"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken [Archive]

Matt Adams

14-03-2004, 11:55

Preface: I truly believe that one has to be VERY VERY careful before posting something like what I am going to post, but I think that what I saw this weekend at the Great Lakes Regional gives me little choice. There needs to be some very drastic changes in FIRST's rules about "spare parts."

There were a number of teams that brought their "practice robot" to the GLR. Personally, I think this is a smart move. Since your practice robot and your competition robot should be identical, it's great to have EVERY SINGLE spare part with you and available at a competition. For the teams that decide to invest the additional manpower and resources into such an endeavor, the benefits are VERY significant. The fear of missing a round due to not having a spare part available takes a great deal of stress off during the competition. However, it should be noted, that this is NOT ALLOWED PER RULE R09

What I found to be absolutely frustrating, terribly ungracious, and incredibly heartbreaking is the teams that brought in their "practice robot" which was actually a SIGNIFICANTLY UPGRADED machine and replaced ENTIRE MECHANISMS on their "competition robot".

I consider myself to be rather lenient on a lot of rules. If you didn't have time to get some cool colored Lexan sides before your robot shipped, and brought those along and swapped them out, which I saw a few teams do, I have NO problem with that. If you even brought powder-coated parts that were identical to those on your robot, I turned a blind eye. Honestly, if you had a part that you even wanted to "tweak" because, it just wasn't working right by the time you shipped, I'll get over it.

However, there were teams that had non-functional robots, who brought in their "practice" robot's assemblies, and suddenly had a not only fully functional robot, but one with an additional 2 weeks of upgrades.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I think that there's only one way to ensure the fairness to all competitors, by adding the following rule:

You must ship all spare parts with your robot, and you are responsible for the associated additional shipping charges. You may only bring in raw and "off the shelf" materials to the competitions.
FIRST counts on teams to be gracious and professional, but from what I saw at the Great Lakes Regional, I was truly discouraged. There's no way to fully monitor the "spare parts" system that is in place now, and teams, both well respected veterans, and newer teams, are blatantly cheating.

I understand that teams with a well thought-out game plan can get a non-functional robot up and running with a whole Thursday of hard work- I saw this happen. A lot of teams bring in raw materials and finished the last touches (or even the main functions!). Congratulations to them for quick work! However, let me ensure you that this was not the case for a number of teams.

While perhaps it's too late to make changes now - I firmly believe there needs to be a complete overhaul of the spare parts system for next season to ensure fairness for all teams.

I plead that we remember six weeks is six weeks.

Matt

KenWittlief

14-03-2004, 12:04

any system is good as long as the rules are followed - if someone wants to cheat, they will find a way.

according to the current rules, you were allowed to bring spare parts as long as they were fabricated BEFORE the ship deadline (thats why its called a DEADLINE! if you miss it, your team is DEAD! :ahh: )

I think the provision to bring spare parts with you, instead of forcing teams to ship them in the crate, was simply to keep shipping costs down - esp since FedEx was SO nice to give teams all that free shipping this year.

Ship the bot, carry your spares with you on the bus

but as stated in the present rules you are not allowed to bring any assemblies: period!

Personally I would like to see the rules stay the way they are - making everyone ship all their spares will only add to the shipping costs for all teams - and if someone wants to cheat and sneak in assemblies that were built after the deadline, we would have to go through an exhaustive inspection process where a judge must be present when you open your crate, and inspect your bot and mark each part, then inspect all the boxes you bring into the arena to make sure you did not sneak any assemblies in.

Do we really want to do this? thats starting to sound like a robot building contest - thats not why we are here (remember?).

Swan217

14-03-2004, 12:09

FIRST is aware of the situation that happed at the GLR, and should be taking steps as we speak to correct the problem.

The major problem was an unnamed team using their practice robot all day on Thursday during the practice rounds. The referees conferred, and though there is no rule against it, we all concluded that it should have been an obvious understood that the practice robot does not go onto the playing field. However, there being no written rule about it, we could not disqualify said team.

As for the question - did they use prefabricated parts from their pratice robot on their competition robot - the referees asked the team, and hopefully they showed gracious professionalism and were truthful when they answered that they had NOT made a parts exchange. Unless anyone can bring proof that they were not honest, there is nothing that FIRST can do about it.

On a personal note, I am shocked at the lack of respect this team showed the competition. Other teams were forced to skip their practice rounds to fix and upgrade their robot, and I think the team gained a significant advantage by skirting the rules with this move. As Dean said - we should look at the rules as engineers would, not lawyers. It is my personal belief that the robot you practice with on Thursdays be the same one you are required to get certified for the competition.

xxlshortys

14-03-2004, 12:11

If its gonna cost more to ship your fabricated spare parts then you should just do some more fundraising. It doesnt cost too much more to ship more weight, an extra fundraiser would cover your costs.

I myself am dissapointed in the way some teams can opperate. I right now want to fix a problem we had with our wench system, but if we do you'll see us fabricate the parts at our next regional.

NoRemorse

14-03-2004, 12:38

The major problem was an unnamed team using their practice robot all day on Thursday during the practice rounds. The referees conferred, and though there is no rule against it, we all concluded that it should have been an obvious understood that the practice robot does not go onto the playing field. However, there being no written rule about it, we could not disqualify said team.

I know the team you speak of, and i disagree with this. They also used the practive bot for something else, but I won't elaborate. I diagree with this hole heartedly, especialy the act that was worse than just using it during the practice day. But I can't complain, my team went to the semi-finals, so it obviosly didn't effect us!

I would like to see some type of provisions for this in the rules, however. Pictures of part you will be bringing shipped with the robot maybe? Negligable wieght, and proof of prior construction. Also, maybe more stickers on the robot to prove it has passed inspection, there for no worries about switching out a part that has the sticker on it.

Matt Adams

14-03-2004, 13:19

but as stated in the present rules you are not allowed to bring any assemblies: period!This is correct. Just for clarity:

During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).
I think that this clearly means that "practice" robots of ANY SORT can not be brought to competition unless it is 100% disassembled. This rule was most definitely not enforced at the GLR. I hope that we can make sure that it will be at the remaining regional events.

As best as I can tell, it looks like any "spare part" should not have any fasteners, which includes bolts, pins, set screws, string or keys.

I'm glad that we've got this out in the open as a refresher for teams that may be planning on bringing practice robots to the competition - it's not allowed unless it's completely disassembled.

Matt

Ryan Foley

14-03-2004, 13:39

Wouldn't bringing a practice robot be against FIRST's rules? Even if it is identical to your competition robot?

<R09> During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement purposes of items on yuor robot as long as they are exact replacements of parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies)

Even if a practice bot is identical to the competition robot, you can't bring it to competition unless it is completely disassembled. So the team(s) that brought their assembled competition robots to the event were actually breaking the rules, werent they?

Jeff Waegelin

14-03-2004, 13:40

I'm glad that we've got this out in the open as a refresher for teams that may be planning on bringing practice robots to the competition - it's not allowed unless it's completely disassembled.

Matt

We brought our practice robot to Ypsi, but we left it in the hotel the whole time and never brought it to the competition site. Great for midnight programming and driver practice :p

Cory

14-03-2004, 13:44

Katie Reynolds

14-03-2004, 13:57

You can bring a practice robot to the competition, you just can't use parts from it. Let's say that the real robot is in bad mechanical shape, so the pit crew is frantically working to make the components perform properly. Meanwhile, the programmers could be working on autonomous mode, or any kind of programming, and debugging everything on there, so that when the real thing is "done" they know what exactly they need to do to get it to 100%

Cory But what's to stop a team with two identical robots (one working perfectly, one having a lot of mechanical issues) from placing the "perfect" one in a match rather than the broken one?

I'd like to think teams would be more professional than this and know it's completely against the rules. But I know there are still some teams out there who would do this.

If it's not illegal to bring your practice bot, fully assembled, to a competition, I think it should be.

Matt Adams

14-03-2004, 14:00

You can bring a practice robot to the competition, you just can't use parts from it.
I'd agree with you by the way the rules are written... but it's something I wouldn't want our team to do.

I wouldn't (personally) want any shread of doubt in anyone's mind about our teams intentions and use for that spare robot. It approaches a grey zone, and when it comes to reputation... I wouldn't want to mingle 461's name along the very few bad apples who might have other intentions.

Matt

Steve W

14-03-2004, 14:00

I also have a problem with practice bots at competition. The only way I believe to allow this is to have said bot shipped with real bot. They should be identical in all ways. If you then want to change out parts that would be OK. However if they are not identical then the rule of weighing in all other functions must be followed. I believe that if FIRST knows about this problem then they will fix it. It may not be this year but they are very good at listening and fixing problems.

BTW - Last year I did see a practice bot at comp that was shipped with original.

IMDWalrus

14-03-2004, 14:04

But what's to stop a team with two identical robots (one working perfectly, one having a lot of mechanical issues) from placing the "perfect" one in a match rather than the broken one?
The biggest problem I see with this is noticing it. Unless the team is involved in the elimination rounds and their robot suddenly goes from battered to perfect shape, very few people would notice a difference, and the team wouldn't be punished.

I don't like the idea of putting the practice robot out onto the field, but I don't see a problem with building a practice robot...Still, if it's just meant to be used by the drivers and programmers, build it that way. Our second robot - which I don't think will be traveling with us to Detroit or South Carolina - is literally a chassis and a drive train. None of the manipulations, none of the pneumatics...just the basics, along with added weight so it handles more like the real thing.

Maybe FIRST should have a rule that your practice robot is JUST a chassis and drive train - if one of those goes out onto the field, I'm sure someone would notice. :)

Natchez

14-03-2004, 14:07

In my humble opinion, this is a problem that no rule will ever resolve or govern. This is a societal ethics problem. Unfortunately, we CURRENTLY live in a society where bending the rules is the norm instead of the exception. As one football announcer put it, "it's only a problem if you get caught." In general, the engineering community has always maintained high ethical standards. The defense of this last statement is a book upon itself.

The solution to this problem is to have open discussions just as Matt has done here (thanks Matt) and discuss why our community (& ultimately our Society) should follow the spirit of the rules and not the letter of the rules. One day, football coaches will be teaching their players NOT TO BREAK THE RULES REGARDLESS of the consequences. This will be a result of a lifelong mission of folks in various communities like FIRST, Ultimate (www.upa.org), engineering societies, etc. desiring to live in a society where there are more builders than rule makers.

The solution to the specific problem that is addressed above is for FIRST (maybe the regional director) to discuss gracious professionalism with the mentors of any team that chronically "bends the rules."

This is the Reader's Digest version of what I'd really like to say on the subject. Just egg me on a little and I'll slam all the football and basketball coaches that teach their players how to hold without getting caught along with the prosecuting attorneys that ignore the facts to get a conviction.

Take care,
Lucien

Don Wright

14-03-2004, 14:12

Well, please let me reply since I am sure that we are the team that everyone is speaking of.

1. Yes, we brought our practice robot into the GLR.
2. Yes, we used our practice robot during the practice rounds. 2 or three of the rounds I believe it didn't even move.

I know I speak for my entire team in apologizing for breaking the rules about this. I was not aware of the rule but should have been and it is my fault and I am the one to blame. As soon as we were told we were in violation of the rules, we removed the practice robot from the building.

However, I can say exactly what I told the judges who confronted me. Absolutely no parts that were on the practice robot were used on the robot we shipped. ZERO.

This is what was done to our shipped robot on Thursday:

1. One gear that was on the elbow was replaced to increase the gear ratio.
2. The robot controller was swapped from the prototype electronics board to the real board which is not a violation of the rules.
3. We added a pneumatic brake to our winch. This had been part of our robot before it shipped (someone from 469 might be able to remember it when they saw it), but we removed it because we didn't think we needed it when we shipped. Later, we found that we did and on Thursday, our machinists re-fabricated the bracket in the PICO trailer (along with helping other teams make parts for their robots).
4. We added a piece of aluminum tube to the bottom of the winch mechanism to stop the plate from flexing.
5. We added the rubber rat to the control console.
6. The rest was programming and electronics work which we did to the shipped robot as we debugged it in the pit on Thursday.

The first round on Friday, our autonomous mode was unknown, so instead of taking a chance of damaging the robot, we did not even bring a robot to the round.

Again, I sincerely apologize for our acts at GLR but can honestly say that we did not mean any harm. I take full responsibility for our actions.

If anybody wants to disagree with anything that I have said, please feel free to post here or email me at dfwjr1973 @ hotmail.com and we can discuss.

Also, No Remorse, I am curious to you comment, "They also used the practive bot for something else, but I won't elaborate". Could you please contact me. I would really like to know what you are talking about.

Sincerely,
Donald Wright
Project Engineer for Team 830

rees2001

14-03-2004, 14:17

I watched this exact thing happen last year at The Buckeye Regional. A team brought in their "practice" robot and I watched all day as they systematically took parts off it and put them onto their competition robot. They ended up going on to the finals I believe. It didn't seem fair. I see that team went to GLR this year, I hope they didn't do the same thing again.

This year, as always, we will be brinning a supply of backup parts, but they are identical to the ones found on our robot and hopefully won't be needed. That isn't unfair, it just smart. The only thing we put in our crate was the robot. We even took off the practice signs, & yes we made new ones. The team number is a little bigger on the new ones.

You just have to remember why you are doing this. Winning is great, but if you can teach the kids a good lesson, that is so much better. I don't think this team you and/or I am talking about is teaching a very good lesson.

Natchez

14-03-2004, 14:36

As soon as we were told we were in violation of the rules, we removed the practice robot from the building.
This is what I love about the engineering community. Team 830 is part of the solution and not part of the problem!!! We will all make mistakes; it is what we do after our mistakes that defines our character. Thanks for the explanation Donald.

Don Wright

14-03-2004, 15:52

Please see my post here:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=236076#post236076

Again, I'm sorry.

dlavery

14-03-2004, 18:14

This same thing happened at St Louis. The fact that this happened at least twice (maybe more?) is a strong indication that FIRST will have to make the prohibitions against this practice absolutely clear and unambiguous. This may be intuitively obvious to some teams, but not others, so here we are...

-dave

Jeff Waegelin

14-03-2004, 18:45

MikeDubreuil

14-03-2004, 19:08

I'd like to commend Mr. Wright for his full disclosure of what went on with his team's practice robot at GLR. It takes courage to admit you did something wrong, and not just deny everything flat-out. Thank you for telling us the full story.

It was definately the right thing to do 830, your apology has been accepted by me Mr. Wright.
Even though 830 did violate the rules I don't think their violation is nearly as extreme as the other teams who were swapping upgraded components as Matt Adams has described. I want to hear more on that subject. I don't think the CD community will be nearly as accepting of that type of conduct.

R2K2D2

14-03-2004, 21:23

This may have been a problem at GLR, but I can say that I did not see 830 participate in anything illegal with the spare parts. I was in the pits most of the competition, and they were our put neighbors. Any team that had a spare bot could have made the same mistake they did, but they took care of the problem right away once they found out what it was. I NEVER saw their practice bot "lightened up" from it losing parts. They played fairly and in the spirit of the game, and had a great robot.

This thread was in no way started to "slam" team 830, because everyone on our team knows that they competed graciously. Good luck to ya guys at Grand Rapids, kick some robot~!

NoRemorse

14-03-2004, 21:27

Just for the record, the team i was speaking of DID use their spare for more than just parts, and MORE IMPORTANTLY was not 830, I too commend them for thier apology, and eagerness to comply to the rules when confronted

Joe Johnson

14-03-2004, 22:00

I inspected team 830. It was not until late in the day Thursday that I realized that they were running their extra robot -- to be honest, I saw at least one other team with their spare robot there -- I also saw that team asking if they could run their spare robot on Th -- they were told no.

Here is how I would have dealt with it at that point. I knew 3 things,
#1 the other team had been told no.
#2 they made no secret of their second robot and
#3 they had not been told to escort their robot to the door.

So at that point, knowing what I knew about the other situation, I just decided to ignore it.

I guess things later blew up a bit.

I have not liked this rule from the beginning but I guess if it is here to stay so be it. We need to get a little more legal to make it fair (and clear).

Joe J.

Matt Adams

14-03-2004, 22:13

I'd just like to clear the air that my original post had nothing to do with team 830's actions... and though they made great strides in improving their robot over the course of the competition, I didn't witness anything that had me second guessing their practices or gracious professionalism.

Matt

kacz100

14-03-2004, 23:58

During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement
purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you
shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as
individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).
I personally disagree with this rule in some senses. Our team created 4 tracks for our robot incase we broke or something horrible happened. So this rule would state that we would have to take apart our 2 spare tracks?
Our 1 track (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/pictures.php?s=&action=single&picid=6629&direction=DESC&sort=date&perrow=4&trows=3&quiet=Verbose)
I don't know about you but that just isn't going to happen it took DAYS to put together and if we broke our track match 1 we would they have a robot that didn't work and we could go home on thursday. The rules are stated for someone to CHANGE a complete arm, drive system, or any other part (IMHO); replacement parts should not be a problem. If 1 team can make a second robot in 6 weeks whats the problem with them using it for parts on the robot they shipped? Some things that are created in the 6 weeks just cannot be remade to work in a couple hours.

Well thats my 2cents on this matter

Joe Ross

15-03-2004, 00:11

I personally disagree with this rule in some senses. Our team created 4 tracks for our robot incase we broke or something horrible happened. So this rule would state that we would have to take apart our 2 spare tracks?

If you created the spare tracks during the 6 week build season, then you may ship them with the robot and use them as is. However, if they were made after the 6 week build season, then you must remake them from raw materials at the competition.

kacz100

15-03-2004, 00:16

If you created the spare tracks during the 6 week build season, then you may ship them with the robot and use them as is. However, if they were made after the 6 week build season, then you must remake them from raw materials at the competition.

Because of a heavy crate we couldn't ship anything but our robot. Yes you are correct we could have put them in the crate.

Don Wright

15-03-2004, 08:55

Thanks to everyone for the support and understanding of the issues.

dddriveman

15-03-2004, 09:31

KenWittlief

15-03-2004, 10:12

I agree with the last post.

If you see someone doing something you think is against the rules, you have two options:

1. get a judge and confront them - straighten it out right there- 99% of the time it will be a misunderstanding on someones part, corrective action will be taken, someone will learn the rules better, and that will be the end of it

or

2. if its not a big deal, then let it drop - and that means let it drop everywhere and forever.

Coming on this forum or anywhere else and making induendos, or accusing a team of cheating without backing it up with names, dates, team numbers, witnesses, does nothing but get people upset, and gets other people angry at teams who may or may not have been doing something wrong.

If you saw a team doing something and you want to know if its against the rules, you can simply ask: is it ok to bring a practice bot to the event and use it on thurday?

is it ok to use assemblys from a practice bot on your real machine?

there is no need to say that you saw someone doing this - because the event is over and you cant do anything about it now - but with the rules clarified you can do something about it WHILE its happenings at a future event.

10intheCrunch

15-03-2004, 10:29

Even if you do have names, team numbers, dates and witnesses, I'd say don't post unless you confronted the offending team, or asked a judge to, and they continued with whatever upset you. Misunderstandings should be off the table before the entire community is brought into it.

Jessica Boucher

15-03-2004, 11:24

I am really proud of you all for handling this thread so awesomely :)

Sometimes stuff happens at regionals that you need to question, but may not have time to do so during the competition. I understand that if you see something that may be a violation that you should talk to an official immediately, but sometimes things happen that won't allow you to take the time out. We all know how crazy regionals can be. But what happened happened, and we can't go back and change it. But we can set a precedent for the rest of the regionals, and we can only do that by talking about it.

Try as we might, CD is sometimes the only contact we have together concerning FIRST issues. I am personally frustrated with the lack of updating on the FIRST site, and I am really happy with how the CD community has pulled together to make sure that as much information as possible is distributed. I feel that if a question needs to be brought up, that it is done as respectfully as possible, and that we all work to come up with a solution and a way to deal with any other issues that will come up later at regionals. As long as it is done in a respectful manner, I see no problem with bringing up an issue that occurred at regionals.

I was talking to my class dean last week concerning an issue that happened with another group I'm involved with at Babson. We had a raffle drawing, and they all said that they would show up at the radio station for the drawing, but it ended up that none of them showed up and they didn't make any effort to contact me and explain their actions. It really hurt me because it turned out that the winner was a member of the committee, and said he would show; so when the radio hosts called him to tell him he won, he said he wasn't doing anything...even though he lives two floors above the station.
She knows of my invovlement in FIRST, and I told her that I would never expect that issue to come up if the students involved were FIRSTers, because FIRST teaches responsibility. If something sketchy happens, we're not afraid to bring it up - not because we like to witchhunt, but because it shows that we care about the community and believe that in making the competition fair for all, that we will make sure that every student is getting something positive out of the experience.

So, I hope you all don't think Im just blabbering on about something off-topic, but I am seriously proud of how this thread was handled and of the community as a whole for working out this issue...you guys rock!

FadyS.

15-03-2004, 11:35

I think this thread brings out a very important issue. What can you bring and what can you upgrade on that Thursday? Can we add additional sensors? Can we replace a sprocket? I assume we can drill holes. What are examples of things we can't bring or do?

Gary Dillard

15-03-2004, 13:00

Seems like I'm always playing devil's advocate on these threads.

Why is it a problem to bring a practice robot to drive on practice day?

What is the advantage this team gained? One day of driving a practice robot on a real field? If they had modifications to make to the competition robot that took all day thursday and made the decision to do that, that's all they would have sacrificed if they didn't have an extra robot.

I'm not aware of any requirements for the robot you field on practice day, other than they check to make sure it can't damage the field. You don't have to complete inspection prior to practice - how many teams put a robot on the practice field that was overweight, outside the size limit, didn't have 4 team numbers, etc.? Are they equally as guilty?

They had an extra TWO WEEKS since the robot shipped for driving practice and tweaking at home - is that fair to the teams who didn't have the resources to build 2 robots?

What about the teams who go to 2, 3, or 4 regionals - they get all those extra practice days, is that fair to the teams who only go to 1? (we've beat that question to death in other threads but it's a similar point).

At the Central Florida Regional they didn't have a practice field setup - just carpet - so we couldn't test modifications to our lift mechanism until we were on the field. If teams bring practice fields to other regionals to try things out, is that fair to us?

The intent of the rules is to try to level the playing field, but there is no way it will ever be fair. We all know that, Dean admits that, and we accept that. Somebody early in this thread said they should have known it wasn't right - I disagree. As they stated, they followed all the rules in regards to spare parts. Don't make up other rules just because someone else is taking advantage of their strengths, in this case the resources to build a second robot.

Team SPAM is probably a middle tier team as far as available financial, engineering and manufacturing resources - sufficient to be competitive but nowhere near enough to build 2 'bots. I don't begrudge anyone who can - I envy you and applaud you, because the bottom line is, it's not about the robots. It's about inspiring the students, and when my students say "WOW" about what your team has done, it's a good thing.

MikeDubreuil

15-03-2004, 13:04

I think that this was a very informative thread. I also think that there was a little too much finger pointing, name calling, and crying. WE are all on a F.I.R.S.T. team for a reason. Alot of people are getting blind sited by what our primary goal is. I think that in the future we should continue to disscuss these issues but should should be a more carefull woth the accusations that we throw around. Many people were blaming this whole situation on one or two teams when actually it was a simple miss-understanding. We have all done it cut them a break PLEASE. I'm sure that they feel bad enough.

There was no finger pointing. No one accused anyone. There was no mention of team numbers. 830 came forward and admitted wrong doing themselves. Kudos to them; however, this thread when originally started with other teams in mind. It was about swapping mechanisms from the pratice robots, which supposedly some other team have done.

KenWittlief

15-03-2004, 13:11

Why is it a problem to bring a practice robot to drive on practice day?

Its unfair because in engineering you always have to make tradeoffs

if your bot needs work then you cant pratice

if you decide to start making changes to your bot that will keep it from running on thursday then your team will get no practice

if you shipped a bot that still needed work then your team will get no practice

allow a team to build a second bot, and continue to work on it after the ship date, and bring it to the regional on the bus, and use it on the field to get practice

while the other teams have to decide which is more important, modifying the bot or meeting the practice schedule

Its clearly an unfair advantage to more heavily financed and supported teams - I know FIRST is unfair on some levels, but we dont have to make it worse by letting well funded teams do whatever they please, taking every possible advantage over the little guy.

besides, FIRST has a very clear definition of what you teams 'robot' is and what its not - your practice bot is NOT your teams robot

why would you think you can bring something else to drive around on the playfield? can we drive our bus on the field? why not? its not in the rules either?

Gary Dillard

15-03-2004, 13:31

Its unfair because in engineering you always have to make tradeoffs

if your bot needs work then you cant pratice

if you decide to start making changes to your bot that will keep it from running on thursday then your team will get no practice

if you shipped a bot that still needed work then your team will get no practice

allow a team to build a second bot, and continue to work on it after the ship date, and bring it to the regional on the bus, and use it on the field to get practice

while the other teams have to decide which is more important, modifying the bot or meeting the practice schedule

Its clearly an unfair advantage to more heavily financed and supported teams - I know FIRST is unfair on some levels, but we dont have to make it worse by letting well funded teams do whatever they please, taking every possible advantage over the little guy.

That's all really nice Ken, but it has nothing to do with the rules - you can't make up your own just because you don't like it.

why would you think you can bring something else to drive around on the playfield? can we drive our bus on the field? why not? its not in the rules either?

I would guess that your bus would damage the field, and as such the ref's wouldn't allow it on the field.

besides, FIRST has a very clear definition of what you teams 'robot' is and what its not - your practice bot is NOT your teams robot

You did actually make one valid point in that post that caused me to look and answer my own question - from section 7.1 in the rules "The purpose of the Practice Rounds is to allow each Team a chance to run its Robot on the Playing Field prior to the start of the competition matches." That's the answer - I would agree that there is a clear definition on what your robot is, and the practice round is for that robot. Therefore, the rules state you must drive your competition robot "THE robot" in the practice rounds.

Matt Adams

15-03-2004, 14:23

During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).As best as I can tell, it looks like any "spare part" should not have any fasteners, which includes bolts, pins, set screws, string or keys.

I'm glad that we've got this out in the open as a refresher for teams that may be planning on bringing practice robots to the competition - it's not allowed unless it's completely disassembled.I have to say I disagree with this intrepretation. Yes, I am disagreeing with my own opinion after a night of sleep.

I guess it comes down to the definition of "component."

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

Below is a picture of our robot this year... I've highlighed the small ball roller that's used to pull the balls into the cage, our entire big ball arm, and the sprocket with a custom bolt on hub on the top of our big ball arm. One could possibly define either of these as "components" or "bolt on assemblies".

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mjadams/461component.jpg
FIRST needs to clarify this formally before this weekend so everyone can play within the bounds of the intended rules.

Matt

KenWittlief

15-03-2004, 14:35

you might argue about the meaning of component

but "completely dissassembled state" is pretty clear

MikeDubreuil

15-03-2004, 15:05

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

I'm going to go with Ken on this one...
1466 made a design decision to use treads. They knew rule R09 stated:
They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as
individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

If they wanted those treads to be avaliable as an assembly than they should have shipped them.

I do think FIRST should put out a team update and define a component and an assembly. Here's my take:

A component is a part not held together with fasteners (mechanical, chemical, spritual, whatever.) They are allowed.
An assembly is a collection of components put together using fasteners to serve a specific function. They are not allowed.

MikeDubreuil

15-03-2004, 16:16

Everyone is looking at the rules like lawyers again, and that isnt the way it's supposed to be.

Thats my problem with looking at the rules with common sense and using gracious professionalism.

This thread has shown that the rules need to be defined further. You could even say more lawyer-like. Otherwise teams will just bend them... to the point where they are swapping upgraded mechanisms (the purpose of this thread).

I don't you about you guys, but I'm starting to feel like following gracious professionalism is like having walk all over me stamped on my chest. Since I follow the GP mind set, I'll just smile and wait for another team to do it.

BTW: Yes, we did bring our spare wheel to BAE dissasembled. Hub, tube, and wheel.

EDIT:
can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

No, I would tell them they can use their pre-assembled, non-component treads. I will know that they would like to violate the rules, and I will let them violate the rules because that's what GP is about... right?

Andy Baker

15-03-2004, 16:26

Disassembled means disassembled. Any spare assemblies we brought to competitions were packed in our crate at ship time and then shipped in the robot crate to the next regional. If we brought any other parts to the competition, they were all in disassembled state. Some parts were 2-3 pieces welded together, but that was as disassembled as we could get. I am hoping that all other teams did the same, or they will do the same next time.

As for purchased parts (wheels, etc.), I figure that you can bring them as an assembly, just like they were purchased.

GP means following the rules. Also, it means changing your ways if you did not know that you broke a rule.

Andy B.

KenWittlief

15-03-2004, 16:26

the spare parts rules only apply to custom fabricated components and assembiles - parts you FABRICATED yourself

we didnt fabricate the skyway pneumatic wheels, so we dont have to dissassemble them

we didnt fabricate the chain on our bot, so we dont have to take each link apart

the point of the rule is to discourage teams from making very complex assemblies that are prone to being broken - if they are going to break the spares are going to break - are you going to bring a spare for each match?

its simply good engineering practice - dont builld something custom if you can get the same function from a commercially available off the shelf product - dont build something that is unreliable (breaks) when being used - dont build something that is expensive or difficult to repair or replace

THATS what FIRST is trying to convey here - be in the robust machine business, not in the spare parts emporium business :^)

dlavery

15-03-2004, 18:03

Guys, use some common sense... they took MASSIVE amounts of time to make those treads, can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

Yes, I would. In a heartbeat, and with no guilt. Look folks, we all know what the rules are. FIRST was even very specific about issues like this. Update #11 makes a point of stating:
"FIRST staff and volunterrs will vigorously support and envorce the 2004 rules as written. A team's excellent and creative work that may not align /be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed."
If the team mentioned above wants to have custom treads on their robot, and wants to have a spare set for the competitions, then they have a simple choice to make. Either make a spare set of the treads, fully assemble them, and throw them in the box with the robot to have as ready-to-go spares; or bring the individual components of the tread assemblies (note: individual components include unmodified off-the-shelf items such as wheels [with hubs] and umodified chains - Andy Baker has the right interpretation), and then assemble them on site. Under the rules, there is no other choice. If they show up at a competition with an assembled set of treads, that they did not ship with their robot, then those treads cannot be used in the competition.

If all the teams that manage to work within this set of rules can make it work, why in the world should we make an exception for those that cannot stay within the same constraints? A majority of teams have found a way to make their robot design and spares policy fit within the rules that we have all been given. I believe that they should be acklowledged and congratulated - and their efforts should not be tainted or trivialized by someone else's inability to play by the same rules. A small number of teams are trying to make the rules fit their own robot design and spares policies. FIRST has made it clear that this will not be accepted.

-dave

Don Wright

15-03-2004, 18:25

While I believe that we violated the intention of the rules by putting our practice robot on the field for practice, it was because of a misunderstanding and it will never happen again.

I hope most of the teams that are violating the rules are doing it because they misunderstand them and not because they are trying to bend them. Even the fact that this discussion has gone on so long back and forth between respected members clearly shows that this is a gray area that probably needs to be clarified.

I assume that anything that is added to a shipped robot must be fabricated at the competition, from purchased parts shipped with the robot, or brought to the competition.

For example...we changed a gear in our arm. We made a brake bracket out of aluminum in the PICO trailer and added a purchased cylinder to it and screwed it to our winch. We made little aluminum covers out of painted sheet aluminum that we cut, bent, drilled, and screwed to our robot at the Regional. We bought new nylon strap Friday night at REI and Saturday morning, cut it to length, added the eyelets, and attached it to our robot after our original strap that shipped with it slipped off the pulley one round and got caught in some gears.

Since all of the changes we made were fabricated at the competition from common purchased parts, I assume this would all be legal.

We spent a lot of time making all the parts on our robot so that we coule easily make and replace them at the competition. We think that is one of our strong points. Although it was a good thing our mast screw mechanism broke because that was a weak link that needed to be found out because it would be hard to repair.

So, that brings me to my next question. Ironically, the screw drive nut on our practice bot broke right before we took it out of the arena. The screw drive nut on our real robot broke in quarter finals. So, we now have to fix both.

So, I am keeping in mind that however we repair our practice robot, we have to be able to make the same repair at Grand Rapids on Thursday. This means any fabrication too. So, I will be bringing bare material (sheet aluminum, tube, nuts, bolts, etc.) and even though the design was done here in the time between regionals, and we can try the design on our practice bot, it will be entirely fixed at the competition on Thursday. I will not be bringing the "fix" completed in with me. It will be made at the regional.

I assume I would not be in any violation of any rules. Am I correct?

Thank you.

dlavery

15-03-2004, 18:44

In the example you give above, I would say that you are acting both within the spirit, letter and intent of the rules. All your fabrication, both in the case of the changed gear and the screw drive nut repair, is being done on site or at facilities open and available to all the competition participants. All the fabrication is being done within the time frame of the competition. All repairs/spares are made from component materials, and not built-up assemblies that have been built off-site. So, it looks like you are OK.

Which is exactly my point. You guys had to figure out a way to repair your machine, and you managed to find a way to do it within the rules. The fact that you did DESIGN work off-site is fine. Even using your practice robot to work through the design is OK, as long as you don't use any of those parts on your competition machine (and you have clearly indicated that you won't be doing that). The fact that you were able to find a way to do this, within the rules, is to your credit.

And the fact that you were able to do this provides an existance proof that it can be done - within the rules. If these teams can do it, why shouldn't we expect ALL teams to stay within the rules regarding spare parts?

If they are violating a rule because they do not understand or misinterpreted the rule, then then can be gently informed of the problem, and will probably respond as gracefully and honestly as Team 830. If they are knowlingly violating a rule (hopefully a VERY rare occurance) then they should be called on it.

-dave

Richard Wallace

15-03-2004, 19:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory
Guys, use some common sense... they took MASSIVE amounts of time to make those treads, can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

<dlavery in response>:
Yes, I would. In a heartbeat, and with no guilt. Look folks, we all know what the rules are. FIRST was even very specific about issues like this. Update #11 makes a point of stating:
Quote:
"FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce the 2004 rules as written. A team's excellent and creative work that may not align /be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed."

Well said, Dave.

I'd like to add one thing, though. Responsibility for complying with FIRST rules belongs to the teams. I think of it as similar the tradition in the game of golf, where players (at least the gracious professional ones) call penalties on themselves when they break a rule. FIRST staff and volunteers must rely on the gracious professionalism of the teams to determine if all components comply with R09.

rees2001

15-03-2004, 23:05

I think that there are a few different points of view being discussed here. some people are talking about bringing spare "parts" (the letter of the law) and some people are talking about spare components (individual reading of the rules). The main point of this discussion started when someone witnessed a team putting upgraded mechanisims onto thier robot from a practice robot. There is a difference between bringing and making BACKUP parts, going to 2 or 3 regionals and improving a system at the regional and keeping a robot back at your shop to make changes to while other teams robots sit crated and still.

This reminds me of another experience I had with teams bending the rules. A few years back I watched a team take their robot out of the competition facility on Friday night. I had watched this team during practice and saw the trouble they were having with their ball pick-up mechanism. The next morning the robot had all new components and even new signs. When I asked one of the students what they had done he told me, "we took it back to our school and worked on it all night long." The new system worked excellently, this team went on to do well at the regional and very well Nats.

This situation was not and is not fair. Part of me looks at the rules and thinks "they are breaking the rules, I should do something about it." The other part of me looks and sees kids working very hard to perfect something they are proud of. It's not a tough decision to make. I just wish these team's mentors could see the lesson we all want them to see. Do your very best, just do it fairly.

Gabriel

15-03-2004, 23:29

So how does software fit into all of this? IIRC FIRST specifically allows us to keep our controllers so we can work on software, but that seems to violate the principle behind the spare parts decision.

Yes, all teams have the same physical resources WRT software, (a laptop and a compiler), but because the regionals are spread out we all have different amounts of time. So it doesn't seem entirely consistent for FIRST to encourage us to work on software after the ship date but not to build spare parts.

KenWittlief

15-03-2004, 23:36

because you can put a piece of metal on a machine and fabricate it into a part, and you can tell when its done

but FIRST knows that SW is never done, the rev number just increments forever

Natchez

16-03-2004, 00:45

I am now in favor of a future rule that states, "Only off-the-shelf and raw materials may be brought to the pits."

The rules currently allow teams to

1. Manufacture a gravelator in the 6 week period
2. Not ship the gravelator
3. Use the gravelator to practice
4. Disassemble the gravelator
5. Bring the gravelator parts to the competition
6. Reassemble the gravelator on Thursday and put it on their 'bot

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

Basically, if the "don't bring any modified parts to the pits" rule was enacted, this would eliminate any questions about when parts were manufactured. Yes, this means that any parts that were manufactured/modified in the six week period would need to be stuffed in the crate with the robot if a team thought they may use them at the competition. For those who are going to argue that their crate will weigh more than 400 lbs. if they have to stuff it full of spare parts, just consider it another engineering challenge ... or fundraising challenge.

Now in favor of the anti-gravelator rule,
Lucien

MikeDubreuil

16-03-2004, 01:12

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

I would check out Rule R09 in the robot section.
During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spareparts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.

Natchez

16-03-2004, 01:56

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.
Duly noted & I was mistaken. I still don't like the idea of shipping one 'bot while walking in with a practice 'bot disassembled and having the opportunity to "selectively" assemble it on Thursday.

Lucien

Gary Dillard

16-03-2004, 10:59

Let me propose a rules change for next year that addresses the issue of cost of shipping only, for those who want to stay within the intent; it would be impossible to enforce and relies on GP, but so do many other rules:

Spare subassemblies fabricated during the 6 week build period may be crated/boxed and sealed prior to the ship date and carried to the competition in lieu of shipping in the robot crate.

This would allow teams to build complex robots and spare parts but not have to foot the cost of shipping the spares.

Noone currently watches us uncrate our robot; noone would know if our spares were in the crate or in a box next to it that we brought with us - it's enforced by GP. This change would only help those who stay within the rules anyway by cutting a shipping cost.

Chris Hibner

16-03-2004, 13:06

How about we just get rid of the 6-week rule and allow teams to keep their robots? All of these problems would go away.

Jessica Boucher

16-03-2004, 13:09

How about we just get rid of the 6-week rule and allow teams to keep their robots? All of these problems would go away.
Because then Dean couldnt say "And they all had only 6 weeks to do it..." :p

Seriously, though...that is an idea. But how do you handle people complaining about teams whose first regional is later in the regional schedule? And how would that affect membership into the earlier regionals?

MikeDubreuil

16-03-2004, 13:43

Because then Dean couldnt say "And they all had only 6 weeks to do it..." :p

Dean wants to see this is as a challenge. More time and you would have too much time to test, all the bugs would be worked out. On a more serious note, not everyone likes to spend every day of the year doing this. The 6 week schedule keeps everyone on the same playing field. How many mentors or students would you have if they had to devote more than 6 weeks doing this?

Don Wright

16-03-2004, 13:51

Aidan F. Browne

16-03-2004, 13:53

Chris Hibner

16-03-2004, 14:12

Please don't dilute this thread with a discussion of 6 weeks or no 6 weeks -- there are other threads that address that.

The focus of this thread is the 2004 Spare Parts rules as they are written.

Thanks,

Aidan

Aiden,

Someone else porposed a rule change for next year to help alleviate the problem. I was simply doing the same. What is the point of having this thread if not to come up with solutions to the problem for future years?

As long as you have rules of this nature, some teams are going to cheat. It's that simple. Formula 1 racing used to have the same problem with electronic aids - they couldn't effectively police them so they decided that the best thing to do was to just make it legal so that all teams could do it (and not have to worry about rule interpretation, ethics, etc.). I'm proposing a similar measure for FIRST. It's pretty obvious that it can't be stopped and that some teams are doing it. Therefore, I propose that we let all teams do it.

KenWittlief

16-03-2004, 14:18

by the same logic you could say that as long as you have rules, people are going to cheat

therefore eliminate all the rules?!

isnt that like throwing up your hands and giving up?

Since FIRST is suppose to be an emulation of a real engineering program - maybe we need to factor that into the spare parts rulings

maybe raise the robot materials limit to $4k, but include the cost of spare parts in that?

in the real world, if you sold a car with a 3year warrenty, and you had to give the owner a new free engine every 6 months your company would be out of business in a year or two

we need to find a way to inject that reality into FIRST.

Chris Hibner

16-03-2004, 14:32

by the same logic you could say that as long as you have rules, people are going to cheat

therefore eliminate all the rules?!

isnt that like throwing up your hands and giving up?

Where you are concerned, I AM thinking about throwing up my hands and giving up... (just kidding).

I think the point is being missed. Plenty of rules are very easy to enforce. Others are impossible. I'm just saying that we should consider getting rid of of rules that can't be enforced.

For instance, rules that are easy to enforce:

- robots must weigh <= 130 lbs.
- robots must fit in 30" x 36" x 60" box
- only kit motors can be used
- robot must be wired a certain way
- no materials from the exotic material list
- robots may not break the plane of the HP chute
- etc.

Rules that are difficult (if not impossible) to enforce:

- disassemled parts must be made before 2/26/2004
- You must do your own machining, or you must account for the time (unless students were involved).
- Cost of manufacturing (if students weren't involved).
- Certain material costs.
- You may not have a backup robot (this is not a current rule, but if it were ever implemented, it would be nearly impossible to enforce).
- etc.

MikeDubreuil

16-03-2004, 15:14

Don Wright

16-03-2004, 15:37

Actually...it's called life. Some people follow the rules, others bend them. Hopefully FIRST is mostly comprised of people that follow them so that the students that they are involved with will learn to follow them too.

Listen. The rules are what they are. I am not going sit around and spend time trying to make sure other teams are following them to the letter. I'd rather spend the time with my students helping them build the best robot they can within our understanding of the rules. If we get beat by a team that broke the rules and cheated, that's fine. We did the best we could do without cheating and I will never feel bad for that. If we break the rules, it is an accident and I hope that someone lets us know so we stop.

Let's police ourselves and stop asking FIRST to babysit us. If you see a team that you think is breaking a rule, just mention it to them in a polite way. Hopefully it will lead to a good discussion IRL like this one here and everyone will come out better than if you just bottle it up and create a new thread the day after the tournament is over.

It's all about communication. If we all communicate half as well in real life as we do here on CD, instead if a 60 message thread about breaking the rule, we could have a 60 thread message thread about how great a tournament or match was.

Don

Gabriel

16-03-2004, 15:58

I think I agree with Chris on this one, you can weigh a robot and then make a team lighten up or not compete, but how do you check whether a team has worked past the six weeks? The only way to know is through allegations and that leads to all sorts of misunderstandings and misinterpretations. 130lbs is a solid figure, you're either under it or not and there is absolutely indisputable evidence. So much of Gracious Professionalism relies on trust and if FIRST, or the teams all spying on each other to make sure we're following the rules than the whole competition will fall apart. Thats why the background check thing was so infuriating - FIRST wouldn't trust teams and mentors and that leads to all sorts of nasty things happening.

ngreen

16-03-2004, 16:14

FIRST is in a real bad situation.

They intentionally make the rules vague so they can bend them at any time. They claim the rules should be followed with common sense rather than a judicial sense.
Gracious professionalism keeps us all looking the other way if a team breaks the rules. To the point where we'll allow a team to break a rule and then compete agaisnt them knowing they broke a rule. Why don't we tell anyone? Because you're supposed to be GP. If you were to tell, who would you tell? There should be a FIRST police officer, but there's not.
FIRST has been designed from the ground up without a set of checks and balances. There are no consequences for breaking the rules. FIRST just hopes people will be honest, a blind faith if you ask me.

Teams will continue bending and breaking the rules, gracious professional teams will continue looking the other way.

Engineering is built on ethics. There will always be people who have problems with being ethical and will make FIRST look bad. FIRST can keep innovation and give us so much freedom in our design and tighten down the rules for those that can't follow them too. We all know when someone is breaking a rule. You have several options:

1. Approach them, they may not know the rule or there may be a misunderstanding. FIRST has a lot of updates and like has been said before everyone gets tired by the last week and may have missed that update. A lot of teams will be glad to change to be within the rules if they know they have broken them. I know this can be hard but will generally be the best way.

2. If they blow you off you can approach a FIRST official. They are your police. They are there to make sure things go as smoothly and fairly as possible. They will look into it and make a judgement, whether it is correct in your thoughts they hold the final judgement like the refs do. At least here you can get it off your chest and feel better that you did all you could to create a fair playing environment.

3. Ignore it. Rules are enacted for certain purposes. Sometimes there are exceptions to the rules. On that note I want to say how much I appreciate the sportsmanship of 498, 696, and 80. Allowing someone compete even outside the rules is awesome. This also came up when a team from BAE regional took a part offsite to drill one hole (they didn't know they were breaking a rule). Sometimes people get over-penalized if they are held to the rules. It takes real Gracious Professionalism to let these rules slide in these exceptions.

4. There are many cases in what someone is doing isn't illegal but just wrong in a ethical standpoint. Collusions were an example of this. To counter this the best measure is to post opinions here on CD and get a general consensus on what the group feels and what actions need to be taken. You may have groups that don't agree and still have problems with it afterwards but you must take steps to convince people that even some things that aren't "illegal" are wrong.

There may be other options, including the FIRST forum and by making decisions to not associate, but these are the main ones. I beg you to be both gracious and professional when you approach teams and people about this. The whole if you accidentally did something illegal, I'm sure a lot of you have, and someone else approaches you. So be nice.

And for all of you thinking about bending rules out there. Your reputation lies on how you do things. This professionalism part definitely applies here.

Play by the rules and be nice and we'll all have a lot of fun.

Ken Patton

17-03-2004, 12:56

Matt Adams

17-03-2004, 16:11

Team Update 15
http://www2.usfirst.org/2004comp/tmup15.pdf

Don't bring the robot in the facility with you.

If you're going to be entering a grey area... ask someone at FIRST. Don't risk your team and hard work by reading too far into this update.

Matt

Don Wright

17-03-2004, 16:21

Yep. If you are reading this message and haven't read Update 15, go and read it before posting. It's pretty clear cut.

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 16:26

hey if Im reading TU15 right, if someone brings a machine shop trailer, or if someone opens their machine shop up to all teams

then you can work on parts from 8am thursday until the pits close of saturday

in otherwords, a local team could host a 72 hr machine shop marathon at their facilites

THATS pretty cool - in the past I believe we were not allowed to take parts out of the building an work on them overnight in the hotel - does TU15 indicate a change to that policy now?

(they close up one can of worms and open another one! :^)

Don Wright

17-03-2004, 16:31

Yes, I think by wording it the way they did, it's a can of worms. I don't think they meant you can take parts out and work on them if a machine shop opens it's doors for 72 hours. It would be cool, but I don't think it's what they meant.

I'll be doing all my work in the pits...

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 16:35

I just search all the manual for:
hotel
remove
overnight

and I cant find anyplace that says you are not allowed to take parts from your bot out of the facilities overnight and work on them - was this another one of those rules from previous years that has been dropped?

Don Wright

17-03-2004, 16:41

Hmmm....good point... I don't know.

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 16:41

Personally I think it would be a great idea - what a super way for teams to work together if they are able to goto a teams local facilities and make mods or repairs after the pits close at night

seriously, this is chairmans award material!

Joe Johnson

17-03-2004, 16:51

...and I cant find anyplace that says you are not allowed to take parts from your bot out of the facilities overnight and work on them ...I don't see how you can be reading the same update I am reading!

I am serious. The bit about working on the robot after the ship date is specifically titled "At Events" If this is not enough, it says you may work in the pits or a facility open to all teams. Also, FIRST says you have to meet insurance and others requirements, including using the official desk to request work (even your own work).

It is silly to think that you can have your hotel room meet these requirements.

It seems to me that there is enough to worry about with regard to these rules without conjuring up frivolous ones.

Joe J.

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 17:10

because of the times they listed: you are allowed to work on your bot from 8am thursday to 5pm on saturday.

thats what it say - the machine shops are sometimes off site - and it says that teams can use their own local shops as long as they are open to all teams - which is not physically 'at the event'

Don Wright

17-03-2004, 17:43

I have a hard enough time getting people to show up one night a week for 6 weeks...let alone 4 months.

I also think that getting rid of the six week limit would just but a bigger divide between the upper tier and lower tier teams.

PLEASE let me clarify since I can't seem to figure out how to edit my post. I absolutely do not mean my current team when I talk about it being difficult to get them to show up. I am talking about trying to get some new people from my work to try and join in...

dlavery

17-03-2004, 17:45

We've lost.

It is now official.

The lawyers have won.

The fact that this recent discussion since Update 15 is even taking place illustrates that even a well-intentioned group of engineers and would-be-engineers can never avoid looking for loopholes and ways around the rules. Thus, lawyers are necessary. If this trend continues then we are doomed, as our entire social structure will eventually grind to a halt as we require arbitrators just to discuss grocery lists.

I cannot think of a more blatant example where a ruling from FIRST is about to be bent and perverted in a more irrational manner. It is intuitively obvious that a machine shop made available to teams in support of a competition event would have operating hours limited to the active hours of the event. To even suggest that teams could host a "72-hour machine shop marathon" off site and outside the control of the event is silly. At the close of every day at every event, the pit announcer always makes it clear that teams must put down their tools, stop working on their robots, and take some time off. Why in the world would anyone think that the rules would be any different for a team-provided shop?

And please don't use the "well they never said we couldn't!" excuse! FIRST never explicitly said that I could not bring a Boeing 747 to the event site and put it on display in the center of the play field either. But it is intuitively obvious to even my 4-year-old neighbor that is not acceptable, and would not be allowed. So why are we apparently unable to make the same distinction when it comes to something like this?

OK, so here is the deal - if ANYONE honestly believes that it is now OK to have a team-provided machine shop up and running during the off-hours of the competition event, I will take personal responsibility to work with FIRST to generate a new rules update (#16?) that specifically addresses this issue, and have them will spell out, in excruciating detail, the exact hours (down to the nearest nano-second, as determined by the atomic clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory) of permitted operation. And we will show that we are incapable of applying common sense to an issue like this. And we will force FIRST back to the position of publishing an encyclopedia of rules every year at the kick-off because we can't be trusted to do the sensible. And we will then all whine about how there are so many rules that it is impossible for the entire team to understand them all, and how we have to fully dedicate one team member just to reading and interpreting the rules and ensuring we are in compliance.

And the lawyers will win.

-dave

p.s. 8am Thursday through 5:00pm Saturday is only 57 hours, not 72.

meaubry

17-03-2004, 22:36

Dave,
Are you okay? I could almost feel you seizing up and the blood rushing to your face on that last rant. I'm not exactly sure how to address the issue of lawyers winning, I didn't know they were playing. Seems to me that if everyone simply stopped being judgemental of what the true meaning of a rule was (ambiguous ones and painfully obvious ones) then everyone would be better off. Seems to me that we make more out of breaking rules unintentionally than is necessary. I just won't spend any more of my time wasting it trying to convince people that my interpretation of a rule is better or more accurate than theirs is. FIRST is what it is - Some teams will interpret things what ever way they want to. I can't do anything about them - nor do I think I want to focus my attention on them. Those that do things that might not be considered gracious, nor professional - will do so either out of ignorance or by choice. I forgive everyone that unintentionally has broken any rule - I trust that once they found out they broke one, they wouldn't continue doing so. I can't and won't ever convince those that break the rules by choice that they are wrong. I cannot determine when the lawyers are winning - frankly I just don't care if they win as long as my students learn, get inspired, and have fun doing so.
Let's stay positive and everyone will win

WebWader125

17-03-2004, 23:01

It's obvious from many of the questions that were posted this year, that many teams look for loopholes in the rules/guidelines. At the kickoff, Dean gave a demonstration of "straddling", but there were still questions about straddling and other issues that were probably obvious to many, but clearly weren't obvious to all: what is hanging? is a servo a motor or electronics? do we really have to leave those blue wires?

If we really want teams to interpret the rules from a common ground, the manual should provide clear principles behind the rules. Consider a young team who feels that FIRST is all about working hard, getting no sleep, and persevering through adversity. They could easily interpret the rules about construction time to mean "work really hard for 6 weeks; then work non-stop from Thursday to Saturday at the competition." While an off-site shop has to be shared with other teams, they might not see anything wrong with staying up all night using hand tools in their hotel room. I don't think that implies any malice; it's just a lack of understanding of what the rule is really after.

Perhaps a page should be added to section 1 of the manual, after the description of GP, describing guiding principles behind the rules: safety (mechanical and electrical); GP (not hindering or destroying robots or field); design resources (why is there a budget; why can't we use the drive train we built last year; why can't we build spare parts after we ship). I think that people who have been with FIRST for a while have developed an intuitive sense for the "spirit of the law". But we can't assume that everyone has that same insight.

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 23:05

Dave - im really sorry if we are pushing your buttons here

you have to understand one thing - there are a lot of us out here who LOVE this stuff- not parsing the rules - im talking about FIRST, getting our bot to be the best it can - thinking through every little detail and trying our best to give it our all.

Some of the best times I have had on FIRST was leaving work on friday afternoon from Xerox, going to the Xcats site, and working on the bot straight through till sunday morning - mentors and students (the weekend before shipdate)

there is something about being in survival mode - something about a challenge - something about being competive that bonds people together

or another time, at epcot, after the championship was over on saturday, sitting by the pool with another engineer late at night, talking about how we could talk Xerox into starting a second team - and we decided, if Xerox wont do it why cant the two of us start a new team by ourselves? (Xerox did start a second team the following year, and that other engineer DID start a third new team - Jeff Debes and team 1450)

or this year at pittsburgh - our bot was drifting to the right in auton mode - even though we have a closed loop gyro compass - when I did the last room check on the students thurday at midnight, I hit the sack, and suddenly it came to me - why our bot was drifting the right - do you think I was able to sleep after that? no! out comes the notebook PC and Im looking at my code in the wee hours

and its not just FIRST- its engineering - Ive had plenty of jobs where we pulled all nighters - or worked straight through a weekend to get ready for a trade show or a product lauch date

we are not trying to find ways to keep working on the bot to get an advantage over other teams, or to make life miserable for FIRST

we do it cause we LOVE it! you cant put a clock or a timer on something like this - you cant tell people "now go out for dinner and dont think about this till tomorrow at 8am"

(we love you too Dave - Dave? Stop banging your head on the keyboard Dave :^)

jimfortytwo

17-03-2004, 23:13

Ken's observation represents a literal reading of what the black and white says. The counterpoint relies on an interpretation of those rules to expland their meaning, primarily based on previous year's experience (what has been dubed "common sense"). If we read and write the rules so that the newcomer may take them literally and understand whats going on-- thats fine. If we read and write the rules and ensure everyone understands that a great weight of old-time momentum, past precidence, and unwritten rules apply-- that could be fine too. The transition, however, is killing us.

I understand how difficult it is to write bulletproof rules, and particularly how impossible the feat is on the fly. However, this "commen sense" only can exist in the minds of those who have already played the game. And if KenWittlief and dlavery can't agree on what the rules say, who knows which interpretation a rookie team is going to run with?

More ink has been spilt this year arguing over what "common sense" is than was in the rule book to begin with. Lawyers don't argue over whats written in black and white -- they argue over whats written in grey.

Anyways. My team won't be partying at midnight in the parking lot over by team XXX's mobile machine shop, but if someone else was I wouldn't be able to hold it against them until after someone warns them what we've decided the rule means.

EDIT: While I was typing this WebWader125 probably expressed my sentiments in a more gentile manner.

Theres another competition I do where every year a three page "uP policy paper" has to get passed around to explain rules that used to be in the book, but now veterans all just take for granted. Everyone sort of understands that this document is a ton of work for the one crusader who publishes it, and is a result of holes and ommisions in the existing rules... but one no wants the event rules themselves to break 2 pages (it wouldn't be pretty in the competition manual anymore.)

I'm sure everyone will survive the season, reguarless of whether or not team XXX needs a friendly tap on the shoulder to remind them to wrap it up at 7:00.

KenWittlief

17-03-2004, 23:22

maybe we should forget the written text rules and hand everyone a Yourden bubble diagram instead

THAT we could all understand and all agree to :^)

Andy Baker

18-03-2004, 08:40

FIRST never explicitly said that I could not bring a Boeing 747 to the event site and put it on display in the center of the play field either. But it is intuitively obvious to even my 4-year-old neighbor that is not acceptable, and would not be allowed.

Darnit, darnit, darnit! That was our plan for the Midwest Regional. How did you know?!?

We had this grand scheme to bring in a 727 (747 was just toooo big!) with "TechnoKats 45" painted on the side and plop it down, right in the middle of the playing field. That would've been AWESOME! We were going for the spirit award, but now Dave has squashed our creative idea.

Hmmm... maybe we'll have to think of something else. Phooey on you, Dave!

:)

Andy B.

Ricky Q.

18-03-2004, 08:58

Darnit, darnit, darnit! That was our plan for the Midwest Regional. How did you know?!?

We had this grand scheme to bring in a 727 (747 was just toooo big!) with "TechnoKats 45" painted on the side and plop it down, right in the middle of the playing field. That would've been AWESOME! We were going for the spirit award, but now Dave has squashed our creative idea.

Hmmm... maybe we'll have to think of something else. Phooey on you, Dave!

:)

Andy B.
Just like you Delphi teams, showing off all those millions of dollars you each get, while you are at it why don't you put a machine shop in the plane and fly it around during non-competition hours, do it over international waters too. :p

In all reality though, people that are crazy on FIRST teams will always be thinking/talking about what to do with their robots, that is their choice. After every Thursday or Friday at comeptition we will all sit down at dinner and talk about nothing but what we are going to do the following day, drivers and coaches will sit down and pound out strategy, programmers will pour over their code, and then we all charge into the pits and get to work. It is part of the challenge, get your ideas together and organized and get it done in the time you have. The time allotted to work on robots needs to be controlled and equal for all teams, that is just the way it is and the way it will be.

Raul

18-03-2004, 09:07

Kris Verdeyen

18-03-2004, 12:30

We brought our mostly-assembled practice robot to GLR. It sat in my truck. On multiple occasions we went out to the truck and "harvested" parts from the spare robot. In every single instance the parts we used were (1)fabricated before the ship date or were off-the-shelf components, and (2)used only after they were fully disassembled down to individual pieces.

I don't see how this can be considered to be "ok", and here is why:

When the six weeks is drawing to a close, noone (at least noone that has the resources, planning, and skill to make a practice robot) is doing any serious design. The last week or so is tweaking time. It's time to lighten your robot, it's time to add that extra loop of string or extra bolt, or extra timing correction in your code. For team 118, it's the time for the drivers to practice running the robot to death, and when it dies, we fix it. Sometimes the fix is something simple and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, after fixing something for the umpteenth time, we come across the design flaw that's causing the thing to fail in the fist place, so we fix that. This is what engineers do when we see something broke - we fix it.

My point is, six weeks is not long enough for a team to "finish" their robot. We ship a robot because it's due, not because we can't think of anything more to do to it. When a team has a robot for an extra month after the ship date, there is no way to avoid putting on that extra bolt or weld or hole that will make it more perfect. Is that team drastically changing their design? No. But they are changing it. If the six weeks is not the time period for changing the robot, then what is it?

All that said, I see nothing wrong with doing any of this, as long as the practice robot, and all of its parts, stays back home in the shop. Once you bring that robot, or any piece of it (assembled or not), to a competition, you are competing with a machine that was modified outside of the two allowable times you can work on it: during the six week build, or during a competition.

The bottom line is that a part can either be part of a practice robot, or a spare, but not both. Ship the spares to the competition, practice with your practice robot, and show up on Thursday with your tools, your raw materials and OTS parts, and a smile.

Raul

18-03-2004, 12:58

The bottom line is that a part can either be part of a practice robot, or a spare, but not both. Ship the spares to the competition, practice with your practice robot, and show up on Thursday with your tools, your raw materials and OTS parts, and a smile.
Kris,
That is a unique interpretation of the rules. Are you implying that all parts on a practice robot are declared illegal simply because they were used on a practice robot at one time?

A part was either made or modified after the 6-week period or it was not. If it was made during the 6-week period and never modified, then according to the rules, it matters not if it resided on a practice robot at one time. If I bring that part into the competition as a single part, I am allowed to use it.

Andy Baker

18-03-2004, 13:01

I don't see how this can be considered to be "ok", and here is why:
....

Kris,

In most cases, I agree with your post. However, with Ken's case in particular, you are assuming too much. You cannot just assume that a part on a practice robot was tweaked or modified since kickoff. If it was, then I would bet money that Ken would not bring that part into the arena.

Over all of the years I have been in this, Ken has been the most picky stickler about rules that I know. He pretty much sets the standard with regard to this kind of stuff. Ken walks the walk and leads by example. Many of us look up to him because of this.

If he brings in a part, it is definitely a spare part that was un-modified since ship date. I don't care if it was on his practice robot or if it was his paperweight on his desk for the past 4 weeks.

just my opinion,

Andy B.

TF8

18-03-2004, 14:12

What about the cases where a team has a practice bot and over the next three weeks drives the heck out of it, developes autonomous modes, and figures out what will break? They then spend pit day fixing what broke on the practice bot on the comp bot and uploading the new code.

Don Wright

18-03-2004, 14:24

That's the whole point of having a second robot.

Kris Verdeyen

18-03-2004, 15:35

That is a unique interpretation of the rules.

It's less of an interpretation than it's a rant on the way things ought to be. I realize that, as it stands now, it is legal to use practice robot parts as spares, I just think that it shouldn't be.

In most cases, I agree with your post. However, with Ken's case in particular, you are assuming too much. You cannot just assume that a part on a practice robot was tweaked or modified since kickoff. If it was, then I would bet money that Ken would not bring that part into the arena.

And I wouldn't cover that bet. The larger issue here, however, is one of perception. As professionals, we must avoid the appearance of unethical behavior as vigorously as the behavior itself. How must it look to a rookie, or a even struggling veteran team, to see a mentor on a well respected, well staffed, well monied team leave the arena and come back with whatever part he needed? It looks like it could be a violation. It looks shadowy. Even if you stopped the person, and confronted him or her, and got a great explanation complete with footnotes pointing to specific rules, it looks wrong. That's what we need to avoid, and the only way to do that is to limit what we bring to the competition to raw materials and unmodified off-the-shelf hardware.

Joe3

18-03-2004, 16:24

No matter how many rules FIRST writes, a team that builds a practice robot will have an advantage over a team that doesnt every time. No matter what rules they write. Even if they get so picky as to search bags to make sure no spare parts make their way into the arena, these teams will have an advantage. They will have driven this robot, found out strengths, and weaknesses, and found many design flaws incorporated in the robot, and have plans to fix them. Their drivers will have weeks more training, knowing the capabilities of the robot, how in hangles in different situations, and how long it takes to do each task. Their programmers will have had weeks to refine the autonomous programs and create new ones. None of these are against the rules by ANY stretch of the imagination, but they all give considerable advantages to the teams who are able to build the practice robot. Their pit crew walks into the event knowing exactly what they have to do to improve the robot, the programmers simply have to download the new code and check to make sure that it works on the real robot, and the drivers have loads more experiance driving the robot.

As many people have said, the creation of autonomous mode have pushed the benefits of building this practice robot way higher than the cost. It is becoming a near necessity to do so.

Do I think that a team should have a practice robot sitting in the pit next to their real robot and take parts off of it and put it on the real robot when something breaks? Well, actually yes. If I can walk up and ask that team when they built it, and if they say the 6 week build period, thats good enough for me. I also think that FIRST made a mistake getting rid of the 3 day grace period after an event during which a team could make changes to their design. I think that this was a well needed time period for the constant evolution of a design, and the troubleshooting of problems that developed during a regional. If a few teams abused this and worked even after those 3 days, oh well, they can live with themselves. I dont think that more rules are the answer to this problem, as they will always be nearly unenforceable.

It seems like everyone is forgetting what this is supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be a cutthroat competition where everyone is constantly watching to make sure everyone is playing exactly within the rules. We're all supposed to trust each other, and use the honor system, and GP to ensure that everyone plays nice. Let's go back to the system of 2 years ago (teams have until wednesday after an event they participated in to alter designs and make spare parts.) I think it was better for the teams, the engineering process, and FIRST.

KenWittlief

18-03-2004, 19:55

actaully every single FIRST team already has a pratice robot

FIRST started GIVING them to us last year

remember?

the EDU bot?

it runs the same code - you can use victors and spikes with it

you can use the same input sensors

you can work out your auton code on it

its not a question of whether every team can afford to have a pratice bot - its only a matter of how close it is to their real one.

Roland

18-03-2004, 20:05

A second robot controller like the EDUrobot is a far cry from a second robot, even for autonomous programming. It may be better than nothing, but for learning how to drive a robot, you need something almost identical to the real thing. This is especially important on our team, where we let anyone who wants to drive drive the robot. The EDUrobot is better than nothing, but it's still not really a practice robot.

KenWittlief

18-03-2004, 20:33

I dont mean using the little toy motors and foam wheels - you can use the stock transmissions that FIRST gives you and at least make a frame with drill motor or chalupia motor drivetrain, put the EDU RC on it

it will be more or less the same size as your real bots base frame, it will run approx the same speed, have similar characteristics

and you can put gyros and IR sensors and play with auton mode - at least get it close - better that nothing

then tweak your code to match the motion characteristics of the real bot on pratice days at events.

Rich Kressly

21-03-2004, 09:37

Gabriel

21-03-2004, 11:51

You both are close, but it's "intuitively obvious" that those commercial flights are rather boring. I'm partial to the FA-18 and/or the Harrier Jet for superior handling and offensive capabilities. That should get the drive team to the field in style. :)

Hmm... Sikorsky is a big FIRST supporter and they probably won't need all those Commanches now that the program has been cancelled... maybe they'd lend some out for robot transportation... it seems "intuitively obvious" that it would serve gracious professionalism tremendously to reduce dangerous traffic jams in the aisles by transporting other teams robots by attack helicopter.

Katie Reynolds

21-03-2004, 13:05

... They intentionally make the rules vague so they can bend them at any time. They claim the rules should be followed with common sense rather than a judicial sense.
Gracious professionalism keeps us all looking the other way if a team breaks the rules. To the point where we'll allow a team to break a rule and then compete agaisnt them knowing they broke a rule. Why don't we tell anyone? Because you're supposed to be GP. If you were to tell, who would you tell? There should be a FIRST police officer, but there's not.
FIRST has been designed from the ground up without a set of checks and balances. There are no consequences for breaking the rules. FIRST just hopes people will be honest, a blind faith if you ask me.

Teams will continue bending and breaking the rules, gracious professional teams will continue looking the other way.

Can you imagine how thick the manual would be if FIRST outlined every single situation, so as to make the rules perfectly, black and white, no questions about it clear? My printer wouldn't be able to handle it!!! :yikes:

I've never heard Gracious Professionalism (http://www.bcrobotics.org/2003/poster.pdf) defined as looking the other way when someone is breaking the rules. If you see something shady going on, tell someone about it! A judge, a referee, the pit announcer -- someone! There are consequences for breaking the rules. Ask any team that's ever gotten a penalty for something at a competition or disqualified from a match.

It's obvious that FIRST does hope people will be honest, and not try to break/bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage. That teams wouldn't bring a spare robot to the competition to swap out parts that they modified post-build. I would hope the same thing. Maybe it's just me, but I've always held FIRSTers to be people who knew the difference between right and wrong, between cheating and being inventive. Call me blind as well, but I thought the majority of us were above that.

FYI: I did a google search for "Gracious Professionalism" and got over 1,200 results. Scanning over the pages, almost ALL were from FIRST's and team's websites. Seems like most people get it. Or at least whoever writes the content for their webpage does.

Ken Patton

21-03-2004, 13:10

And I wouldn't cover that bet. The larger issue here, however, is one of perception. As professionals, we must avoid the appearance of unethical behavior as vigorously as the behavior itself. How must it look to a rookie, or a even struggling veteran team, to see a mentor on a well respected, well staffed, well monied team leave the arena and come back with whatever part he needed? It looks like it could be a violation. It looks shadowy. Even if you stopped the person, and confronted him or her, and got a great explanation complete with footnotes pointing to specific rules, it looks wrong. That's what we need to avoid, and the only way to do that is to limit what we bring to the competition to raw materials and unmodified off-the-shelf hardware.

(sorry so long for me to respond - was at the Detroit regional watching some great matches)

Kris-

You are simply wrong whe you assume that our competition parts get modified after ship. They don't. If a part gets modified it is no longer a competition part and on our team it doesn't get used during any competition.

Simply having the part on the practice robot is totally within the letter and spirit of the rules.

At Ypsi we had a student totally rebuild a circuit board because the wires were not wrapped after ship - she never got to see one of our lame practices. We resoldered some PWM cables to a switch in a case where the ONLY thing that was not pre-ship was the SOLDER. We follow the rules and it seems our competitors think we follow the rules (thanks for the kind words Andy).

As to the "appearances" complaint, I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are letting the lawyers win when you start nitpicking about appearances in a case where someone has actually followed the rules. FIRST has so many instances where the thing that keeps us within the rules is our own conscience - my guess is they WANT to trust us and want us to trust each other. Its part of the FIRST culture isn't it?

Ken

Gabriel

21-03-2004, 14:22

[QUOTE=Katie Reynolds]Can you imagine how thick the manual would be if FIRST outlined every single situation, so as to make the rules perfectly, black and white, no questions about it clear? My printer wouldn't be able to handle it!!! :yikes: [QUOTE]

Dean and Co. have been railing against lawyers for a long time, and this idea of shortening the manual and declaring that "words mean what they mean" is a good one. Unfortunately we aren't mind readers and in some cases FIRST hasn't done a great job of making the intention of a particular ruling clear. My interpretation might be different from the judges interpretation which might be different from the authors intention. This problem is only compounded by the number of rule changes during the season. For example, when I read the rule saying that tape can't be used as a fastener, I interpret that to mean that you can't wrap tape around your wheels as a traction device, but at UTC the judges suggested that we do this. The problem is that unless the rules say WHY we're not supposed to use tape as a fastener I don't know how to apply that rule. Dave seems to think that FIRSTs intentions are obvious, but Dave is the one having the intentions in the first place, for those of us just reading through the document they clearly aren't. I don't think its fair for FIRST to expect us to understand their intentions if those intentions aren't articulated precisely. What's so terrible about saying "To keep the challenge fair for everyone we give every team an equal amount of time, unfortunately, since we can't schedule 26 regionals on the same weekend some teams will have more time to work after the regional than others, since it would defeat the entire purpose of having a six-week build schedule teams cannot use the time between the ship date and the regional to work on the robot, the exceptions to this rule are x, y, and z because of the following reasons." The rules don't read like this at all. Dave, lawyers don't talk about simple ideas and they don't make simple arguments, they have to use words in weird ways sometimes because the language doesn't necessarily fit the ideas. Its like talking about "offense" and "defense" in this years game, the words don't really apply to this competition so you have to spell out what you mean by them before you use them or you'll cause confusion. FIRST doesn't do simple ideas either, there's a reasoning behind the rules that needs to be spelled out because nothing in FIRST is "intuitively obvious".

Jack Jones

21-03-2004, 14:45

MikeDubreuil

21-03-2004, 15:32

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts.

They are not draconian they are suprsingly simple. It's only those looking to beat the rules that create an eviroment in their mind that they somehow don't understand them and can circumvent them.

The rules in a nut shell:
1. If you didn't ship it, you can't bring it. Unless you have the EXACT same part on your robot.
2. Any team manafactured part you do bring must be as dissasembled as possible.

Jack Jones

21-03-2004, 15:57

They are not draconian they are suprsingly simple. It's only those looking to beat the rules that create an eviroment in their mind that they somehow don't understand them and can circumvent them.

The rules in a nut shell:
1. If you didn't ship it, you can't bring it. Unless you have the EXACT same part on your robot.
2. Any team manafactured part you do bring must be as dissasembled as possible.

Not wanting to get into a debate - but I did not say what they have is Draconian - meant only that I fear they will become that way.

Another point: It is impossible to create "EXACT" same parts. Thus, if taken literally, no replacment parts can pass the test.

So, all of this has us playing lawyer, which is not my idea of a good time!

Katie Reynolds

21-03-2004, 16:16

Another point: It is impossible to create "EXACT" same parts. Thus, if taken literally, no replacment parts can pass the test. Ok. This thread was started to discuss teams bringing practice bots to competitions and using them during their practice matches, and/or swapping out upgraded parts on the practice bot for those on their competing robot. The point of the thread was to figure out a way to better enforce, or make the rules about spare parts clearer.

And now it's turned into a debate not being able to fabricate "exact parts", cause the only "exact" part is the original? Wow.

There are plenty of other threads about wanting more time, changing/eliminating FIRST rules, etc etc. If you've got something to say that doesn't 'go' with this thread, find a better fit or start a new one. Please.

Oh, for those confused on the exact parts point, you can make a COPY of the part on the robot. Meaning all the dimensions, materials, etc. etc. are the same. The replacement parts don't have to be the EXACT SAME part, but a REPLICA of that part. :rolleyes:

Gary Dillard

24-03-2004, 13:05

In my humble (rookie) opinion, the parts rules in conjunction with the six-week build; the autonomous mode; and raising the bar have put rookie and novice teams at a severe disadvantage. They put even the experienced teams in the uncomfortable position of looking for ways to skirt the rules as an alternative to failing to make the show. Worse yet, they turn crunch time into a gut wrenching experience. This was supposed to be fun; it could have been better.

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts. On the contrary, I think they should eliminate what they now have. Let us evolve and put the best we can muster on the field. Why make a team feel like criminals for not knowing that what they’ve seen was not what has been dictated? Why make them throw away many weeks of effort for the sake of some under observed, unenforceable, and unobtainable principle?

I can envision the parking lots across the street filling with trailers containing the practice robots, assemblies, and other items that we’re not allowed to “bring to the event.” Is that what we want?

I can say without reservation that we have never been uncomfortable in choosing between skirting the rules or shipping a robot that wasn't competitive. Our team has had up and down years, and more times than I like to admit we've fielded a robot that would move and do little else, because we didn't get it built, tested or debugged in time. Never did we consider starting fab early, using parts from previous robots, cointinuing after the build season - I'd quit the team if that happened. At that point it becomes about the robot and winning and not about promoting engineering as an honorable profession.

This thread has been a good discussion for the right reasons - what do other teams (the FIRST family, not just the FIRST organization) consider the interpretation of the spare parts rules, practice robot rules, etc. so we can all try to apply the same standard to our decisions. Not so we can manipulate them to get an unfair advantage, but rather so we DON'T get an unfair advantage over other teams. I think these forums are like going to mediation rather than to court - if we all come to agreement or at least consensus we don't need FIRST or the lawyers to rule. We police it ourselves.

For those who don't remember, the old rules allowed building functionally equivalent replacement parts to be built in the 4 days after each regional - the big debate then was "what is functionally equivalent?" One year we built a new lift out of a different material, and took it straight to the judges to see if we could use it; if they said no, we were prepared to accept that even though it would have had a major impact to us. I think everyone should weigh all the options available to them for building spares (it's too late to do anything about shipping them at this point), and be willing to accept the decision of the judges at each competition if confronted.

Jack, there is no doubt Rookies are at a disadvantage - that's true anywhere; I would hope my experience counts for something at work. But noone goes into this competition thinking "hey, I think I'll build a crappy robot" - it's usually just a matter of available resources to get things done. I try to encourage every team who shows up, find something positive to say, both new and old teams. Everyone should feel proud of participating.

suneel112

05-04-2004, 09:03

The bottom line is that FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism.

FIRST is about having fun, building robots, and pushing engineering into the mainstream community. Gracious Professionalism is about being fair to other teams, following the rules, and being helpful to the other teams who may be at a disadvantage.

If a team breaks the rules, they really don't deserve to be a part of FIRST, but with gracious professionalism, if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

FIRST could spend half of its money being a rules disciplinarian, but FIRST is about inspiring students, not building a police state.

But I do believe teams should get penalized if it is discovered they are in the practice of this. FIRST of all (heh heh), they should get no award, and the team leaders/sponsors should get a letter from FIRST telling them that their team cheated. In addition, they should be disqualified. In addition, other FIRST teams should be encouraged to report this action, because FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism, and breaking rules simply ISN'T Graciously Professional.

Greg Perkins

05-04-2004, 10:16

This rule seems to be on the edge of "grey area". I mean there is so much going on in the pits at one time, that there is no way to accuratly know what each and every team is doing during the day.
This is how rules get broken, by not enough supervision...It's the same as any other sport. In soccer, you could get tripped, and the ref's wouldnt spot it. in football, a guy could hold you and the ref's wouldnt be able to tell.
Now i know this is a hard rule to adhere to every minute by FIRST, BUT i think that they could do a better job in promoting it. If you have ever been to/watched a NASCAR race, and when the drivers bring their cars down pit road, they are under constant supervision. there is always a NASCAR offical within 10 feet of a car on pit road. even when the car goes behind the wall in the garage area, there is still a official within 10 feet of the car as it's being worked on.
now, my "idea" is that first should get volunteers to piggyback teams. have one representative per "block". a block would consist of six pit stalls. that way there is always someone keeping track as to what is going on, and so "name calling, finger pointing, and whatnot" keeps from happening.
I think the rule is great, however teams will do anything to win, and that's terrible. Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy.

so, lets try and take a step back, re-evaluate ourselves, and ask ourselves..."do we really want to promote a monopoly to our future buisness leaders?"

`Greg

JVN

05-04-2004, 10:24

now, my "idea" is that first should get volunteers to piggyback teams. have one representative per "block". a block would consist of six pit stalls. that way there is always someone keeping track as to what is going on, and so "name calling, finger pointing, and whatnot" keeps from happening.
I think the rule is great, however teams will do anything to win, and that's terrible. Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy.

Greg,
I think you are misguided on several accounts.

Do you really believe we should put a "baby sitter" on every single team to make sure they follow the rules? FIRST has always been primarily on the "honor system". The volunteer requirements to "spy" on each team would be incredible. Besides, I'd like to believe that every team is profesional enough to follow the rules, and be positive role models for their students. Those that don't... probably aren't in this for the right reasons.

Do we really want a police-state?
Big Brother is watching 229?

Also, I don't understand your points about winning. What are you saying? Winning gets you nowhere in life?

I'm of the opinion that (while staying within the rules) one should try their hardest to win. The competition is what drives people to be better. What drives us to innovate, and to come back each year stronger than ever.

John

Don Wright

05-04-2004, 10:25

"Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy."

I wish this were true...

Greg Perkins

05-04-2004, 11:17

John, I think that I worded what i was trying to say wrong. All i meant was have more supervision so it doesnt happen, so rules are enforced. I dont want it to be percieved as being a babysitter, but someone who can keep tabs on what is happening.

and on the winning part, i was just agreeing with Mr. Dillard from the earlier post he did.

Jessica Boucher

05-04-2004, 11:52

Whether I agree with it or not (which I won't get into)....to be honest, I don't think its logistically possible to have that many extra volunteers.

Assuming a 40 team regional, you would need 7 extra volunteers for three days. Multiply that by 26 regionals, and you have 182 extra volunteers necessary.

Plus, at the Championship, with 281 teams, you would need 47 extra volunteers for three days (that's rather creepy, if you ask me :)).

Look at it this way...at some regionals, this could be somewhat plausible (esp the ones that are funded by major companies)...but even at other regionals and especially at Nationals, those volunteers are really hard to find. I mean, if it takes Aidan to put a post on Delphi because FIRST can't find crowd control volunteers for Nationals, then we're already hurting for National volunteers.

My suggestion to fix this? FIRST should ally with an airline and/or hotel to provide discounts to these volunteers to get them to schlep all the way down there. If Nationals was in NH, we wouldn't have such a problem with this - because the large volunteer base is already established...and no offense to GA, but it's just not at the level to NH in concentrated FIRST non-team support (please correct me if I'm wrong in this statement, GA!). Thus, the majority of people that are traveling to GA are helping out their teams - not paying hundreds of dollars to work for free for a couple of days (though I have done that before - and it's fun! I'd recommend it to anyone).

But that last paragraph was rather OT. :D Anyway, whether it is right or not to watchdog teams, logistically it is a major challenge. Thus, the most efficient way to do this would be to trust your fellow FIRSTer.

Greg Perkins

05-04-2004, 12:44

Anyway, whether it is right or not to watchdog teams, logistically it is a major challenge. Thus, the most efficient way to do this would be to trust your fellow FIRSTer.

Jessica, i know what an undertaking that would be, but i do think FIRST-ers should be able to follow the rules...i hope

Raul

05-04-2004, 13:31

I would rather hope that FIRST continues to rely on GP (honesty and honor) to self regulate. The only sport this can be compared to is golf. Golf has even more rules than FIRST and the participants are expected to use an honor system to abide by them.

I just wish FIRST would learn from the golf ruling bodies about defining rules that cannot be misinterpreted - but that is for another thread.

Matt Reiland

05-04-2004, 14:19

It was actually kind of sad inspecting last weekend at one of the regionals. We stopped 6 different teams that were trying to bring in entire arm assemblies fully assembled (We are talking 3 axis of motion BIG assemblies here). AND, they were all totally upset with us for not letting them into the venue in that condition (They had to go to the parking lot and take them apart). These 6 were only the ones that were blatently obvious, we also saw other teams pulling out smaller assemblies out of book-bags and plastic crates that they had brought in. I really expected less teams to push the rules as hard as they did.

My own opinion is that the rule is not good for the competition, especially for teams that are in multiple events. There should be some way for you to repair parts that are damaged in the events legally. The onsite machine shops are great for certain parts of the robot, but a CNC's piece that is fairly complex like some of the arm pieces on the robots would be very difficult to make at an event with the current rules. I would hate for this type of ruling to limit the design and build such that they stick to off the shelf clone robots instead of creating and machining ingenious mechanisms that may get damaged and require repairs.

But that's just my opinion....

CJO

05-04-2004, 17:41

For those who don't remember, the old rules allowed building functionally equivalent replacement parts to be built in the 4 days after each regional - the big debate then was "what is functionally equivalent?" One year we built a new lift out of a different material, and took it straight to the judges to see if we could use it; if they said no, we were prepared to accept that even though it would have had a major impact to us. I think everyone should weigh all the options available to them for building spares (it's too late to do anything about shipping them at this point), and be willing to accept the decision of the judges at each competition if confronted. Here's what I want to know, what about things that get damaged during a regional. I realize that we are supposed to design hardy robots, but there are somethings which occur which are un-avoidable (i.e. another robot breaking your lexan covering and ripping your control panal to shreads).

Say for instance, you have a hook which gets bent during the matches. dlavery would tend to say that you need to build a new one at the next regional, not in between, even if the second hook was identical (same design, same material, same construction method). Fair enough. So our team has figured out a way to make a new hook, which can be built in the pit, without a mill. However, this new hook (which we will make on thursday) would not be the same as the origional hook, because we will not have a mill. So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time. Finally, as the hook is a solid piece of metal, could we bring a new one in anyway.

Another example of what was mentioned earlier about rules which are "understood" by older teams, but are not necesserily widely known, was the time-out in the elimination matches. I was completely unawares of the fact that each alliance got a time out, and even older teams seemed unsure of the exact peramaters. Our alliance mates, Chief Delphi (47) thought that you could only use the time-out in the finals, while Cheesy Poofs called their's in the quarter-finals. I do appreciate FIRST trying to simplify the rules, nobody likes dictionary sized rule books. But there are some "legacy" rules which really ought to be included for newer teams.

On that note, if anyone can think of any other un-spoken rules which it might behove a team to know could you please post them.

~Christopher

Grommit

05-04-2004, 19:18

I think this example is how our team dealt with the "Spare Parts" rule.

Our robot was shipped with a 2x ball grabber. At Sacramento, we realized that it did not have enough torque to successfully lift the ball consistantly and that it was too difficult to operate. We took a hacksaw and removed the entire arm.

We put the remaining robot into the box for Silicon Valley.

At home, we worked on a design to modify the arm to be able to hang.
In order to comply with the rules, we avoided any part that required welding or complex machining/manufacturing. When we drove into Silicon Valley that morning, we brought a tiny portable drill press and a lot of raw material, almost straight out of the store, with only a couple aluminum plates actualy cut to size (since we couldn't do these with a chopsaw, too inaccurate). At the competition, on Thursday, we spent a whole 8 out of our 10 hours working on the arm, while others worked on the program and such, drilling parts with our drill, and cutting the aluminum tube extrusion down to size. We had to set up our pulleys and Fisher-Price motor-powered winch, all parts bought straight out of a store and unmodified.

Clearly, these raw materials were not spare parts, as they were unique and fully intended to create a new mechanism. However, they were store-bought and unmodified until Thursday. But I don't feel that bringing raw, store-bought materials is in conflict with the rule as stated, and that it seems most people on this thread would agree.

CrazyCarl461

06-04-2004, 10:22

So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time.

I think that you could argue that either one of these scenarios, although not ideal, would be acceptable.

First of all, you can build whatever you want at a competition as long as it is from 100% raw material. You might catch some flack if it is an all-new system that you suddenly thought of (or worse, copied). But if you are trying your best to create a similar part with identical functionality, I don't think many people would be opposed to that.

As for the other situation, this one may be a little less accepted but I still don't think it would be an absolute problem. Most of the discussion about the bringing of identical, post-six week parts centers around the idea of teams bringing entire replacement systems in a box and merely turning a few wrenches to suddenly have entire spare robot chunks sitting around. You want to make one identical piece for a part that has already broken, which shouldn't be a major deal.

Anyway, just keep a team's honest intent in mind when making judgment of their actions. If you are going to bring parts in or build at the competition, all I ask is that you are prepared to explain yourself and defend your decision. Nobody wants to hound you as long as you are professional about it. In any case, people just need to make aware their specific situations and try and help others understand.

Rob Colatutto

06-04-2004, 10:43

Another example of what was mentioned earlier about rules which are "understood" by older teams, but are not necesserily widely known, was the time-out in the elimination matches. I was completely unawares of the fact that each alliance got a time out, and even older teams seemed unsure of the exact peramaters. Our alliance mates, Chief Delphi (47) thought that you could only use the time-out in the finals, while Cheesy Poofs called their's in the quarter-finals. I do appreciate FIRST trying to simplify the rules, nobody likes dictionary sized rule books. But there are some "legacy" rules which really ought to be included for newer teams.

On that note, if anyone can think of any other un-spoken rules which it might behove a team to know could you please post them.

~Christopher
The time-out rule was not un-spoken. If you read the rulebook, in section 7-The Tournament, it is clearly explained in rule <T02>:
<T02> There are no time outs in the Qualifying Rounds; in the Elimination Rounds, each Alliance will be allotted
one time out of no more than 6 minutes. The matches must progress according to schedule. If a robot
cannot report for a match, the queueing manager shall be informed and at least one member of the team
should report to the field for the match.

Kris Verdeyen

06-04-2004, 18:20

After some consideration, a ski trip, and the Lone Star Regional, I think I'm ready to dive back in....

You are simply wrong whe you assume that our competition parts get modified after ship. They don't. If a part gets modified it is no longer a competition part and on our team it doesn't get used during any competition.

I apologize for impugning you and your team, Ken. That was not what I was trying to do. I realize that you do follow the letter and spirit of the rules as they are now written.

The point I was trying to make is not that teams are breaking the rules (which we can't do much about), but that the rules are structured so as to be meaningless (they are, as the title of the thread says, broken). What is the difference between having a spare robot in the arena and having it in the back of a truck in a parking lot? How does it make sense that one would be legal and the other illegal?

We resoldered some PWM cables to a switch in a case where the ONLY thing that was not pre-ship was the SOLDER.

This follows both the letter and the spirit of the law. But it also proves that the letter of the law is really stupid. What sense does it make to have a component that was built legally, then modified after ship, to have to be de-modified and then re-modified at the competition? It's ridiculous.

As to the "appearances" complaint, I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are letting the lawyers win when you start nitpicking about appearances in a case where someone has actually followed the rules.

I think that the reason "the lawyers" have gotten such a bad image (apart from Dave Lavery's famous post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=126597&highlight=stop+lawyers+start+engineers#post126597) ) is because (of the unfair stereotype that) they don't care about appearances of wrongdoing, and therefore don't appear to care about right and wrong, and focus entirely on the written law and its many unpluggable loopholes.

FIRST has so many instances where the thing that keeps us within the rules is our own conscience - my guess is they WANT to trust us and want us to trust each other. Its part of the FIRST culture isn't it?

I'm not sure about the other regionals, but at the Lone Star regional last weekend, all robots in the elimination rounds were weighed before every elim match. This was, according to our head inspector, because during some random re-inspections, robots at other regionals had been found to have gained as much as 4-5 pounds since their initial inspection. The reason I bring it up is not to say that we're all crooks and need constant supervision to be kept in line, but to show that the culture of trust and sportsmanship is slipping. There are hundreds of new FIRST teams every year, and it will be a battle to make sure that every participant on every one of them knows that the rules are something we take seriously. We don't look the other way when a rule is bent or broken, even for established teams.

In order to accomplish that, we need to limit (in the rules) what can be brought to the competition to raw materials and OTS parts. Everything else either comes in the crate or stays at home.

/An edit - excerpts from codes of ethics
The IEEE code of ethics (http://www.ieee.org/portal/index.jsp?pageID=corp_level1&path=about/whatis&file=code.xml&xsl=generic.xsl) includes:
[We agree] to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible...

The NSPE code of ethics (http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp) includes:
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

steven114

06-04-2004, 19:06

But what's to stop a team with two identical robots (one working perfectly, one having a lot of mechanical issues) from placing the "perfect" one in a match rather than the broken one?.

What stops them? The little 'Inspected' sticker that you get exactly ONE of :) Brilliant idea, assuming that it's sticky enough that you can't remove it without the tearing being obvious.

CJO

07-04-2004, 21:55

Thank you, Rob, I stand corrected.
~Christopher

Astronouth7303

08-04-2004, 15:46

I'm not sure about the other regionals, but at the Lone Star regional last weekend, all robots in the elimination rounds were weighed before every elim match. This was, according to our head inspector, because during some random re-inspections, robots at other regionals had been found to have gained as much as 4-5 pounds since their initial inspection. The reason I bring it up is not to say that we're all crooks and need constant supervision to be kept in line, but to show that the culture of trust and sportsmanship is slipping. There are hundreds of new FIRST teams every year, and it will be a battle to make sure that every participant on every one of them knows that the rules are something we take seriously. We don't look the other way when a rule is bent or broken, even for established teams.
Don't even get me started on that.
At Buckeye, our team had a chain-driven drive train consisting of 45 tooth plastic sprockets. We couldn't use the steel ones we had because they were about 8 pounds heavier. But the plastic sprockets kept braking. we ran out, and ended up using the steel ones. We had 1 match before the inspectors weighed us. 5 pounds over weight. We ended up taking of the compressor to make weight. This about crippled our arm, the height/angle was powered by pnuematics!

Kris Verdeyen

08-04-2004, 16:40

...But the plastic sprockets kept braking. we ran out, and ended up using the steel ones. We had 1 match before the inspectors weighed us. 5 pounds over weight. We ended up taking of the compressor to make weight. This about crippled our arm, the height/angle was powered by pnuematics!

So you actually ran one match with a 135 pound robot? And you still think that it's no big deal? The weight limit, more than anything else, defines the robots that we build. It is a very important rule. Some might say it's the most important robot rule.

If you didn't have the weight to put the steel sprockets on, you should have taken something else off. Weight is the ultimate bogey.

It really sucks that you had to use plastic sprockets, but there is no way I'm going to feel sorry that you had to dump your compressor.

steven114

08-04-2004, 19:02

Speed holes, man :)

Biff

08-04-2004, 19:15

Speed holes, man :)
The Machine Shop was able to get the steel 45 sprockets down to 16oz from almost 30 The Plastic sprockets were 6.4 oz And later when I did the Density calculation (with the help of a web caculator) I found that 16 oz of steel volume wise is the same as 5.5 oz of Aluminum. Sooo, next time any sprocket over about 20 teeth in #35 chain will be Aluminum. Am working with inventor and the Autodesk mechinical now. Just need to get started sooner next year. BTW it was all my fualt for the over wight, The bot strated with steel sprockets and pillow blocks and had to loose them as things got added. With Steel spockets on we never had any issues with chain. I know better now and won't put the team or First in that situation again.

Astronouth7303

08-04-2004, 19:41

You haven't seen the bot.
The frame is fiberglass (we work in a wood shop). And we barely had time to change the sprockets, much less swiss-cheese them. but just about everything else was. We fixed that at West MI.

By the way: the arm was it. No bin, no opening side flaps, nothing. We just put a valve on the tank and plugged it in until the match. I'm not saying that we have a disregard for the rules. Our original bot was in weight, but we ran out of sprockets. We made every effort to remain in the rules, however the circumstances were out of our control at that point. Maybe unfairly, you'll say not. We tried our best, but aparently that was not enough.
Maybe you have no heart, maybe you're arrogant, and maybe your right. Maybe some of all 3. In any case, I'm not caring what you say. Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them. I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT! So what if our bot was crippled? Maybe you were the guy across the field. I'm not caring about you at this point. Any response you make at this point I WILL IGNORE.

CrazyCarl461

08-04-2004, 19:47

Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them.
That is exactly what you should have done. No question. You gotta do what you gotta do to play by the rules. Playing overweight is flat-out unacceptable.
By the way, we had to remove our compressor, too. It sure is harder, but we get by.

Sooo, next time any sprocket over about 20 teeth in #35 chain will be Aluminum.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with using aluminum sprockets as long as there are enough teeth engaged (i.e. big enough and enough chain wrap). Our arm has a 60 tooth hubless aluminum sprocket that we got from a snowmobile parts distributor out in California. We even drilled holes in that! If has got to be the coolest thing on our robot.

Biff

08-04-2004, 20:21

That is exactly what you should have done. No question. You gotta do what you gotta do to play by the rules. Playing overweight is flat-out unacceptable.
By the way, we had to remove our compressor, too. It sure is harder, but we get by.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with using aluminum sprockets as long as there are enough teeth engaged (i.e. big enough and enough chain wrap). Our arm has a 60 tooth hubless aluminum sprocket that we got from a snowmobile parts distributor out in California. We even drilled holes in that! If has got to be the coolest thing on our robot.

Swiss cheeze it is, BTW all of our sprockes have a 180 deg wrap, Was trying to not have one wheel chain fail kill the whole side of the bot. Hope to get the aluminum done and make the Kettering event in the fall, use this as a recrutment tool to get more students on the team and give them a pre main event experiance.

Natchez

09-04-2004, 03:54

Posted by CJO
So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time.

Response by CrazyCarl461
As for the other situation, this one may be a little less accepted but I still don't think it would be an absolute problem. Most of the discussion about the bringing of identical, post-six week parts centers around the idea of teams bringing entire replacement systems in a box and merely turning a few wrenches to suddenly have entire spare robot chunks sitting around. You want to make one identical piece for a part that has already broken, which shouldn't be a major deal.

Isn't making identical, post-six week parts a blatant violation of the rules(<R09>)? Isn't the ONLY legal way to repair this robot is to build the replacement at the competition. I'm very confused ... and probably wrong too.

(Please allow me to get on my soap box ... thank you)
As for a major deal, please just swing by team 118's pit on Thursday as six students try to rebuild an arm because ours was destroyed at the LSR. It would have been nice to go home and build a couple of identical parts but, as we interpret them, it is a violation of the rules. Honestly, 118 is about 6 hours in a machine shop away from having an awesome 'bot but we will be scrambling to make the elimination rounds because we refuse to skirt ANY rules. Finally, it has been very disheartening to learn this year that mentors are putting winning over teaching students good ethics.
(OUCH ... I twisted my ankle getting off my soap box ... I deserved it :) )

CrazyCarl461

09-04-2004, 04:29

Isn't making identical, post-six week parts a blatant violation of the rules(<R09>)?

Yeah, you could be right. <R09> is worded in a misleading manner. It says "During the six week period following kickoff you may fabricate spare parts..." I guess they are saying you have to make everything before the ship date (identical or not) but you don't have to ship everything, as long as the parts you do bring are duplicates. In that sense, <R09> is kind of a weird rule. You would think that because they mentioned "exact replacements" and "no assemblies", that they would be talking about the period all the way up to competition. But apparently they are not, so I wouldn't assume that. It is a little vague, so my advice to every team would be just don't do it. When it comes to interpreting the rules, I would just play it safe and don't do anything suspicious.

Thanks for pointing that out, Natchez.

Rob

09-04-2004, 09:27

I think there are three main problems that lead to teams breaking these rules:

1) Teams do not understand the rules.
2) Inspectors do not understand the rules.
3) Teams understand, yet bend the rules because they know #2 is true.

I think #1 is a valid excuse for teams in their rookie year, or teams in their second year who are not as established as others. For these teams the six weeks build schedule is very stressful, and they may not even think about checking the rules on certain things. THIS IS WHY MENTORING TEAMS IS SO IMPORTANT! I personally don't care if we play against a rookie team who is 2 pounds overweight because they had to add a bracket or something to their machine to get it to work. FIRST is meant to inspire and teach. If the members of that team have a working machine that year and learn from their mistakes the next time around, FIRST has had a positive impact on them.

In the case of #2, there is little that can be done. Many inspectors are volunteers who have never before seen some of the kit components. They have no idea what certain rules are, and are only trained to look for certain safety violations. On thursday night at BAE we were looking over scouting photos and noticed that one team powered part of their machine using 2 seat motors. Inspectors do not catch these things because they don't have experience with many of the rules. IF YOU WANT TO HELP THIS SITUATION, VOLUNTEER TO BE AN INSPECTOR AT A REGIONAL! I noticed at UTC that there was a huge gap in knowlege about the rules between certain inspectors. Colleen from team 190 has lots of experience at FIRST, knows the rules, and was an excellent inspector. I am sure that many of you could also be.

#3...These are the teams that simply don't get it. They have no idea what FIRST is really about. They are also the teams that probably most need our help, because FIRST is not having the effect on them that it should. It is tough to do, but we need to ask these teams to comply with the rules in order to maintain the integrity of the rules. FIRST is based on friendship, fellowship, trust, and grcious professionalism. These teams have no idea what those words mean. We can help them by showing them what the rules are, and if they are receptive, suggesting ways they can complete their tasks within the rules.

After analyzing this situation, it is clear that this can only get better by more people being publicly involved. Mentor a team, volunteer at an event, talk to teams about potential rules violations before they become a problem. FIRST is a community, and we are it's citizens. If we want it to be a better place, we need to be more involved.

Have a wonderful time in Atlanta!

Rob

MikeDubreuil

09-04-2004, 09:55

After analyzing this situation, it is clear that this can only get better by more people being publicly involved. Mentor a team, volunteer at an event, talk to teams about potential rules violations before they become a problem. FIRST is a community, and we are it's citizens. If we want it to be a better place, we need to be more involved.

Alright... this might sound ridiculous but here me out guys.

There is a sweater at Abercrombie that is just totally awesome. I want it so bad, but it's $50 and I just don't have the money.

There are 2 reponses: A. Legally obtain the sweater. B. Steal it.

I'd like to hope that the people in FIRST are the group A type. They want to play by the rules.

A person in groub B is willing to take the gamble that they will get away with their crime.
In my hometown of Enfield, CT, shoplifters are dealth with in two ways, depending on your age. If you're under 18, the police scare you and then embarass you in front of your parents. If you're over 18, you're arrested, and embarassed publicly in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, in the FIRST community there isn't a serious way to deal with violations of the rules. We have to be more pro-active in how we deal with violations. I think this thread has shown, that violations of the rules occur much more often than we could have imagined.

So I think we need some serious penalties. Not serious enough to cause someone to leave FIRST, but serious enough that they are embarassed.
Just as the sweater stealer in my hometown, we should publicly announce when a team breaks the rules.

ngreen

09-04-2004, 10:06

So I think we need some serious penalties. Not serious enough to cause someone to leave FIRST, but serious enough that they are embarassed.
Just as the sweater stealer in my hometown, we should publicly announce when a team breaks the rules.

Mike,

No we shouldn't. This is the harsher of crimes. The FIRST teams are like the juveniles. They should be dealt with out of public. Approach the team. If they don't change their ways you go to FIRST official aka the police. And they will let the public know if needed. We shouldn't announce publicly against any team like that.

It would be horrible. Most people wouldn't actually approach the other team and just complain public about them here without the evidence and that could get ugly really quick. There would be a lot of false accusations because some teams have more resources or work harder than others. It would put a black mark on the whole competition. I can just imagine a member of a team that has a grudge against a team that did well accusing them of breaking rules. Not pretty. Not needed. Deal with this the correct way, privately and through FIRST. Don't become the vigilante.

Jack Jones

09-04-2004, 10:10

Please forgive me if I blaspheme, but I detect a religious mindset here; the religion of FIRST. Perhaps the day will come when the rules are boiled down to just ten pearls of common sense. The spare parts rule could read as follows:

4. Remember the Sabbath by keeping it holy. Six weeks you shall labor and do all your work, but the days until the first event and those between are the Sabbath to the FIRST. On them you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your engineer or engineerette, nor your Bridgeport, nor the teacher within your gates. For six weeks the righteous moved the heavens and the earth. Therefore, the FIRST blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.

Don’t get me wrong. There should be rules. Concrete ones such as the weight and size constraints. Vague ideologies such <R09> will only lead to the creation of sinners, and to the saints who police them.

MikeDubreuil

09-04-2004, 10:38

Mike,

No we shouldn't. This is the harsher of crimes.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue the normal avenues for dealing with violations. I'm saying that there are some violations that should be announced, for instance if you are caught overweight.

The problem with the current system is that it is completely reactive. Teams know if they are caught breaking a rule, it won't matter, they'll be told to fix it and thats that. What good are rules that have no reprocussions for breaking them? If my parents raised me with the mindset we use in FIRST for rules, I would probably would have been a juvenile delinquit.

You are assuming everyone in the world acts graciously and professionally, and that's just not the case.

rees2001

09-04-2004, 11:23

You haven't seen the bot.
We made every effort to remain in the rules, however the circumstances were out of our control at that point. Maybe unfairly, you'll say not. We tried our best, but aparently that was not enough.

Maybe you have no heart, maybe you're arrogant, and maybe your right. Maybe some of all 3. In any case, I'm not caring what you say. Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them. I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT! So what if our bot was crippled? Maybe you were the guy across the field. I'm not caring about you at this point. Any response you make at this point I WILL IGNORE.

Wow, I really hope you are still following this thread because.. I'm sorry. I saw your robot get weighed after your match. I was shocked & a little upset. When you indicate that you tried, I believe you. There are so many ways you could have delt with this. I understand your want to compete & use your robot as it is intended to be used but, this competition isn't about YOU. We are a comminity and when one of us goes astray, we all go astray.

Our first year (2000) we made lexan hooks that snaped in a match. We replaced them with aluminum and played in our next match. After that match we went & got ourselves reweighed. We weren't asked to we wanted to. We were slightly over weight, we then took off another component, our arms. Nobody told us to do so, nobody asked us to do so. We knew it was the right thing to do.

I am mostly concerned about the way you feel about what happened. Nobody is looking at you and saying "your what's wrong with FIRST." Were saying "how can we help you do what you want to do?" FIRST is about learning & competing but is also about having fun & doing whats right. THere were 60+ other teams at Buckeye, I know I would have been willing to help you. Just ask.

BTW: I don't remember if we won or lost the match we played overweight in, that was 5 years ago. I just know how we flet like we had done the wrong thing & had to make it right. & we did.

I think i just torn my MCL getting off my soapbox. Ouch

ngreen

09-04-2004, 12:10

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue the normal avenues for dealing with violations. I'm saying that there are some violations that should be announced, for instance if you are caught overweight.

The problem with the current system is that it is completely reactive. Teams know if they are caught breaking a rule, it won't matter, they'll be told to fix it and thats that. What good are rules that have no reprocussions for breaking them? If my parents raised me with the mindset we use in FIRST for rules, I would probably would have been a juvenile delinquit.

You are assuming everyone in the world acts graciously and professionally, and that's just not the case.

First of all I'm not assuming. I'm expecting them to act graciously and professionally. I know this isn't always the case and I know sometime this is the case and doesn't appear to be the case. Engineering is a ethical field. In many cases peoples safety is affected if engineers aren't ethical. I expect the engineers to instill this in their students and be proactive on their own teams. I know as the main rules expert on my team last year I expected being within the rules a must.

I'm not saying anything wrong with what your saying to do except for who is going to do it.

You came off in your previous message like the teams should let everyone know if a team was breaking a rule. That isn't the correct path and can have many negative consequences.

FIRST makes announcements like this in matches and can make these announcement during competition after bringing it to the attention of FIRST officials. "Team xxxx was overweight in match xxx and therefore is disqualified." Not userxxx writing, "You know team xxxx was overweight in match xxx and they won. That not fair" If you get into the last part we're all in trouble.

I imagine most people would realize they had broken the rules and then accept the forfeit. At least I would. I guess maybe not everyone is gracious and professional but give them the chance (idealist statement).