Overdrive: Least favorite rules

[efoote868]

So, similar to my thread from last year, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53331

What are your least favorite rules for this year, and why?

The 80" rule kinda bums me out, espescially with such a huge ball, makes the engineering just a bit more difficult ;) . I also dislike the power distribution block, seems like a waste of space to me.

Let it out, but use GP!

[Tottanka]

oh man, a place to boil :P

*Distribution block
*80'' rule
*IR limitations (only 4 commands)

other then that, i love the game :D

[MrForbes]

That's strange, I don't have any issues with any of the rules at all.

It's pretty obvious that some of them are there simply to make the whole thing more challenging for us! The 80" rule comes to mind...

[Matt C]

<R40> No reason.

[Joe G.]

The flag rule is the only one that comes to mind. Most designs that we developed outside of the 80" rule would have also had issues holding the trackball out that far anyways. The distribution block is kind of a pain, but we can live with it. And as for 4 ir commands, any more would be just as good as operator control, really.

[Alan Anderson]

I don't like having to ship the OI with the robot.

It probably wouldn't be such a big deal if we traditionally put some priority on building a nice-looking operator console early in the build season.

[FDA1029]

I was wondering is the LAP indicator the same as the LED Flasher?

[MrForbes]

No, the LED flasher is something you got in the Kit Of Parts, that you need to mount on your robot now. The lap counter is something that they have at the competitions, you need to leave a clear area halfway around the top of your flagholder tube, and run a PWM cable to it, and they will put it on your robot at the beginning of each match along with the flag (as best I can tell)

[dtengineering]

Well, I started out disliking the 80" rule and the lap counter rule... but really, once we learned to embrace those rules and build to them we actually came up with a much better robot as a result. After two weeks we ditched our arm design because of the 80" rule and built a shooter instead, and while it will be several weeks before the efficacy of lifters vs. shooters will be decided on the competition floor, we really like being able to launch the ball. It's just fun! We wouldn't have done that without the 80" rule, and we probably wouldn't have done it as well if we hadn't had to build to the lap counter rule.

One of the rules that does bug me, even though it doesn't affect us, is the rule prohibiting the lamination of curved bumpers from thin sheets of plywood. That is a pretty standard construction technique and it would allow some of the teams with the more creative robot bases to achieve a really high quality of fit and finish while not providing any unfair competitive advantage. I guess I dislike it because lamination is good construction/engineering practice and the rule, as written and interpreted, seems to make it more difficult for teams to display creativity in their drive base designs.

I also can't see why, exactly, the 2006 KOP gearbox needs to be banned when functionally equivalent gearbox options are available. Again, this doesn't affect us, and although I appreciate the limitation of COTS parts to those available to everyone in order to create a level playing field, and recognize the simplicity in enforcing that rule uniformly, everyone in FRC has had enough experience with gearboxes to realize that there is no unfair advantage gained from using an old gearbox (or gear tooth sensor for that matter.) On the other hand, I am glad that the 2007 KOP gearboxes were specifically allowed.

I have posted, elsewhere on CD, my belief that multiple spikes attached only to low-load devices (pneumatic solenoids, for instance) should be able to be attached to a single 20A breaker, but the GDC has provided rationale for this ruling in a Q&A and I am not overly torn up by it. I do appreciate it when GDC provides rationale for decisions on technical issues.

We also are finding it awkward to set up a playing field that will sufficiently mimic the real field so that we will be able to develop and debug autnomous/hybrid code. Subtle differences between diamond plate and plywood (plywood is easy to detect with IR rangefinders... diamond plate is quite tricky) and figuring out how the chainlink will respond to sonar makes things difficult. In some ways it would be nice to have "standard bumpers" attached to the playing field borders and divider... but, yes... it's all part of the challenge. This is supposed to be difficult.

You know... I'm really pushing it here to find something to complain about, and only post these thoughts because game and rule design is an iterative process that requires feedback. I've been part of FRC for five years now, and have to say that overall I am extremely pleased with the rules, interpretations and enforcement. No, it's not perfect (and yes, some of the rules bug me a bit), but it is getting about as close to perfect as humanly possible for an international event featuring 1,500 teams. I have great respect for those teams who have provided constructive feedback over the years to help refine the rules.... and the GDC members who have listened attentively and addressed serious concerns in a meaningful manner.

Jason

P.S. Ironically my favorite rule is also, often, my least favorite. Ship date! It combines the bad of "Oh, I wish we had more time" with the good of "Hi, Honey... I'm your husband, remember me?"

[Mr.G]

The mandatory bumper rule. We have wasted so mush time on them.We built them exactly to the drawings and they are overweight and have to be taken apart now. I was much happier when we could decide if we wanted to use them.

[R.C.]

All the rules are fine, it just makes it more challenging

[octothorpe]

The mandatory bumper rule. We have wasted so mush time on them.We built them exactly to the drawings and they are overweight and have to be taken apart now. I was much happier when we could decide if we wanted to use them.

Amen. We spend a week waiting for the GDC to tell us how to interpret the 2/3 perimeter rule on the bumpers, hoping that we could glean just a little more space based on our drive train layout. I understand wanting to protect your robot, but shouldn't we be able to choose how much protection we want? It's not 100% coverage so there will still be hard spots and jarring collisions, and the big, bulky bumpers are just design constraints with the current rules. Our entire drive train is 3 inches high, so the bumpers protect 0.5 inches of actual robot and 4.5 inches of empty space that we would have preferred to leave empty.

</rant>

I guess I'll have to recant all of this when that extra bumper saves our robot from being bashed in half at a regional, but until then...

[Cory]

The rule stating the ball must touch another robot or the floor after being hurdled, before you can touch it.

Though not because we wanted to catch the ball on the way down--it'd just be way easier for us if incidental contact was allowed.

[dtengineering]

After mocking up the playing field tonight and going for a drive on it... then picturing it with five other robots and three other balls on it... I've got a feeling that my least favorite rule by the end of the season might be the size of the playing field. It is going to be crowded out there.

Jason

P.S. Please note disclaimer at the end of my earlier post.

[JBotAlan]

Definitely the IR restrictions. Some of us are pretty innovative...I'm sure the Mars rovers get encoded packets, so why can't we send them?

I imagine they are trying to keep the code from needing to be too complex. New teams have difficulty getting commands from the IR board, let alone decoding packets.

But still, I hope this restriction, along with the 80" rule, are lifted at IRI. By then, no team will need them, though...:)

JBot

[feliks_rosenber]

Rules 38 and 41. The idea behind it was that the rules complete each other.

However, if there is a general restriction according to which you cannot impede other robots passing, then you are not supposed to 'bump' them so that they give you space to pass.

The robots should not block for more than 6 seconds and that is about it.

Otherwise, if you do not 'signal to pass', the blocking robot would not be considered as such by the judges.

:D Having written that does not mean I dislike the game.

Actually it is more challenging than that of last year, yet it is easier for rookie teams to be more productive.

:)

[Daniel_LaFleur]

My biggest disappointment in the rules is the same ones I've had for the last few years. I feel that the pneumatic rules are too restrictive (only allowing, basically, whats in the KoP).

I believe that they remove a lot of creativity with pneumatics by not allowing teams to use things like Electronic pressure controllers, cylinders with feedback potentiometers, pneumatic actuators (other than the one allowed), Different pneumatic compressors, valves with different CVs and pneumatic motors.

I believe that, instead of only allowing specific cylinders and such, they should require teams to prove that their pneumatic system is safe by showing specification sheets for their pneumatic devices. I also believe that instead of telling teams they can only use 4 clippard volumes, they should limit the volume of the entire system (this is easily checked by putting a known volume of air into a system and looking at the pressure).

The kids (and most of us mentors :p ) are pretty smart. As such, instead of limiting their options, we should require them to prove that their (pneumatic) designs are safe. Lets see what wild ideas they come up with.

JMHO

[JesseK]

I'm disappointed in the 51" flag post rule. It's a restriction that is both an annoyance and a tragegy all at once.

[Ericgehrken]

Definitely the 80 inch rule in unfavorable. If it wasn't for this rule the game would be a battle of the cranes.

[AndyB]

Not like its a new rule, but I would love if for once they would let us try 2 batteries and/or 2 compressors.

[efoote868]

so, the general overall opinions of "I like this years rules" ?
thats much different from last year. It'll be interesting after week 1 of competition though.

[dtengineering]

I'm betting the least liked rule after competitions... by the refs, too, I suspect, is going to be the "breaking the plane" rule.

After watching our robot drive on a mocked-up field the other night, it became apparent that small corners of robot can easily and inadvertently "break the plane", putting them in the previous quadrant and incurring a 10 point penalty. This will be especially difficult with robots that have longer arms or manipulators that are trying to get control of a ball.

It isn't that the idea behind the rule is bad... it is just that it is going to be very difficult to call consistently without one ref specifically designated for each quadrant dividing line and positioned so that they are directly in line with the quadrant (which would put them smack in the middle of a driver station).

But perhaps GDC has already thought this one through and has a solution of which I am unaware, or it will just turn out to be a non-issue. It might have possibly improved consistency to have a lap counter over each quadrant line and simply assess you a penalty if you trigger the same quadrant counter twice in a row (which is a slightly different rule from what exists now).


Jason

[Wayne Doenges]

I think my least favorite rule is the one that says when the buzzer sounds, at the end of the game, that that is when the score are tallied.
Which means, if you launch the ball and the buzzer sounds before it hits the ground, you will not get the points :(
What happened to the rule that allows everything to come to rest before the match is scored :confused:

[MasterChief 573]

The 80" rule and the restrictions put on the positioning of the flag were deffinately major obstacles that we faced in the build season. However, I'm sure that breaking the plane and other easy to violate rules will arise during the competitive season.

[XXShadowXX]

the flag rule and battery rules were no prob for us. (battery was a bit annoying, have so much drain on our battery (5min of drive time on charge) from our pnematics system (one 24" clynder lifting that ball 8 feet in the air beautiful)).

But really we don't like the wire rules. If you don't know that you can't use like pwm cable to attach a cim then i really think you shouldn't be here

[carolynn4848]

rule G22. I hate that rule

[Ricki E.]

The distribution block.

That thing was a gift from hell.

[smurfgirl]

Seeing as this thread has been revived, I thought about what rules really irked me during the build season... but now that I'm looking back on it, I can't think of any rules that I really disliked. Having made it through all the challenges the rules provided, I can see that the reason for all those rules we disliked in the first place was exactly that- to add another dimension of challenges and difficulty to the game. I really like how it turned out.

[JesseK]

Looking back, I can't really say much about <G22>. I didn't like the flag rule during the build season, but during the beginning of competition season I really hated G22. By the time Atlanta rolled around and I saw it in action in many matches, I agree with the intent of the rule but am still unsure about its strictness. I'm waiting on IRI to really form my final opinion about the possible iterations of the rule.

And if you didn't like the PDB...just wait for the new control system which is one big PDB...

[Setsanto]

I do not like the rule (and this is for all the years) which states that the first time your flag falls out, you only get a reprimand. After the winning the first heat of a quarterfinal match we played, another teams flag fell out and got caught in one of our teammates chains within the first 10 seconds of the game of the second game. This caused our teammate to be disabled for the entire match. In the end, we lost that game by a minuscule amount such as 2 points or something like that (might have been 4...). We went on to lose the third game as well. This kept my teams streak intact of not making it past the quarterfinals for the third successive year. It was very disappointing for us, and I do hope some sort of alteration will be made to this rule.

~Setsanto

[Cory]

I do not like the rule (and this is for all the years) which states that the first time your flag falls out, you only get a reprimand. After the winning the first heat of a quarterfinal match we played, another teams flag fell out and got caught in one of our teammates chains within the first 10 seconds of the game of the second game. This caused our teammate to be disabled for the entire match. In the end, we lost that game by a minuscule amount such as 2 points or something like that (might have been 4...). We went on to lose the third game as well. This kept my teams streak intact of not making it past the quarterfinals for the third successive year. It was very disappointing for us, and I do hope some sort of alteration will be made to this rule.

~Setsanto

That's unfortunate that this happened to you, but it's not the team's fault if their flagholder was designed to spec, and the flag came out. It's the nature of the game. I've seen tons of flags come out. Some merely fall, some practically launch their way out of the holder. As long as they're just pushed in there, and aren't fastened down, it's gonna happen.

[DPTeam270Driver]

that 80" rule kinda snuck up on us
we didnt realize it untill like 2 weeks before ship and we had to start from almost scratch

[GaryVoshol]

I do not like the rule (and this is for all the years) which states that the first time your flag falls out, you only get a reprimand. After the winning the first heat of a quarterfinal match we played, another teams flag fell out and got caught in one of our teammates chains within the first 10 seconds of the game of the second game. This caused our teammate to be disabled for the entire match. In the end, we lost that game by a minuscule amount such as 2 points or something like that (might have been 4...). We went on to lose the third game as well. This kept my teams streak intact of not making it past the quarterfinals for the third successive year. It was very disappointing for us, and I do hope some sort of alteration will be made to this rule.

~Setsanto

I can recall no such rule. Can you elaborate? Where would it be found in the manual?

There are rules for flag holder construction and placement, but none that I can recall about the flag falling loose.

[ChrisH]

I do not like the rule (and this is for all the years) which states that the first time your flag falls out, you only get a reprimand. After the winning the first heat of a quarterfinal match we played, another teams flag fell out and got caught in one of our teammates chains within the first 10 seconds of the game of the second game. This caused our teammate to be disabled for the entire match. In the end, we lost that game by a minuscule amount such as 2 points or something like that (might have been 4...). We went on to lose the third game as well. This kept my teams streak intact of not making it past the quarterfinals for the third successive year. It was very disappointing for us, and I do hope some sort of alteration will be made to this rule.

~Setsanto

The official rules had no penalty for losing your flag. However, there was apparently a non-official document that was distributed among the refs that did mention it. This document was a summary of the various infractions that could occur on the field and what the penalties were.

This penalty was actually called at the LA Regional and reversed after it was confirmed that it was not an official rule. The ref who called it had done a very good job of studying the documentation he was provided. The documentation was just a little off. I do not know the source of the document, other than it was put together by one of the refs.

We did not disable any robots due to infractions, but that might be because we dealt with the bad call right away. So there were no opportunities for it to be called twice. This is a great argument for having and knowing how to use the Challenge system.

Hopefully there will be no repeats of this sort of thing next year.

[cbale2000]

Hated the distribution bock rule. Our main power line came disconnected several times off of it and cost us many matches. Quite frustrating. :mad:

[Arefin Bari]

Now that this thread has been revived, I would like to share my opinion. I made this post (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=671845&postcount=19) right after kickoff. Please read through it and let's make sure this doesn't turn into, "What I hate about this past season's game?" thread. More over, I would like to encourage members to point out their "dislikes" (just like all the previous posts), and give a solution to GDC which would make their life easier for next season.

I would also like to point out that the teams did a great job at competition living up to the challenge that was given to us whether we liked it or not. The whole point of FIRST is to find inspiration through the learning process; taking on the challenge and solving it with a simple solution.