M30?

[Aren Siekmeier]

We are working on a minibot this offseason and have the opportunity to print the frame and other components out of some sort of plastic with a rapid prototyping company. We could do polycarbonate, but it would take significantly longer and be significantly weaker than an M30 option they've been telling us about. Does any one know exactly what this stuff is, if we could make a case for it being remotely related to polycarbonate, whether we should care about the rules for offseason purposes, etc.? My guess is that it probably won't pass as PC.

[Andrew Schreiber]

We are working on a minibot this offseason and have the opportunity to print the frame and other components out of some sort of plastic with a rapid prototyping company. We could do polycarbonate, but it would take significantly longer and be significantly weaker than an M30 option they've been telling us about. Does any one know exactly what this stuff is, if we could make a case for it being remotely related to polycarbonate, whether we should care about the rules for offseason purposes, etc.? My guess is that it probably won't pass as PC.

Here is a simple flowchart that can determine whether or not a material is valid for the minibot frame:

Is it on the approved material list -> Yes -> It is legal
|
v
No - > It isn't

[Aren Siekmeier]

Thanks for answering my question. Guess what: polycarb is on the approved materials list. My question is whether M30 is a type of polycarb.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Thanks for answering my question. Guess what: polycarb is on the approved materials list. My question is whether M30 is a type of polycarb.

Ok fine, http://www.tfcenergyinc.com/pdf/stratasys/ABSM30.pdf It is ABS according to that. Which, by my handy dandy flowchart, is not legal. You supplier should have been able to tell you that. Or a cursory google search should have turned up this information.

For the record, asking " whether we should care about the rules for offseason purposes" will always get you a sarcastic response. Either you always care about the rules or you shouldn't be competing. Of course, with definitions as arbitrary as "light switch" I can't blame you for trying...

[rsisk]

For the record, asking " whether we should care about the rules for offseason purposes" will always get you a sarcastic response.

Was that sarcasm? Darn, I thought that was a pretty handy flowchart.

[EricVanWyk]

For the record, asking " whether we should care about the rules for offseason purposes" will always get you a sarcastic response. Either you always care about the rules or you shouldn't be competing. Of course, with definitions as arbitrary as "light switch" I can't blame you for trying...

I tentatively disagree with you on this topic. For example: the Kinect was explicitly illegal, but I still think it is an awesome off-season project. Even if it is still illegal next season, the students will gain some seriously cool experience.

This thread's particular potential rule violation is a little less vague, but it could still potentially have some validity. If it was a pure matter of availability and everyone involved knew the reason and the effects of the deviation, I believe it could be acceptable. If it was a matter of M30 being superior to PC, perhaps not.

[Chris is me]

Being lenient on the rules for off season competitions depends from competition to competition. Some teams with shorted 775s competed with extra CIMs, for example. Ask your off-season if it's okay.

[JesseK]

Was that sarcasm? Darn, I thought that was a pretty handy flowchart.

Ditto. It's a quote of the exact flowchart FIRST has in their manual, lol. Generally speaking, the offseason events I've attended have been so low-key that I doubt anyone would have cared if a new material (or even illegal motors) were used. Since we don't have the sensor connections for the towers, the 'race' for the minibot is somewhat moot.

Personally, if your students will learn iterative design by building a new minibot and the rules of the offseason remove the 'race' from the minibot, I say go for it. Yet that's just my opinion; you should ask the offseason event coordinator if you go to an offseason competition tbh.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I tentatively disagree with you on this topic. For example: the Kinect was explicitly illegal, but I still think it is an awesome off-season project. Even if it is still illegal next season, the students will gain some seriously cool experience.

This thread's particular potential rule violation is a little less vague, but it could still potentially have some validity. If it was a pure matter of availability and everyone involved knew the reason and the effects of the deviation, I believe it could be acceptable. If it was a matter of M30 being superior to PC, perhaps not.

Offseason competition and offseason projects are two different things. If the OP wanted to build a minibot for the heck of it and used M30. Or wanted to use it for evaluating the benefits of m30 over his other options (perhaps for inclusion in other parts of the robot) I would be completely supportive. However, to basically disregard a rule because it is the offseason is, in addition to cheating, rude to your opponents.

If the issue was availability then the OP needs to investigate other options that are in line with the rules.

Note, I responded that it was illegal because the rules say it is. My morals tell me that breaking the rules for a competitive advantage is wrong. As for why I claim the OP should have searched or asked his sponsor is because M30 is pretty generic and he could potentially add more information than what he provided.

[Jon Stratis]

Which off-season are you guys competing in this fall? I've been talking with the organizers of a couple of them, and might be the lead robot inspector telling you your minibot is illegal :p But really, I think off-season competitions tend to be a little looser on the rules - mostly focused on safety and ensuring a fair level of competition among all teams present.

Personally, I think the minibot would be a great way to gain experience with the material and the company providing it, regardless if you can use it in an actual competition or not.

Now, if you go ahead and build it and bring it to an off-season I'm working at, I'll expect two things before considering allowing it:
- proof of safety. Provide me with spec's for M30 and polycarb, side by side, that show what the differences are, and be prepared to explain why those differences won't affect safety (primarily, I would be concerned about shattering - is your minibot going to break into a hundred pieces when it hits that top plate? If pieces do break off, are they going to be a danger to people working the field, like glass would be? You should be able to use the specs to prove that it's just as unlikely to happen with M30 as it is with polycarb). As an added bonus, bring some extra material and demonstrate how safe the material is.
- proof that it doesn't provide an unfair advantage. Specifically, if you had made it out of polycarb instead of M30, what would the difference be? Would you see a difference in weight for the minibot (since weight is the primary factor in determining acceleration, given the anticipated uses of this material)? If so, can you offset that by adding some small weights to "equalize" your advantage?

Note: If the competition adopts changes like those made for IRI this year (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95539&highlight=IRI+rules) with regards to minibot scoring, the second point might be much easier to make, as fast minibots doesn't provide nearly as much competitive advantage.

If you want to talk more about it, PM me. I'd be happy to help you get an "official" answer for any of the twin cities off-season events.

[AdamHeard]

Offseason competition and offseason projects are two different things. If the OP wanted to build a minibot for the heck of it and used M30. Or wanted to use it for evaluating the benefits of m30 over his other options (perhaps for inclusion in other parts of the robot) I would be completely supportive. However, to basically disregard a rule because it is the offseason is, in addition to cheating, rude to your opponents.

If the issue was availability then the OP needs to investigate other options that are in line with the rules.

Note, I responded that it was illegal because the rules say it is. My morals tell me that breaking the rules for a competitive advantage is wrong. As for why I claim the OP should have searched or asked his sponsor is because M30 is pretty generic and he could potentially add more information than what he provided.

We routinely enter multiple robots into offseason events, and for the sake of getting things done we often run illegal motors, too many motors, sometimes "illegal" wiring, wrong radios, missing Robot signal lights, out of size box, etc...

Never have these robots been better than our actual comp bot, and the illegal things we did provided no competitive advantage.

If an event were to try to enforce these rules on us, we simply wouldn't come back again. The point of offseason events (at least nears us) is for people to get some experience and have a good time, if it's not breaking gameplay rules and it's not a direct competitive advantage, go for it.

Obviously, events will vary, so check if your event is doing strict inspections to avoid potential issues.

[Brandon Holley]

My thoughts on looser rules at offseasons: Assuming its not giving you an extreme competitive advantage, I see no problem with it. We ran with a CIM instead of 775s at IRI this year because we had so many issues with those motors. It provided no competitive advantage (ie: offered no different functionality than our original design), our elevator just went up and down consistently and provided us with some peace of mind knowing that issue was not going to flare up at an inopportune time.


As for the M30 minibot frame: The first thing I did when we started designing our minibot was try to track down a PC (polycarbonate) cartridge for my 3D printer at work. I found one, but it was considerably expensive. My next step was to try and track down a company that could print frames out in PC for free or at a considerable discount. I had some progress with one company but was unable to get the actual frames made.

I think its an awesome project, and I really do not see what the big deal would be regarding using one at an off-season event. Had you attended our off-season (the Beantown Blitz), we would allow it with no issues. Obviously make sure to check with whatever event you are going to first though. Post up your design and lets see what you've come up with!

-Brando

[Chris is me]

We routinely enter multiple robots into offseason events, and for the sake of getting things done we often run illegal motors, too many motors, sometimes "illegal" wiring, wrong radios, missing Robot signal lights, out of size box, etc...

Never have these robots been better than our actual comp bot, and the illegal things we did provided no competitive advantage.

If an event were to try to enforce these rules on us, we simply wouldn't come back again. The point of offseason events (at least nears us) is for people to get some experience and have a good time, if it's not breaking gameplay rules and it's not a direct competitive advantage, go for it.

Obviously, events will vary, so check if your event is doing strict inspections to avoid potential issues.

While I don't think events should be incredibly stringent on the rules, I'm surprised that you think an event attempting to prevent teams from cheating is so offensive that you'd never return again.

[Andrew Schreiber]

We routinely enter multiple robots into offseason events, and for the sake of getting things done we often run illegal motors, too many motors, sometimes "illegal" wiring, wrong radios, missing Robot signal lights, out of size box, etc...

Never have these robots been better than our actual comp bot, and the illegal things we did provided no competitive advantage.

If an event were to try to enforce these rules on us, we simply wouldn't come back again. The point of offseason events (at least nears us) is for people to get some experience and have a good time, if it's not breaking gameplay rules and it's not a direct competitive advantage, go for it.

Obviously, events will vary, so check if your event is doing strict inspections to avoid potential issues.

The only point I will touch on is how illegal is the wiring? Just wrong colors or too small wires? Everything else (aside from if you built a robot with 6 Cims and 4 FP and a handful of Globes) seems to be within what I would call the spirit of the rules. In fact, at a during season event I would make it my job to make those robots legal so they could compete (that is, in my opinion, part of inspector's jobs). The only reason I call out wiring specifically is the increased risk of fire/equipment damage.

As for the OP, this would provide a distinct advantage due to the stronger material. It would also, as eagle pointed out, be a potential safety risk due to the possibility of a spontaneously exploding minibot.

I suppose, as long as you clear it with people running your off seasons and ensure it is safe, running a minibot made out of a different material would be an option.

[AdamHeard]

Andrew, the differences aren't unsafe. We know enough about we're doing to make the distinction between what is somewhat trivial in the rules and what is necessary in a high powered electrical distribution system. For example, last year we ran two window motors off of one victor as we were short on speed controllers.

While I don't think events should be incredibly stringent on the rules, I'm surprised that you think an event attempting to prevent teams from cheating is so offensive that you'd never return again.

The California offseason events are generally low attended, and generally they aren't very competitive. So we make an effort to bring multiple robots to help increase the team count, increase the competitiveness of the event, and allow other teams/prerookies to use them. We gave our 3rd to a nonfunctional team at an event last year. If they make this more difficult to do, we'll just go to different events as what we're doing is far from cheating. Every one we've been too has been from from this though, they've all been great and it's never been an issue.

It's also a HUGE hassle getting and keeping three robots running, during the fall season, with 8 students or so at the event. We really do it more as a service to others than ourselves.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Andrew, the differences aren't unsafe. We know enough about we're doing to make the distinction between what is somewhat trivial in the rules and what is necessary in a high powered electrical distribution system. For example, last year we ran two window motors off of one victor as we were short on speed controllers.


I assumed that, was merely doing due diligence to make sure someone else didn't come back and read it later and think "oh they wired illegal we can too". I know 973 knows what they are doing, my comments were more general rather than specific to you.

[R.C.]

While I don't think events should be incredibly stringent on the rules, I'm surprised that you think an event attempting to prevent teams from cheating is so offensive that you'd never return again.

Its not really cheating, its more so its an OFF SEASON event. Keyword OFF SEASON not FIRST REGIONAL. At a FIRST event anything not to the book will not be allowed on the field/Cheating.

We host an offseason event and we don't care what you bring. Our goal of hosting an offseason event:

-Spreading STEM Education
-Involving our community
-Allowing teams to play together
-Train New members
-Have a fun time
-Relaxed setting for teams
-Not really about the robot

If there is clearly a problem, we'll address it. I don't think a team is cheating with any of those mentioned in Adam's post. 973 was at our event last year and they brought 3 robots. Comp bot was perfectly legal and so was their second. Their 3rd wasn't but they graciously donated their 2nd/3rd and let pre rookies team drive it.


Overall if its an offseason event, check with the hosts, but most people are pretty cool with most changes and pretty flexible. But this would not be allowed at a FIRST event.

-RC

[Aren Siekmeier]

Thanks for all the thoughts both specific and general. We're competing at the Minnesota State Fair in a bit over a week and also one or two Minnesota off season events in October/November. We would eventually be able to do PC probably, but specifically for the State Fair we'd like to have things done as fast as possible. We'll probably go with both, test stuff with the M30 (which can be done in a night and a day and they have lots of open M30 machines), and then hopefully be able to reassemble with PC (which takes some setup - they aren't currently printing anything with it) before the Fair.

[ChrisH]

The host team or organization sets the rules. They may or may not be the same as FIRST rules. In general off-seasons tweak the rukles, but this is not always the case.

Knowingly violating any of the rules as defined by the organizers would be cheating. But if they grant a waiver for some small discrepancy, it is not. The difference is you are not trying to get away with something.

ChrisH

[IndySam]

My thoughts on looser rules at offseasons: Assuming its not giving you an extreme competitive advantage, I see no problem with it. We ran with a CIM instead of 775s at IRI this year because we had so many issues with those motors. It provided no competitive advantage (ie: offered no different functionality than our original design), our elevator just went up and down consistently and provided us with some peace of mind knowing that issue was not going to flare up at an inopportune time.

At a small off-season event like our own CAGE Match I would agree with you and would have no problem with what you did but to do this at IRI is wrong.

Using a better more capable motor does give you an unfair advantage over teams that follow the rules. Something small like a repair that puts you a little overweight or maybe an incorrect wire is one thing but I think this is way over the top of acceptable behavior.

[Jon Stratis]

For all those paying attention here out of state, the competition at the State Fair is a little different than other competitions. Basically, the guy running it looks at the game each year and comes up with a number of different solo challenges for teams to do, with each challenge worth points. Every day during the fair, a couple of different teams "compete", and the team that ends up with the highest scores "wins".

Since I already know most of the challenges at the fair this year (The guy organizing it really likes to talk when you drop the robot off for judging), I can guarantee you using M30 won't give you any sort of competitive advantage - simply put, speed isn't an issue. I can also pretty much guarantee you no one there will be comparing your robot to the official FIRST rules.

I do, however, strongly urge you to do appropriate analysis and testing to ensure safety with the new material. The event usually draws a large crowd of people who otherwise don't know about FIRST - we don't want their first impression to be of an exploding minibot.

Again, if you want assistance in figuring out the legality of the material for any of the Minnesota off-season regionals, I'd love to help out. I've been slated to volunteer at both the Roseville and Minne-mini off-season events for a while now.

[EricDrost]

At a small off-season event like our own CAGE Match I would agree with you and would have no problem with what you did but to do this at IRI is wrong.

Using a better more capable motor does give you an unfair advantage over teams that follow the rules. Something small like a repair that puts you a little overweight or maybe an incorrect wire is one thing but I think this is way over the top of acceptable behavior.

I would have to disagree with you on this. If they had extra CIMs in their drive train or in an application where the additional power impacted the performance of their robot (like lifting a 10lb. track ball, not an 8 oz. tube) it would be completely unacceptable. As far as I could tell, their lift had the exact same speed and ability as it did during their regionals.

[Chris is me]

I didn't object to 125's change at IRI, because they made the most direct substitution they could and didn't get a performance advantage out of it (at least, a significant one). They designed the system for the 775 and dropped a CIM in it.

I just have a problem with the idea that offseasons that enforce rules should be looked down upon. If your offseason is okay with your mods, go right ahead, but I wouldn't write off an event because they weren't. That doesn't make sense to me.

[Aren_Hill]

I just have a problem with the idea that offseasons that enforce rules should be looked down upon. If your offseason is okay with your mods, go right ahead, but I wouldn't write off an event because they weren't. That doesn't make sense to me.

Noone is "looking down upon" any offseason event, Adam is simply looking at what his team hopes to gain from attending offseason competitions and whether the competition in question allows for that.

If I didn't want a ridiculously competitive competition, I just wouldn't go to IRI...I wouldn't "look down upon" it for being the way it is.

If he doesn't want a strict serious competition....he doesn't attend them with the other robots....simple as that. They wanted a competitive serious offseason and attended IRI, bringing only the fully legal robot. Now for other comps they want more room to experiment on new things, and as such are attending much less competitive events and helping out other teams at the same time.