Game Manual - Team Update - 2014-03-11

[Hallry]

Posted on the FRC Manual sit (http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/)e, 3/11/14: http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/Updates/0#term 175

Game Manual - Team UPDATE - 2014-03-11

Game Manual

General Updates

During the 2014 FRC Season, two FRC teams have experienced major failures of the white plastic Clippard pneumatic storage tanks distributed via FIRST Choice in 2013. Two additional failures occurred during the 2013 FRC Season. In one of the 2014 situations, a metal hose clamp was used to secure the tank to the robot. The clamp was over-tightened, causing improper stress on the tank. In the second situation, the team was attempting to fix a leak between the tank and the metal fitting while the tank was pressurized. Thankfully, no one was hurt in either of these situations.

As we said in a blog post last year (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-plastic-air-tanks-important-safety-notice), there are some steps a team can take to help mitigate the risks of a failure in this manner.


Do not work on any part of the pneumatic system while it is pressurized. If you need to tighten a fitting, release the pressure from the system, tighten the fitting, and then repressurize the system to check for leaks.
Use the FRC Robot Control System to pressurize the pneumatic system. Robot Rule R80 requires the compressor to be controlled and powered by the robot, even if the compressor is off-board. Powering the compressor directly from a battery is not only illegal, it is unsafe.
Clippard recommends using 2-4 layers of PTFE tape on the fitting. Using more than this could increase stress around the plastic threads, weakening the tank.
Tighten the ¼” NPT fitting to 10-12 inch pounds (do not to exceed 15 inch pounds). Over-torqueing NPT threads in plastic pressure tanks can introduce stress and cracks that could lead to failures. Do not measure installation based on distance or number of threads exposed as there is a large variance on NPT threading from a variety of manufacturers.
If there is a leak detected, do not continue threading in the fitting. Remove the fitting and reapply the tape sealant.
If possible, use the provided attachment method for securing the tank to the robot. Do not use attachment methods that introduce extra stress or deform the tank.
Protect the tanks. This game has seen a lot of high speed interaction between robots on the field. Sometimes, pieces from one robot reach into and contact pieces inside another robot. A thin sheet of plastic can help protect both pneumatic and control system components inside the robot.
Don’t use chemicals on plastic tanks that can erode or compromise the integrity of the tank material.


Section 3.2.5: ROBOT Actions

G26-1

ROBOTS may not break the planes of the openings of the opponent’s LOW GOAL in an attempt to impede opponent SCORING in that GOAL.

Violation: FOUL. If extended, strategic, or repeated, TECHNICAL FOUL.

http://i.imgur.com/9fyPrZl.png

Section 4.5: Material Utilization

The purpose of R18 is to give all Teams at each Event the same access to the same amount of unbagged FABRICATED ITEMS. A Team bringing more than 45 lbs, but leaving the items outside the venue, has access to more than 45 lbs and is violating this rule. The change below is being made to accomplish two objectives:

To make the intent of R18 explicitly clear.
To make verification of R18 easier for Inspectors at each Event.

R18

At an Event, Teams may have access to a static set of FABRICATED ITEMS that shall not exceed 45 lbs. This static set of items may only be brought into the Pits when the Team initially loads in at the Event. Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit.

For Teams attending 2-Day Events, these FABRICATED ITEMS may be used during the Robot Access Period and/or brought to the Event, but the total weight may not exceed 45 lbs. FABRICATED ITEMS constructed during the Robot Access Period and bagged with the ROBOT are exempt from this limit.

Items exempt from this limit are:

the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
BUMPERS, and
any ROBOT battery assemblies (as described in R5-A (http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/viewItem/692)).

[Andrew Lawrence]

Glad to hear G26 is being updated to only affect purposeful intrusions.

[Gregor]

Excellent update. It solves the issue with inconsequentially breaking the plane of the opponents low goal, and warns all of the dangers of using pneumatics, to hopefully avoid another scary situation like ours at GTRW.

[bduddy]

I like the update to R18. Leave your practice bots at home, people. (EDIT: Yes, yes, I know, I am oversimplifying a complicated discussion and not being entirely accurate. Do whatever you want with your practice bots as long as it's within the rules, I don't care. Happy now?)

Hopefully G26-1 doesn't become another source of soft technical fouls.

[PayneTrain]

R18, after years of it and its equivalent rules being shrouded in mystery of explicit intent, finally get the ruling most people expected, whether or not they wanted it.

Neat.

[MrForbes]

I like the update to R18. Leave your practice bots at home, people.

David got a rule! yay....

[Kevin Sheridan]

I like the update to R18. Leave your practice bots at home, people.


You can still bring you practice bot to get COTS items off of it.

[Mark Sheridan]

Glad on the pneumatic tank warnings. Hopefully we won't see another accident


Also if R18 was not clear enough before, it has to be clear now. I may not like the rule, but I am pretty happy that my team prepared for it all season and we know exactly what we are bringing in to the event and budgeted mass for spare fabricated parts appropriately.

[AdamHeard]

I like the update to R18. Leave your practice bots at home, people.


It actually doesn't mention any of what you just said at all, just clarifies that the 45 lbs is static and during load in.

[DampRobot]

Sigh... Another week, another round of regionals with insane controversy over technical fouls. Unless the GDC makes major changes in the worth or enforcement of fouls, every single competition will be marred by some major controversy over a game deciding tech foul, including Einstein. Also, no mention of a fix to the pedestal issues, another major issue that needs to be fixed ASAP.

[nixiebunny]

I caused a rule change (R18). Whee!

I am still not clear on whether it's OK to bring a practice bot to a nearby storage facility and remove COTS parts from it, as long as no fabricated items are removed from it and brought into the venue.

That's what started the whole brouhaha in the first place. I never planned to take pieces of the robot itself into the venue (it's a fragile practice machine with wooden gussets), just as a source of Talons, CIMs etc.

Whatever... We'll bring a couple Talons and CIMs to the Phoenix regional, and leave the practice bot in Tucson.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

But what truly is a COTS part if its on a practice robot?

Need a gearbox? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier assembled, so its no longer COTS.

Need a motor? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier with terminals on the ends, so its no longer COTS. It might have even had a pinion on it when you got it that probably isn't there anymore.

Need a motor controller? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier with lugs in the screw connection, so its no longer COTS.

Need some raw material? OK, get your hacksaw out and take as large a chunk as you can from that bot and trim it to size in your pit.

My point is, COTS items are rarely still COTS items on a practice bot. Even if they are truly unmodified, however, they are attached to a larger assembly (the robot) which is more than 45 pounds, and therefore would need to be brought in during initial load-in.

You do what you want, but our practice bot will be staying at home (and not just because we don't have a trailer to keep it in).

[AdamHeard]

But what truly is a COTS part if its on a practice robot?

Need a gearbox? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier assembled, so its no longer COTS.

Need a motor? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier with terminals on the ends, so its no longer COTS. It might have even had a pinion on it when you got it that probably isn't there anymore.

Need a motor controller? I bet it didn't arrive from the supplier with lugs in the screw connection, so its no longer COTS.

Need some raw material? OK, get your hacksaw out and take as large a chunk as you can from that bot and trim it to size in your pit.

My point is, COTS items are rarely still COTS items on a practice bot. Even if they are truly unmodified, however, they are attached to a larger assembly (the robot) which is more than 45 pounds, and therefore would need to be brought in during initial load-in.

You do what you want, but our practice bot will be staying at home (and not just because we don't have a trailer to keep it in).

Yay! forcing teams to spend more money for no net gain.

Gotta love it.

[cgmv123]

Also, no mention of a fix to the pedestal issues, another major issue that needs to be fixed ASAP.

The FMS issues can be fixed with a software update, which aren't normally mentioned in Team Updates.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

Yay! forcing teams to spend more money for no net gain.

Gotta love it.

Or you could just take those items off your practice bot and revert them to their COTS state (unassemble gearboxes, remove leads, etc.) before you leave for competition. That doesn't cost any money.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

People should just be able to bring whatever they want in. Barely functioning robots are not inspirational and high caliber teams will just work/spend around the issue anyway.

[Kevin Sheridan]

Or you could just take those items off your practice bot and revert them to their COTS state (unassemble gearboxes, remove leads, etc.) before you leave for competition. That doesn't cost any money.

Whats the difference between doing that at home and doing that in the parking lot?

[AdamHeard]

Or you could just take those items off your practice bot and revert them to their COTS state (unassemble gearboxes, remove leads, etc.) before you leave for competition. That doesn't cost any money.

Yay! forcing teams to spend more time for no net gain.

Gotta love it.

[AdamHeard]

Whats the difference between doing that at home and doing that in the parking lot?

This sounds like the setup to a bad FIRST joke.

[R.C.]

Yay! forcing teams to spend more money for no net gain.

Gotta love it.

Agreed,

Personally I don't care what teams bring in, bring in your practice bot and a million spare parts. I'd rather just play teams that are 100% working. I'd rather have an exciting finals or I'd rather beat/lose to XYZ team while they are fully functioning etc.. To me its like watching the Yankees play the Boston Red Sox but 1/2 the players are injured.

Why do you care if a team brings in practice bot? Not fair? Is life fair? If you think life is fair, you are sadly mistaken.

[Cory]

Or you could just take those items off your practice bot and revert them to their COTS state (unassemble gearboxes, remove leads, etc.) before you leave for competition. That doesn't cost any money.

Or you could revert them to their COTS state at the event if they become necessary.

If Team A were to have their practice bot in the arena parking lot and remove an assembly consisting of a stock pneumatic cylinder with a rod end and jam nut threaded onto the end, all they need to do to be legit is to take the rod end and jam nut off, carry all three items into the pit, then put them back together.

This brings back the days when there was a massive argument over whether battery leads had to be included in your witholding allowance, because the batteries were no longer COTS as soon as they were assembled. FIRST ended up saying they did not, that they were integral to the battery. Terminals are also integral to motors, so logically they should allow a motor to still be COTS after being applied. Has anyone asked that Q&A?

[nixiebunny]

The difference between stripping parts in the parking lot vs home is the number of parts you feel like stripping at home. Which parts will fail?

[MrBasse]

Yay! forcing teams to spend more money for no net gain.

Gotta love it.

Who exactly forced you to build a practice robot?

[Jon Stratis]

Is it really that big of a deal to prepare for competition? If you want something available, do what you need to do to bring it into the venue with you at load in. It's that simple. Thousands of teams do it, why should some teams have the privilege of a trailer full of stuff outside that they can pick and choose from during an event?

I would certainly argue that it's not "forcing teams to spend money/time for no net gain" - It's forcing teams to plan ahead, organize, and prepare. If you're presenting some new wonder-gadget for your company, odds are you bring spares with you to the venue. Odds are you have supplies to fix anything conceivable that could go wrong. Odds are you have a plan for the entire event, with sufficient redundancies that the product launch doesn't become a flop. It's the same thing here.

[AdamHeard]

Who exactly forced you to build a practice robot?

You could say us, you could argue in a roundabout fashion FIRST by giving teams in district areas an easier set of rules to compete in without a practice robot.

We can argue down that path to no net gain if you desire, but the case I'm describing is no different than using last years robots as a source for COTS spares at events. "Who forced you to build last years robot?" doesn't drive the same point home.

[AdamHeard]

Is it really that big of a deal to prepare for competition? If you want something available, do what you need to do to bring it into the venue with you at load in. It's that simple. Thousands of teams do it, why should some teams have the privilege of a trailer full of stuff outside that they can pick and choose from during an event?

I would certainly argue that it's not "forcing teams to spend money/time for no net gain" - It's forcing teams to plan ahead, organize, and prepare. If you're presenting some new wonder-gadget for your company, odds are you bring spares with you to the venue. Odds are you have supplies to fix anything conceivable that could go wrong. Odds are you have a plan for the entire event, with sufficient redundancies that the product launch doesn't become a flop. It's the same thing here.

So if FIRST can make a trivially different ruling that saves teams time and money, they shouldn't because things are tough in the real world?

[Arefin Bari]

Honestly, who cares if you bring a practice robot in? We got other issues to address before we even get anywhere close to the practice bot issue... and even then, practice bots arent an isssue. (Thats my opinion)

No we dont have a practice robot; unfortunately we dont have a budget to be able to build one.

Oh and if a well financed team didnt bring all their spares and parts in, struggling teams and new teams wouldnt receive much help from teams at events.

We had a hanging mechanism last year on thursday at our first regional because a team brought in extra spares.

[R.C.]

.

Oh and if a well financed team didnt bring all their spares and parts in, struggling teams and new teams wouldnt receive much help from teams at events.

We had a hanging mechanism last year on thursday at our first regional because a team brought in extra spares.

Gotta highlight this one,

Same case for us, we gave parts to over 15+ team at CVR this past weekend because we had them available.

[BrendanB]

Let's not forget that teams without practice robots also have over 45lbs of pre-fabricated items.

They exist more than you think they do.

[Arefin Bari]

It's that simple. Thousands of teams do it, why should some teams have the privilege of a trailer full of stuff outside that they can pick and choose from during an event?


Because those teams have earned the privilege by working with their members to raise money or get more sponsors to be able to better fund their team.

You can do the same...

Again, we arent a very well funded team but it would sure be very nice to have a practice bot.

[PayneTrain]

I do like the idea of to make something officially COTS a scenario like this would occur:

Robot comes back to the pits. Someone didn't grease it, and now the gears look more like discs. Guess we need to replace that transmission! Thankfully we have a spare, identical transmission that is identical to the ones we bought from our friends at ACME Robotics. BUT WAIT! The team already brought in a spare intake and catapult and with the added transmission, would go over the 45 pound barrier. This means you have to take it apart, then put it back together, before you can compete with a functioning robot again. This situation would probably inspire me to beat my head against a wall in frustration and help me recognize how silly this rule is in 2014.

We want people to exercise Gracious Professionalism® and play at their best, but also not really because we find this archaic rule to satisfy something related to inspiring students to pursue careers in science and technology.™

[Kevin Sheridan]

Is it really that big of a deal to prepare for competition? If you want something available, do what you need to do to bring it into the venue with you at load in. It's that simple. Thousands of teams do it, why should some teams have the privilege of a trailer full of stuff outside that they can pick and choose from during an event?

I would certainly argue that it's not "forcing teams to spend money/time for no net gain" - It's forcing teams to plan ahead, organize, and prepare. If you're presenting some new wonder-gadget for your company, odds are you bring spares with you to the venue. Odds are you have supplies to fix anything conceivable that could go wrong. Odds are you have a plan for the entire event, with sufficient redundancies that the product launch doesn't become a flop. It's the same thing here.


Thousands of teams do not adequately prepare for events. How many teams are bringing in full backups of cRIOs, PDbB, speed controllers, motors, radios, sensors and other COTS items? I would wager that not many teams at qualifying events have backups of absolutely everything that needs to go on the robot (for COTS items). Teams that are bringing extra parts benefit everyone since these teams can lend these items out to teams who need them.

[mrnoble]

Ok, so we're now standing on opposite sides of a gulf; some folks think this ruling just serves to clarify a rule that already existed and is generally fair, others are expressing their displeasure. The real question now is: do you intend to follow it?

[Nick.kremer]

We want people to exercise Gracious Professionalism® and play at their best, but also not really because we find this archaic rule to satisfy something related to inspiring students to pursue careers in science and technology.™

^ The trademark at the end killed me, but this is very true.

[Koko Ed]

This sounds like the setup to a bad FIRST joke.

a Thursday?

[Hallry]

Thousands of teams do not adequately prepare for events.

Just want to point out that there are under 2,850 teams that compete at events.

[Cory]

Ok, so we're now standing on opposite sides of a gulf; some folks think this ruling just serves to clarify a rule that already existed and is generally fair, others are expressing their displeasure. The real question now is: do you intend to follow it?

I think I already adequately described a scenario in which you follow the rule and can have a practice robot on event premises.

The rule purely addresses whether or not you have to bring in all 45 pounds of fabricated parts as soon as the pits open, or whether you can bring in 15 lbs when the pits open and another 15 (out of some total poundage greater than 45) at the end of practice day when you figure out what upgrade parts you want to run, or something like that. It does nothing to address practice robots.

[BrendanB]

Ok, so we're now standing on opposite sides of a gulf; some folks think this ruling just serves to clarify a rule that already existed and is generally fair, others are expressing their displeasure. The real question now is: do you intend to follow it?

Yes. No one in this thread is arguing to violate this rule. The discussion is how FIRST keeps implementing these rules that have the unintended consequence of hurting other teams like how 1323 uses their resources to help anyone who needs it. Same goes for our team.

If a team comes up to me saying they are in need of part we have on our practice robot and no one has it inside the event they are out of luck because it is no longer load in day.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

If you're presenting some new wonder-gadget for your company, odds are you bring spares with you to the venue. Odds are you have supplies to fix anything conceivable that could go wrong. Odds are you have a plan for the entire event, with sufficient redundancies that the product launch doesn't become a flop. It's the same thing here.
I don't think this is a good parallel. There is no real world application I can see that restricts the use of warm spares. I certainly don't think Apple has engineers waiting on the side of the stage waiting to solder on new CPUs if their iPhones break during a product unveil.

[PayneTrain]

Ok, so we're now standing on opposite sides of a gulf; some folks think this ruling just serves to clarify a rule that already existed and is generally fair, others are expressing their displeasure. The real question now is: do you intend to follow it?

I think a lot of people who dislike bag and tag that come from teams honored with being inducted into the FIRST Hall of Fame will
a) definitely follow the rule,
b) probably have combined more on-team experience than the people who decided this rule and probably have a leg to stand on when they criticize it
c) probably also be ignored just like they have been in the past and will be in the future.

EDIT: Full disclosure-422 is by no means a hall of fame team, but as a team who used to bring in "jump-start" kits to the Virginia Regional to help teams reach a minimum competitive concept (minibot/deployment, bridge tipper, 10-pt hanger, and now guided ramps) we will very likely be unable to serve our FIRST community in this capacity with the new ruling, and I think that is something that should be noted.

[nixiebunny]

I don't really care about whether or not the rule has a parallel in the real world. It's the rule; we'll follow it and all the other rules.

That's what it comes down to. Arguing about whether rules make sense is fruitless. They are the rules.

[AdamHeard]

This reminds me of something I used to argue.

There should be a "reuse allowance" of some weight (10-45 lbs?) from any previous year.

It's another rule that makes bad teams better, but doesn't appreciably help good teams aside from maybe saving a few bucks.

It also helps cover the area of the withholding allowance rule people are complaining about.

[PayneTrain]

That's what it comes down to. Arguing about whether rules make sense is fruitless. They are the rules.

The rules change year to year in response from constructive criticism lodged by the community through surveys, forums, and other things. The NFL, MLB, NHL, and college sports are always tweaking rules to better serve their product. Right now the NHL is trying to cut down on the amount of games that go to a shootout period because it, in the opinion of ownership and management, devalues the product. What is different here?

[magnets]

Or you could revert them to their COTS state at the event if they become necessary.


This brings back memories of having a competition to see which kid could disassemble then reassemble the andymark super shifter the fastest. We got a team of three kids who could put both transmissions, assembled, wired and connected into our robot in about 10 minutes. It was a well rehearsed operation, but a total waste of time.

The lack of any mention about the pedestal issue, the scoring tablet lag that still exists, the dead ball wait times that are affecting teams in the finals, the hot goal delay, the fact that the hot goals sometimes don't switch, and the messed up FMS timing for starting/stopping teleop is really disappointing.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

The lack of any mention about the pedestal issue, the scoring tablet lag that still exists, the dead ball wait times that are affecting teams in the finals, the hot goal delay, the fact that the hot goals sometimes don't switch, and the messed up FMS timing for starting/stopping teleop is really disappointing.

None of these are affected by the rules and therefore will not be addressed in team updates, but may be addressed in Franks Blog later this week

[Nick.kremer]

The lack of any mention about the pedestal issue, the scoring tablet lag that still exists, the dead ball wait times that are affecting teams in the finals, the hot goal delay, the fact that the hot goals sometimes don't switch, and the messed up FMS timing for starting/stopping teleop is really disappointing.

The the only you mentioned here that should be included in a Team Update is maybe the dead ball wait times. Your other points, however still valid do not.

[Mark Sheridan]

I don't really care about whether or not the rule has a parallel in the real world. It's the rule; we'll follow it and all the other rules.

That's what it comes down to. Arguing about whether rules make sense is fruitless. They are the rules.

I hate doing my taxes but I am gonna do them and then I am gonna complain about them. I think that's how the tax process works.

[Nemo]

As was stated in the other thread, this goes straight back to the disagreement about build deadline vs no build deadline.

We have a stop build day, yet the rules explicitly allow us to continue building on parts of the robot. As long as this contradiction exists, the rules will always be at odds with themselves. You can't stop building and continue building at the same time. Any way that you try to resolve that impossibility is going to produce some nonsensical idiosyncrasies.

[Brandon_L]

The FMS issues can be fixed with a software update, which aren't normally mentioned in Team Updates.

They still need to be publicly addressed, though. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think there has been mention of it in blog updates either.

To the GDC:
If you have to force us into following the intent of the rule, its probably a poor rule to begin with.

Seriously, what happened this year? Can we have a 2014 FRC GDC Report?

[Nirvash]

They still need to be publicly addressed, though. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think there has been mention of it in blog updates either.



Also the safety information on the Clippard tanks isn't a rule update, yet is in the Team Update. (Not saying that FIRST shouldn't do their best to get important safety information out)

[cadandcookies]

Well, another solid update. Focusing on safety, clarifying the withholding allowance, I think it's all around a good update.

I don't really like the R18 ruling, especially without the "functionally identical" caveat that existed previously. I guess I just have an unrealistic expectation for how difficult FIRST wants to make it for us to fix our collective robots.

Now, if we got the functionally identical rule back, making motors and motor controller assemblies legal, I'd be a bit happier.

Mostly, I think I'm just happy that things that need rule updates are getting them, even though I wish we didn't need them.

[Racer26]

I wish I understood why we lost the functionally identical spares caveat to R18.

Once upon a time, (and it wasn't that long ago) there was a distinction between identical spares (for example, a second, identical intake, intended to replace the one on the ROBOT in the bag if it gets demolished in competition), and UPGRADE PARTS. UPGRADE PARTS (something that is similar in function but not an identical spare) were required to be part of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, while identical spares were allowed in unlimited quantity.

If I wanted to have an identical, spare intake this year, and not have it be part of my withholding allowance, how do I do that? Put it in the bag with the robot? Its not really a part of my robot, until the identical part it is intended to replace fails. Never mind that sticking extra stuff in the bag makes the already-unwieldy thing even harder to move.

[zuzoom101]

G26 was a game changer in the Arkansas Regional. Team Scream (4522) lost one of their matches because they broke the low goal unintentionally. Despite the past being the past, Team Scream should probably have won the Arkansas Regional if this change was made earlier.

[bduddy]

If I wanted to have an identical, spare intake this year, and not have it be part of my withholding allowance, how do I do that? Put it in the bag with the robot? Its not really a part of my robot, until the identical part it is intended to replace fails. Never mind that sticking extra stuff in the bag makes the already-unwieldy thing even harder to move.I believe the rule allowing two bags might help you in this case, and nothing ever said that everything in the bag(s) had to be used on the robot during the competition.

[Cheesycakester]

G26 was a game changer in the Arkansas Regional. Team Scream (4522) lost one of their matches because they broke the low goal unintentionally. Despite the past being the past, Team Scream should probably have won the Arkansas Regional if this change was made earlier.

I hate to resurrect the Arkansas Regional Thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119689&page=9), but to my understanding you're correct — this adjustment of G26 would have changed the outcome of Finals Match 2 (http://youtu.be/YA5JtkWG6QA) and therefore the outcome of the regional. 4522's benign loading mechanism entered the low red goal three times while receiving a ball resulting in 60 points of fouls that shifted the 175-141 outcome to Red's favor.

I like to think this rule change came about due to this match, but I understand G26 has received heaps of criticisms from other regionals as well. Every team attending a Week 1 or 2 regional recognizes that there are still kinks in the game to be worked out at that point, and I'm extremely grateful to see this update implemented. We'll be coming out again in Week 6, and hopefully the refs and the FRC heads will have reconciled all these extraneous fouling scenarios by then.

[Chris is me]

This is an awful update. In an over zealous zeal to stop teams from getting parts out of a trailer outside the venue (the horror!), FIRST has now made it illegal to forget robot parts. That's right, if every part you need isn't there the minute you load in, you're screwed. No having your Friday team being in things. No having your Chairman's team bring props only on presentation day, as a non trivial number of chairmans props are now part of the withholding allowance! I sure do hope we didn't forget anything, and that no team at the regional needs a part we didn't already plan to bring. This is yet another joke in a season full of asinine rulings. The GDC is painfully out of touch and I'm just about sick of it.

[Answer42]

This brings back memories of having a competition to see which kid could disassemble then reassemble the andymark super shifter the fastest. We got a team of three kids who could put both transmissions, assembled, wired and connected into our robot in about 10 minutes. It was a well rehearsed operation, but a total waste of time.


This. The rules are the rules. We will all follow them to our best understanding. But with the lack of the identical spares rule this year, the elite and mid-range teams are being dragged down. And the bottom teams are hardly affected.

In past years, smart teams would have replacement parts ready to go for every system on the bot. Motor burns out? Unplug the anderson connector and pop on a new one. Good thing you had that ready to go and didn't have to waste time on putting new connections on it in the brief time before your next match. Gearbox breaks? That's why you took the time to machine a spare one. Maybe you even cleverly designed it so that a whole assembly could be changed out quickly without compromising the functionality of the robot. Teams that thought ahead and prepared for regionals were rewarded.

But now you have to choose between doing tasks in the pit that you certainly would have done in your shop, or eating into your 45 pound weight allowance because you don't want to have to assemble a versaplanetary during a time out in elliminations. And if you want to preform a radical iteration on your robot? That 45 pounds can disappear really quickly between spare parts, "modified cots parts", and actual new systems.

I can understand first wanting to level the playing field. And this ruling and strict interpretation of the meaning of a COTS part certainly accomplish that. But I think it's going too far. I was always really impressed when I saw a team get a crucial mechanism broken in match and come back out with a new one installed in such a brief time. Reminds one of the efficiency of a NASCAR pit crew. I'd rather be inspired by things like that than watch good robots not work because they couldn't be fixed in time. But maybe that's just me.

[PayneTrain]

As a reminder to all teams, please be sure to bring in all team t-shirts not being worn but will be present at the event in to be weighed on the first day of the event, as they are fabricated items that do count against the withholding allowance.

lol. (credit to Brandon Liatys)

[MrForbes]

But with the lack of the identical spares rule this year, the elite and mid-range teams are being dragged down. And the bottom teams are hardly affected.

I'm glad we're a bottom team.

:rolleyes:

[cadandcookies]

This is an awful update. In an over zealous zeal to stop teams from getting parts out of a trailer outside the venue (the horror!), FIRST has now made it illegal to forget robot parts. That's right, if every part you need isn't there the minute you load in, you're screwed. No having your Friday team being in things. No having your Chairman's team bring props only on presentation day, as a non trivial number of chairmans props are now part of the withholding allowance! I sure do hope we didn't forget anything, and that no team at the regional needs a part we didn't already plan to bring. This is yet another joke in a season full of asinine rulings. The GDC is painfully out of touch and I'm just about sick of it.

First off, I do agree with you to a point. I don't think this interpretation is a positive thing for this season or the competition as a whole. I'd like to see the return of functionally identical parts at the very least.

That being said:

I'm not one to say this much, but seriously, get a hold of yourself.

I say this as someone who disagrees with the current rules regarding spare parts, but there are significantly larger steps back they could have made, and this update helps solve the problems that made Arkansas so contentious, and clarifies a rule that was very much confusing. There are far worse things they can do than limit what we can bring in.

Outside of that, I really don't understand why not being able to bring parts in for Chairman's is a contentious thing-- there are a million things you can do in a Chairman's Presentation that have absolutely nothing to do with your robot parts. It's a very minor constraint compared to having five minutes for the presentation.

Lastly, I would have to disagree completely with this season being "full of asinine rulings"-- the vast majority of rule updates this season have made the game significantly more playable, reducing penalties and overall frustration of the game (the lexan on the goals). The GDC is quite clearly trying to improve this game and bring it closer to their vision of an exciting, cooperative game that meets their expectations (which I can almost guarantee are higher than any of ours). To accuse the GDC of being out of touch is to ignore all of the positive rule updates that have been released thus-far, and frankly I find that to be insulting and immature, whoever it's coming from.

Yes, the GDC is to "blame" for all of the issues with this year's game (and I am most definitely not saying that this year's game is flawless), but they are just as, if not more invested in making FIRST and Aerial Assist a success as we are. Remember that this game is a product of months or years of work on their part, and this isn't some small, local event they're putting on. Understandably we get invested in our robots-- does anyone really think the GDC feels any differently about their game?

[Answer42]

I'm glad we're a bottom team.

:rolleyes:

Not trying to insult anyone here. FRC has a lot of different levels of competitiveness. But honestly? You've never had motors or gearboxes ready to go in case something broke in previous years? Never made a major change to a robot at competition? By bottom teams I meant those that don't plan ahead for failures.

[Nathan Streeter]

Glad to see G26-1 fixed! It was causing way too many fouls... and I've never seen them called for the reason the rule was written... the "chokehold" defensive strategy of mechanically clogging the opponent's low goals. I was getting tired of having to look for and call these fouls as a ref!

The modification to R18 makes sense in a lot of ways... it prohibits teams from leaving their complete practice robot outside the event and then going to scavenge spares off of it depending on what's needed (launcher if that breaks, but drivebase transmissions of those fail). Unfortunately it still has it's issues (as discussed at length above)... even if you neglect the problems inherent to the whole bagging/witholding allowance/spare parts process.

[mrnoble]

If it's true (and I'm sure it is) that some teams have in the past brought a bunch of (even a trailer full of) spare parts with the sole purpose of supporting teams in need, then I feel for them and hope that at some point there is a q&a that addresses their plight. It is unfortunate that GDC was put in this position. The rule was intended to prevent teams from having free and full access to whatever spare mechanisms they might find themselves in need of as they move through competition, which is an advantage that most teams cannot have, and which isn't an advantage based on strategy, good design, or forethought (other than "bring extras of everything"). When individuals that represent teams made their opinion known (here) that the rule might not apply outside the physical space of the venue etc., it became imperative for the GDC to respond and clarify that the apparent meaning of the rule was its actual meaning. The GDC appears to have weighed the worst outcomes of both scenarios (allowed or disallowed), and determined that it would be more damaging to FRC to have teams cheating and winning than to have teams inconvenienced or required to make spare parts in the pit, or be unable to offer some kinds of assistance to other teams in need.

[Jim Giacchi]

I'm not sure if this has happened yet, but has FIRST actually enforced this rule and disqualified a team?

I know for certain that in 2012 a team detached their shooter and brought it in separate from the robot. A very sharp robot inspector saw it, figured hey that seems heavy and had them weigh it. Sure enough it was over the limit. The inspector told them they couldn't use the assembly. His suggested course of action was to remove the motors and gearboxes, essentially putting those parts back to COTS and it would have dropped the weight below the threshold. The team was a somewhat veteran team and called up to FIRST who promptly told the inspector to quit it....

Does anyone have any examples of a team being punished for an infraction of this rule? Just curious as it seems silly if FIRST isn't enforcing it and from my admittedly limited experience, I have not seen that.

[AllenGregoryIV]

I'm not sure if this has happened yet, but has FIRST actually enforced this rule and disqualified a team?

I know for certain that in 2012 a team detached their shooter and brought it in separate from the robot. A very sharp robot inspector saw it, figured hey that seems heavy and had them weigh it. Sure enough it was over the limit. The inspector told them they couldn't use the assembly. His suggested course of action was to remove the motors and gearboxes, essentially putting those parts back to COTS and it would have dropped the weight below the threshold. The team was a somewhat veteran team and called up to FIRST who promptly told the inspector to quit it....

Does anyone have any examples of a team being punished for an infraction of this rule? Just curious as it seems silly if FIRST isn't enforcing it and from my admittedly limited experience, I have not seen that.

I've had teams remove spare parts that were obviously over the weight limit (Whole drive trains and mechanisms). I have also had to give a stern talking to to teams that bring practice robots to the event. I have never had to disqualify a team.

[Gregor]

I'm not sure if this has happened yet, but has FIRST actually enforced this rule and disqualified a team?

I know for certain that in 2012 a team detached their shooter and brought it in separate from the robot. A very sharp robot inspector saw it, figured hey that seems heavy and had them weigh it. Sure enough it was over the limit. The inspector told them they couldn't use the assembly. His suggested course of action was to remove the motors and gearboxes, essentially putting those parts back to COTS and it would have dropped the weight below the threshold. The team was a somewhat veteran team and called up to FIRST who promptly told the inspector to quit it....

Does anyone have any examples of a team being punished for an infraction of this rule? Just curious as it seems silly if FIRST isn't enforcing it and from my admittedly limited experience, I have not seen that.

If FIRST really told an inspector to stop enforcing a rule then I don't know what to say.

[MrForbes]

Not trying to insult anyone here. FRC has a lot of different levels of competitiveness. But honestly? You've never had motors or gearboxes ready to go in case something broke in previous years? Never made a major change to a robot at competition? By bottom teams I meant those that don't plan ahead for failures.

No insult taken....I get a chuckle out of some of the assumptions about teams competing at different levels.

We build the robots so they won't break easily, and when we make mistakes and have to fix things, we deal with it as necessary. One year we made a few spare assemblies for stuff we thought might get broken, of course the spares were not needed, we had to fix other stuff instead.

This year we are bringing only a couple pounds of "fabricated items" in with us. It's mostly due to laziness.

[Steve W]

I'm not sure if this has happened yet, but has FIRST actually enforced this rule and disqualified a team?

Does anyone have any examples of a team being punished for an infraction of this rule? Just curious as it seems silly if FIRST isn't enforcing it and from my admittedly limited experience, I have not seen that.

I am an LRI and inspector. I have in the last 2 years told teams to remove overweight items from the pit area. They did so immediately. If they disassembled them and brought them back in pieces I did not notice but with big size becomes big target. I have never been told that I am wrong for enforcing the rules.

[falconmaster]

I caused a rule change (R18). Whee!

I am still not clear on whether it's OK to bring a practice bot to a nearby storage facility and remove COTS parts from it, as long as no fabricated items are removed from it and brought into the venue.

That's what started the whole brouhaha in the first place. I never planned to take pieces of the robot itself into the venue (it's a fragile practice machine with wooden gussets), just as a source of Talons, CIMs etc.

Whatever... We'll bring a couple Talons and CIMs to the Phoenix regional, and leave the practice bot in Tucson.
You can bring it and leave it at our school!

[Richard Wallace]

You can still bring you practice bot to get COTS items off of it.
Like anything else you read on Chief Delphi, this advice will have no value whatsoever during Inspection.

Advice that is likely to be more useful can be found here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357977&postcount=88).

[JesseK]

I can't wait for districts so we can get rid of this 2-robot nonsense. Our kids do so much more than just FRC we barely get the 2nd robot done in time for any useful form of practice.

Is anyone else growing more attuned to the idea of removing bag day altogether?

[Taylor]

Is anyone else growing more attuned to the idea of removing bag day altogether?

Yup. There's already a competition that does that (http://www.vexrobotics.com/wiki/index.php/Toss_Up).

[sdcantrell56]

I can't wait for districts so we can get rid of this 2-robot nonsense. Our kids do so much more than just FRC we barely get the 2nd robot done in time for any useful form of practice.

Is anyone else growing more attuned to the idea of removing bag day altogether?

All bag and tag does at this point is increase the cost of competing as well as the stress level. It is beyond time to get rid of requiring the robot to be bagged.

[Nick Lawrence]

Here's a scenario that the new ruling does not consider:

A team is competing at a 3 day, standard non-district regional competition. A team unbags their robot, gets through inspection, and goes out to play their first match. In that match, the team encounters heavy defense and breaks a custom drive axle. The team made spare drive axles in advance because of this scenario. However, during inital load in, they left one tote in their trailer that happened to contain those drive axles. Can you get them? Nope, you didn't bring those axles in during initial load in. Unless they can get that part manufactured at the event, that team now has to play with an under-performing drivetrain for the rest of the event. Is it fair to punish a team for a very simple oversight like this?

-Nick


As a side note, the teams who bring a practice robot in the trailer don't violate the 45LBS rule. They don't bring in the kitchen sink, just sometimes an intake arm. Half the time, they pull parts off the robot for other teams.

[BrendanB]

Here's a scenario that the new ruling does not consider:

A team is competing at a 3 day, standard non-district regional competition.A team unbags their robot, gets through inspection, and goes out to play their first match. In that match, the team encounters heavy defense and breaks a custom drive axle. The team made spare drive axles because of this scenario. However, during inital load in, they left one tote in their trailer that happened to contain those drive axles. Can you get them? Nope, you didn't bring those axles in during initial load in. That team now has to play with an under-performing drivetrain for the rest of the event. Is it fair to punish a team for a very simple oversight like this?

-Nick


As a side note, the teams who bring a practice robot in the trailer don't violate the 45LBS rule. They don't bring in the kitchen sink, just sometimes an intake arm. Half the time, they pull parts off the robot for other teams.

^This

Our team typically leaves stuff in our transport vehicle because why cram our pit full of stuff we don't need or might not need. Guess its all or nothing on load in night from here on out.

[45Auto]

Is it fair to punish a team for a very simple oversight like this?

Yes.

If you can't remember to bring your 45 pounds of spare parts with you into the pits (leave it at your school 1000 miles away, at the airport, on your trailer, whatever) then you deserve to suffer the consequences of your oversight. Hopefully you will learn from it.

All international teams and any team that has to ship their robot and supplies (Hawaii) rather than trailer them have been dealing with this for years. I fail to see how requiring local teams to conform to the same conditions (you forget your stuff then you don't have it - duh) is "punishment".

[Chris is me]

Yes.

If you can't remember to bring your 45 pounds of spare parts with you into the pits (leave it at your school 1000 miles away, at the airport, on your trailer, whatever) then you deserve to suffer the consequences of your oversight. Hopefully you will learn from it.

All international teams and any team that has to ship their robot and supplies (Hawaii) rather than trailer them have been dealing with this for years. I fail to see how requiring local teams to conform to the same conditions (you forget your stuff then you don't have it - duh) is "punishment".

1. This wasn't a rule until 12 hours ago.

2. Why? Why is this such an essential part of the FIRST experience? If you really wanna make the international team argument, just replace "a box at the shop" with "a box outside of the venue door". Please, justify this. And when a team breaks a part they left in their van, why don't you go be the person who gives them the lecture about how they shouldn't have forgotten the part and now their drivetrain shouldn't work all competition. Or we could put aside this silliness and let them go get the part they intended to bring in.

[Steven Donow]

1. This wasn't a rule until 12 hours ago.


Per Al's inspction thread: (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357977&postcount=88)

6. Yesterday's Team Update also added some language to clarify the withholding. "This static set of items may only be brought into the Pits when the Team initially loads in at the Event. Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit." Teams have thought that they could continue to bring items to an event throughout the course of the event as long as the total weight for all items did not exceed 45 lbs. This has never been the case so this added language is just making that clearer. You may bring items in at team load in.

[Cory]

Per Al's inspction thread: (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357977&postcount=88)

The specific verbiage that your 45 lbs is defined at the time you load in never existed until now.

During load in we only bring in the robot and a few essential items for setting up our pit, because we would have no room to setup the pit with all our parts. We bring in all our parts Thursday morning upon opening of the pits.

This is technically illegal now, while logically completely reasonable.

[Steve W]

The specific verbiage that your 45 lbs is defined at the time you load in never existed until now.

During load in we only bring in the robot and a few essential items for setting up our pit, because we would have no room to setup the pit with all our parts. We bring in all our parts Thursday morning upon opening of the pits.

This is technically illegal now, while logically completely reasonable.

If you are only bringing the pit set up on load in (plus robot) and bringing rest of tools and parts in the next day I would talk to the lead inspector and he would probably allow it on the basis of that is your load in. I can't speak for other LRIs but in the right circumstance I would allow it. That said, if you bring tools and COTS parts etc to load in then I would say bring in all of your stuff. The early load in is so that teams are not having to drag everything through the pits while team members and spectators are present.

[pfreivald]

This discussion, and this build season, has me even more inclined to say that we should

(a) eliminate the withholding allowance altogether (so nothing but COTS into the venue unless it's in the bag, much as it used to be; or perhaps exempt only bumpers and control system components like the cRio),

OR

(b)eliminate stop build day and let teams bring whatever they want into the venue.

Under the current rules, trying to compete at the elite level means a practice robot and no end to build season anyway, so all of my concerns about mentor burnout and student grade collapse don't matter as long as there's a withholding allowance. Were there none (option a), then you could have a practice robot and practice, but there'd be no need for the punishing build season schedule between stop build day and competition(s). Were there no stop build day and no limits on what you can bring in (option b), then you'd still be crushed under the grueling schedule, but you'd save a lot of money, waste many fewer resources, and have many more competitive robots.

...though you'd likely have fewer teams, as more and more mentors would realize that they just can't do it.

[Taylor]

Some events only allow a few (4) individuals at the initial load-in. It may be difficult for some teams to carry in all the required withholding parts plus robot (plus bumpers and batteries and chargers and other key pit setup materials) with only four people.

[Electronica1]

The R18 change messes up something my team has been doing for a while. We feel that it is critical that every team at an event should be able to pass inspection and compete. Often time rookie teams show up and are overweight or their robots simply don't work. Our team members fan out and help these teams reconfigure or rebuild their bots. Last year at the North Carolina regional we showed up with a trailer full of parts, we used these parts to help a total of 20 team's robots get though inspection and compete. My team feels that it is more inspirational to actually be able to compete but this rule does not allow us to help other teams by giving them spare parts. At the end of the North Carolina regional last year, the trailer we brought with us was completely empty. We are happy to give away these parts and feel that the most important part of FIRST is inspiring struggling teams. I feel bad for any teams that are no longer able to compete because an important part of their robot broke and they don't have any spares.

[Richard Wallace]

... a trailer full of parts, ...COTS parts, or FABRICATED ITEMS?

[sdcantrell56]

...though you'd likely have fewer teams, as more and more mentors would realize that they just can't do it.

I would tend to disagree here. Not having to build two robots to be competitive would certainly decrease the stress on myself. Plus actually showing up to thursday with a robot ready to run would be a huge improvement versus the current system of showing up on thursday ready to make all the changes developed with the practice robot. Plenty of teams already get some of this benefit with the district system and being able to work on there robot in the shop for 6 hours at a time.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

This discussion, and this build season, has me even more inclined to say that we should

(a) eliminate the withholding allowance altogether (so nothing but COTS into the venue unless it's in the bag, much as it used to be; or perhaps exempt only bumpers and control system components like the cRio),

OR

(b)eliminate stop build day and let teams bring whatever they want into the venue.

Under the current rules, trying to compete at the elite level means a practice robot and no end to build season anyway, so all of my concerns about mentor burnout and student grade collapse don't matter as long as there's a withholding allowance. Were there none (option a), then you could have a practice robot and practice, but there'd be no need for the punishing build season schedule between stop build day and competition(s). Were there no stop build day and no limits on what you can bring in (option b), then you'd still be crushed under the grueling schedule, but you'd save a lot of money, waste many fewer resources, and have many more competitive robots.

...though you'd likely have fewer teams, as more and more mentors would realize that they just can't do it.

I would opt for option A.

But I'm probably in the minority here.

[Chris is me]

I think the options presented above are a false dichotomy. There is one extremely simple solution that nobody has mentioned that makes everyone happy. Have no bag, but have the first regional start at the end of Week 6 or 7 of build season. Everyone who feels burned out without a bag day and wants to stop working can just go to Week 1 or Week 2 regionals. Everyone who wants to work longer can go to later regionals. If you're in Districts, with unbag time and the Championship at the end you already "had to" keep working to be competitive - and you can still choose to work less hard after your first event if that really bothers you.

[wilsonmw04]

COTS parts, or FABRICATED ITEMS?

The material we kept in the trailer fell into two categories.

1. COTS: old (legal) motors from previous KoP and robots, control system components, gears, Etc.

Odd Stock: Various lengths of channel, angle, PVC, old AM and IFI framing kits, wire, Lexan,

We would literally have runner going out to the trailer and grabbing material as it was needed. Boy has it been needed!

We also come in with 3-4 sets of bumper materials, Pre-cut and ready to go. We all love the folks who forget their bumpers :-)

[Nuttyman54]

The material we kept in the trailer fell into two categories.

1. COTS: old (legal) motors from previous KoP and robots, control system components, gears, Etc.

Odd Stock: Various lengths of channel, angle, PVC, old AM and IFI framing kits, wire, Lexan,

We would literally have runner going out to the trailer and grabbing material as it was needed. Boy has it been needed!

We also come in with 3-4 sets of bumper materials, Pre-cut and ready to go. We all love the folks who forget their bumpers :-)

You should still be able to continue this awesome practice, because none of the items you mentioned fall under the 45lb witholding allowance that is subject to the new load-in rules. The only place you would possibly have an issue is if some of the material you are using as "odd stock" is considered a "Fabricated Item", but everything you listed sounds like it doesn't fall under that category.

[pfreivald]

Everyone who feels burned out without a bag day and wants to stop working can just go to Week 1 or Week 2 regionals. Everyone who wants to work longer can go to later regionals.

Of course that's not true, if your local regional doesn't happen to be week 1 or 2.

[Jon Stratis]

I think the options presented above are a false dichotomy. There is one extremely simple solution that nobody has mentioned that makes everyone happy. Have no bag, but have the first regional start at the end of Week 6 or 7 of build season. Everyone who feels burned out without a bag day and wants to stop working can just go to Week 1 or Week 2 regionals. Everyone who wants to work longer can go to later regionals. If you're in Districts, with unbag time and the Championship at the end you already "had to" keep working to be competitive - and you can still choose to work less hard after your first event if that really bothers you.

"just" go to week one or two... What if your local regional is a week 5 regional, and your team doesn't have the extra couple of thousand to travel to a week 1 regional?

Plus, that time between bagging the robot and the start of the week 1 regionals (with the current setup) is pretty important for volunteers. That's the time when the key volunteers can lift their focus from their teams and get all of the prep work done for the regional itself. As an LRI, I can tell you I spend about 6 hours prepping for a regional before I even walk in the doors. That prep work wouldn't be nearly as comprehensive if I had to spend time helping my team build a robot right up to the day we take it to the regional.

And frankly, all this talk of "having to keep working" on a practice robot to stay competitive is complete BS. I know plenty of highly competitive teams that don't have practice robots. Several of the MN teams that made it to semi's or finals in their divisions at champs last year don't have practice robots and didn't utilize their withholding to bring in upgrades. If you feel the need to do that, then do so. But not everyone does, and claiming otherwise is preposterous.

[Steve W]

You should still be able to continue this awesome practice, because none of the items you mentioned fall under the 45lb witholding allowance that is subject to the new load-in rules. The only place you would possibly have an issue is if some of the material you are using as "odd stock" is considered a "Fabricated Item", but everything you listed sounds like it doesn't fall under that category.

Everything but the precut bumper material. That would be easy to take a role into the event and some raw plywood.

Team 610 has not had a practice robot in 2 years.

[aryker]

The rule was intended to prevent teams from having free and full access to whatever spare mechanisms they might find themselves in need of as they move through competition, which is an advantage that most teams cannot have, and which isn't an advantage based on strategy, good design, or forethought (other than "bring extras of everything").

This advantage is absolutely based on strategy, good design, and forethought. Teams that design their robots to be modular, with easily replaceable components that can be quickly switched out if they break, deserve to reap the benefits of designing this way. If you contrast this with teams that "wing" their design and are constantly making last-minute adjustments to things, you'll see a big difference. Why should teams that design with easy maintenance in mind be punished for it? I'm all for the "functionally identical" rule--it encourages better engineering on the part of teams.

[Chris is me]

And frankly, all this talk of "having to keep working" on a practice robot to stay competitive is complete BS. I know plenty of highly competitive teams that don't have practice robots. Several of the MN teams that made it to semi's or finals in their divisions at champs last year don't have practice robots and didn't utilize their withholding to bring in upgrades. If you feel the need to do that, then do so. But not everyone does, and claiming otherwise is preposterous.

The flip side is that in a no bag you don't "have to" keep working on the competition robot after the start of regionals. It is precisely the same logic. Under that logic, any arguments about "we need bag day to prevent burn out" go out the window - you can stop at any time, right?

Also, I never said "have to have practice robots" - I said "have to keep working". 8 hours of unbag time a week, plus preparation before and after, is what I meant by "have to".

[Nemo]

Everything but the precut bumper material. That would be easy to take a role into the event and some raw plywood.

We're allowed to bring in complete fabricated bumpers without counting it against the 45 lb allowance. Not allowing pieces of bumpers would seem to fall into the category of nonsense.

[Steve W]

We're allowed to bring in complete fabricated bumpers without counting it against the 45 lb allowance. Not allowing pieces of bumpers would seem to fall into the category of nonsense.

I would tend to agree BUT the rules state that you are allowed to bring in completed bumpers for your robot out of the bag. It does not say you can bring in pre fabricated bumper material. The rules allow 45 lb of fabricated material. A simple change in wording could fix that. IF you gave the bumper material to the LRI at the beginning of competition they may be willing to accept as all teams would have equal access to it.

[Nemo]

I would tend to agree BUT the rules state that you are allowed to bring in completed bumpers for your robot out of the bag. It does not say you can bring in pre fabricated bumper material. The rules allow 45 lb of fabricated material. A simple change in wording could fix that. IF you gave the bumper material to the LRI at the beginning of competition they may be willing to accept as all teams would have equal access to it.

Agreed; I am on board with your explanation of the rules as they are written. I meant that it is nonsense from a practical standpoint.

[Basel A]

I would tend to agree BUT the rules state that you are allowed to bring in completed bumpers for your robot out of the bag. It does not say you can bring in pre fabricated bumper material. The rules allow 45 lb of fabricated material. A simple change in wording could fix that. IF you gave the bumper material to the LRI at the beginning of competition they may be willing to accept as all teams would have equal access to it.

There's no limit to the number of bumpers that can be brought in without counting against the withholding allowance. There's no regulation that bumpers brought in must be for your robot, legal, or even assembled. Do bumper parts constitute bumpers?

No? Then what if you duct tape them together such that they resemble bumpers? I'm sure many teams have come into events with illegal bumpers; surely no one would argue that because they're illegal, these teams must count the bumpers against their withholding allowance.

[Steve W]

There's no limit to the number of bumpers that can be brought in without counting against the withholding allowance. There's no regulation that bumpers brought in must be for your robot, legal, or even assembled. Do bumper parts constitute bumpers?

No? Then what if you duct tape them together such that they resemble bumpers? I'm sure many teams have come into events with illegal bumpers; surely no one would argue that because they're illegal, these teams must count the bumpers against their withholding allowance.

Trying to "lawyer" rules won't drag me into a discussion. As far as I am concerned, as an LRI, I will make the call that they are fabricated items. Unless FIRST tells me otherwise that is my stance. I go to training, read and reread the rules, talk with other LRI's and go on weekly conference calls. Different people might make different calls in a certain situation so what I say may have no value at your event.

Is it really that difficult to follow my suggestion to make everything good for everyone?

[JVN]

Trying to "lawyer" rules won't drag me into a discussion. As far as I am concerned, as an LRI, I will make the call that they are fabricated items. Unless FIRST tells me otherwise that is my stance. I go to training, read and reread the rules, talk with other LRI's and go on weekly conference calls. Different people might make different calls in a certain situation so what I say may have no value at your event.


What is the formal appeal process if a team feels that their LRI is interpreting the rules incorrectly?

[Alan Anderson]

What is the formal appeal process if a team feels that their LRI is interpreting the rules incorrectly?

The way the manual exists right now, that's a trick question. Section 5.5.2 Eligibility and Inspection Rules begins with this sentence:
At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT.

There is no formal appeal.



I think you might be able to satisfy the rules to everyone's liking if you bring in a collection of fully-fabricated corner-wrapping bumper assemblies. Bonus points if you make them reversible from blue to red without requiring them to be removed from the robot.

[Jon Stratis]

Section 5.5.2 of the Tournament Rules:

At each event, the Lead ROBOT Inspector (LRI) has final authority on the legality of any COMPONENT, MECHANISM, or ROBOT. Inspectors may re-Inspect ROBOTS to ensure compliance with the rules.


Members of the Regional Planning Committee or the Regional Director can't overrule an inspector - please don't appeal to them. As Big Al has famously told a team, "There is no higher authority."

[PayneTrain]

Trying to "lawyer" rules won't drag me into a discussion. As far as I am concerned, as an LRI, I will make the call that they are fabricated items. Unless FIRST tells me otherwise that is my stance. I go to training, read and reread the rules, talk with other LRI's and go on weekly conference calls. Different people might make different calls in a certain situation so what I say may have no value at your event.

Is it really that difficult to follow my suggestion to make everything good for everyone?

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual:


BUMPER: a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4.6: BUMPER Rules.

FABRICATED ITEM: any COMPONENT or MECHANISM that has been altered, built, cast, constructed, concocted, created, cut, heat treated, machined, manufactured, modified, painted, produced, surface coated, or conjured partially or completely into the final form in which it will be used on the ROBOT.

ROBOT: an electromechanical assembly built by an FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in AERIAL ASSIST. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play AERIAL ASSIST (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition).



BUMPERS are not considered part of the ROBOT in the definitions provided by FIRST. They are an assembly that attaches to the exterior of the ROBOT. FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs. Bringing in materials to make bumpers are no different than bringing in team buttons. They are fabricated items, but not FABRICATED ITEMS unless they are designed and used on the ROBOT.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual:



BUMPERS are not considered part of the ROBOT in the definitions provided by FIRST. They are an assembly that attaches to the exterior of the ROBOT. FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs. Bringing in materials to make bumpers are no different than bringing in team buttons. They are fabricated items, but not FABRICATED ITEMS unless they are designed and used on the ROBOT.

Whew, so the T-shirts are safe :D

[AllenGregoryIV]

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual:



BUMPERS are not considered part of the ROBOT in the definitions provided by FIRST. They are an assembly that attaches to the exterior of the ROBOT. FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs. Bringing in materials to make bumpers are no different than bringing in team buttons. They are fabricated items, but not FABRICATED ITEMS unless they are designed and used on the ROBOT.

That is also how I see the rules. I had my kids build 3 sets of corner bumper assemblies for Dallas this weekend. We'll be giving them to the inspection station when we arrive. I'd rather do it in my shop then have to find a way to do build them at an event.

[magnets]

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual:



BUMPERS are not considered part of the ROBOT in the definitions provided by FIRST. They are an assembly that attaches to the exterior of the ROBOT. FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs. Bringing in materials to make bumpers are no different than bringing in team buttons. They are fabricated items, but not FABRICATED ITEMS unless they are designed and used on the ROBOT.

Where does it say that FABRICATED ITEMS are only for robots?

[Steven Donow]

Where does it say that FABRICATED ITEMS are only for robots?

FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs.


Emphasis mine.

[magnets]

FABRICATED ITEMS are things that are made or modified to be used on the ROBOT, which is a system built for the 2014 game that includes power, communications, control, mobility, and actuation. The BUMPERS provide none of that, as further explained by differentiating between BUMPERs and ROBOTs.


Emphasis mine.

Where is it in the 2014 game manual?

[Steven Donow]

Where is it in the 2014 game manual?

In the glossary, the definition of FABRICATED ITEM is:

FABRICATED ITEM: any COMPONENT or MECHANISM that has been altered, built, cast, constructed, concocted, created, cut, heat treated, machined, manufactured, modified, painted, produced, surface coated, or conjured partially or completely into the final form in which it will be used on the ROBOT.

[PayneTrain]

Where is it in the 2014 game manual?

From the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual.

This is a link to the Glossary of the 2014 FRC Game Manual (http://frc-manual.usfirst.org/viewItem/183)

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d2/3b/25/d23b256132947c442df49eec86ac85d7.jpg

[Joe Ross]

Members of the Regional Planning Committee or the Regional Director can't overrule an inspector - please don't appeal to them. As Big Al has famously told a team, "There is no higher authority."

But they can help make sure that an unreasonable person isn't in the same position next year...

[thefro526]

I think the options presented above are a false dichotomy. There is one extremely simple solution that nobody has mentioned that makes everyone happy. Have no bag, but have the first regional start at the end of Week 6 or 7 of build season. Everyone who feels burned out without a bag day and wants to stop working can just go to Week 1 or Week 2 regionals. Everyone who wants to work longer can go to later regionals. If you're in Districts, with unbag time and the Championship at the end you already "had to" keep working to be competitive - and you can still choose to work less hard after your first event if that really bothers you.

Picone, while I agree with you that the most straightforward option is to eliminate and/or open up the bag solutions significantly, it's probably not the only, or the best way to solve these problems.

Realistically, the issue with the with holding allowance isn't really the weight, and I doubt it's really that you'd have to bring it in at the time that pits open on the first day of competition, but rather what counts as part of the withholding allowance.

As the rules are currently written, any fabricated component not in the bag counts toward your withholding allowance, which is too broad of a scope for such a rule, IMO. The withholding allowance should only count towards parts/mechanisms that are withheld from a robot, implying that the robot cannot function as with out them. For example, if a team chose to with hold their intake, or shooter, or catching mechanism - it counts towards their withholding allowance - and I think we can all agree with that.

But why the with holding allowance extends beyond parts that are not truly 'withheld' is beyond me, and now it forces teams to do things differently than they've almost always done, and that's to not make spare parts (or fewer of them), or assemblies, or choose not to upgrade their robot in favor of making spares. Personally, I think that as long as the spare is IDENTICAL* to a part or assembly that was bagged with the robot, then it should not be considered as withheld, since it wasn't actually withheld, as much as not bagged with the original. (*Identical meaning that it functions, performs, and is physically (within reason, say +/- .25"ish/ an ounce or two per 5lbs) the same as the original, if it does not, then it's an upgrade part...)

There's got to be some sort of happy medium on the withholding rules that both prevents teams from abusing the minor clauses, but also allows teams to have some reasonable collection of 'spare' parts. I don't know if the best way to handle this is by allowing for 'assemblies of COTS parts' to be considered as COTS components (and not fabricated) or by giving each team some amount in addition to their withholding allowance that can be allotted for spare parts.

All of that being said, considering that the 'formal' stance from the GDC seems to be to prevent the over lawyer-ing of the rules by teams, this whole situation is going to be an interesting one to watch. I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing a trend of teams bringing in boxes/bins of disassembled mechanisms - broken down into their most basic components, fabricated and COTS - and reassembled once in the pits as a way to get around the current restrictions...

[dodar]

In the glossary, the definition of FABRICATED ITEM is:

Im not trying to be that guy, but bumpers are made to be used on the 2014 robots.

[Jon Stratis]

Im not trying to be that guy, but bumpers are made to be used on the 2014 robots.

Per the glossary:
BUMPER: a protective assembly designed to attach to the exterior of the ROBOT and constructed as specified in Section 4.6: BUMPER Rules.

Bumpers aren't used on the ROBOT - they are attached to the exterior of the ROBOT. It's a small distinction, but given the discussion an important one, I think.

[cadandcookies]

Per the glossary:


Bumpers aren't used on the ROBOT - they are attached to the exterior of the ROBOT. It's a small distinction, but given the discussion an important one, I think.

And they are explicitly exempt from the withholding allowance, per R18-B

[JesseK]

But why the with holding allowance extends beyond parts that are not truly 'withheld' is beyond me, and now it forces teams to do things differently than they've almost always done, and that's to not make spare parts (or fewer of them), or assemblies, or choose not to upgrade their robot in favor of making spares.

Are you saying you haven't put your spares in the bag during bag day, then not counted them towards the witholding when you brought them into an event outside of the bag with the WITHOLDING limit's worth of upgrades? We interpreted the rule to be that all built spares had to be in the bag if we wanted a full 45 lbs of upgradeable witholding. To me it has been pretty clear for a few years, but I wonder if we were wrong.

This is not meant to be accusatory, but rather to point out how the rules as-written are very open to different interpretations and are thus unenforceable. Well, unless the LRI is going to inspect every box, crate and cart rolled into an event :rolleyes:.

[Steve W]

What is the formal appeal process if a team feels that their LRI is interpreting the rules incorrectly?

John, most if not all LRI's do not make judgements lightly. If there is an issue when I am dealing with a team I will excuse myself and talk with the FTA or I have even called Al. I guess if a team has an issue with a decision you could respectfully ask them to consult with the FTA.

If you still feel that you were wronged I would write FIRST and talk with the volunteer co-ordinator. As stated in another post it may not fix the problem this year but that person may not be asked or allowed to return in that position.

LRI is a very gratifying position most of the times. We find teams with issues and work with them to resolve them. We try to be every teams best friend. There are however times when there is an impasse and that is when it gets tough. I have found that most LRI's bend the rule as far as they can to allow teams to play as long as they are safe and there is no advantage given.

[Max Boord]

What is the formal appeal process if a team feels that their LRI is interpreting the rules incorrectly?

I find this borderline insane but no one can challenge there authority as there is no appeal process that can be done at a competition.

Is there a way to challenge the head ref? We had one lie to us and then claim "we do not have time to investigate the field fault" even though it meant we where knocked out of elims.

[IronicDeadBird]

I might just be crazy (well I know I am) but does R18 mean if you attend competition that is more then 2 days you could in theory not go to any matches and just use the entire time as extended publicity and work time and just throw everything into extra bags?

[pfreivald]

Yes, if you want to spend the money, you could go to a regional and never field a robot.

I can't imagine what damage that would do to your team's reputation.

[IronicDeadBird]

Yes, if you want to spend the money, you could go to a regional and never field a robot.

I can't imagine what damage that would do to your team's reputation.

I can't imagine wanting to compete against a team that wants it that bad. I mean yeah if you needed the build time cause of some absolute tragedy that is one thing (two if you include the tragedy) but just wow. Can't tell if this is an oversight or intentional.

[Chris is me]

I find this borderline insane but no one can challenge there authority as there is no appeal process that can be done at a competition.

Is there a way to challenge the head ref? We had one lie to us and then claim "we do not have time to investigate the field fault" even though it meant we where knocked out of elims.

While I'm not going to endorse the suggestion that a head ref would lie to a team, the FTA is a good person to turn to if you suspect a field issue is up.

[IronicDeadBird]

While I'm not going to endorse the suggestion that a head ref would lie to a team, the FTA is a good person to turn to if you suspect a field issue is up.

I feel like head ref's aren't exactly nobodies and are appointed carefully by FIRST. That being said a head ref is there to represent FIRST so challenging a head ref is challenging FIRST's decision to appoint them, although I suppose things slip through the cracks.

Now that I think about it more if you can just constantly challenge the game rules you can delay forever....

GAH gotta stop the thinking. This is why its called First Robotics Competition and not First Robotics Games cause games are generally more in line with having fun and less about winning.

[Grim Tuesday]

I feel like head ref's aren't exactly nobodies and are appointed carefully by FIRST. That being said a head ref is there to represent FIRST so challenging a head ref is challenging FIRST's decision to appoint them, although I suppose things slip through the cracks.

Now that I think about it more if you can just constantly challenge the game rules you can delay forever....

GAH gotta stop the thinking. This is why its called First Robotics Competition and not First Robotics Games cause games are generally more in line with having fun and less about winning.

Although Head Refs have ultimate power in the arena, they are appointed by the regional planning committee. Most Head Refs we've had have been wonderful (Dante from Fingerlakes is our teams gold standard) but we've also had bad experiences such as the ref from Buckeye last year who was downright abusive to people.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

I find this borderline insane but no one can challenge there authority as there is no appeal process that can be done at a competition.

Is there a way to challenge the head ref? We had one lie to us and then claim "we do not have time to investigate the field fault" even though it meant we where knocked out of elims.

It's not insane. You wouldn't want a baseball player calling up the commishiner (sp?) because of a questionable called strike.

Like in baseball, FIRST needs someone with 'final authority' at the competition. For onfield issues, thats the head referee. To get someone to overrule the head ref only erodes his authority.

[IronicDeadBird]

Although Head Refs have ultimate power in the arena, they are appointed by the regional planning committee. Most Head Refs we've had have been wonderful (Dante from Fingerlakes is our teams gold standard) but we've also had bad experiences such as the ref from Buckeye last year who was downright abusive to people.

I constantly tell people when we have a bad call that "There are no bad refs only bad calls." I know that isn't true because I have seen and heard of examples of bad refs but I still encourage this mentality.

Shout out to all staff and volunteers at events who step up and make those tough calls.

[Chris is me]

It's not insane. You wouldn't want a baseball player calling up the commishiner (sp?) because of a questionable called strike.

That's not analogous at all. A strike is a quick decision based on objective criteria observed in nearly instant real time. An rules interpretation could just be flat out wrong or addressed in the Q&A.

Like in baseball, FIRST needs someone with 'final authority' at the competition. For onfield issues, thats the head referee. To get someone to overrule the head ref only erodes his authority.

What are the consequences of having a head ref's "authority eroded" by being able to call HQ? How will this change any aspect of their job?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

That's not analogous at all. A strike is a quick decision based on objective criteria observed in nearly instant real time. An rules interpretation could just be flat out wrong or addressed in the Q&A.

It is analogous. Think <G40>


What are the consequences of having a head ref's "authority eroded" by being able to call HQ? How will this change any aspect of their job?

Consider how it would look if an 'elite' team called HQ and got a ruling reversed. I can hear the howls of favortism already.

The head ref must have absolute authority over the game or his position will lose all integrity.

[Tungrus]

It is analogous. Think <G40>

Consider how it would look if an 'elite' team called HQ and got a ruling reversed. I can hear the howls of favortism already.

The head ref must have absolute authority over the game or his position will lose all integrity.

Public is already howling when head ref's call favors "elite" team (even when the call is right!) I think at Southfield event public booed! I did not believe I heard it right, need confirmation from others that indeed that was a boo! Too bad...need to cut some slack for head refs. I firmly believe (and want to continue) that head refs don't show favoritism! or just that all head refs are not same!

[Chris is me]

Consider how it would look if an 'elite' team called HQ and got a ruling reversed. I can hear the howls of favortism already.

How is that any different than an elite team appealing a normal ref's call to the Head Ref? At all? Even slightly? Why is favoritism assumed to be more likely from FIRST HQ than from a local referee, who might actually have ties to a local team?

The head ref must have absolute authority over the game or his position will lose all integrity.

This argument still doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying a booth review ruins the integrity of NFL field referees. It's like saying an appeals court ruins the integrity of a lower court. It is possible for someone to have authority if a decision is reviewable by someone higher. I don't honestly get how "integrity" changes at all - if anything, the ref has more integrity as they *couldn't* get away with a favoritist call if they wanted to (not that I assume any head ref would).

The only thing this will result in is more accurate calls, and maybe a little wasted time. How will anything about the event change if the Head Ref can be overturned? I don't see any actual lasting consequence here.