Teams that do not bag their robots

[OzzyArmas]

What should be done if an individual knows information about a team not bagging their Robot? What happens to the team that did not bag their Robot?

[connor.worley]

I would expect to be handled on a per-case basis. Did the team work on the robot? Were there other circumstances?

[Steven Donow]

Technically, they would not pass inspection, which (probably) means they would not be allowed to compete in the event.

I've yet to hear of this happening, but does anyone (probably inspectors at new events filled with first year teams) have a tale of this happening and what was done?

[nicholsjj]

Now a team should not have any reason that I'm aware of to bag their robot now that the season is over. Do some offseason events require it? If a team has an improper bag and tag for any reason(ie. not bagging their robot in the first place) then they are required to go through the noncomplience process in which I believe the LRI Head Ref and FTA(?) all have to understand the team's explination on way they didn't handle bag and tag properly. The team will then sometimes be assesed a time penealty in which they are not allowed to work on the robot. One of the most interesting stories that Razorback had was team 1912 having a very large hole in the bag around their drivetrain from shipping. We laughed about it and got them through the process quickly because they were honest about it and contacted the Regional as soon as the hole was discovered.

[EricH]

Competition robot, or practice robot?

If it's a practice robot, that's one thing--those are fair game.

But if the competition robot isn't bagged...it would depend on who informs FRC HQ, and whether the team does work on the robot between bag day and competition, and the state of the lockup form on arrival at competition. It's a mess, but it can be worked through.

[Boe]

not the most relevant considering the original poster was from miami, but for the minnesota state championship in mid may your robot must have stayed bagged, but you are allowed 8 hours (i think) with the robot out of the bag before the event

[EricH]

Now a team should not have any reason that I'm aware of to bag their robot now that the season is over. Do some offseason events require it?

Yes, actually. MN State Championship requires it, or so I hear. I think there are a couple of other state championship events starting up that will/do require bagged robots. These are not FRC events, but they use the bag to prevent extra work on the robot before the event.

[CENTURION]

What exactly are you saying OzzyArmas? They didn't bag it at all? If so, they wouldn't pass inspection.

Or are you saying that they kept working on it after stop build, and then bagged it up just before the regional? (And falsified the paperwork?)

[OzzyArmas]

Sorry I delayed so much, I've been a little busy and couldn't find this post again.
The Robot was bagged, but then they asked for permission to un-bag it to do a "presentation" when in reality it was to keep working on it. This happened after build season was done and during competition season. The Robot was never finished on time.

[Steven Donow]

Sorry I delayed so much, I've been a little busy and couldn't find this post again.
The Robot was bagged, but then they asked for permission to un-bag it to do a "presentation" when in reality it was to keep working on it. This happened after build season was done and during competition season. The Robot was never finished on time.

Interestingly enough, I believe FIRST has given exemptions for the case of presentation. There was a Q&A question about it, and it's handled on a case-by-case basis through emailing FIRST. Also I vaguely recall a story here about a team allowed to unbag at the request of a FIRST higherup(Woodie? Jon Dudas? Dean?) in order to present their robot...
Of course, these were all with the expressed consent of FIRST, and I assume some proof had to be provided that no work was done...

[OzzyArmas]

That's the thing. The "proof" was fake. According to the "proof", the robot was bagged thr same day. According to my proof and what I saw/know, it was bagged right before competition.

[EricH]

So submit your proof to FRC HQ. If there was a violation as severe as you are alleging, then FRC HQ needs to know about it (even if they do not want to know about it). They will presumably investigate and deal with it appropriately.

Coming here on Chief Delphi to comment on it does nothing official, and can raise some hackles. Go to FRC HQ with your evidence, whatever it is, and let them deal with it. I won't say it's not going to be difficult, but it is at least the professional thing to do, and quite possibly the gracious thing to do.

[Racer26]

Knowing the way the B&T system is constructed, I'm amazed that nobody else thinks this happens on a regular basis.

IMO HQ should require us to submit a digital photograph of the robot in its bag, with the numbered tag visible within 24 hours of bag day. Then its much harder to abuse the system.

As it is now, there is absolutely nothing (except y'know, morals) to stop a team from working on their robot right up until their competition, and bag the robot the night before, having a mentor sign the paper saying it was in on bag day.

[martin417]

Knowing the way the B&T system is constructed, I'm amazed that nobody else thinks this happens on a regular basis.

IMO HQ should require us to submit a digital photograph of the robot in its bag, with the numbered tag visible within 24 hours of bag day. Then its much harder to abuse the system.

As it is now, there is absolutely nothing (except y'know, morals) to stop a team from working on their robot right up until their competition, and bag the robot the night before, having a mentor sign the paper saying it was in on bag day.

You mean you think there are people in this world that would cheat?:ahh: Shocking! Next you will be telling me that there are athletes out there using performance enhancing drugs, then lying about it. I just can't believe that would ever happen!:yikes:

[CENTURION]

You mean you think there are people in this world that would cheat?:ahh: Shocking! Next you will be telling me that there are athletes out there using performance enhancing drugs, then lying about it. I just can't believe that would ever happen!:yikes:

The FIRST culture is much different though. Personally, I don't have a problem trusting teams to properly B&T.

The mentors should know that they're really just cheating the students though.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

While B&T is checked by inspectors, there is several other people that will become involved in those cases especially when reported by the team or others. While we do not intend to keep teams from competing, each instance is a case unto it's own, requiring different responses. I can tell you for a fact that what appears to be, is rarely what actually occurred. For instance, several years ago a team was noted pulling a robot out of a crate after ship. As is often the case, the rumor mill started and the story became convoluted to the point that the team in question was being denigrated in public for no good reason. As it turns out, the team had been shipped something that looked like a robot but was not. Further investigation showed that the team had in fact followed all rules, shipping their robot on time. It was a simply a case of someone seeing something and jumping to conclusions. You have all seen instances of this rumor mill hurting other teams right here on CD over the years. GP carries over to passing or starting rumors without all the facts. Just don't do it. Give the team the benefit of the doubt.

[pfreivald]

What's the next worst thing to cheating and losing?

Cheating and winning, and knowing that your win will always be tainted, even if nobody but you knows about it.

If you have proof, I'd submit it to FIRST HQ and let them deal with it. If you don't have proof, then I'd do what I recommend most people do about most things: worry about your own integrity, and let other people worry about theirs.

[Jon Stratis]

Knowing the way the B&T system is constructed, I'm amazed that nobody else thinks this happens on a regular basis.

IMO HQ should require us to submit a digital photograph of the robot in its bag, with the numbered tag visible within 24 hours of bag day. Then its much harder to abuse the system.

As it is now, there is absolutely nothing (except y'know, morals) to stop a team from working on their robot right up until their competition, and bag the robot the night before, having a mentor sign the paper saying it was in on bag day.

If a team was willing to cheat and lie to get extra time to work on their robot, what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to do a little work in Photoshop?

Having teams submit a photo would add a surprisingly difficult step to getting robots unbagged - FIRST would have to set up a system to gather the photos on bag day, gather the photos after each event for those doing multiple events, manage to find a way to strictly enforce district teams that have unbag periods between events, send all of those pictures on to the LRI's at the events so they could go through them all, along with the forms and the actual tags on the bags to ensure each team was compliant.

That would be a massive, complicated undertaking that would still result in holes that could allow teams to cheat and lie to get extra time on their robot.

FIRST isn't like other sports. That's evident just walking through the pits and seeing teams helping each other. I'm willing to trust a vast majority of the teams to follow the rules in good faith.

If you come across a team (and have evidence) that is not following the bag and tag rules, pass that along to FIRST before the regional - after the regional is over, there isn't much we can do. Please don't wait until the regional starts to bring it up to the LRI... that will cause huge issues at the event that can more easily be dealt with beforehand (if we know about it before the event, we can go in with a decision from FIRST. If it's that serious of a violation and we learn about it at the event, it takes up time from the LRI, head ref, FTA, and possibly a call in to HQ to figure out what to do, when all of these people have other stuff they need to be doing to ensure your event is successful).

When it comes to Bag and Tag issues... a vast majority of them are minor issues. The only major issue I had was at MN State Champs last year, and we got that figured out pretty quickly for everyone involved.

[akoscielski3]

Don't teams have an agreement or contract with FIRST agreeing to bag and tag their robot on time an keeping it bagged until legal to open? If so I would expect FIRST to take some sort of action regarding the issue. If nothing is ever done and teams find out how easy it is for people to cheat then more people will do it.

[OzzyArmas]

Thank you very much for all your responses, it has trully help. As for your comments on trusting teams, I would too, but not this team. And I wasnt trying to start an issue in CD, I just wanted to know what to do.

[pfreivald]

Don't teams have an agreement or contract with FIRST agreeing to bag and tag their robot on time an keeping it bagged until legal to open? If so I would expect FIRST to take some sort of action regarding the issue. If nothing is ever done and teams find out how easy it is for people to cheat then more people will do it.

If actual evidence (photos, videos, whatever) of cheating comes to light, I'd be a strong advocate for banning that team from competition that season, and perhaps a long-term (three or five year) suspension of their eligibility for Engineering Inspiration or Chairman's Awards.

But in the absence of evidence, worry about your own team. (Trust, but verify... Seems like I've heard these words before...)

[tr6scott]

Pictures solve almost nothing, and adds complexity.

I say this as we have barely made bagging the last two years. Yet the the real improvements made when we got to the first event, was in programming and driver performance. Pretty tough to tell in a picture, you got your autonomous code working, and your drivers trained...

Physically, little changed from Kettering to MSC, there were some improvements, but pretty insignificant compared to code and drivers.

Scott.

[nicholsjj]

Tldr: We need to get rid of bag and tag
I think this brings up another bigger problem in FIRST. I understand that the 6 week build season is something that is inspirational, but it does hurt the vast majority of teams in FIRST. The problem is with bag and tag is that instead of having your robot hauled away on a fedex truck, teams now sit there everyweek staring at their robots. This causes a problem I believe when these same teams watch a webcast of week one and see their regional teams competing and working on their robot. I understand that teams have earned the right to go to multiple events but should that punish the teams that are scraping through fundraisers just to attend a regional? Let's look at an instance this season. At Razorback team 1477 had competed at three event prior. Therefore they had 9 extra days to work on and tweak their robot before the regional. Even though 1477 had a World Class machine it was still not fair for the single event rookie teams at Razorback that only got to build on their robot up until 2/19. If we eliminate bag and tag we not only remove controversial situations like this one, but we also give single event teams a better advantage to perform. It would save teams money such that they might be able to attend another regional. Also it doesn't change much in terms of the overall level of the teams. A team that works building their chassis up until 2/19 will still be working on building the chassis up until the Wednesday of their regional.

[pfreivald]

Tldr: We need to get rid of bag and tag

One of the biggest challenges of finding mentors is the time commitment. People have families and jobs (and sometimes second and third jobs) and other obligations; increasing the time required to run a FIRST team would probably make recruiting mentors even more difficult. We can only keep up with you caffeine-slurping whippersnappers for so long...

If anything, I'd rather we get rid of the withholding allowance!

[nicholsjj]

One of the biggest challenges of finding mentors is the time commitment. People have families and jobs (and sometimes second and third jobs) and other obligations; increasing the time required to run a FIRST team would probably make recruiting mentors even more difficult. We can only keep up with you caffeine-slurping whippersnappers for so long...

If anything, I'd rather we get rid of the withholding allowance!

I think we as mentors would be given more time. With an extended build season teams would not have to put in 14-18 hour days because we would not have to help the students produce a 140 lb complex machine in such a tight window. Looking at FRC as compared to Best we defiantly put in a less time ratio per lb.

[JohnFogarty]

I'm going to say this just based on what I got as a comment when I told my Brazilian team we only work in Aiken...3 days a week.

If you worked every day for 6 weeks you could produce a pretty awesome machine....but since most teams can't there in-lies the problem.

Within this 6 week period you are going to have teams that work every hour they can and then you will have teams that don't have that time commitment available to them. I know for a fact that my Brazilian team told me they work every...single...day.

While Aiken County Robotics only works a 2 (2-Hour Nights) and 1 (6 Hour-Day) we make a working machine every season, but I can tell you as a veteran team older than 1114....we are no where near on their level.

[pfreivald]

I think we as mentors would be given more time. With an extended build season teams would not have to put in 14-18 hour days because we would not have to help the students produce a 140 lb complex machine in such a tight window. Looking at FRC as compared to Best we defiantly put in a less time ratio per lb.

Even if you're trying to compete with teams that are putting in 14-18 hour days over the same time period?

I don't think I'd bet against the dedication of FIRST students and mentors. :)

[Alexa Stott]

Tldr: We need to get rid of bag and tag
I think this brings up another bigger problem in FIRST. I understand that the 6 week build season is something that is inspirational, but it does hurt the vast majority of teams in FIRST. The problem is with bag and tag is that instead of having your robot hauled away on a fedex truck, teams now sit there everyweek staring at their robots. This causes a problem I believe when these same teams watch a webcast of week one and see their regional teams competing and working on their robot. I understand that teams have earned the right to go to multiple events but should that punish the teams that are scraping through fundraisers just to attend a regional? Let's look at an instance this season. At Razorback team 1477 had competed at three event prior. Therefore they had 9 extra days to work on and tweak their robot before the regional. Even though 1477 had a World Class machine it was still not fair for the single event rookie teams at Razorback that only got to build on their robot up until 2/19. If we eliminate bag and tag we not only remove controversial situations like this one, but we also give single event teams a better advantage to perform. It would save teams money such that they might be able to attend another regional. Also it doesn't change much in terms of the overall level of the teams. A team that works building their chassis up until 2/19 will still be working on building the chassis up until the Wednesday of their regional.

This still creates an issue where teams competing only at, say, a week 5 regional have much more additional time than a team that only competes at a week 1 or 2 regional. If FIRST changed the rules so you could continue to work on your robot until your actual competition, I think you'd see many people rushing to register for later events to give them more time. Just something else to consider.

[dellagd]

I've yet to hear of this happening, but does anyone (probably inspectors at new events filled with first year teams) have a tale of this happening and what was done?

Apparently It happened at the Springside-Chestnut Hill District event this year.

Our team Moderator inspected at that event and the team was made to sign something and then allowed to compete. I believe it was a fairly new, if not rookie team. Unfortunately thats all I know.

[Anupam Goli]

This kind of makes me want to go back to shipping the bot. It's much less of a hassle on a team in terms of transportation, and it prevents any 'cheating' from occurring (though i will say that the number of teams that don't follow bag day is likely very very small). Also, most likely teams that don't follow bag day likely aren't better off than before. Every team looking to compete tries their best to iterate, and so most of them build a practice bot or withhold the mechanism they wish to iterate anyway.

[DonRotolo]

If anything, I'd rather we get rid of the withholding allowance!
Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.

[Siri]

Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.Honestly, we'd still do the work. All the same iteration, just leave the home version on the practice bot and add "fabricate at event" as an additional design requirement. It'd probably be even harder and more stressful than now, but I doubt we'd be able to live with not trying as hard to improve.

[Jon Stratis]

Technically, they would not pass inspection, which (probably) means they would not be allowed to compete in the event.

I've yet to hear of this happening, but does anyone (probably inspectors at new events filled with first year teams) have a tale of this happening and what was done?

This did happen at North Star this year, with a rookie team. If you closed one eye and squinted real hard, you might have called what they had a robot. In the end, they got lectured, filled out the non-compliance form, and introduced to several veteran teams, who then spent the entire day helping them build an actual robot. The only thing their competition robot shared with what they brought in was the kit bot frame. They had to add wheels, motors, electronics, pneumatics, and a 10 pt climber. No shooter, although it was discussed.

Bag and Tag violations are interesting from an inspectors point of view. There's a judgement call to be made on how much the team benefited from the infraction. In my case, the team didn't benefit from it at all. In other cases, it may not be so clear cut.

[Tristan Lall]

Bag and Tag violations are interesting from an inspectors point of view. There's a judgement call to be made on how much the team benefited from the infraction. In my case, the team didn't benefit from it at all. In other cases, it may not be so clear cut.
The trouble is, there's immense pressure to let them use the robot, firstly because everyone wants them to play (for many reasons), and secondly because proving that deliberate malfeasance took place is complicated and practically impossible (I don't recall an official standard for refusing a robot due to illegal fabrication practices, nor even a consensus to that effect). The infraction form isn't itself a very big deterrent to the teams that understand the way it's typically used.

I think it would be an improvement if teams would securely submit encrypted archives containing high-quality digital images of the bagged, tagged robot (with serial number visible) every time it's locked up. They would then submit the password any time before their next event. It's not immune to forgery, but at least it makes the bagging forms less critical. (In fact, FIRST should also require and publicize tight shots of the sealed tags alone, so that the officials and fellow competitors can verify the numbers during load-in.)

[Don Wright]

I think it would be an improvement if teams would securely submit encrypted archives containing high-quality digital images of the bagged, tagged robot (with serial number visible) every time it's locked up. They would then submit the password any time before their next event. It's not immune to forgery, but at least it makes the bagging forms less critical. (In fact, FIRST should also require and publicize tight shots of the sealed tags alone, so that the officials and fellow competitors can verify the numbers during load-in.)

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.

[TheMadCADer]

This still creates an issue where teams competing only at, say, a week 5 regional have much more additional time than a team that only competes at a week 1 or 2 regional. If FIRST changed the rules so you could continue to work on your robot until your actual competition, I think you'd see many people rushing to register for later events to give them more time. Just something else to consider.

Sure, lots of teams would like the extra time afforded by competing later, but it doesn't create an issue in my eyes. A team at a week 5 regional is only competing against teams at that same regional, who have all had the same amount of time. Teams already try to avoid week 1 events as it is, but it isn't a huge issue because within the regional it's still a level playing field.

[CENTURION]

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them. When I started in FRC, what absolutely impressed me the most was the trusting, kind, helpful culture. If we have to start implementing all sorts of rules like that to keep teams from cheating, we're already in a very bad place.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them.

It is from that standpoint that we begin the process. Virtually all of the issues boil down to a simple mistake.

[Brandon Holley]

Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.

Don- I agree mentor burnout is a very very legitimate concern for FIRST in general. However, I think a large reason you see teams continue to improve over a season is because of withholding allowance.

Some people view withholding allowance as 'unpure' for lack of a better word. In my opinion however, it is the essence of engineering and design. Teams may test and practice all year in their labs, but until they get out on the field and compete, they are not fully vetting their solutions. Withholding allowance allows for iteration and refinement which raises the level of play for just about every team playing

-Brando

[Jon Stratis]

Don- I agree mentor burnout is a very very legitimate concern for FIRST in general. However, I think a large reason you see teams continue to improve over a season is because of withholding allowance.

Some people view withholding allowance as 'unpure' for lack of a better word. In my opinion however, it is the essence of engineering and design. Teams may test and practice all year in their labs, but until they get out on the field and compete, they are not fully vetting their solutions. Withholding allowance allows for iteration and refinement which raises the level of play for just about every team playing

-Brando

In my experience, it's not the withholding allowance that lets teams get better over the course of the season... it's run time. With the exception of this year (which was a fluke), my team has always done significantly better at our second regional. We've never really utilized the withholding allowance.

When the first regional starts, our drivers have very little practice. Programming has only had a few hours with the robot. Simply put, we have issues that we haven't had time to fix yet.

When the second regional starts, we've had three 8+ hour days of hard work testing, refining, and driving the robot in the previous regional. We also have practical experience knowing how the game will be played. We come out much more prepared, and as a result perform much better.

I'll add to that a note of something I observed this season. There was a team in Duluth that ended up seeding very well. When they came down to Minneapolis, they brought in a brand new 30lb shooter and spent the first day swapping it out on their machine. They didn't do as well in Minneapolis. They then went to Champs last week, used their withholding to bring in another new shooter, and spent some time modifying their bot. The first two iterations were tall, while the third was short enough to fit under the pyramid. From what I've heard, they issues the entire weekend. Iterating with your withholding allowance isn't always beneficial.

[pfreivald]

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them.

I've had to tell my students on a few occasions, "that's not our problem."

One was this year, where teams were clearly using secondary, non-approved, non-legal, non-robot-controlled compressors in their pits in order to charge their pneumatics. This happened at both regional competitions we attended, and it was, for lack of a better word, brazen.

The fact that these other teams cheated -- and yes, I'm going to use that word because those that I know about continued to use the compressors on the down-low even after being told by the LRI that it was illegal -- HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what really matters about 1551, which is what I consider my definition of "Gracious Professionalism": integrity, work ethic, integrity, drive, integrity, motivation, integrity, skill, integrity, helpfulness, integrity, and integrity.

It's up to FIRST to take reasonable steps to stamp out instances of actual cheating when they occur, and some level of self-policing between teams is a reasonable way to help with this effort, but when it comes down to brass tacks I think we have two fundamentally different situations that often get conflated:

1. Teams that are violating rules without realizing that they have done so. Sometimes this can be rectified. In the case of a non-compliant robot bagging, even where there is work done on the robot after stop build, because no one that we know of has yet invented a time machine, there is no way to rectify that situation. As such, the team should be allowed to compete with a stern admonishment. The first time it happens.

2. Teams that know the rules and willfully violate them. This should come with severe sanction, IMO.

Unfortunately, #1 is oft confused for #2, and even when #2 occurs, there's often scant evidence of it -- or not enough to say that it definitely wasn't #1. I can imagine that barring a team from participating on flimsy evidence could result in, for example, lawsuits; there's a lot of money tied up in FIRST as an organization and in FIRST teams, and getting banned on flimsy evidence from a competition you paid to enter almost definitely sets the banning party up for some liability.

So erring on the side of the benefit of the doubt is, IMO, the right thing to do as well as the wise thing to do.

In the meantime, we continue to act with integrity ourselves, and expect it from those around us. It really does rub off on most people--and those it doesn't, we likely can't bring into the fold anyway.

[Brandon Holley]

In my experience, it's not the withholding allowance that lets teams get better over the course of the season... it's run time. With the exception of this year (which was a fluke), my team has always done significantly better at our second regional. We've never really utilized the withholding allowance.

When the first regional starts, our drivers have very little practice. Programming has only had a few hours with the robot. Simply put, we have issues that we haven't had time to fix yet.

When the second regional starts, we've had three 8+ hour days of hard work testing, refining, and driving the robot in the previous regional. We also have practical experience knowing how the game will be played. We come out much more prepared, and as a result perform much better.

I'll add to that a note of something I observed this season. There was a team in Duluth that ended up seeding very well. When they came down to Minneapolis, they brought in a brand new 30lb shooter and spent the first day swapping it out on their machine. They didn't do as well in Minneapolis. They then went to Champs last week, used their withholding to bring in another new shooter, and spent some time modifying their bot. The first two iterations were tall, while the third was short enough to fit under the pyramid. From what I've heard, they issues the entire weekend. Iterating with your withholding allowance isn't always beneficial.


I agree Jon. I should've been more detailed in my reply. I don't think withholding allowance is the only reason teams improve. Obviously practice, and simply 'getting the bugs out' goes a very long way. I do believe that the withholding allowance allows teams to continue elevating their ceiling, which can be a good or bad thing in specific cases.

Your anecdote on the Duluth team is also a very good example of how withholding can hurt. Ive seen many cases just like that over the year (including with my own team). I've also seen many cases of a team making upgrades using withholding and elevating to an entirely new level. A good example this year comes to mind with 3467. They were a consistent 30 point climber at BAE, but saw a limitation to their ceiling early on in the season. They spent the 5 weeks between BAE and Pine Tree building a shooter system and remounting their climber to it. At Pine Tree the team was capable of an extremely consistent 18 point auto, 12-14 teleop discs and a ~17-20 second 30 point climb. This put their ceiling VERY high compared to a typical cycler or a typical 30 point climber.


So to summarize- I think there are teams who use withholding to their extreme benefit while there are others who fall short of their intended targets. Either way, I think its an important part of the development cycle for a robot in a particular season.

-Brando

[Tristan Lall]

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?
I think that's well within the abilities of the people we trust to program robots. (Or the people we trust with word processors, for that matter.) Also, the security is for the benefit of the team, so that they can be sure any error on FIRST's part won't lead to inadvertent disclosure of their robot. If they don't care about that, I wouldn't be opposed to letting them submit picture files in unsecured fashion.

It's also cheap insurance against losing the paper form—these are forgotten in hotels and schools all the time, and lead to deviation procedures that involve the head ref, FTA and LRI. That's what really wastes time. This places a modest burden on teams, but does it well in advance so that everyone can make the most of the events.

Making the numbers public would be a little unusual for FIRST—because it rarely uses enforcement mechanisms that involve the community—but in this case, the burden is essentially zero, other than at load-in time. And it has the advantage of quelling the often baseless rumours that sometimes crop up. If you subscribe to the notion that a team is violating the bag rules, then walk past during load in, or forever hold your peace. Concurrently, teams have to justify themselves to each other, and this puts additional pressure on them to play fair.

The only significant added complexity lies with FIRST. If they don't have the IT resources to manage it properly, it could indeed become annoying.

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.
Trust, but verify. We still make teams prepare a BOM, even though we expect them to comply, and can't realistically check them all in detail. It's trivial to forge one, but the procedure helps keep the competition's expectations foremost in team members' minds, and likely reduces opportunistic cheating. Similarly, knowing that there's an independent record outside of the team's control means that it's much riskier to change the robot in substantial ways.

Also, acting as an LRI, I've seen a few possible end-of-build violations over the years, each with moderate to strong evidence. Some involved extra practice and refinement, and some were possible duplications of another team's robot.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In my mind, the withholding allowance is meant to give teams a chance to assemble spare mechanisms after stop build, a chance to program for specialty sensors and assemblies (e.g. camera aimed shooters) or simply to modify/improve an existing robot mechanism that proved unreliable during practice/testing. While a rarity in the past, teams who build a second robot or "prototype" are becoming common place. The level of design is a testament to this. We can have a long discussion on whether this improves the competition overall but this is not the place for that. I do not believe it is in the spirit of the rule to construct robot parts that were not built/designed/conceived prior to stop build. In other words, I do not believe it is in the spirit to build a drive base prior to stop build with the expectation you will build the rest of the robot later and bring it along as withholding. Yes, as an LRI I have seen 29 lb+ mechanisms come in the door.

[pfreivald]

I do not believe it is in the spirit of the rule to construct robot parts that were not built/designed/conceived prior to stop build. In other words, I do not believe it is in the spirit to build a drive base prior to stop build with the expectation you will build the rest of the robot later and bring it along as withholding. Yes, as an LRI I have seen 29 lb+ mechanisms come in the door.

:eek: It would surprise me if even a sizable minority of FIRST members share your belief on that!

[Thad House]

I do not believe it is in the spirit of the rule to construct robot parts that were not built/designed/conceived prior to stop build. In other words, I do not believe it is in the spirit to build a drive base prior to stop build with the expectation you will build the rest of the robot later and bring it along as withholding. Yes, as an LRI I have seen 29 lb+ mechanisms come in the door.

I think a better rule would be to add something new with withholding, something has to be removed. At that point you could consider it an upgrade. Every team I have ever been a part of has always had to remove something in order to upgrade. We have never shipped a non functional robot. Everything we have ever brought in with withholding has been to improve functionality, not make it functional in the first place.

[Don Wright]

I think that's well within the abilities of the people we trust to program robots. (Or the people we trust with word processors, for that matter.) Also, ...

I didn't say teams didn't have the ability to do it... I just thinking adding additional processes to ALL teams just to try and stop/catch the VERY small amount of teams that I assume is cheating isn't moving in a positive direction. The teams that really, really, really want to cheat...will still find ways no matter what you try to do to stop it... So why add additional hoops for all of the teams to jump through because of the acts of these few teams?

I guess I don't share your view that more big brother (FIRST) is better than less...or would change anything.

Just for the record, I think we should get rid of the B&T and think that you then get rid of most of the "problems". Yes, teams now have to decide on their own how much or long they will work on the robot (and not have "mentor burnout")...but it's now in their control. Everyone does this anyway...teams that want a second robot and want to continue to improve through the season do it already.

IRT the BOM...this is already a funny area... When teams can have complete CNC'd custom gearboxes, wheels, parts, etc. from sponsors at the cost of the raw materials (which also for the record I have NO problem with and love this aspect of the competition...teams like 254 and 233 are huge inspirations to everyone), the BOM rule is sort of a formality already. It is mostly just another number to quantify another part of the competition that is similar to real world (typical design constraints are size, weight, time, and cost).