A few of us old timers on 1902 were poised with a interesting question we’d never really thought of, What are the specific rules or I guess intent of the rules for designing robot components in the preseason. I obviously understand the big nono in preseason fabrication but according to last years rules rule R17 doesn’t really mention anything about design, or at least explicitly. R18 ( and a bit earlier ) speak of after ship and between competitions specifically but nothing of the “Off-Season”
I guess my question is this. If a team were to have a prepared stack of drawings for ohh say 5 different drive trains and manipulator options what stops them from just picking and choosing which one works for them. I know this may be a bad example for a manipulator but year after year you see the exact same drive train out of some teams, do they redesign each year?
Also kind of going along with the same question, would this apply to things like the nothing but Dewalts design? If a team were to just use the drawings available to them in the white paper would that be ok? Or would they have to reproduce those drawings in order to manufacture the part.
Lastly, if a team were to complete a set of drawings/designs, and then proceed to make it available to everyone via their team website or multiple white papers would it then be acceptable for that team to use one of those designs. I guess almost like a “COTS” set of drawings/designs.
I’m not really sure what I believe, thats why I’ve posed these questions to you guys. What do you guys think the literal interpretation and the “spirit” of the rule are?
For the 2007 competition, this question was directly addressed in the second paragraph of Section 8.3.3 of the rules.
As always, rules from previous FIRST competition do not necessarily apply toward, and may not be indicators for, future competitions. Your milage may vary.
That still doesn’t answer the two other questions however in relation to things like white papers/databases. I guess its a stretch but I’ve always wanted to develop a sort of design database for teams without any engineering support to draw from, I am just trying to figure out if this kind of thing is even within the rules of the game.
Also I’m working on this being my senior project for the next two semesters, if my Senior Group would be putting 2 semesters worth of design work into a general design base for FIRST teams that I commissioned, got faculty support for and funded, and this base could not be used in any competitions then I really need to find something else to do lol.
Also I obviously understand that previous years rules are not always the same that hasn’t changed in the 8 or 9 years that I’ve been involved, but in this case they are the only thing we have to look to right now.
<R17> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to the Kick-off presentation.
Your clear to create drawings and stuff before the kickoff. You could use your design base as a prototype, but not on the official robot.
Even if teams can’t use the designs “word for word” (or, I guess, dimension for dimension), I would think a design database would still be an extremely useful thing. Consider the FIRST Robotics Canada mechanism galleries; they only have pictures, not descriptions of designs, flaws, strengths, performance, etc. Yet, the galleries are very useful for helping spark other ideas (I know a significant portion of our 2007 robot was inspired by those pictures, but you would never be able to tell that is was or which pictures did the inspiring unless someone told you) or for just straight out solutions to thorny problems. Similarly, a database of design that are explained along with good pictures of CAD models (Maybe actual models with Autodesk’s DWF viewer)/actual implementations would be exceedingly useful for sparking ideas or checking up on ideas you already had (if it has been done before, what worked, what didn’t).
Yea if you prototype a drive or anything and it’s completely finished you just have 2 remake it after kickoff from scatch simple as that. Thats why its a PROTOTYPE
Actually, I believe that the question has been answered. IF (yes, this is a big if) Section 8.3.3 is still in the manual in its 2007 form, you may NOT use any “detailed dimensioned drawings of parts” that were created before kickoff.
I don’t think you can get around this by saying that a 3-D model which does not *display *dimensions has no dimensions.
I also guess that this includes any specific drawings in things like “Nothing but Dewalts”.
I also believe that this rule in 2007 had to have been the most violated rule in the history of FRC. From chain tensioners to complete drive systems to almost entire arms to wheels, teams used designs that were identical to those that were implemented in years past.
I do hope that this rule does not appear in the 2008 manual. If it does, then lots of the cool stuff, from wheels to 4-speed shifters that we have seen here on CD, are going to be simply nice pit display items and drawings… and we will again see a huge number of violations of a rule that can not be enforced.
Just to be clear I want to know where your vote lies, we have the rules sited but does this directly apply to things like White Papers. And if so it is pertinent to say that using the design from anything but Dewalts would be illegal unless redesigned by each team? ( BTW sorry I’m picking on this one paper it just happens to be one of the most popular and an easy example to use, I have nothing against it. )
This is where I want a clear consensus, I understand that using dim for dim of your OWN personal drawings for your team is illegal, as well it should be to establish a fair platform for rookies entering the season. I kind of assumed this when I authored this original post. However what I am not clear about is what could be called “COTSD,” commercially off the shelf designs/drawings. Things that are available to anyone who desires to have them and can use them completely unmodified before the season starts. Why can’t these drawings follow the same rules as COTS, where you can accumulate them and use them if they apply during the season, but only if they remain unmodified.
I really am not trying to be belligerent here, I have never designed anything preseason that was used, In fact I’ve never even had the chance to build a functioning prototype. But I do believe this is an important issue when it comes to teams policing themselves. Obviously honesty often breaks down and teams will use things that are illegal, we see it every year. But for those that try to remain honest, where is the line, are the use of “COTSD” actually illegal? If they are illegal, should they be? And if they should be illegal explain to me how they are any different than their physical alternative, “COTS.”
I agree with you Dan. I hope that FIRST is clear with this sort of thing this year and if they do attempt to limit prior to kickoff design use then more teams are aware of the rule, and that all teams abide by all of the rules. (As frustrating as they may be.)
I think this is one of the worst rules there is, if not outright the worst. There are some things that don’t change on many team’s robots from year to year. We’re expected to redo the entire solid model and all drawings? I see no point to this. I understand the intent is to keep teams from designing their robot before the season starts, but if you designed the parts in a previous year’s build season, who cares?
We’ve had a sponsor make the same three sets of parts for us the last two years. If we do again, we’re supposed to tell them to throw out their drawings of the part, and not use the G-code they generated to machine the parts, because it was all done prior to the build season? I just don’t see the logic here.
By trying to regulate something that cannot be regulated, it just becomes a PITA for everyone else who isn’t trying to break the rules.
Our team is currently building robot. The mission and parameters are entirely of our own choosing. This exercise give students an opportunity to learn, solve, create. This robot doesn’t have anything to do directly with the competition robot.
Engineering, like practicing piano, the more you practice, the better you get.
Go ahead and spend all year developing manipulator arms, or whatever. When the season starts you will be in much better shape to design and build one from scratch. Just make sure you are starting from scratch.
There’s a fine line here that needs to be delineated. Coming up with a half dozen *design studies *for drivetrains, manipulators and subsections of manipulators (such as end effectors, arm joints, swivel bases, etc) is a good thing, and this can be very useful to teams struggling to engineer systems. Too much detail is not a good thing.
What this isn’t is a detailed set of drawings showing the whole answer. Not only is that not in the spirit of FIRST (or within the rules) but it’s also not much fun. “Here kid, just build this”. FIRST is not advanced shop class, it is engineering practice, that’s why some teams only design their Bot and literally have a team of adult machinists fabricate the design. As long as they machinists don’t modify the design to ‘make it work’, it’s fine with me and I hope with FIRST. It doesn’t really matter who fabricates the pieces, the important thing is whether the design will work or not.
By “Design Study”, I mean some accurate drawings and renderings that show exactly how something works, including exploded views - but no dimensions. Call is a design sketch. It is a tool that can be used to gain insight into, say, how to design a good arm joint (with 6 examples), but someone still has to do the work to figure out the exact sizes, materials, etc to actually assemble one.
So instead of handing out pre-printed solutions, hand out a crash course in FRC engineering. Show a 4, 6 and 8 wheel drivetrain, discuss the relative merits and liabilities of belt, chain and gear drives, some basic pseudocode for a PID loop, how to make an extendible arm six different ways… you get the idea. This would easily fill a textbook (Hey college student, are you published yet? Wanna be?) with one system per chapter.
Don, I understand your point of view, but I think there’s 2 big issues here that this rule creates.
I want to use an Andymark Shifter, and I want to make it from Andy’s prints. I’m supposed to take his premade drawings, and sit there with them in my lap, and redraw them in my CAD program of choice? That’s totally ridiculous. It’s a total waste of everyone’s time, and plain old disheartening.
I have parts on my robot that stay the same every year. (wheels, frame members, etc). I’m supposed to redraw these components from scratch, just so I can conform with this rule? It’s not like you designed a robot prior to the build…you designed the component during a previous build cycle.
It seems to me this punishes teams who 1) prototype in the offseason 2) have continuity between robot designs. It’s my understanding that the rule is intended to keep teams from designing an entire robot in the offseason to “level the playing field” for everyone. The only thing I see it doing is causing a major headache for anyone who meets the above criteria. It’s mindless and useless busy work.
The above focuses on the robot, and as we all know “it’s not about the robots”. This has repercussions on how the students are taught about the engineering process. FIRST strives for innovation and creativity. Much of that innovation comes from iterative design, which has to take place year round. Without teams prototyping during the offseason, where would some of FRC’s legendary designs be right now? Probably nowhere near their current level.
In the real world engineering isn’t a 6 week process. If you rest on your laurels because what you have works “well enough” and you don’t make it stronger, lighter, cheaper, or more efficient, progress passes you by and you’re left sitting on the curb. The way for us to teach these lessons in FRC is by working during the offseason to make improvements to current designs, try new ones that may be better, etc. This is why the rule seems so absurd to me, as written. It seems to directly contradict the things that FIRST wants to pass on to students, and make it harder and more tedious for teams who are trying to go above and beyond the 6 weeks.
IMO, the message it sends to the students is that the team that prototypes/innovates and trains in the offseason is being punished and has to redo all their work for no tangible reason.
It’s the custom around here to consider such code to be the equivalent of off-the-shelf components and thus not subject to the “must be designed after kickoff” rule.
I think that offseason design should be promoted if anything. What good is going through a 6 week build season if you don’t take those value, and take those skills that you’ve learned, and apply it towards something.
The sad fact is that teams were supposed to do something like this LAST YEAR. I believe we have a situation where so many teams violated the rule that the rule itself is basically useless. Teams that followed it (in the spirit of GP as section 8.8.3 notes) were punished while those that didn’t follow it were not.
The question is how to address FIRST’s concern that veteran teams have design solutions for various systems (like drive) that remain the same year after year. Sometimes these design solutions are good enough that a team does exceptionally well at a regional based on a design solution that was developed two or three years earlier. Given that a student might be on a FRC team for two or three years, they might never have been part of the design process!
Perhaps a possible way to address this problem is to take Alan’s idea that designs (and software code) that are “published” are equivalent to COTS. That way any team is free to design away as long as the design is released to the public and any team is allowed to use it. Perhaps CD White Papers could be recognized by FIRST as an appropriate location to “publish”. (I think that simply posting designs on a team’s webpage would not be enough - too many teams, too many ways to bury the design.)
Does this address the apparent concern of FIRST and allow for teams to continue development year to year and year-round?
Not really. This may come off as arrogant and elitist, but I see no reason to force teams to give up proprietary information so they can circumvent a rule that makes no sense in the first place. I’m all for sharing of information and designs, but not outright handing someone a stack of finished CAD drawings that will allow them to replicate your work with zero effort, or modifications on their part.
edit: apparently I was unclear. I am referring specifically to parts that may stay the same year to year, that were designed during a previous build cycle. I’m not sure I like this idea for prototyping either, as I think it should be up to the teams to decide what they want to release. If it comes down to it most teams would probably just make minor changes to their “proof of concept” designs and call it a day.
The rule makes sense in the context of a robot-building competition. It has the effect of making each team do a similar amount of design work every year, regardless of how long the team has been around. That limits the ability of a team staying dominant just because it has a private pile of well-tweaked and well-tested complete designs at its disposal, regardless of its current talents.
It does not make a lot of sense in the context of inspiring students to pursue careers in engineering. It removes the real-world option of using an already-invented wheel to solve a perpetual problem. It can’t completely eliminate the benefit of having done things already, so the team might naturally try a solution that worked before. Unfortunately, causing the team to design the same thing again can turn what should be an exciting process of discovery into a session of uninspiring drudgery.
Since the rule applies only to building a competition robot, and not to anything else the team wants to do, I’m leaning toward deciding it makes sense.
