I think this a huge thing teams overlook. Half the challenge for me in FRC is figuring out where to source components from so I don’t have to make inferior equivalents.
I don’t really care about the team’s catapult arm calculations, but if they can tell me where they got their COTS release mechanism, that is huge.
For PCBs, wouldn’t releasing a zip file of gerbers be fine? All other components that are soldered onto it are COTS parts (well…generally).
This is something I’ve never understood. I’ve seen tons of teams use the same drive base year after year after year. Sure, they may have changed the overall dimensions, or adjusted the gear ratio, or changed the diameter of the wheels, but it’s obvious that the design was based off of last year’s design.
I do think it’s fine to learn from previous years. We had success with a roller claw in 2007, so we didn’t bother prototyping another type of grabber in 2011. My question is, where do we draw the line? If I make a WCD in the offseason, can I make the robot 1" wider, use different wheels, and change the gears in my gearbox and use this during build season without posting the design?
I think we’re missing the biggest point. Showing there’s an R13 means there will in fact be rules this year. I was a bit worried after the game hint.
Note that this R13 removed the restriction on parts created before kickoff that existed in 2014’s rulebook. Ostensibly, one could create robot elements prior to kickoff and then use them in the 2015 season so long as the design is published before Saturday. In years prior, the team would have to rebuild the part after kickoff using the design published before kickoff. Unless there is another rule prohibiting the use of parts created before kickoff, this change seems to allow teams to build parts now and use them in the 2015 game. Of course, that’s only three days away.
Even better, we know there are at least twelve other rules to look forward to.
I have a feeling they either split the rule, or this was only part of the rule.
Hmm, this is a pretty big assumption without seeing all the other rules. I think I will just wait until kickoff in a few days before building a drive system without seeing the field, just to be on the safe side :rolleyes:
I think we need an answer to this questions as well, because if something is incomplete, then even the team designing it cannot actually build it. Should any semi-complete designs be posted as well?
What we have posted today should meet the spirit of the rule. If there are question, that’s what the discussion section on CD is for 
without any guidance on this rule, we are doing the best we can.
I should have been more specific with my examples. I also should have said that these details need to be listed when they matter to the design. Some more detailed examples:
Last year for our shooter release we used a COTS dog gear with the stock screw. We wanted to stay as COTS as possible but kept shearing screws. We tried plain carbon, 300 series CRES, titanium and finally A286 CRES screws before they stopped failing. If I only had a STEP of the screw you would have no idea you need a specialty fastener.
I have rarely been designed into a corner where I want to use a COTS screw but need to make sure there is 3 full threads engagement worst case. If the next size screw is too long and will hit something I have had to go from an easy to find UNC thread to UNF, UNEF or UN threaded screws.
Look at the STEP for the Vex 3 CIM ball shifter and tell me if there is any retaining compound and if so where/what it is.
Overall I would say if it is non-standard, vendor specific or failed once and you had to replace it, disclose that in addition to your STEP.
Bonus points for telling folks where to get the parts cheap and easy. Let us use what you have learned. My favorite example of this is 3/16" red spade terminals - every year I bring an extra box to competition because many rookie teams get the more common 1/4" wide spades and they fall off their RS??? motor and make problems.
-matto-
If we’re being pedantic, I’d argue that there’s no requirement here that a shared design be useful or that it work at all. The absence of fasteners, thread counts, retaining rings, assembly instruction or GD&T limit the usefulness of the design, perhaps, but don’t necessarily represent an incomplete design.
Further, there’s no requirement that teams using design information shared before kick-off cede any right to refine or modify that design. Consider, then, that adding the missing fasteners could be considered a design revision and that there’s nothing that prohibits any such scenario.
More interesting than this particular rule, in my mind, is that FIRST has rewritten some or all of the manual itself. With any luck, the language will be clear, concise and straightforward, but based on the discussion happening here already, I’m not getting my hopes up.
I would think at a bare minimum you’d need a components list in addition to the gerbers. I think you’d probably also need a schematic.
Not every design is a finished design by the beginning of the season. Should I not be allowed to use it because all I did was release step files because that’s all there was at the time?
The only reason I would look through a team’s posted documents for completeness would be in response to a specific complaint from another team.
Frankly, this is an example of a rule that is almost impossible to enforce 100%. Sure, I see the many of the same team’s every year, and I may, at some point, think that a design is similar. So I question them, they tell me they posted it and show me the website on their phone, and that’s about as far as it can realistically will be taken at an event. How can I verify when the design was posted to their website? I can’t spend the time to go over their CAD model in detail to determine if it really meets my idea of “complete”.
Further, what a team does in the off season other teams/inspectors don’t generally know about unless you actually post something about it. So, it’s largely up to the teams to self-enforce this rule. The intent here is, I think, two-fold. First, it’s intended to help level the playing field - a 20 year old team can’t have an advantage by having a large library of designs that a rookie doesn’t have. Second, it’s a chance for less experienced/knowledgeable teams to learn from the designs of those teams with more experience.
At the bottom of the inspection checklist, right above where we have both a mentor and captain sign, is a statement that says “We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built …] in accordance with all of the 2014 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. …]”. We trust the teams to do what they feel is within accordance with the rules, and that statement is them telling us that they did. Draw the line where your conscious and common sense tells you it needs to be drawn.
The only requirement is to manufacture the product, which, in this case, the only real manufacturing required is the PCB. Since all the other components are COTS, they can be soldered after kickoff. There are no rules mandating the designs be documented.
Heck, if a team really wanted to, they could minify/obfuscate all the software they want and it would still follow the rule if they released it. As long as you can compile the code or manufacture the part from the source given, hence (complete information sufficient to produce the design), then it should be good. Is it necessarily within the spirit? Maybe not, but it sure does comply with the rule.
Posted where? If I post something to my personal website (public) is my team allowed to use it? One would assume so but if you were to search CD and not see it posted and disallow it…
Of course, this is a stupid argument to be having because no inspector has ever checked to see if a design was published prior to build. And even if it wasn’t, no inspector should ever force a team to rebuild a subsystem at an event just to force compliance with this rule. It would be against the goals of the program.
The burden of proof would be on the team to point the inspector to the posted designs.
Why? My team claims, via entering their robot at the competition, that it complies with all rules. Therefore, the burden of proof should be on the inspector to prove that it does NOT. That’s how it is with every other system, they are just easier check.
This is always a quandary with inspection. If an inspector finds a team’s drivebase has a component that is in violation of a rule, and that component is central to the functionality of the robot, lead inspectors will very rarely enforce the rule requiring a redesign of the entire drivebase. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been the first inspector.