDERS, and if you do pack 4 spares.

racecars don't last long, if your cim motor can outlast a Civic then your prolly not pushing it to is max output
__________________
61 77 77 20 77 69 74 74 6c 65 20 62 61 62 79 20 63 6f 6e 64 6f 72 20 69 73 20 72 65 61 64 69 6e 67 20 43 44
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2013, 11:13
Nate Laverdure's Avatar
Nate Laverdure Nate Laverdure is online now
Registered User
FRC #2363
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 833
Nate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond reputeNate Laverdure has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBasse View Post
You guys spend more than $500 on your robots? If we add the price of all three years robots our team wouldn't hit the $3500 season limit... This year, I actually listed KOP items (including the cRIO) on our BOM to try to make it and still didn't get there.
Estimating the full value of a FRC robot is a fun exercise! To get close to the real amount you should also count the volunteered labor. Each dedicated engineering mentor is probably donating $5-10K of his or her time annually.
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-10-2013, 20:54
DonRotolo's Avatar
DonRotolo DonRotolo is offline
Back to humble
FRC #0832
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 7,007
DonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond reputeDonRotolo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBasse View Post
If it is strong enough to do the task, it should be able to handle any abuse a 16 year old with a joystick can throw at it.
Sir, you vastly underestimate the destructive power of a teenager.
__________________

I am N2IRZ - What's your callsign?
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 01:42
Oblarg Oblarg is offline
Registered User
AKA: Eli Barnett
FRC #0449 (The Blair Robot Project)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,108
Oblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

As a drive mentor, this is pretty much the single most important design constraint I deal with in FRC. I don't care how impressive-looking and feature-packed your drive is; if at any point it fails during a match, it has cost you more than the added features could have possibly given you over a simpler design.

Keep it simple, keep it durable, keep it serviceable. You cannot break any of those rules, ever, if you want your drive to do its job. If you've got a choice between overbuilding and underbuilding, always choose the former. It is far better to have to cut features due to weight constraints than to have your robot break down.

Keep in mind that "simple, durable, and serviceable" does not mean "unambitious" or "trivial." I've seen many ambitious, nontrivial drives executed in an elegant, robust manner. Most FRC drive concepts can be implemented in an extremely reliable way if you execute them properly (though a few, such as swerve, may require somewhat prohibitive team ability and investment of resources); it is, as always, a matter of details. But, as a rule, if you ever find yourself doing something which looks at all like sacrificing reliability for added features, you are doing it wrong.

An afterthought: If you are a team with durability issues, and you tend to make lots of parts out of 80/20, the two are very likely related. 80/20 is a fantastic prototyping material. It is not a material for finished robots. I learned this the hard way during my time on 449's drive team; no amount of tightening, loctite, or lock washers will keep things in t-slots from eventually coming loose. Fix your dimensions and attach things with through-bolting or pop rivets.
__________________
"Mmmmm, chain grease and aluminum shavings..."
"The breakfast of champions!"

Member, FRC Team 449: 2007-2010
Drive Mechanics Lead, FRC Team 449: 2009-2010
Alumnus/Technical Mentor, FRC Team 449: 2010-Present
Lead Technical Mentor, FRC Team 4464: 2012-2015
Technical Mentor, FRC Team 5830: 2015-2016
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 13:48
themccannman's Avatar
themccannman themccannman is offline
registered lurker
AKA: Jake McCann
FRC #3501
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 432
themccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Not gonna lie, our robot could not handle 100 matches this season. We had to unbend and put new braces on the intake aftwr every event, sometimes during. The rest of our robot would have no problem handling more matches. Everything inside the frame perimeter is very durable and pretty much never breaks or fails. However, designing parts that can withstand high speed impacts outside the bumpers all season is quite a challenge.

Also the reason that cars last so long compared to robots is because you're not smashing them together at full speed for their entire lives. Comparing the ratio of durability to total g forces over the life of the product, robots are far more sturdy than cars.
__________________
All posts here are purely my own opinion.
2011-2015: 1678
2016: 846
2017 - current: 3501
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 14:26
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,633
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg View Post
As a drive mentor, this is pretty much the single most important design constraint I deal with in FRC. I don't care how impressive-looking and feature-packed your drive is; if at any point it fails during a match, it has cost you more than the added features could have possibly given you over a simpler design.

Keep it simple, keep it durable, keep it serviceable. You cannot break any of those rules, ever, if you want your drive to do its job. If you've got a choice between overbuilding and underbuilding, always choose the former...
Simple, durable and serviceable are all great, but you really can alternatively approach them as trade-offs if you're willing to take the risk. If I'm not going to be simple (e.g. our swerve), I better be seriously serviceable and/or durable. We've managed both, though with emphasis on the former: we can mitigate almost any issue in an elims timeout. The modules also very durable, probably as much so as most tank drives, but if there's a failure we'll swap it and fix it off-robot. We also deliberately underbuild some other features for weight. For instance, this year our side bumper supports every 8" are very, very bent. We could have built them stronger, but we wanted the weight, so we accepted the trade-offs of the bending and necessary servicing. Speccing them was nerve-wracking, and we had contingencies if it just wasn't enough, but they've done their job.

Back in 2010 (our first year of swerve drive), if the goal was to perform well on the field that year, our complexity-based failures probably "cost you more than the added features could have possibly given you over a simpler design". But I doubt you could find anyone wouldn't do swerve that year if given another chance. Why? Well, one, the students loved it and learned more than they had in any other design. Moreover, we wouldn't be where we are today if we didn't start somewhere. This year, ok, we've had a couple in-match failures, maybe one even cost us a match. But I seriously doubt we would have been on Einstein without the swerve--it was just so integral to our strategy/alliance. There were of course other strategies which were very successful (and 6 that were more), but I doubt we could have implemented them to better effect than the one we chose, in part building off that under-performance in 2010. In short, there are big-risk-big-reward drive features that really are worth it, even if there's a risk of "if at any point it fails during a match". It's just that in some cases, you have to be willing walk the longer arc of history.
__________________
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 14:55
BBray_T1296's Avatar
BBray_T1296 BBray_T1296 is offline
I am Dave! Yognaut
AKA: Brian Bray
FRC #1296 (Full Metal Jackets)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Rockwall, TX
Posts: 947
BBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond reputeBBray_T1296 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBasse View Post
The pneumatics weren't properly tested and we had a defective solenoid
We have found that solenoid -related failures are usually not irrepairable. We had a solenoid that failed to actuate regardless of input, manual or electrical. I entirely disassembled it and found some metal debris jammed in the mechanical slider valve. This could be caused by a number of reasons, all pointing to someone's negligence. I cleaned the valve with a paper towel, and put it back together. Presto! it worked just fine again. We also had to replace a damaged o-ring inside the slider a different solenoid, which we have a little box of assorted little o-rings. they are a pretty standard size, I think, and these are much better solutions than $60 buying a whole new one! Just be sure to tighten every screw well when reassembling.
__________________
If molecular reactions are deterministic, are all universes identical?

RIP David Shafer: you will be missed


  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 16:00
Oblarg Oblarg is offline
Registered User
AKA: Eli Barnett
FRC #0449 (The Blair Robot Project)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,108
Oblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
Back in 2010 (our first year of swerve drive), if the goal was to perform well on the field that year, our complexity-based failures probably "cost you more than the added features could have possibly given you over a simpler design". But I doubt you could find anyone wouldn't do swerve that year if given another chance.
This is what offseason is for, though. If you have any doubts at all about your ability to implement a difficult drive system reliably, then the proper time to experiment with it is when there are neither strict time constraints nor serious costs to failure. Only once you have enough experience within working team memory to do it in a way which does not compromise reliability should you put it on the table for build season.

Quote:
This year, ok, we've had a couple in-match failures, maybe one even cost us a match. But I seriously doubt we would have been on Einstein without the swerve--it was just so integral to our strategy/alliance. There were of course other strategies which were very successful (and 6 that were more), but I doubt we could have implemented them to better effect than the one we chose, in part building off that under-performance in 2010. In short, there are big-risk-big-reward drive features that really are worth it, even if there's a risk of "if at any point it fails during a match". It's just that in some cases, you have to be willing walk the longer arc of history.
As far as my design philosophy goes, if your "big-risk-big-reward" drive truly qualifies as "big risk" (for any reasonable definition of "big"), then you probably shouldn't do it. Drive is far too crucial to baseline ability to play the game to be gambling with. From what you describe, it sounds like you now have enough experience with swerve that the risk is not significantly above what less-capable teams would experience with a much more trivial drive system.

"If at any point" was intended heuristically and is hyperbole, and perhaps I should soften it: the loss of drive ability in a match is a crippling blow, and sacrificing anything other than very small increases in its probability for added functionality is very likely going to have negative utility. For the vast majority of situations, "do not sacrifice reliability for features" is going to give you a reasonably optimized decision.

Re: intentional underbuilding, bumper supports are one thing, and the actual drive is another; I'm not sure I'd personally be comfortable with bumper supports that I didn't know would stand up to FRC impacts, but I could understand the justification for doing so. But I am very sure I would never put anything in the drive train if I doubted that it would last.
__________________
"Mmmmm, chain grease and aluminum shavings..."
"The breakfast of champions!"

Member, FRC Team 449: 2007-2010
Drive Mechanics Lead, FRC Team 449: 2009-2010
Alumnus/Technical Mentor, FRC Team 449: 2010-Present
Lead Technical Mentor, FRC Team 4464: 2012-2015
Technical Mentor, FRC Team 5830: 2015-2016

Last edited by Oblarg : 05-10-2013 at 16:14.
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 17:34
sanddrag sanddrag is offline
On to my 16th year in FRC
FRC #0696 (Circuit Breakers)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 8,515
sanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond reputesanddrag has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBasse View Post
You guys spend more than $500 on your robots?
I've easily spent more than $500 just for fasteners for robots, or just in pneumatic solenoid valves, or just in speed controls.
__________________
Teacher/Engineer/Machinist - Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2011 - Present
Mentor/Engineer/Machinist, Team 968 RAWC, 2007-2010
Technical Mentor, Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2005-2007
Student Mechanical Leader and Driver, Team 696 Circuit Breakers, 2002-2004
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 18:32
Oblarg Oblarg is offline
Registered User
AKA: Eli Barnett
FRC #0449 (The Blair Robot Project)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,108
Oblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond reputeOblarg has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanddrag View Post
I've easily spent more than $500 just for fasteners for robots
o.O

That's pretty impressive. Bolts and pop rivets aren't exactly the most costly things in the world...
__________________
"Mmmmm, chain grease and aluminum shavings..."
"The breakfast of champions!"

Member, FRC Team 449: 2007-2010
Drive Mechanics Lead, FRC Team 449: 2009-2010
Alumnus/Technical Mentor, FRC Team 449: 2010-Present
Lead Technical Mentor, FRC Team 4464: 2012-2015
Technical Mentor, FRC Team 5830: 2015-2016
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 19:31
Alan Anderson's Avatar
Alan Anderson Alan Anderson is offline
Software Architect
FRC #0045 (TechnoKats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 9,113
Alan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg View Post
Bolts and pop rivets aren't exactly the most costly things in the world...
...t-nuts probably make the list, though.
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 20:15
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,633
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblarg View Post
As far as my design philosophy goes, if your "big-risk-big-reward" drive truly qualifies as "big risk" (for any reasonable definition of "big"), then you probably shouldn't do it. Drive is far too crucial to baseline ability to play the game to be gambling with. From what you describe, it sounds like you now have enough experience with swerve that the risk is not significantly above what less-capable teams would experience with a much more trivial drive system.
Absolutely true, but I was attempting to define "big risk" in your context, which appeared to be "Keep it simple, keep it durable, keep it serviceable. You cannot break any of those rules, ever, if you want your drive to do its job" (emphasis mine, the risk being breaking any of those rules). For us, it is not a significantly different risk, but it is very much breaking that three-fold requirement. It's the view of them as "rules" to which I object. Viewing them as hard-and-fast imperatives sets artificial limits below what at least some teams are capable of pushing themselves to and learning from.

As for off-season prototyping, certainly (and we did pre-2010), but no matter what--if you're iterating the way you should--the first year's always going to be more risky than the following. At some point you've got to jump. We probably would've had a better first year performance if we'd spent another off-season waited until 2011, but we also probably wouldn't be as far along as we are now, and another year of students wouldn't have had the swerve experience. Again, it depends on your goals: we might have done better than semifinalists and 10-12-1 in 2010 with a tank drive, but it was also our second-ever award and an altogether amazing and inspirational (as well as very challenging and somewhat frustrating) experience.


All in all, the point I'm trying to make is teams shouldn't be inherently afraid to think outside the "safe" box, even when the safe box is outlined by very smart people who have their best interest at heart. Basically, what he says*.
I'm not claiming that Karthik would agree with what I say here--and you can back up from the linked time for the KISS context--but I agree with him, so feel free to view this through the "Effective FIRST Strategies" lens.


*For anyone who's never watched this entire presentation, you are missing something very important from your life. Just saying.
__________________
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 05-10-2013, 20:44
cadandcookies's Avatar
cadandcookies cadandcookies is offline
Director of Programs, GOFIRST
AKA: Nick Aarestad
FTC #9205 (The Iron Maidens)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 1,552
cadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond reputecadandcookies has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Durability in FRC

Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri View Post
Absolutely true, but I was attempting to define "big risk" in your context, which appeared to be "Keep it simple, keep it durable, keep it serviceable. You cannot break any of those rules, ever, if you want your drive to do its job" (emphasis mine, the risk being breaking any of those rules). For us, it is not a significantly different risk, but it is very much breaking that three-fold requirement. It's the view of them as "rules" to which I object. Viewing them as hard-and-fast imperatives sets artificial limits below what at least some teams are capable of pushing themselves to and learning from.
This brings another point: durability/reliability/simplicity is only a requirement if you make it one. It is completely possible that a team would prefer to create some crazy, out of the box drive train solely for the purpose of building a crazy, out of the box drive train. Teams can have other goals than winning matches when they build a robot (and/or a drive train, as the case may be).
__________________

Never assume the motives of others are, to them, less noble than yours are to you. - John Perry Barlow
tumblr | twitter
'Snow Problem CAD Files: 2015 2016
MN FTC Field Manager, FTA, CSA, Emcee
FLL Maybe NXT Year (09-10) -> FRC 2220 (11-14) -> FTC 9205(14-?)/FRC 2667 (15-16)
VEXU UMN (2015-??)
Volunteer since 2011
2013 RCA Winner (North Star Regional) (2220)
2016 Connect Award Winner (North Super Regional and World Championship) (9205)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:01.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi