12-06-2009 01:24

Chris is me

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

What a day it would be when every FIRST team would have access to a reliable, dependable swerve drive system, especially one similar to Wildstang's. Cool product!

I can see this design being a problem with any surface that's not perfectly flat though.

(in before is this legal)

12-06-2009 02:54

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I'm going to catch flak for this. I don't care.

What a day it will be when instead of engineering and designing our robots, we'll all go out and buy our parts from our favorite manufacturer, and bolt the pieces together. If we wanted an erector set competition with everything simply to build, we'd be doing Vex. Remind me how buying a pre-designed machine will teach my students how to CAD, design around many variables, and fabricate/test a system? Oh wait, it won't.

12-06-2009 03:23

AdamHeard

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

As an engineer if you are assigned to design X product, which requires components A, B, C, D etc.... and you choose to design, prototype, test, pay for manufacture, etc... of all the components when suitable COTS items are available, you will be fired.

The cost of buying component B could literally be 1/10th to 1/100th the cost of designing and making it (or outsourcing production) in house.

It's the system that matters, not the individual components.

12-06-2009 04:15

Chris is me

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I actually was thinking this was the main reason there were no pre-built crab drives. And I, to a large extent, feel the same way (despite what my post above might imply, that was more of a "realization that FIRST has changed" rather than an opinion). "Crab drive" has always seemed to be one of those things every team approaches after awhile, then they make and master their own style and build of it.

Then again, we've had a similar debate before when the AM shifter came out, if my knowledge of the spotlit posts recall correctly.

This raises a question of where the line is for FRC in terms of part standardization. Surely no one wants to be able to pick a full, working, manipulator off of a shelf, plop it on their kitbot, and win Einstein. At the same time, I doubt anyone wants to get to a point where teams have to manufacture their own gears, sprockets, and wheels (talk about a high-resource advantage there, you'd need C&C or laser cutting just to get out the door).

Is a crab drive for any team too far? A snippet of old rules (though standard disclaimer that rules are always subject to change and that in 2010 we could all be allowed only LEGO):

Full mobility system is the obvious place where "premade crab module" would hold, really. So does FIRST think this is okay? (Don't answer this)

Relevant threads:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=77009

12-06-2009 06:46

kramarczyk

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Hardware alone does not a robot make.

As Yoda once said, "Control, control, you must learn control."

12-06-2009 07:24

sgreco

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I am a hardware person, but I couln't agree more.

Chris, I'm going to have to go with Craig on this one. It's not really about making compettions fair, it's not about equal opportunity or teams doing similar designs. It's about learning and teaching...so to the point...is swerve cool? I guess so. But let me warn teams out there, swerve isn't always as big an advantage as it seems to be. There's a reason only 3 different teams have on nationals with a swerve drive. Swerve is a weight commitment that can severely take away from other parts of the robot if not done properly. I'm not saying don't do swerve, I'm just saying it isn't as big an advantage as people think.(heck my teams done swerve the past two years). Skid steer teams are at pretty much no diadvantage to swerve teams. It's hard to tell on regolith, but in 2008 the two most manuverable teams were 1114 and 968, both skid steer teams.

Swerve is cool to do and it's a good learning experience, but don't think you're at any sort of dissadvantage if you can't do it.

That being said, that swerve module looks really nice and it's great to see teams experimenting with things like this, good work.

12-06-2009 07:40

ajlapp

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Thanks for all of the comments so far, the debate over COTS items is an old one and will probably continue for a long time.

That said, the pictured module is an assembly of many components and does not fully represent how the final kit style product will be sold.

Some cool stuff going on with the current design....

-it uses the KIT transmission components, including gears and shafts
-it can use the KIT wheel as pictured
-it is constructed of over 50% currently available COTS components, including many Andymark items, like hubs, sprockets and spacers
-many gear ratios are achievable using Toughbox change gears from Andymark
-has feedback points for pivot rotation and wheel speed/location
-can utilize the US Digital Encoder utilized on KIT transmission
-has been adapted from highly successful designs used by Wildstang

This last point is my favorite. Just like Universal Chassis, which was developed by students and mentors from frc27, Team RUSH....over ten years of work by students and mentors has gone into the Wildstang swerve modules and many of those features have been directly included in this product.

12-06-2009 08:05

Taylor

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

If this module is available at a reasonable price, I could certainly see our team purchasing a set for offseason testing, research, and development use. The students have fallen in love with the idea of swerve drive, but as a team we're struggling with the concept. This could serve as a training tool as *one* way to make a swerve. I'd be willing to put down money that says if we do purchase a 221 set, it will not go on our 2010 FRC robot as is - the kids would want to modify/improve it to suit our needs. Furthermore, it would probably take us a couple years to get our heads wrapped around the system that WildStang has been refining since 1868.

Remember the immortal words of Mr. Beatty: The three most important parts of any robot are drive system, drive system, and drive system.

12-06-2009 08:36

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I, like many of you I suspect, felt uncomfortable when I saw this for some reason. I knew it was just a matter of time until somebody offered a swerve kit. But that still didn't prepare me for actually seeing it.

My first reaction was, this has gone too far. Traditionally in FRC, mastering the swerve was a result of years of iteration, piles of aluminum shavings, and many sleepless nights for programmers. Effective swerve teams were like an exclusive club. Now anybody who can afford it can just order a working swerve system* from a catalog!

...

* it was at this point in my train of thought that I realized the flaw in my thinking.

This is not a working swerve system that is for sale. It is a single wheel pod. I know from experience and observation that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making a 3DOF drive train. It is no more a "full mobility system" than an AndyMark shifter:

1. Effectively mounting the pods, steering motors, and steering sensors is a nontrivial exercise.
2. Writing effective control software is a very challenging task, especially with non-coaxial systems that need to limit pod rotations.
3. This is by no means the only way to do swerve.
4. Many of the teams who successfully utilize swerve year after year (71, 111, 118, 1625 come to mind) have another hidden talent: they are masters of weight reduction. Swerve drives represent a huge weight (not to mention motor) investment, and require special attention to drive, chassis, and scoring mechanism weight in order to be good choices.

But of course, maybe somebody will offer a kit that does #1. And maybe WildStang (or anybody else) decides to offer their swerve code up to anyone. And maybe in a couple years ultra-light weight versions (with coaxial options) show up. And maybe...

The point is, even though this is not a "full mobility system", the mechanisms available to FIRST teams are certainly moving in that direction. How will we, as a community, react to this change?

Personally, I embrace it. For many reasons. One, the FIRST component price limit will keep things from getting too out of hand. Simply put, vendors won't sell what isn't profitable. Two, we're always just a GDC curveball away from forgetting about this stuff anyhow. And finally (and most importantly), are students really less inspired when they use a COTS item? If they want to succeed, they will still need to understand it, assemble it, control it, and maintain it. The fact that it was machined using resources not normally available to some of them is irrelevant.

A lot of people on here talk about how FIRST is expanding too quickly and hanging a lot of under supported teams out to dry. For these same people to critique the availability of new components that said teams could otherwise not fabricate strikes me as hypocritical.

12-06-2009 09:01

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Consumer priced swerve modules are also in the works from myself, Sean and RC. Guess we'll continue that even after seeing this.

12-06-2009 09:06

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Competition is not a bad thing. For anyone.

12-06-2009 09:32

JesseK

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I agree, competition makes products BETTER and usually winds up making the companies involved gather a larger collective market share than they could individually without competition.

For the somewhat moral issue of having a swerve module that we can just purchase rather than build, I can go either way on this one. First pass at the design looks great though! Once it hits production and is for sale, will you post the CAD files somewhere?

(Pro) We really should be able to push the limits of the cRIO given better mechanical systems relative to what a team can build with a less than perfect shop. Any robotics group these days is all about 'autonomous this' and 'software that'. The group I meet with in Fairfax once a month is all about line following, maze solving, and swerving around cones ... forget anything that's technically complicated to build. Even the robots that win awards at FRC competitions these days seem to do alot with automation, regardless of what the award is for. With a COTS swerve module, I expect that in the longer term we'll have more capability to attract software and systems engineering mentors to teams who may otherwise not have them due to limited mechanical capabilities.

(Con) In some ways it feels like something's missing when one doesn't understand the sweat and toil that goes into designing something if it's just given as a present for Christmas. Then, 3 days later when it's broken one may wonder how he/she is going to go get another one rather than fixing what is already in front of them...after all, it wasn't designed in house, none of the design decisions are understood, and we may very well have hot glue holding on the sprockets if it's given to the programmers to fix come competition time () . This metaphor is an extremely common example of what happens in industry with COTS items, especially software. I just spent 260 hours debugging a problem that's plagued us for months in our 6million+ lines of code, and every piece of it had to do with COTS software. 260 hours, plus what others have spent on other problems with it over the last several years ... at our equivalent hourly rate, would it have been less expensive to make our own implementation of this software? It is truly hard to tell at this point, but at least I wouldn't have spent so much time stressing over it at work .

12-06-2009 10:39

Rich Kressly

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Along with progress comes change. I used to have to wait over an hour for a baked potato, but the microwave changed all of that. However, sometimes I still use the oven and wait that hour because I like what I get from doing things "old school".

Make your own choices for your own team. I ranted on in more detail somewhere else in a similar thread. There in ZERO educational loss here, you just need to think differently about HOW to teach/learn with your team.

Can we also be careful about defining "issue" types? There is no moral issue here at all. There are potential rule, team, and design implications, but nothing at all here suggests any realistic moral issue. So let's all think carefully when choosing our words.

Bottom line for us is this...
By elevating what ANY team can do, we also push those outstanding teams to go even further. Isn't that a very healthy thing? Whining on and on about how things used to be is a lost cause in today's world. Go ahead and spend a moment reflecting on what "was" and honor it for what it was, but don't waste too much time because it'd be far more productive to look squarely at the present and best decide how you want to proceed.

With all of this said, just because something is made commercially available doesn't mean it will be legal in future rules. Right? [insert discussion about carts, horses, and patience here as we're not even sure about a few things yet, are we?]

I also find it a little funny that the whiners in these threads almost never include those outstanding teams and individuals who are/were the pioneers in these areas. Heck, if my team ever designs something so cool that someone else sees a need to mass produce, I'll dance in the street ... then go try and figure out what is next for us.

By the way, isn't this the way industry and real-world engineering really work as well? I also think that 221 LLC's honoring of the design origin here is a pretty classy act.

12-06-2009 10:42

AndyB

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Craig, I see your point. I agree that we all learn a lot more from completing the design process than just bolting on and going... and I understand your concern.

However, it's not as if teams don't already use bolt on products. I'd venture to say over half of FRC teams use the KOP chassis and gearboxes every year. Is this really that different of a concept than purchasing pre-designed crab modules? At least with 221's modules, teams are still forced to design a frame and steering system (or so I'm assuming).

I like the idea of making these available to teams who lack machining capabilities... just how I appreciate the availability of pre-built spur gearboxes, planetary gearboxes, 2-speed gearboxes, and mecanum wheels.

It does sound like this product will likely come in pieces and require assembly, and I'd imagine that students would still gain quite a bit of knowledge from working with the system. Personally, I've probably learned more by looking at other teams' designs than any other process.

Keep in mind that not all teams have a Craig Hickman at their disposal.

+1

12-06-2009 11:35

Ryan Dognaux

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

This. Is. Awesome. I would love to see one of these in person (hopefully at IRI)

It's also good to see that the timeless debate of using off the shelf solutions is still alive and well. I think it's a great thing to level the playing field for teams that may (or may not) understand the concepts of a swerve drive but do not have the machining ability to create one. As Mr. Taylor said, it's a great opportunity for teams to acquire these, learn from them and potentially modify them to meet their own needs.

I actually found a picture of this 1868 early Wildstang concept -

12-06-2009 11:39

ajlapp

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Yes. Team 221 LLC. considers itself a limited open-source organization. We currently offer drawings and solid models for most Universal Chassis products on our website. We will continue this practice with the Wild Swerve.

Please do. Also, If you're not ready to start a company, source components, build prototypes, invest and endure lots of criticism contact Team 221 LLC. offline. We're continually designing and considering new product concepts for all types of robot/engineering applications.

12-06-2009 12:26

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Anthony, glad to see this. You do like to cause debates don't you? Here is my take on the whole issue, no one says you have to use it. If FIRST came out and said that we can't manufacture anything anymore it all has to be COTS I think we would all laugh at them. Craig if you don't want to use it don't. More importantly, who said even if you DID use it that you had to use it for a drive train? Seems to me there are some parts in there that could be used for a turret or a ball shooter.

What is the estimated weight? Sensor options? Motor options? (Can I use a FP through a Planetary if I want to?) Will individual parts be available? 6" wheels are too big, when (if ever) will you get around to offering us an option to use smaller wheels? It really does look great Anthony, keep up the good work.

12-06-2009 13:19

thefro526

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

These Swerve Modules are pretty awesome.... If they would've been availible in years past I think I would've definitely considered using them.

But this brings up a good question that we as a community may need to address and some of us have already addressed in this thread. At what point in time do we draw the line between what we buy and use and what we don't?

12-06-2009 13:33

gren737

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

[quote=
At the same time, I doubt anyone wants to get to a point where teams have to manufacture their own gears, sprockets, and wheels (talk about a high-resource advantage there, you'd need C&C or laser cutting just to get out the door).
/QUOTE]

FIRST moved past this a long long time ago. Yes there was a time when you could not buy metal sprockets or gears and if you wanted to use them you had to make your own. I think a couple came in the kit for the drivetrain and that was it. Small Parts Inc was the only catalog you could purchase parts from and there was an absurdly low limit like $400 total or something close.

While I'm not a big fan of ready made bolt on FIRST parts, like drivetrains, shifters etc. I most certainly do not want to go back to the days of making sprockets again either. And no, you don't need a cnc or a laser jet to do that, a bridgeport and prototrac will do nicely.

I think the discussion here is the difference between standard off the shelf parts that you can buy that weren't designed for a FIRST robot vs. ones that were designed specifically for a FIRST robot.

but...just wanted to point out the fact, COTS items have not always been allowed.

12-06-2009 13:41

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Does anyone from Team 221 LLC have weight information on these (I understanding that they are prototypes)?

12-06-2009 14:25

EricH

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

You know, this could be a really effective teaching tool. Simply get a set pre-season and play with it. See if it's worth doing swerve, get some practice, reverse engineer the pods, improve them, etc. Then, when it's time for the season, you can design your own (or order and mod) much more easily and effectively.

Think of this as like training wheels on a bicycle. They help you balance until you're ready to do the real thing.

12-06-2009 14:57

ttldomination

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Would these modules be FIRST legal? Like if a team would purchase these items...technically they're not "off the shelf" items...I'm not too familiar about the rules on this.

Just a though.

12-06-2009 15:00

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

The should fall under the same category as AndyMark transmissions or Team221's other products. [Standard disclaimer about rules changing year to year here]

EDIT: In response to Cory below me:

I have to second the feeling that more teams moving reliably is a good thing. Using the Kettering Rookie Regional in 2008 as an example we only had 1 machine not move reliably, the reason? They tried to do a crab drive their first year out and refused to accept any help (No I will not reveal who they were, I simply do not recall). To teams that feel asking for help or using something that is already in place makes you 'less' a team I am going to tell you something, ASK FOR HELP! Anthony and the rest of Team221 are willing to help and you should never turn aside help. I have struggled most of my life about asking for help, after my first couple negative reviews I quickly swallowed my pride and take assistance when I need it. Pride cometh before the fall. If you think for one second that if 330 were building a swerve drive and needed help and they had access to one of 111's old robots they wouldn't peek under the tie-dye you are hopelessly mistake (330 was used as an example I have no affiliation nor can I be 100% sure I am correct, please take this as it was intended and don't be offended. Thank You) There is nothing wrong with admitting you don't know, many people, myself included, will respect a person more for admitting they don't know than making something up.

12-06-2009 15:38

Cory

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

We draw the line wherever the GDC defines the line to be.

In the past that has been that "complete mobility systems" are not allowed.

I'm not sure why people care so much. Let's say this is legal. How many teams are going to buy it? 10? 50? I'd guess almost certainly no more than that. There probably aren't more than 100 teams who even construct a swerve drive in a given year. It's not like they can just purchase this and allot 2 days to drivetrain construction/assembly, since it was a COTS item. There's going to be TONS of time associated with programming, and a good amount with mounting everything. I see nothing "unfair" here.

I would hope that this drive system could help those teams that choose to make a swerve, and end up with a system that is not robust and not very functional. Instead of cobbling something together, they could use this.

The more robots that drive reliably, the better.

12-06-2009 16:15

pacoliketaco

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I read most of this thread already, and as soon as i saw the picture, i was practically disappointed. I know that is not a very nice thing to say, but i dont see this at all to be in the spirit of FIRST. as far as i can see, swerve drive is very complex, and should only be attempted by teams with the capabilities to make one themselves. and FIRST is about learning, not buying pre-built modules from other teams. even your universal chassis, which looks very nice, i am not a fan of. my team has always had extremely limited machining capabilities (hacksaws, hand held drills, and maybe a circular saw to cut 8020) but we still manage to make effective robots. this makes me very jealous when a team comes out and says "look at our brand new CNC mill" but to me, one team making parts, and selling them to other teams is just not right. maybe if you were willing to teach other teams how to, but not to actually make the parts for them. especially something as complex as a swerve drive. whatever. i guess you are doing this to make money, which is fair. good luck with selling these, im sure they will be popular, just as AM mecanums were in 2007.

12-06-2009 17:40

Rich Kressly

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

However, it isn't up to you to speak on behalf of FIRST as to what that "spirit" is, is it? Why say something that you know isn't nice? I'd challenge you to find me any worthwhile description of FIRST's spirit that specifically addresses, inhibits, excludes, or discourages this practice.

Sorry, but this statement is pure baloney. Why shouldn't ANYONE attempt ANYTHING they desire to in this world (provided laws aren't being broken, etc)? If the team supports this idea and this is their way in the door, I say AWESOME even though I also run one of those teams who has similar tooling resources like you speak of ... and since when does buying a pre-built anything preclude you from teaching? There are a ton of ways to learn with these..mechanically, programming, reverse engineering, pre-season training, ...


Why let jealousy enter the picture at all? There's a ton of ways to use this as inspiration and motivation instead. I have yet to see a game in FRC that "required" swerve drive. How about "Let's find the Allentown, NJ way to out-build, out-strategize, and outplay these swerve teams using our own resources." OR "Let's deconstruct these CAD files and find a way to build our own.." Or ... geeze...be inspired by what others are able to do ... even when you believe you can "never" have "that" for your team. Who knows maybe one of your students will be inspired enough to design swerve modules in industry someday or will get to run one of those CNC's at work because he/she decided to pursue the education/opportunity because they were exposed to it through another FRC team. I mean it's possible we're all here to help make all of that happen for as many students as possible and the robot competition thingy is secondary, right?

Hakuna Matata...to each his own. Is 221, LLC the team 221 or an offshoot thereof? I suppose you might think AndyMark is 45, which would also be false. In the end, why the heck don't you want to see the bar higher for all teams with more resources/possibilities for all? Why on earth should we stunt the growth of progress for all teams? Look at the history of design and the way things advance. More affordable, readily available resources is always a driving force for this. Why on earth should FRC be any different?

I hope after careful reflection and after you trade in jealousy for inspiration, you might reconsider your position here.

namaste

12-06-2009 17:58

Bob Steele

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I wish good luck to 221 in their endeavor. Engineering business is something we all need experience in along with design. If they can make these and people want and can afford them and they are within the rules... more power to them...

I know that when our team decided to design its own swerve drive this year that it was one of the best things we could have done. (We made that decision after the Kickoff)

Our team was very proud of its design and its particular way of controlling our Skunk Swerve. Everyone on the team participated in the design, fabrication and assembly of the modules. It was very much a team design.

I watched the pride our team members showed in the design and the interest they all took in the problems we encountered and how we overcame those problems in design and control.

After all, it is the process that is important....the working with mentors and looking at designs and doing the systems work to decide what approach to implement.

To me, teams do this in different ways. Teams can be very successful in using off the shelf solutions.... but how does that hurt the design? If those solutions are within the rules.... use them....

We don't have to design everything...I can also remember having to cut gears and design transmissions.... things used to be different.

Teams can be successful in many ways....
For those teams that think that this is not fair...to just purchase components and put them together.... I say, why is this unfair?

It is the way of real life. When we design machines we don't design every single bolt or gear.... or even transmission....Does anyone design their own motors? Some do.... but many rely on industries that specialize in those designs.... we check specs ... pick a motor.... and design around it.

i don't see this as unfair or unjust in any way...

Having a shifting transmission or a swerve drive or any other component does not guarantee success. It still has to be incorporated into the larger design strategy for the game...The longer you are around FIRST (or anything else for that matter... ) the simpler a design is the better... the better you know it the easier it is to repair and maintain...

Good for you 221 (and 111) see if you can be successful making and selling these items.... more teams could experience a robot with this fun type of drive...

i am just wondering when teams or individuals will start trying to market software or programs that are designed to control different aspects of the game robot.... we constantly trade them.... but why not sell these control algorithms....??? I can tell you from experience that CONTROL of a swerve drive is much more difficult than designing one...

We had fun with our drive.... we plan on continuing to refine it and use it again if the game is such that it would be a viable drive system.

Good luck to everyone
Have a great summer!!

12-06-2009 18:12

Travis Hoffman

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Why?

I think perhaps you are mistakenly characterizing swerve drive technology as some kind of nectar and ambrosia that only the elite gods among FIRST teams are permitted to consume.

If so, consider Team 221's gesture to be akin to Prometheus "stealing" fire from the gods and sharing it with humanity for the benefit and education of all *lesser-equipped* mankind.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a few pics this year of teams with more "pedestrian" resources who pulled off some form of swerve successfully. It is not necessary to think that advanced robot features are off limits to all but those who are characterized as the "gods of FIRST". You can become your own "gods of swerve", if you try!


Team 221 LLC is not a "team" per se. It is a legal COTS business source of parts per the FRC rules as we know them, just like AndyMark.

48 used to fabricate our own custom transmissions. I know we've learned much and gained MUCH TIME by first studying, then understanding, and finally integrating AM's COTS transmissions into our robot, as using these components has allowed us more time to develop knowledge and capability with other robot mechanisms. Even if these 221 swerve modules WERE a simple "drag, drop, and swerve" product, which they aren't, a team would still gain a ton of extra time to pursue the learning of *other* still-unfamiliar robot systems.


It is commendable that your team has been able to succeed with limited access to more high-end resources, but with the availability of these modules, perhaps you no longer have to be jealous of those "CNC" folks - perhaps having one or more of these in your possession will help you better understand swerve concepts and find ways to fabricate a working swerve system using the resources at your disposal? You can learn to both appreciate AND effectively integrate high quality, precision-fabricated technology into your robot WITHOUT access to a CNC. Who needs those $35,000+ contraptions, anyway?


in addition to selling them as a business venture, they also offer up their product designs freely, which I think is plenty of a head start for teams who elect not to buy their product to try and learn how to design and build the modules on their own. I'd bet they'd also answer any questions people have as they attempt to pursue their initial swerve prototypes.

12-06-2009 18:15

EricH

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

No offense taken. (Also note that we have yet to do a true swerve...) And yes, we'd do our homework, also known as looking at the various swerve designs out there and seeing what's good, what's not, asking why it was done this way instead of that way, etc.

And as long as the rules don't preclude the use of a pre-built swerve module, I don't care who makes it and/or sells it.

12-06-2009 20:45

R.C.

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Great product guys. I really love the design, there is really no point to debate the issue. As Cory stated earlier, how many people make swerves? I know my team first started out by buying the super shifter and learning from it. Buying off the shelf parts are great for learning. I know my team will buy it and play around with the idea. But I'm pretty sure that my team will stick with 6wd (cough, 8wd was kewl to try). But AJ, that is a super sweet product and best of luck man.

-RC

12-06-2009 21:04

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

This is actually awesome because now we know a consumer based swerve drive is definitely possible. I was just joking before

12-06-2009 21:21

Foster

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Here is a chance to stand on the shoulders of Team 221 LLC that is standing on the shoulders of WildStang. Yes, it's not a "Bolt On and Win (tm)" product, but it's something that a team of bright engineers could do something with. And maybe they will release those details so we can all benefit from it.

If I want to TEACH crab drives, I really don't want to spend hour and hours doing the grunt work of getting the four drives to work. I want to spend the time on the hard part of the coordination and control to make the base move.

12-06-2009 23:22

Francis-134

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

While this is an interesting development, I think this is not a bad thing for FIRST. In fact, it makes me feel good. The more people with swerve drive means more people are going to be pushed to do something they are not familiar with.

For those of you who think this is bad, I have a challenge for you. Build a better swerve drive. While this looks quite good, we are certainly nowhere near the pinnacle swerve technology. Strive to be better and you can be.

12-06-2009 23:42

OZ_341

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Any company I ever worked for made very unique designs, which included countless numbers of "off the shelf" components.
Save your efforts for the creative aspects of your system design and don't reinvent components when there is no need to do so.
It makes good engineering sense and good business sense. Its real world and simply the way many engineering departments operate.

As for the educational aspect, you don't lose anything in buying an AndyMark Shifter as long as you discuss with the kids the details of how it works.

13-06-2009 22:45

Lil' Lavery

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Many of my points were said before I got a chance to say them, but I'll expand upon a few of them.

To imply that teams do not learn when using COTS items is simply silly, and wrong. It almost strikes me at those who criticize these parts seem to have no experience using them (or similar products). It isn't simply, "hey, put that there" and have the robot magically work. There is still a great deal of engineering design that goes into the process. This is no more of a complete swerve drive than an AndyMark mecanum wheel and kit shifter is a complete mecanum drive.
COTS items are frequently used in real world engineering solutions, and as Al just said above me, there's no need to reinvent the wheel each and every time. Yes, there are certain lessons you gain when you build something from scratch that you won't get here, but the same applies in reverse.
It is truly rare that any pre-engineered solution will exactly fit your specifics and requirements precisely. You may be able to improve on them, lower their weights, or have to add protection to the components in your design. You may have to design a suspension for this drive for it to be viable in a specific game. You may have to adjust ratios to fit your strategy (and depending on the ratios you need, you may have to engineer and construct a whole new gear housing). You may feel a different motor is the ideal drive motor for your design.
You get into a whole new set of engineering lessons and design thinking when you try to improve and understand a design that someone else created. While many have cited certain designs as "influential" to their own, and some may have looked at very detail pictures, had the designed explained to them extensively, or even dug through the CAD files. But it's a whole new ballgame when you get to actually have a physical copy of the module in front of you to work with and attempt to improve (or find the flaws in it that don't fit your design requirements).
And who says that this has to be used exclusively on competition robots? This could very easily be a great prototyping tool (for either pre-season or early build) to help teams start their software training and experimentation early (as well as start training drivers for the potentially complex task of driving a swerve-driven robot). It can be great for building a sweet demo bot.
And the fundamental argument that this is somehow against the spirit of FIRST because of the allegations that it hurts the learning process are, in themselves, flawed. Learning is an awesome and powerful bi-product of FIRST, but it is NOT the primary goal. Inspiration to become a scientist/engineer and the creation of a culture that values those professionals is the primary function of FIRST. This doesn't hinder that.

13-06-2009 23:32

gblake

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Jeez - A lot of posts went up fast here - I don't have time to read every word in each one, so I hope the point I will try to emphasize hasn't been beaten to death already. Here goes.

On a wall in the FIRST Place part of FIRST HQ in Manchester, there is a tee-shirt emblazoned with this quote attributed to Carl Sagan, "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch; first you have to invent the universe." When I spotted it yesterday, I smiled.

So, to anyone who is worried that a COTS swerve module is too much function in one purchase; let me be blunt, "Get over it." Here is why

Until you start mining, refining and smelting your own aluminum; and start creating your own lithography masks for your integrated circuits (that you are going to print on your own silicon wafers); and start manufacturing your own pneumatics and sensors and radios and and paint and .... your objections are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Instead of wasting time objecting that something that was once hard has now become easy(ier); move on to tackling the next harder design/coding/manufacturing problem that you couldn't tackle earlier because your either spent too much time trying to building swerve modules or because that harder problem required swerve modules that you knew you couldn't build.

Take it to the next level folks!

Maybe if you build a sentient and self-replicating, but benign and helpful machine, in the 44 days of build season, you can convince me that you have run out of interesting challenges to use to educate and inspire yourselves and your team mates; but until then, be happy that the world is making progress and what was once hard is now easy!

Sheesh! Sometimes the glass really is half full. This is one of them.

Blake
PS: When/if it gets to be too easy to build a machine that can accomplish a recent/typical FRC game, then I suspect it will be time for someone to unveil a harder game.

13-06-2009 23:49

Billfred

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Silly thought: Imagine someone taking these modules, stripping off the swervy bits, and using it as an ultra-compact drive module in some other application. It probably wouldn't replace that 6WD setup most of us have sitting around for most strategies of play, but I bet we've all wanted the extra ground-level real estate at some point or another.

13-06-2009 23:57

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

We actually did something similar to what I think you're talking about. I shall picture hunt....

This should remain a public link.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...0&id=645471640


Each of those 4 drive modules is just bolted on in about a minute each. You could potentially raise and lower the modules depending on how you design it. Am I on the same page here?

15-06-2009 01:14

Rick TYler

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Want to wind your own motors?

Cut your own sprockets and gears?

Build your own computer?

Design your own ASICs? (FPGAs are too "COTS.")

Mine your own copper ore, refine it, and draw your own wire?

There is nothing mystical here. Some parts are in the KOP, others are available commercially, and some have to be custom-made. There is nothing magical about any of those categories, and the appropriate allocation of parts across those categories is whatever the GDC says it is. There is no revealed truth here -- just various mechanical and electrical bits and strategies for their acquisition or construction.

15-06-2009 10:17

fuzzy1718

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Too all of you wo keep saying "mine your own metal, make this from scratch yada yada yada" everyone is just trying to say where do we draw the line. If you use the that arguement all you are seeing is black and white, not the gray area in between.
Yes, the GDC prevents robot in a box, but the problem is where do we draw the line on the words "complete mechanism?" You could turn this into a shooter rather easy, but how much of that shooter is already there for you? 1/2... 2/3?

Team 221 this is in no way ment to sound ofensive to you, but when you guys offer a product, simply offer parts not a complete anything. For instance with your guy's chassis why sell the whole rail, just sell the parts seperatly and let teams figure it out. Not only could you guys profit more but it would appease both sides of the arguement. You would be selling the whole thing, but teams could still build it mixing your stuff with others.

Just a thought, hope fully I don't get tared and feathered for it.

15-06-2009 11:49

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

I won't tar and feather you, I'll disagree though.

Just as an example I will use a Joe Johnson's NBD and show what percentage of a mobility system it is compared to the percentage for these mechanisms.

First I have to define what a mobility system is. For the sake of definition I will call it the bare minimum necessary for a robot to move. This means 2 driven wheels and 2 omni wheels, a chassis, associated electronics etc.

TEAM 221 LLC (note that Team 221 is not actually an FRC team, it came out of a FIRST team that Anthony was involved with in the past and is no longer associated with FIRST other than selling parts designed for use in the competition)

2 x CIM motors
2 x swerve modules
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
2 x Potentiometer
Programming to control the swerve drive
2 x KOP Wheels


NBD

2 x CIM motors
2 x Dewalt drill transmissions
2 x omni wheels
Kitbot frame from AndyMark (or IFI depending on preference)
CRio
PD board
Digital breakout board
2 x Victor or Jaguar
Wire
Default Programming
2 x KOP Wheels


Seems to me that the Swerve modules are not a significant portion of the drive system. You still have to wire them, still have to assemble them, still have to mount them. Not only that but you have to program them which everyone who does swerve says is the difficult part. Now, in my opinion this is a pretty crappy use of the swerve modules but it DOES show what is needed in a basic mobility system. I could probably assign weights to all of this but they would be highly subjective. Instead I will bring attention to the fact that the Team 221 Swerve actually requires MORE parts than a bare bones set up using Dewalts.

NBD does require you to make some modifications to the Dewalt gearbox but these are all detailed in the white paper so I count this as roughly the same as assembling something based on instructions from an educational experience, I feel this will be the sticking point for many people. Which drive train do people learn more from? To put it bluntly, Team 221 has the distinct advantage here. Programming a swerve drive to work reliably and simply is challenging from a programming point of view. NBD has the benefit of pulling the default code down from FIRST and you are up and running with minor if any changes. Mechanically speaking both teams would learn roughly the same amount assuming neither opened up their parts and toyed with them to figure out how they worked. Electronically the advantage goes to Team 221 again, they get to learn to wire up a potentiometer (or encoder). For these reasons I have to say that the NBD white paper constitutes a higher percentage of a complete mobility system than the Team 221 swerve modules. Furthermore, NBD actually causes students to learn less when assembling it.

Now, my disclaimers.

This is my OPINION, you are welcome to disagree with it and encouraged to debate it but under no circumstances are you allowed to disrespect me or my opinion based solely on your disagreement. I am more than willing to respond to someone who is willing to show me where I went wrong (in their opinion) but will be very angry if you respond by calling me an idiot or any such childish retorts.

15-06-2009 13:33

s_forbes

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Nice product, I hope it has the chance to make it onto some FRC robots in the future!

We're one of those teams that doesn't really have enough resources to manufacture our own swerve modules. I'm sure there are other teams like us that would jump on the chance to build a swerve system now that most of the difficult manufacturing is out of the way. There is still way (waaaay) more work to go into a successful swerve drive of course, but it's nice to have one of the tough to build parts readily available.

Our drivetrains have been slowly getting simpler and easier to build over the years, so I doubt we are likely to purchase some of these. It's great that they're finally out there, though.

15-06-2009 14:56

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

First of all, Team 221 LLC, AndyMark, or any other manufacturer of such products, do not only appeal to the FRC audience. They are robotics technology manufacturers and should always be remembered as a BUSINESS first.

I don't know how you draw the argument that they can make more money by selling parts, I'd rather pay a little(or a lot) extra if I'm in a time crunch (6 weeks anyone?) and need a swerve module at my door at 3am on a Tuesday (happens to all of us).

I wouldn't tar and feather you Josh, as you've been flamed before on here, but definitely look at things from multiple perspectives. If I were the companies in question, this is the exact direction I would move in; selling full modules. Team 221 and AndyMark are two companies RC and I look up to because, for AndyMark at least since 221 is new, they have a great established business model for the robotics technology world. Even look at VEX, they sell full arms now because that's how you run a business. Just look at all the angles of the situation. Also, if I were them I really wouldn't bother trying to appease both parties of the argument, the one that likes what the company is selling would be my target audience at hand (consumers) and the others would later on potentially see what they've failed to benefit from.

+0.02

I love what's going on with VEX, Team 221, and AndyMark. Keep it up guys. You may not know it, but you really do inspire those of us who may be a little more business minded than mechanical or have the ability to combine both skills, kids like me.

15-06-2009 21:46

gblake

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

No tar, no feathers. Dang

Hmmm - How about pitchforks and torches???

Quite the opposite, all we are seeing is gray. Unless you are going to reinvent the universe on your own, everything in this dicussion is a shade of gray (That is the point of the Carl Sagan statement).

Some might say that a black and white opinion is one that says selling the modules is a bad idea; instead of expressing that selling the modules has both pluses and minuses; and then perhaps expressing a reason or two for why the minuses outweigh the pluses

Blake

16-06-2009 01:08

keehun

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

16-06-2009 04:43

GarrettF2395

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

16-06-2009 14:32

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

16-06-2009 14:51

NorviewsVeteran

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

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?

16-06-2009 15:26

Jared Russell

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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?

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.

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.

16-06-2009 15:52

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

16-06-2009 15:58

Cory

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

16-06-2009 17:49

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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?

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.

16-06-2009 18:32

gorrilla

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

17-06-2009 15:59

Rick TYler

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

17-06-2009 16:51

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

That and the fact that they won't make swerve drives a mandatory component. That's the real limiting factor to designs.

18-06-2009 09:31

Lil' Lavery

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.


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.

18-06-2009 12:50

IKE

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

18-06-2009 13:23

JesseK

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

06-11-2009 11:49

Enigma's puzzle

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 11:51

EricH

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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!

06-11-2009 12:23

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.)

06-11-2009 12:24

JVN

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 12:54

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Gotta ask, who's #1

06-11-2009 12:59

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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)

06-11-2009 13:06

Collin Fultz

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 13:13

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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

06-11-2009 13:17

Akash Rastogi

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 13:28

Enigma's puzzle

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 13:31

EricH

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 13:43

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 13:44

Chris is me

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.)

06-11-2009 14:27

jspatz1

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

06-11-2009 14:30

Alan Anderson

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Stronger competition.

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

06-11-2009 14:36

Chris is me

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

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.

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.

06-11-2009 14:41

Andrew Schreiber

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

Out of curiosity, did you even READ this thread? How about the rules?

Amen.

06-11-2009 15:32

JVN

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

There are a lot of great coaches in FIRST, but only one has won four championship trophies.

How can it be anyone but Brian Beatty?

06-11-2009 17:33

Aren_Hill

Re: pic: Team 221 LLC. - Wild Swerve Module

point taken,

Now i feel young and naive, sad i missed being able to watch those championships in person.