Opinion Poll: Proliferation of Prefbricated Parts

[Jared Russell]

There have only been two years I can think of where a COTS mechanism could have given teams a spectacular advantage: minibots in 2011, and can grabbers in 2015.

Every other season, it takes more than one mechanism to play the game at a high level, and integrating various mechanisms into a cohesive robotic system is a huge part of the challenge (that happens to mirror most of real life engineering). COTS components all the way up to subsystem scale can help a team significantly, but honestly, the more substantial the COTS subsystem, the fewer options it gives to elegantly integrate it with everything else.

As a result, there will ALWAYS be an advantage in being able to fabricate specific parts tailored to your overall robot design. You can package things more efficiently, save weight, achieve higher levels of performance, fill in gaps in the COTS offerings, and fit more functionality into a robot that isn't constrained to a set of discrete COTS parts that may or may not place nice together. You not only can do this, you MUST do this (in this era of FRC) if you want to build a truly world class robot. I don't see this changing any time soon.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by SirSquirl999

I you really think about it, all parts are prefabricated, as they are made with tools that are purchased fully made. A real fist team makes their own tools before they start building. Now thats engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._Gingery

Start with the charcoal forge...

Oh you thought you were kidding should probably mention there are 4 generations of machinists and fabricators in my family.
I have hammers for nails time forgot that my relatives forged.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by squirrleluvr123

well technically they didn't fabricate those parts themselves unless they got the wood from the handle of a tree which they planted themselves, of a tree species that they evolved themselves from a barren planet of which they brought life by themselves, where the planet was formed by the creation of a universe they brought forward for theirselves. So technically you'd have to be God to not use prefabricated parts.

In the best of humor....
In that case bio-engineering the tool bearer applies as prefabricated.
After all your hands and body are often the tools you use to do your work.

So are you implying someone is a tool ?

To be honest there's a difference between a raw material and a part or tool.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of my relatives used a stick to make a tool handle at all.
Seems a big waste of time today but for them they probably would have had it handy.
Working raw wood was actually something I was shown by my Dad as a kid - little did I know people would want tables that looked like that today I ruined me some nice rustic furniture in my youth.

[Sperkowsky]

My team is a low resource team. I'm sure the op knows us as we have competed with his team for many years. Until last year our team was hesitant to buy these cots parts either because we simply couldn't afford them or because we thought they would take away from the experience. But after 3 years of fielding a robot that was only a drive train we decided to give some of these parts a try. They have changed our team allowing us to build working robots and finally not have to go to competitions fail a million times and come in last place. Our first working robot since 2012 was our offseason robot which took 2nd in a local offseason. The only cots speciality parts we used was the kit bot which we modified to use Mecanum wheels, competition robot parts roller kit, Rev gussets, and a banebots p80 gearbox.

We still had to manufacture a ton of parts and did stuff we never did before like tapping and getting stuff water jet cut. In fact the robot was 100% student designed and built.

Right now progress looks great. We have a articulating shooter that is 80% finished, a working drive train with pneumatic wheels. And CAD for a lifter. And we were just beginning week 3...

We are shooting a documentary right now on our teams journey obviously it's not all thanks to cots parts but they have definitely played a role. Op we are going to premier the film sometime next fall at our school. You and your team should definitely come.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

I think this is a common feeling on the matter.

I think this is a fantastic discussion to bring up. I do think it is only a matter of time before companies start selling kits to make game specific systems (intake, climber, shooter...) that could be combined to build a complete robot. The past few years have brought companies building complete robots, providing CAD drawings and selling kits of the more challenging to produce parts for these robot systems. The next step is for companies to explicitly sell robot systems along with step by step instructions.



I think it would be fun for the company if they could sell them for a significant profit.

I do not think companies will ever sell a robot in a box. Not for moral reasons but because cots parts can't be more then $400. A robot in a box is worth more then $400.

[IronicDeadBird]

I'm just going to be jumping all over the place so sorry if you get lost in dyslexic translation.

One lesson that I feel is applicable outside of STEAM (STEAM) and FRC is that in the real world, when you need a wagon you don't need to invent a wheel because it has already been done. Humanity has built upon itself and made advances because it utilizes what we have learned.
Also generalizing mistakes like that is risky bidnizz. After seeing students struggle to raise money if a proposed idea for a robot is a flat waste of money I'm not going to back the idea.
You can absolutely buy a robot which looks like it can compete, but that won't be seen until competition. Even then just because you have a competition ready robot doesn't mean you will actually win. I am not going to discourage teams from using COTS parts, but if you do go into competition with a Kit Rhino with grabber and you plan on winning then you better find a way to stand out in case you aren't a captain of an alliance. Some teams will fail to realize this and while they will come to competition people will find that will they might have a robot that gets the job done, its utilization on the floor is its only really "valued" depending upon exactly how many other identical robots are out there.
From my short time in FRC and on Chief Delphi I have come to the conclusion that the "Spirit of First" is whatever reasons someone has for joining it. Some people like seeing the glow of joy in a students eye, some people like the environment, some people like giving back to the community. FIRST robotics is amazing because of all the random things you can learn and take away from it. I just feel this is just another instance of something that happens often in the real world that also crops up in FRC. I wouldn't fight it I would just take the time to show students that this is sometimes the way of the world, and while I don't always agree with the world I still have to live with it.

I won't lie it is a mixed bag completely, but it tracking what sells out has made my life easier in the scout department.

[Sperkowsky]

Just figured the largest player in the space Andymark is owned by Andy Baker a wwfa winner. It's not like this guy doesn't understand the program and want kids to learn.

[Andy A.]

I'm ambivalent about it. On one hand I like that more teams get more access to more capable mechanisms for less effort, time and money. That's all great. On the other hand it's lead to what I've started jokingly calling the 'hex shaft mono-culture'. Lord knows 95 has reaped the benefits of that as much as any team, and I'm not convinced there's really anything wrong with it so long as no aspect of it is obligatory (you don't have to buy gearboxes, after all).

[EricH]

I like it. Of course, that won't really go into why... so here I go.

It brings the bottom up, making our collective product better and more exciting. A rookie team can buy a bunch of parts and get something that works.

But, at the same time, those parts can provide a foundation for "design-your-own". You can, after the season, take them apart and dissect the design. What is better: to buy 4 swerve modules, slap them on a frame, add in programming, and call it a day, or to buy ONE swerve module, take it to pieces and back to learn why it is doing what it's doing, and then design a custom one that better fits the team (or buy the other three later)?


My team likes custom--we do a lot of building. But we don't have a lot of precision equipment in the shop--we're still getting our mill online. Paul and John get quite a few orders from us for gearboxes and similar items--but those go onto custom framing welded together. And we have absolutely no qualms about copying something we've seen someone else, or ourselves, do in the past--though we do tend to do the rework to make it work with whatever we're doing that particular year.

[JABianchi]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

There are a great many real-world engineering jobs that involve the spec'ing, selection, and integration of COTS components. Not all engineers work on the component design level.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I do think there is a difference between a generic-use COTS robot part (a gearbox) and a game-specific COTS robot part (an intake). That may be the distinction that upsets some people.

I agree, and note that the difference in opinion in this thread is not whether or not we should use COTS. Many haved waxed eloquently about the benefits of standing on the shoulders of giants.

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

The product of FIRST is not necessarily the robots. It's the teams behind the robots...

Sure, FIRST has a crafted mission and vision for its program, but teams should also have their own mission and vision for their own program. The meaning of participation in FIRST is whatever the participant defines it to be, which is why it can be all things for all people.

In terms of the spectrum of the relationship suppliers have with FRC teams, they really are not crossing a line for me until they are boxing up MCC kits and selling them as a separate SKU.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

If there is a market for it, if it is cost effective for the company, and if the prices fall within the rules, let the free market do its thing... Business is business.

What we should agree on is that a line should be drawn somewhere (and perhaps the $400 part limit is already good enough. If FIRST's rules allow certain behaviors, and many FRC teams see a competitive advantage, it is hard to fault a team for pursuing those advantages.

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

The WestCoast Products 2016 MCC robot is designed with the intent of ensuring teams have a greater chance of not only being chosen for an alliance in the eliminations routs, but also leading their own alliance as a part of the top 8 seeds." And later, "We show that teams can build a competitive robot in a matter of days."

This fundamentally changes FRC.... In other words, with zero engineering skills, a team can build a robot that is better than the vast majority of their competitors - without having to spend six weeks working their tails off designing the thing.... most teams hoping to qualify for Champs will find that their most effective path is through purchasing of a pre-engineered kit.

Moreover, I would suggest that teams who worked hard for six weeks and build a solid robot would be very "uninspired" if beaten by a team that bought the kit and qualified for Champs. The true benefit and value of first comes in the engineering that happens over the six weeks of build. The time the kids and mentors exchange ideas as to how to best engineer a robot to solve the game.... It's the time that the kids have to work in high-stress situations and yet still function as a team... It's the repeated failures that ultimately lead to success.... The events? they are nothing more than the fun reward at the end.

Ri3D has pushed into and been embraced by our FIRST culture. As a coach, I have had to adapt to that change. In order to continue using FIRST's platform to inspire students, there certainly has been more struggle for students to explore their own ideas first. Thankfully, we've learned how to re-structure our design process to accomodate (and gain from Ri3D) allowing for more creativity to flow out in the analysis of different solutions and customizing our own.

The tendency towards more game-specific COTS feels like it moves in a similar direction. I agree with PayneDrive that each team will use FIRST to accomplish its own goals, but as FRC evolves, the range of options of what FRC CAN be used for changes as well.

Is it realistic for a team that wants students to primarily struggle through their own designs (as opposed to doing a lot of analysis of existing designs) to use FRC as a platform?

No team (or company) is an island, and together, discussions like this help us to better reflect on how we WANT to evolve as a STEM-inspiring program, instead of letting major changes happen without notice.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

One of the Ri3D "rules" was to not release CAD drawings.

According to that site:



I would regard their intent as completely different to Ri3D (even the AndyMark team, who use a lot of AM products).

That's not a criticism of WCP or this product, but I think it would be unfair to the Ri3D teams to group the two together. This is clearly one step beyond what they do, and what the KOP does.

Ri3d teams are encouraged to release CAD what are you even saying.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Ri3d teams are encouraged to release CAD what are you even saying.

Apologies - I'll retract amend the statement. I swear I heard that referenced in one of the videos - I must have misheard.

EDIT: Found it. So what I heard was "full CAD model". Video

The only real rule we have is that we don't want any of the teams to release full CAD models. We don't want to give any team a blueprint - or what they think is a blueprint - to build a FIRST robot

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

Apologies - I'll retract the statement. I swear I heard that referenced in one of the videos - I must have misheard.

Only Team Indiana doesn't release their CAD files.

2 years ago, Vex had Built Blitz, which had teams of some of the most brilliant minds in FIRST designing and building robots in 3 days for the 2014 game. There was a thread raising a stink about it here. The topic isn't new, but the MCC isn't as competitive as the Team JVN robot was in 2014(No offense to RC or any of the WCP team that worked on the MCC bot ). I don't understand why people will continue to say that ideas like WCP's MCC bot and Ri3D are going "too far". Being able to see cool ideas work early in the season is great for drawing inspiration from and building on top of. Sometimes we need to give our kids an idea of what's been done before so they can think beyond and better.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Anupam Goli

Only Team Indiana doesn't release their CAD files.

2 years ago, Vex had Built Blitz, which had teams of some of the most brilliant minds in FIRST designing and building robots in 3 days for the 2014 game. There was a thread raising a stink about it here. The topic isn't new, but the MCC isn't as competitive as the Team JVN robot was in 2014(No offense to RC or any of the WCP team that worked on the MCC bot ). I don't understand why people will continue to say that ideas like WCP's MCC bot and Ri3D are going "too far". Being able to see cool ideas work early in the season is great for drawing inspiration from and building on top of. Sometimes we need to give our kids an idea of what's been done before so they can think beyond and better.

The Ri3D teams can each obviously choose their own rules, but I've amended my comment to refer to what I heard:

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

EDIT: Found it. So what I heard was "full CAD model". Video

For reference, I'm not saying WCP nor Ri3D are going "too far". I perceived that there was a difference in intent between WCP and Ri3D:

• Ri3D - to inspire prototyping, designing, strategizing
• WCP - to provide a (base) off-the-shelf robot solution

That may be my misinterpretation, but again, I don't personally see anything wrong with either intent.

EDIT: according to WCP, the MCC is more like Ri3D, intended to show how to effectively use their products.

[orangemoore]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

The Ri3D teams can each obviously choose their own rules, but I've amended my comment to refer to what I heard:



For reference, I'm not saying WCP nor Ri3D are going "too far". I perceived that there was a difference in intent between WCP and Ri3D:

• Ri3D - to inspire prototyping, designing, strategizing
• WCP - to provide a (base) off-the-shelf robot solution

That may be my misinterpretation, but again, I don't personally see anything wrong with either intent.

I think this string of posts may clear up the issue of the "kits". While the MCC robot is designed with mostly COTS parts I think it is to show what is possible, and not just to create a robot that you will see copies of on the FRC playing field

Originally Posted by R.C.

Sorry need to put more info, most if not all of the robot is COTS components sold through VEXpro or WCP. There are a few pieces we had to custom make and have had customers ask us if we'd have those parts available. We are hoping to make specific parts available that teams can't easily produce.

Originally Posted by Ty Tremblay

Whew. Glad to hear that this didn't mean WCP would be selling a bot-in-a-box.

Originally Posted by R.C.

Ty,

Yeah we don't want to sell pre boxed g2g solutions. We've been getting a ton of customer calls and emails about how to integrate the PTO and how to do various other tasks in this game. We thought it would help teams if we were able to put something together.