Chief Delphi - Team Update 2012-02-14

Page 5 of 5

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Team Update 2012-02-14 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102822)

Tom Bottiglieri

15-02-2012 14:19

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Aren,
I get you are upset that it wasn't in black in white in the manual. It seems the main problem here is that teams have a bunch more time and motivation to think of creative solutions than the GDC does, combined with the fact that people try to disguise their intentions in the Q&A. If someone asked "Can we sit on the lexan and count as balanced?", the clear answer would be no.

Best way to solve this? I don't know. Perhaps a Q&A system that doesn't incentivize trying to trick the rule makers?

On a side note: One of my favorite parts of this competition is seeing the cool way other people solve the problem. I hope someone will surprise me this year!

Katie_UPS

15-02-2012 14:19

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

I've witnessed tests: the lexan doesn't break when its field-spec with a robot on it.
That question is now answered. Stop debating over which thicknesses are "bulletproof" for which guns: I don't think you're accomplishing anything in terms of this discussion.

Corey: You're probably right. Teams that wanted to try troll bot should've clearly asked in the beginning.

Mr. Van

15-02-2012 14:53

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Several things come to mind...

Andy Baker is usually right. In this example, he is. "Balanced" and "Supported by the Bridge" strongly suggest (to any reasonable observer) that robots must be on the bridge, or hanging from whatever most people would call the bridge. The ball deflecting panel below the bridge is just that - BELOW the bridge. Simply because the Q & A answered a question about what is legal to touch on your opponent's bridge doesn't mean that you should redefine other elements of the game.

"It is often easier to ask forgiveness than permission".

Hummm... often true, but not in this case. Teams asked if it was legal to use suction cups to adhere to the bridge surface. They got an answer. In FRC - ASK first.

This is NOT an unreasonable rule change. In Breakaway, balls were not allowed to go any further than 3" into the robot perimeter. It was in the Manual. It was in the animation. It was in the Inspection Checklist - there was even a special gauge that inspectors used to check for this. After the first week of regionals, there were so many penalties that the GDC changed the rules, allowing balls to roll completely under robots.

THAT was an unreasonable rule change. Basically the GDC said "we made the challenge too hard so we took away this requirement".

The important thing here is why was the change made? Because Breakaway was problematic as a game when it came to scoring in the first week. Many, many matches ended in 0-0 because of penalties. The reason the requirements changed is because FIRST is about Inspiration. It is not inspiring to watch robots run around and play a good game (Breakaway) and then have the scores negated by penalties. In the same way, it is not inspiring to see a robot "balance a bridge" by parking under it.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

pfreivald

15-02-2012 14:59

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 1127394)

This is NOT an unreasonable rule change.

I don't even know that it *is* a rules change. It's a clarification, and one I feel is unnecessary because of the word "balance". Trollbots don't balance, they wedge. 179's robot balances.

If teams chose to ignore (or mistakenly ignored) the verbage that made their clever idea not work, that is an unfortunate mistake -- but it's no reason to be mad at anyone but themselves.

Grandma wouldn't equate "wedged level" with "balanced", and neither would anyone else on first blush.

Aren_Hill

15-02-2012 15:16

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Van (Post 1127394)

Several things come to mind...

Andy Baker is usually right. In this example, he is. "Balanced" and "Supported by the Bridge" strongly suggest (to any reasonable observer) that robots must be on the bridge, or hanging from whatever most people would call the bridge. The ball deflecting panel below the bridge is just that - BELOW the bridge. Simply because the Q & A answered a question about what is legal to touch on your opponent's bridge doesn't mean that you should redefine other elements of the game.

"It is often easier to ask forgiveness than permission".

Hummm... often true, but not in this case. Teams asked if it was legal to use suction cups to adhere to the bridge surface. They got an answer. In FRC - ASK first.

This is NOT an unreasonable rule change. In Breakaway, balls were not allowed to go any further than 3" into the robot perimeter. It was in the Manual. It was in the animation. It was in the Inspection Checklist - there was even a special gauge that inspectors used to check for this. After the first week of regionals, there were so many penalties that the GDC changed the rules, allowing balls to roll completely under robots.

THAT was an unreasonable rule change. Basically the GDC said "we made the challenge too hard so we took away this requirement".

Patrick,

They gave the definition of "balanced" and that's the definition i was going by.
The important thing here is why was the change made? Because Breakaway was problematic as a game when it came to scoring in the first week. Many, many matches ended in 0-0 because of penalties. The reason the requirements changed is because FIRST is about Inspiration. It is not inspiring to watch robots run around and play a good game (Breakaway) and then have the scores negated by penalties. In the same way, it is not inspiring to see a robot "balance a bridge" by parking under it.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

You're arguing what people think/interpret (which unless you're actually the GDC does not matter one bit, whether its you or a grandma) vs the manual and QandA, the only two sources of official rulings.

The GDC made a mistake, that is it. I am not a fan of how they chose to deal with it but I will be okay, what I can't stand is the overall level of ignorance and hypocrisy being displayed in these threads.

And while I greatly respect Andy, I'm sure he knows grandma doesn't make official rulings, grandma would've been confused by lots of things in the past that were competing.

Patrick,
The GDC gave the definition of "balanced" and that is the definition I was going by, in other instances they referred to the Dictionary, not in this one. You cannot in any instance tell me I am not allowed to be disgruntled by having specs changed this far into the game.

Tristan Lall

15-02-2012 15:52

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker (Post 1127350)

team member: Yeah, but we still count as balancing on the bridge.

grandma: No, that's silly, you don't.

Isn't the grandmother just as likely to think that the bridge is balanced by virtue of being level, rather than inquire into the method?

After all, if the grandmother understands the scoring well enough to understand why the robot underneath would count, she's probably not in the position of ignorance that the parable presupposes.

gurellia53

15-02-2012 15:58

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Grandma: That guy ran that other guy into the ground. He should be kicked out of the game.

Not Grandma: This is football, its called a tackle. That's their job.

Grandma: No, that's silly. That's not very nice.

Point: grandmas don't get sports.

Tristan Lall

15-02-2012 16:03

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by fox46 (Post 1127360)

Not at all. I am not contesting its durability when tromped on by robots, I am sure it is plenty durable, although I wouldn't call it a bridge. I am contesting the statement that 1/4" lexan is bulletproof.

You're of course right, so lets stipulate that bullets are not of any consequence to the durability, and instead focus on whether the robot-induced deformation of the polycarbonate would be permanent.

I doubt it would be, because polycarbonate is strong stuff. By driving on top of it repeatedly (and bearing substantial loads due to the bridge and robots), you might scratch it significantly, but you're unlikely to break it outright. Also, why would FIRST have picked such thick material if they hadn't anticipated the possibility of robots making contact with it? (If it's just balls you need to worry about, wouldn't half or a quarter of that thickness have been sufficient?)

And typically, as long as the traction devices and edges on the robot have conformed to the specifications, FIRST has not made an issue of robots that scratch plastic field surfaces. (Look at the sides of the field border, or the plastic floor surfaces in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, etc. for example.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fox46 (Post 1127360)

Keep in mind my job depends on building things that resist bullets among other fast moving projectiles...

GDLS?

Tom Ore

15-02-2012 16:14

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Katie / Aren / Andrew,

I'm just hoping you guys can still make our scrimmage on Saturday. I've been anxious to see your bot since early in the season. Regardless of the troll-bot status in the game, your robot sounds pretty impressive.

Tom

Mr. Van

15-02-2012 16:18

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Aren (and others) - you do have the right to be frustrated. FIRST is frustrating. There have been numerous reasons for being upset with things that FIRST, the GDC, the refs, the judges, teams as a whole, coaches, mentors, individual team members, the drayage company, etc, etc, have done. Many of us here on CD have been around long enough to have been personally burned in one way or another - some instances have been egregious enough to lead people to consider leaving the organization altogether. Most have stayed.

Believe me. Many of us have been there. We do feel your pain.

The real question is how will you and your team react to this situation.

Healthy expression of your frustration here on CD is all well and good. The question is what will you do as the next step?

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

Daniel_LaFleur

15-02-2012 16:20

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1127401)

I don't even know that it *is* a rules change. It's a clarification, and one I feel is unnecessary because of the word "balance". Trollbots don't balance, they wedge. 179's robot balances.

Trollbot doesn't need to be balanced. The bridge needs to be balanced. Trollbot only needs to be completely supported by a balanced bridge. Hense, the issue.

While I disagree with how the GDC handled it, its time to move on.

Paul Copioli

15-02-2012 16:30

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

In 2002 I read the Q&A and convinced our team to change the robot design based on the Q&A. There was no team update in the manual as the Q&A response was simply a clarification. This was what was known as the tape measure rule. We decided against a tape measure because of the Q&A. The tape measure was legal that year even thought the Q&A clearly made it illegal. My response to that lesson learned ... don't read the Q&A. If it is important enough then it will make it into a team update.

I have followed that rule until this year and it burned us again. Not with this rule, but with the whole contiguous appendage nonsense. We redesigned to be contiguous during deployment because of Q&A even though common sense told us not to. Then comes a team update that would have saved us time redesigning. I guess I will wait another 10 years to read the Q&A ....

BTW, with respect to this argument, some of you are starting to get obnoxious (you should know who you are and if you don't you have bigger problems) so please knock it off. We have students reading this forum so please keep it a little more professional.

Paul

MechEng83

15-02-2012 17:00

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

A few items:

First, am I the only one who finds it ironic we're trolling about trolling? :D

Secondly, while I believe the intent of the end game has always been clear, I think the GDC painted themselves into a corner on this one by trying to be clever and succinct in their response on the Q&A rather than being thorough and complete. Rather than saying "All items in GE-12017" originally, they could have drawn up a wordier answer that CLEARLY states their intent.

Last, if you're in the unfortunate position of having designed a troll-only bot, move on and do the best redesign you can. No amount of hand-wringing and complaining on a forum or in person is going to help you build a viable alternative. Don't waste your energy on indignant behavior -- focus it and come up with a solution to be a great robot!

Tristan Lall

15-02-2012 18:03

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli (Post 1127477)

For background, here's what Paul is referencing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 325797)

In that year, there was concern about entanglement by extensible devices, like motorized tape measures; contradictory Q&A answers were posted, then the entanglement rules were clarifed and reinterpreted--but by the time the season came around, teams were regularly installing and using illegal ones (such as from vendors other than Small Parts), and getting away with it. Plus, the penalties for entanglement itself were not consistently enforced.

At least FIRST owned up to the 2002 problem, and provided an explanation (by posting on ChiefDelphi):

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRCOps (Post 26908)

Starting with the answer to the question:
Yes, the rules on tethers have been loosened. And, we apologize. Why? We had to. Please read on.

Is this unfair to teams that correctly and strictly interpreted our rules updates as posted during the season? Probably. We know it, and please believe that we don't feel great about the way it went down. We're sorry.

Now, the details. We loosened up on the tethering rules, as a result of VCU. Want to know why? We asked a certain Pappalardo Professor of Engineering at MIT for his guidance. Maybe you’ve heard of him - Dr. Woodie Flowers. Dr. Flowers' comments to us at VCU were basically that if the teams have put time and effort into engineering a tether or tethered device, let them demonstrate it. We also thought back to the kickoff and Dean's approval of being able to be in 2 places at once.

So what the rule has become is that unless it's a piece of string or flimsy unprotected wire, it can be deployed. With Woodie's estimable guidance in place, the situation changed. (Please, don’t contact him.)

As a result, we are allowing the less egregious tethers to be used, because that is what we must do. It is unfair to the teams that avoided them expecting a strict rule interpretation up until now. But it is clearly worse to allow the current angst over this issue to continue.

Know that below the noise level here, we really are disallowing some mechanisms that clearly would cause entanglement. Also, the lack of resolution on the webcasts -for the 99% of you without a dedicated 1GB/second web server available - makes some decent tether designs appear as loose wire, when in fact they are protected, encased, hinged units.

That's a wrap. Sorry about the change in direction. Those team members that are extremely angry about this: please believe that the 15 people who make all of this happen are not trying to make everyone's lives miserable; we are as committed as you are to an excellent FIRST, and we want everyone's experience to be as positive as possible.

JaneYoung

15-02-2012 22:37

Re: Team Update 2012-02-14

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurellia53 (Post 1127444)

Underestimating a Grandmother would be your first mistake.

Jane

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43.

Page 5 of 5

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page