2014–2024 · FLL, FTC & FRC
FIRST Robotics
Ten years of learning how robots are built, designing my first mechanism, owning complete mechanical systems, leading an engineering process, and learning how my work fits into larger teams.
A Decade at a Glance
The Beginning - 2014–2020
I started in FLL and moved into FTC, where my early work was mainly assembly, fabrication, machining, maintenance, and troubleshooting. Those years taught me how mechanisms were put together and how the robot’s structure, wiring, software, and individual subsystems affected one another. Once I understood how the machines worked, I wanted to start designing the mechanisms myself.
My First Real Design - Onion, 2020–21
ContextCOVID kept most of our early work in CAD, so the shooter had to start as a controlled comparison instead of a finished mechanism. I used a design matrix to narrow the concepts to single- and double-flywheel layouts, then built around the space the robot actually had.
My workThe first front-shooting layout did not carry the ring far enough and used the frame poorly. I went back to the drawing board, changed the path so the robot could intake from the front and shoot out the back, and set the initial launch geometry near 35 degrees.
EngineeringProjectile calculations gave the prototype a starting point. Physical shots decided what stayed. I changed wheel spacing, compression, and printed geometry as the test results came in instead of treating the CAD model as proof that the system worked.
ResultOnion was the first mechanism where I owned the full loop: compare concepts, model the geometry, build it, measure the miss, and revise the design. It also taught me why simple hardware is valuable: fewer failure points, less weight, and more time to iterate.
Taking Ownership of the Robot - Tonk, 2021–22
The next season moved me from one mechanism to the robot as a system. I was responsible for nearly all of the mechanical design, so width, reach, cycle time, barrier clearance, and center of gravity had to be resolved together.
V1
Big Mickey established the architecture
The V1 drivebase was 12 inches wide so it could fit between the field barriers. We selected mecanum through a design matrix, placed the motors at the center facing outward, and added rollers where the frame could contact the barrier. The intake rode on a linear slide and rotated about 180 degrees so the robot could reach either hub without a full turn.
Rubber floppers pulled in one freight at a time, a printed mount carried the intake, and a servo gate held the game piece. The concept worked, but competition exposed the weak points: extrusion caught on the barriers, moving mass was too high, and the complete scoring sequence took too long.
What failed
Competition made the redesign priorities clear
The first mechanism lacked reach, moved too slowly, occupied too much space, and interfered with the drivetrain. The robot could score, but it did not recover cleanly from barrier contact and carried too much mass away from the chassis.
V2
I replaced the extrusion structure with waterjet-cut aluminum, redistributed the motors to lower the center of gravity, and removed the intake gate. The new turret kept its motors at the base and drove the rotating assembly through belts, which reduced the mass the mechanism had to move. A force-sensitive resistor confirmed when freight reached the intake.
The compact turret used a 60:1 motor, a 90-degree gearbox, a 10-tooth to 48-tooth sprocket reduction, a printed hub, and a ball-bearing turntable. After a printed intake part weakened around its viewing holes, I increased the infill and revised the openings for the next iteration.
Result
Over comparable periods of play, scoring increased from roughly 4–6 game pieces to 16–18. The larger lesson was how to convert a match failure into a specific mechanical requirement, then prove the correction on the assembled robot.
From Designer to Team Lead - PowerPlay, 2022–23
As Team Lead for roughly 15 students, my technical problem changed. I was still designing and integrating hardware, but I also had to make the whole engineering process better: turn the game into requirements, challenge concepts, get prototypes built, coordinate CAD, run reviews, and make sure testing produced decisions the team could act on.
Fast build, slow intake
Refined architecture
Integrated handoff and automation
These are documented team-level cycle times from robots I helped lead and integrate, not three robots I designed alone.
My work
I personally designed Giraffe’s drivetrain, linear slides, and rubber-band intake. The team fabricated and integrated the rest, creating a functional robot that could perform most major game tasks roughly 30 hours after release.
Engineering leadership
I led the development process through a design matrix, prototypes, CAD, calculations, design reviews, fabrication, tests, and iteration. The final robot used a mecanum drivetrain, packaged three-wheel odometry, used CAD center-of-gravity estimates, and evolved to spring-loaded odometry after testing. The scoring path depended on a horizontal linear-slide handoff, several printed claw geometries, four-point contact, and servo torque and speed evaluation. Mechanical decisions also changed around programming requirements instead of treating software as a separate system.
Designing Within a Larger Engineering Team - Roboctopi, 2023–24
My scopeI designed and delivered the V1 intake and delivery system, the claw/end effector, linear-slide string routing, and a wiring guide. I worked through Fusion 360 CAD, design reviews, quick prototypes, fabrication, and subsystem handoff until the hardware could be integrated onto the competition robot.
IntegrationThe subsystem had to meet the robot envelope, transfer a pixel in less than 12 inches, preserve wiring clearance, and line up the intake with the delivery arm. Each interface was checked in the shared assembly before parts were machined, laser cut, printed, or molded.
Team resultThat work contributed to a season where Roboctopi set a world-record score of 416, won the San Diego Regional Inspire Award, qualified for the FIRST Championship, and earned the Championship Think Award. Those were team results; my responsibility was making my subsystem ready for the rest of the machine.
Scaling Up - FRC Team Spyder, 2023–24
On Team Spyder, I focused on removable bumper mounting hardware instead of describing the entire FRC robot as my work. The problem was compact but real: the mount had to connect to a much larger structure, survive repeated installation, remain accessible, fit the frame, meet competition constraints, and avoid slowing down service in the pit.
I carried the mount through constraint checks, interface design, fabrication, integration, and serviceability testing. That hardware supported a season with regional finalist appearances and a run at the 2024 FIRST Championship. I also contributed to the team’s advocacy work, which received a Certificate of Recognition from Supervisor Joel Anderson.
System Leadership & Community Impact
My role grew from machining parts and repairing robots into coordinating a roughly 15-person team across mechanical, programming, electronics, and outreach. I set priorities, ran design reviews, trained newer members, tracked deadlines, and kept subsystem decisions tied to the complete robot.
I helped make our process more deliberate: define the problem, compare concepts, build the cheapest useful prototype, review the CAD, test the hardware, and record what changed. The same approach shaped our outreach. I helped lead technical training, public demonstrations, team support, and STEM advocacy, while continuing hands-on mentoring with the Golden Griffins and RaD FLL Challenge teams.
Where It Led
The same cycle keeps showing up: CAD, calculations, prototypes, manufacturing, testing, failure, and redesign. The systems changed from competition robots to space electronics, but the way I learn from real hardware did not.
View my work at Power Device Corporation