MAJOR TWEAKING

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty, Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST



I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



My personal vote would be be for the 'almost anything goes' option.

I have two reasons:

1. The machines would get better by being more effiecient, more
competitive, and more reliable. The competition would be closer
and more fierce. This would make the action on the field more
interesting. For example: Wildstang legally improved their 'hook'.
This improved design enabled them to give us all those great matches
against Chief Delphi 4. I think that was excellent and FIRST will
benefit from action like we saw in those matches.

2. Every year the game is different. 6 weeks is not only a short time
to build a robot, but is also a short time to figure out a winning
strategy for your team's robot. In Chicago, we had a basket. It
was the last thing we designed and it was pitiful. After watching
the elimination rounds, we realized that we didn't even need that
darn basket to win matches. We legally changed our concept by
removing our basket which enabled our arm to be a defensive menace.

In my opinion, both of these cases help achieve our colletive 'prime
directive': growing FIRST.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/16/99 8:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Andy Baker on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST:



I go with 'almost anything goes' too. FIRST's stated goal is to inspire young people to pursue careers in science and technology. Think about the 'rules' in the competitive marketplace in which engineering is practised. We pursue opportunities by creatively exploring the spaces between the boundaries and prohibitions of the rules. More rules will never solve all the 'problems' in the FIRST Competition- they just make more opportunities. It never ends, until we all become lawyers. YUCK!

Personally, I most enjoy showing up at the tournaments and seeing what other teams have done with a common set of parts and a framework of rules which limit physical (and financial) scope but not creativity and imagination. Seeing how teams respond with modifications and new mechanisms to the strategic insight they gain through the Regionals - by competing or by watching - is just an extension of that same enjoyment of FIRST for me. The inspiration and recognition part is for the engineers, too!

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 4/16/99 9:26 AM MST


In Reply to: Ditto posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/16/99 8:31 AM MST:



:

Anything goes is OK if it is known and intended at the start. If that is the case why even have a 'six weeks' rule? I agree the less rules the better but everyone knows the rules as stated when we sign up. Why stop on February 22nd? If the intent is anything goes, I would have thought that we could just start in January and bring our machines to Orlando and never go through the process of locking, securing, or shipping at a certain time. If 5:00 on 2/22 was intended to have no real meaning, I wonder why FIRST even bothered to suggest it at all?

I personally like the idea of 'anything goes'....less is better as far as rules and regulations go....I just think we all need to know what is expected.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/16/99 12:45 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ditto posted by Greg Mills on 4/16/99 9:26 AM MST:



: :

: Anything goes is OK if it is known and intended at the start. If that is the case why even have a 'six weeks' rule? I agree the less rules the better but everyone knows the rules as stated when we sign up. Why stop on February 22nd? If the intent is anything goes, I would have thought that we could just start in January and bring our machines to Orlando and never go through the process of locking, securing, or shipping at a certain time.

I have proposed this approach previously on the Rumors board, mostly to address the development time advantage of teams who attend multiple Regionals. Some who responded actually appreciate being told when to stop working and take a rest, if you can believe that! So I guess we all should.

: I personally like the idea of 'anything goes'....less is better as far as rules and regulations go....I just think we all need to know what is expected.

All we have to work with is the Rules in divining what FIRST intended or expected of us. I don't believe the Rules speak directly to upgrades, mods, and retrofits, whether done in the post-Regional repair time or in the downtime intervals. Maybe FIRST (to personify the organization) doesn't want to risk over-constraining the Competition and exceeding the chicken____ threshold of potential players, expecting us instead to make some interpretations for ourselves. If we try to manage the Competition outcomes by limiting one another (or asking FIRST to do so) in the amount of time or energy we can put into the machine task during downtimes, I think we just risk getting off track with a lot of sea-lawyering and hard feelings. I also think it would be a practical nightmare to enforce any kind of static configuration rules. My 2 cents.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ditto posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/16/99 12:45 PM MST:



I often tell new comers that if you just read the rules and updates, you would THINK that FIRST is played by a bunch of lawyers, but that it is not.

This is an on your honor type deal.

Has anyone ever audited your Bill of Materials?

Has anyone ever inspected every material used in the deepest darkest recesses of your machine?

Other than size, weight, wiring and wheels, FIRST monitors very little.

For the most part, I have been very pleased with the integrity of the FIRST community.

The bottom line for me is that enforcement of the rules is not really an issue.

If FIRST makes a clear ruling on what changes are allowed and when, I think that teams will stick by that rule.

Don't let's become lawyers.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Andy Baker on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST:



I felt I had to respond to this post even though I stated my stance on this issue in my 'Unwritten Rules' posting.

If it makes any one feel any better, I actually had the new hook design done before the design we used in the Midwest regional. I can actually show you my engineering log book that is dated that shows the design. After all who didn't initially consider getting on the puck as the number one design challenge for this year.
Anyway, just like in previous years, we tried to go back and simplify the design. This is common engineering practice - come up with a cool design and then go back and make it lighter, cheaper, easier to manufacture, etc. So, in fact I came up with a very simple design similar to what we had used the previous year (I guess you could say that design was done first). You should see the incredibly cool but complex design we had last year for grabbing the goal while we squeezed the balls between the pipes. It is hanging on the wall of our robot shop.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Raul on 4/16/99 2:52 PM MST:



Raul,

What's this I read about log books?

I feel lucky just to get the robot done and you're busy documenting.

Seriously, I wish I would be more organized.

Hats off to anyone who manages to manage this project in such a professional manner.

Joe -- the chaos factor -- Johnson.

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 4/16/99 4:35 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:




I strongly agree, stiffer guidelines are needed.
FIRST should abandon the early shipping dates if it is
allowable to make such dramatic changes to the robots.
The 6 week building period is stressed over and over, some
teams apparently are now rushing to complete a ''3 month''
construction period.
Using down time to make replacement parts is different than
some of the extensive changes we have seen.

The 6 week rule seems to be one of the strongest ways to keep
a level playing field. Asking sponsors to dig in for an even longer
construction period is going to hurt teams in the end.

: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 4/16/99 6:26 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



:
:
Courageous Comments!! I have read with great interest about the teams with new and improved features and wondered how that gets done in two days! The whole spirit of FIRST is to play with what you build in six weeks. I think the intent of the two days is to repair any damage that occurred during a regional.

Maybe this is a question for FIRST...Is the intent to work for six weeks and then play? Or pack up a robot and use the time between to work on parts that can be added once the crate is opened up again? I guess either way is OK provided everyone understands up front. You guys at FIRST feel free to jump in here and let us know what you think!

I have to take my hat off to the teams that worked around the clock and did the major changes solely within the alotted time. I am impressed by your dedication...Our machine is exactly the same as it was when we locked it up on 2/22.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/16/99 6:58 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



This might be about our robot last year. Was it?

For people that don't know, our robot last year at nationals looked absolutely nothing like our robot a regionals. However, I assure everyone that all of the changes were made in the alloted time between the regional and nationals (72 hours or so). We worked out a schedule to work in shifts so that the shop was running 24 hours a day. So, it can be done.

By changing our robot around, we were able to become competitive at nationals, even beating Chief Delphi in a qualifying match. This was very important for our team morale as we were completely devestated at the regional. I think teams need a chance to make improvements so they have some hope of doing well if their first competition flopped. In fact, it may have saved our funding for this year.

One other thing: we demonstrated to the students that when you are in a tough situation, hard work and persistance can make you a winner. Without this opportunity to do the drastic change, we couldn't have shown that.

-Chris


: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:40 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Presto Chango posted by Chris on 4/16/99 6:58 AM MST:



Chris,

I don't think that your machine last year was the one that inspired the comments.

But...

I do remember the major changes you made to your machine as well as your team defeating us in the last seeding round of the day in FL last year.

Well done on both counts.

As to my take on the changes to robots rule, I have mixed feelings.

The first year we were in FIRST, I asked what type of changes were allowed during the 2 days. I was told the ANY changes were legal provided the machine was in the box on time.

Eric also said that making spare parts during the down time between regionals and nationals was okay, but that entirely new mechanisms seemed to be stretching the rules a bit too far.

Times have changed alot since then. I agree that it is time for some clarity, but... I think that FIRST should keep the status quo for another week and a half.

No matter what the clarification is it is going to cause trouble. Either teams will say, 'we would have if we had only known...' or teams will say, 'I KNEW that teams was a bunch of cheaters' Better to leave it grey until the Nationals are over.

My two cents.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:26 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



I vaguely remember calling up FIRST 2 years ago when we wanted to add a goal topper to out robot after the Motorola regional. We felt it gave us a great chance to beat Beatty, who was dominating that inner-tube game.

FIRST (I don’t remember who I spoke with) said that it was OK to make any changes we could during the 3-day period after the regional before we had to ship the robot. They did say you could not just switch robots (in case someone had actually constructed a second robot). They also said that you could bring parts to the nationals that were slightly improved as long as the original parts 'intended functionality' was not significantly changed. I asked several specific questions about this 'intended functionality' statement because I had a hard time interpreting it. I don’t recall all the specific questions and answers but the gist of the ruling has stuck in my mind: You are allowed to make changes after your robot has shipped as long as they enhance the original functionality and do not give you new functionality.

To summarize my understanding of FIRST’s unwritten rules on this and the ones I have been living by for the last 3 years:

1) You can make any change or add any functionality while the robot is in your possession.

2) You can only make replacement parts that enhance existing functionality when the robot is not in your possession.

It would be great if someone from FIRST would affirm, clarify or correct these two statements.

Otherwise, your conscience and gracious professionalism govern the unwritten rules.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Unwritten Rules posted by Raul on 4/16/99 2:26 PM MST:



We asked FIRST this year about that exact ruling. They said that spares can be made up after the robot ships, just as long as they are functionally the same as the original. Also you can make any changes to the robot at the competition as long as all parts are manufactured at the competition. Otherwise small changes are allowed. As for the time in between regionals and nationals, it really doesn't take much time to change a robot significantly enough to change the way it competes. Simple things like changing the pickup or speed of a robot can make a world of difference. Rember Harris/RIT during hexagon havoc? They did fair at the regional competition, tweeked it a bit and had a national championship bot. Some changes are more noticable than others and whatever the change may be, it can make the difference in a robot a far cry from the origanal.
Good Luck to all
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne HS

[archiver]

Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:48 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



I'm all for changing robots - I believe it is a huge part of the design process: to recognize weaknesses in the machine, and develop solutions for them. However, I don't believe in building an entirely new robot. I think the new design(s) should be (key word here) an evolution of the original concept of the robot.

: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/16/99 4:43 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



Bill-

I think being allowed to work on the robots during the 2-1/2 days after a regional is fine, because it gives the teams a chance to do development under the same 'crunch time' atmosphere as the six week period.

Our team has, in two of our three years, benefitted a from the extra days to make changes. Our first year ('97 Toroid Terror), we never even took the robot apart, just sent it from our only regional to the nationals. Our second year (Ladder Logic), we scrapped a wedger arm and added a much simpler/cheaper/better 2 ball gripper arm like the one Team 68 had. This year, we took our 'can' - which originally served as a device to load floppies into a pretty crappy bag - and attached it to our lift mechanism along with a motor to rotate it. We got rid of the bag. This change was made during the Sun/Mon/Tues time period after Chicago. We added another feature after Ypsi (again during the Sun/Mon/Tues time period) that will allow us to stay on the puck better, we hope.

So if you want to complain about someone, I guess we are a good candidate, because there's no doubt that we benefit from it. But.... we use crate materials, we do not make functional changes or new function parts except during the Sun/Mon/Tues period, and the spares we make during the 'off' time are functionally identical. I believe that we are obeying the letter and spirit of the rules. I think it makes the competitions more exciting because many of the robots are better as a result.

As long as the rules are the same for everyone, I think its okay to allow work on the robots in the days just after the regionals. I envy you and your team for getting it right the first time, and I certainly understand your point of view when you see other teams improving.

Good Luck in FL,
Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 4/16/99 5:06 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



Bill-

I think being allowed to work on the robots during the 2-1/2 days after a regional is fine, because it gives the teams a chance to do development under the same 'crunch time' atmosphere as the six week period.

Our team has, in two of our three years, benefitted a from the extra days to make changes. Our first year ('97 Toroid Terror), we never even took the robot apart, just sent it from our only regional to the nationals. Our second year (Ladder Logic), we scrapped a wedger arm and added a much simpler/cheaper/better 2 ball gripper arm like the one Team 68 had. This year, we took our 'can' - which originally served as a device to load floppies into a pretty crappy bag - and attached it to our lift mechanism along with a motor to rotate it. We got rid of the bag. This change was made during the Sun/Mon/Tues time period after Chicago. We added another feature after Ypsi (again during the Sun/Mon/Tues time period) that will allow us to stay on the puck better, we hope.

So if you want to complain about someone, I guess we are a good candidate, because there's no doubt that we benefit from it. But.... we use crate materials, we do not make functional changes or new function parts except during the Sun/Mon/Tues period, and the spares we make during the 'off' time are functionally identical. I believe that we are obeying the letter and spirit of the rules. I think it makes the competitions more exciting because many of the robots are better as a result.

As long as the rules are the same for everyone, I think its okay to allow work on the robots in the days just after the regionals. I envy you and your team for getting it right the first time, and I certainly understand your point of view when you see other teams improving.

Good Luck in FL,
Ken

[archiver]

Posted by colleen, Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and Nypro.

Posted on 4/16/99 10:24 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:




i've yet to have a chance to read through the thread following your message Mr. Beatty, but i would just like to make a comment..

i don't know whether i'm pro or con.. fact is, that this is my fourth year on my team, and we've really only done tweaking and replacement of used parts with new ones in those three days after regionals, before shipping to nationals.

but, a point i'd like to make. i know that in '95 i was in eighth grade and took a little ride up to NH to watch the regional competition (that was the 1st time the national wasn't in NH).. the Clinton/Nypro team didn't fair so well, in fact, i think we finished very close to the bottom of the rack that year. however, seeing an ineffective ball pickup, they took the then 4/5 days they had to work and threw on a new pickup system that carried them to 2nd place in the national competition.

so why i can't decide whether i'm for or against the idea?.. cause of moments like that... i see nothing wrong with what the team did there, but most rules outlawing change would've taken away the team's run for silver. however, i see totally what you're saying, the idea of someone building parts/robots in between is unfair/illegal... is there a happy medium that we could come to that would allow people to change (cause i know that FIRST people can work well, quickly, and efficiently, and many could handle that major change in that 3 day period) before shipping but not out of the crate?

is there some way all teams could get inspected, or at least checked as to the major components on their robot as soon as the unload so that any added major parts in the pit area could be detected?.. i don't know..what's everyone else's spin? (nevermind.. i'll read through the thread i suppose!)

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty, Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 4/16/99 11:17 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



I thank everyone for their frank and up-front opinions. I totally agree with you all, because you are all correct! And, of course, that is my point. I don't believe it is in the best interest of the competition to leave such a gaping void in the rules that allows such a broad interpretation by a group of professionals who I feel are of the highest integrity. It is not possible to address this area for this year's Nationals and I only raised this subject before Florida in attempts to alleviate any thoughts that I might be addressing any particular team, robot or incident that might occur at the Nationals.

My own personal preference is similar to Greg's. With the ever-increasing number of regionals, a broad interpretation of the revision and repair rule soon totally negates the six-week time lmit. Hopefully FIRST will clarify this area for next year. I know it will increase all of our comfort levels

Joe, I don't totally agree with you concerning FIRST'S technical inspections.. This year at one of the regionals our Velcro belt was challenged by one of the inspectors. The belt was disallowed because it was listed on the bill material as additional material which allows up to a total of 12 feet of chain or belt -- any combination. We had to revise our bill of material to reflect the cost of a 1 in. wide Velcro loop purchased from Small Parts. Oh well.

Looking forward to seeing all you folks in Florida.

Bill Beatty

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 4/17/99 11:26 AM MST


In Reply to: EVERYONE'S RIGHT posted by Bill Beatty on 4/16/99 11:17 PM MST:



: Joe, I don't totally agree with you concerning FIRST'S technical inspections.. This year at one of the regionals our Velcro belt was challenged by one of the inspectors. The belt was disallowed because it was listed on the bill material as additional material which allows up to a total of 12 feet of chain or belt -- any combination. We had to revise our bill of material to reflect the cost of a 1 in. wide Velcro loop purchased from Small Parts. Oh well.

If you were using the Velcro as a belt, what was the rationale for disallowing
it as a belt from the additional parts list?

- Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty, Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 4/17/99 1:47 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: EVERYONE'S RIGHT posted by Jerry Eckert on 4/17/99 11:26 AM MST:



:Jerry

The ruling was it was not a purchased belt. It was manufactured. They were not questioning the Velcro hook loops attached to the belt as they were ruled as fasteners.The Velcro Loop backing had been purchased from Small Parts and fortunately we had money available.

Bill Beatty

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Other on team #247, da Bears, from Berkley High and PICO/Wisne Design.

Posted on 4/17/99 3:42 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



While this discussion has been about the level of tweaking that
should, or should not, be allowed, I would like to add to the comments
about a team's chance to tweak at all. I believe the current system of
rules is inherently unfair especially for teams who can not make it
to any regional. Each regional gives a team six extra days to practice,
tweak and improve their robot. The more regionals a team goes to, the
more advantage (potentially) that team has over teams that go to fewer or
no regionals. The six-week ship rule is supposed to create a level playing
field but that is quickly lost in the current regional competition
structure. For example, a team that attends two regioanls has an extra
twelve days with their robot. What about the teams going to no
regionals...big disadvantage.

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. Limit each team to one regional and allow teams going to no regional
to keep their robot an extra six days after the ship date.

2. Get rid of the six-week ship date altogther and allow teams to compete
in as many regionals as they want. This way all are in possesion of
their robot for about the same amount of time. Its simple...start Jan xx,
ship April xx. Make one ship date prior to nationals.
It would provide teams a more relaxed schedule, more time to tweak and
practice, and more time to involve the students in the engineering
process.

As they say, thats two cents:)

Good luck to all in Florida!!
-Dan

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 4/17/99 9:11 AM MST


In Reply to: re: tweaking posted by Dan on 4/17/99 3:42 AM MST:



Dan,

We had this discussion a few days back in the Rumor Mill. If you want to know what people think, go there.

As a result of the discussion, people reached a creative solution. Follow the thread linked below to find out about it...


-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Other on team #247, da Bears, from Berkley High and PICO/Wisne Design.

Posted on 4/17/99 5:02 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: re: tweaking posted by Daniel on 4/17/99 9:11 AM MST:



: Dan,

: We had this discussion a few days back in the Rumor Mill. If you want to know what people think, go there.

: As a result of the discussion, people reached a creative solution. Follow the thread linked below to find out about it...

:
: -Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Ed Sparks, Engineer on team #34, DaimlerChrysler Electronics & Bob Jones High School, from Bob Jones High School and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 4/17/99 6:46 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



Initially I thought to myself that I liked the idea of having the robot
in our possession up to finals but soon realized the likely outcome.
It seems to me that a lot of teams would modify their machines to
duplicate the winning machines at the regionals. I can see it now, 300
(Dean might say this number should be a little higher) teams in Orlando
with nearly the same machine designs, how boring !

Why get repair days at all? Why don't we just create those puppies up
and send them to their next destination. Maybe FIRST can open the pits
a little earlier or even give us a day in the pits before each event.
Let us make those 'identical' or 'functionally identical' spare parts
between events ( talk about a test of your documentation ! ) and slap
them on at the next event.

I don't think that FIRST is likely to restrict the number of regionals
to one. It goes against the expansion grain not to mention they make a
little more money on those that go to multiple events (see Joe's post on
this).

OK, so I can't stand it anymore. I've got the car gassed up, the robot
trailer packed & hitched, my toothbrush, sunblock (VERY IMPORTANT), and
sunglasses packed. I'm heading out Monday morning @ 5:00 a.m. Since I'm
a coach as well as an engineer and probably will not see the light of
day once the competition begins, I thought I would spend a day or two
goofing off. Don't tell my boss this isn't a five day event ;-)

Stop by Pit #34

See 'ya soon

Ed