Sustainability - 2014 - COTS parts

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by Ben Martin

Is selling COTS subsystems outright, like a COTS shooter or COTS hanger, really the way we want to go, though? If we look at 2011, a COTS minibot? We already have COTS drives and COTS transmissions, which certainly have dramatically increased the performance level of many teams. A LOT of integration still certainly has to be done. At what point do the individual components become so few teams lose the 'fun' of designing and building it themselves? I'm not sure.

I think this is a non-issue; I'd expect that FIRST would not condone FRC suppliers selling what essentially constitutes ready-made entire robots, and could trivially put an end to it by simply not giving them any information on the game prior to kickoff. To this end, I doubt we'll ever see COTS mechanisms that deal with year-specific game tasks.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

I think this is a non-issue; I'd expect that FIRST would not condone FRC suppliers selling what essentially constitutes ready-made entire robots, and could trivially put an end to it by simply not giving them any information on the game prior to kickoff. To this end, I doubt we'll ever see COTS mechanisms that deal with year-specific game tasks.

The only manual I have handy is from 2011, but similar (if not identical) wording was present other years.

Originally Posted by Section 4.3 Robot Rules

...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.

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

I think it helps a lot. Instead of seeing just the superbots made by the power teams, new teams and low funding teams can see what everybody else is doing with materials at hand.
The 3 Day Robot might have inspired a lot of clones, but the students doing the building were still inspired! And that's the most important part.

A side question: do the power teams like this too? If there are fewer teams DOA during matches it is easier for the we-need-to-go-undefeated teams to get wins/points.

I wouldn't call us a "power team," but we had a few matches in the offseason that we needed to win to go undefeated. I'd say unless a team were a team with "rookie-ish" resources that ended up building a quite good bot (like 2813), we cared far more about the strength of their drivetrain and drivers than their shooter (which is what Ri3D likely effected the most). Auto shots were basically the only other thing on their robot that was important, even hanging wasn't that important.

If we were with 41xx and 43yy against an alliance with a few good bots, we'd (ideally) want them to make their auto shots, and then go right to preventing the opposing robots from getting from their feeder station to their pyramid. Even then by hanging, these robots could add more to our alliance by shutting down other teams that trying to score. If they tried to cycle, they probably wouldn't score more than a handful of discs and would likely just get in our way.

I don't doubt that Ri3D has made rookies more competitive, I just don't really care about how good their manipulator is (as long as we've got a much better one). If I want to win my next match with two rookie teams, I'd much rather the kitbot get a lot better (like, 4 CIMs in the KOP and a non-floppy frame) than have Ri3D improve their scoring mechanisms.