Design for Serviceability

Between qualification matches you have roughly 20 to 25 minutes from the time you leave the field to the time you queue for the next one. After transport and getting the robot on the pit table, that's closer to 15 minutes of actual work time. A robot that takes 40 minutes to repair gets sent back out broken or sits out a match entirely.

Serviceability is a design decision made in CAD, not something you can add after the fact.

What Actually Breaks

Structural members almost never fail mid-competition. The things that do are small, wear-prone, and usually buried somewhere inconvenient.

Part
How It Fails
Why Access Matters

Belts

Snap or jump a pulley

Need to pass a new belt through the mechanism

Shaft retention bolts

Back out or strip

Need a straight hex key path to the bolt face

Small fasteners

Strip, loosen, or disappear

Need clear access without removing other assemblies

3D printed brackets

Crack on impact

Need to unbolt and swap without disassembling the mechanism

Physical Access

The most common pit problem isn't a complicated failure. It's a simple failure that takes forever because you can't reach it.

Belts run on fixed center-to-center distances so there's nothing to adjust, but a snapped belt still needs to be swapped. Design belt runs so the path is reachable from the outside without pulling a side plate.

An access cutout sized to pass a belt loop through, or an open-profile design on one face of the mechanism, is usually enough. If the only way to reach the belt is to remove a structural plate, fix that in CAD before it happens in the pit.

circle-exclamation

Hardware Consistency

Every unique tool requirement on the robot is another thing someone has to find in a rushed pit. The standard on this team is 10-32 and 1/4-20 socket head cap screws throughout. One hex key set covers every fastener on the robot.

Don't introduce button heads or other drive types because a COTS part came with them. Where you control the fastener choice, socket heads only.

triangle-exclamation

Designing for Replaceability

Some things won't be repairable in 15 minutes. The right answer for those is to replace the whole subassembly and fix the broken one after the event. This only works if the mechanism was designed to come off cleanly in the first place.

A replaceable mechanism has:

  • 4 to 6 bolts at a defined mounting interface

  • Geometry consistent enough that a spare drops in without adjustment

  • No fasteners buried behind other assemblies at the attachment points

Most important mechanisms to design this way:

  • Intake (extends past the frame, takes the most contact)

  • End effector (highest chance of game piece jams or impacts)

  • Any mechanism that can't be repaired with the robot assembled

chevron-rightModular mounting in Onshapehashtag

When designing a mechanism's attachment to the frame, think about whether a spare built from the same Onshape assembly would bolt on identically. If your intake mounts at four 1/4-20 bolts on a defined hole pattern in the frame tube, you can prebuild a spare before competition and swap the whole thing in minutes.

Design each major mechanism as its own sub-assembly in Onshape rather than modeling everything in a single top-level assembly. This forces you to define clean interfaces at the attachment points, makes it easier to share files with whoever is building the spare, and keeps the top-level assembly organized.

Spare Parts

Build a spare of anything you designed to be replaceable. Beyond subassemblies, the pit should have on hand at minimum:

  • Every belt size used on the robot (at least 2 spares of each)

  • One fully assembled spare MK5i swerve module per event

  • Full assortment of 10-32 and 1/4-20 socket heads in all lengths used on the robot

  • Spare shaft retention hardware for every shaft size on the robot

  • Any 3D printed parts likely to crack on impact (brackets, housings, guides)

circle-check

Last updated

Was this helpful?