Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Team Update 1-15-2013 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111324)

Rangel(kf7fdb) 15-01-2013 23:05

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Looks like we found a relatively simple solution to fix our climbing for this update. However, this could have easily been a complete disaster for us since we are integrating all of our functions into one mechanism this year. I feel for all the other teams who will not have as easy of a time making their designs legal if they will even be able to use it at all.

Kevin Sevcik 15-01-2013 23:08

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1216246)
I'm not trying to look flippant, but in the real world engineering specifications change all the time.
FRC: more like the real world than we could ever want.

Note that in the real world, engineering specifications are agreed to and contracted. When the client comes in later trying to change them drastically and invalidate the current design, there's usually deadline extensions, bills for the engineering change, etc.

Nemo 15-01-2013 23:15

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
I'm surprised by this change since they already answered it in the opposite way previously. Better now than later, I guess, but this is a question that could have reasonably been anticipated and clarified before the game was released.

This didn't blow our climbing concept out of the water, but I'll be watching closely for a bumper clarification that has the potential to cause us trouble.

efoote868 15-01-2013 23:22

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik (Post 1216260)
Note that in the real world, engineering specifications are agreed to and contracted. When the client comes in later trying to change them drastically and invalidate the current design, there's usually deadline extensions, bills for the engineering change, etc.

Usually not the case with your boss though.

rsegrest 15-01-2013 23:39

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1216246)
I'm not trying to look flippant, but in the real world engineering specifications change all the time.
FRC: more like the real world than we could ever want.

However, we are talking about teams who have limited budgets and who in some cases have sent out drawings etc. to be machined. Many of us do not have the money or resources to have parts remachined etc. Fortuntately for my team (whose design is now not legal) we had not ordered parts or sent out CAD drawings for machining and we may still have time to go back to the drawing board.

I agree with the others who call this a bad move and bad form on the part of the GDC especially when this was discussed completely in a mentor call and it directly contradicts an earlier answer in the formal Q&A (which is also hosted by the GDC). :mad:

dellagd 15-01-2013 23:44

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

Ian Curtis 15-01-2013 23:50

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsegrest (Post 1216282)
However, we are talking about teams who have limited budgets and who in some cases have sent out drawings etc. to be machined. Many of us do not have the money or resources to have parts remachined etc.

I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...

As others have pointed out this is probably the optimal (fewest illegal robots) solution, even if causes rework. And I know that rework is annoying.

Jibsy 15-01-2013 23:55

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis (Post 1216287)
I would be extremely surprised if this early even 5% of teams had sent drawings out for parts to be made. Queue that 5% in 3, 2, 1...

As others have pointed out this is probably the optimal (fewest illegal robots) solution, even if causes rework. And I know that rework is annoying.

One day later and that 5% would've included us...

I think calling the rework annoying is an understatement... Full design and CAD just having some of the details added, and now we have to change it completely.

I'm still reeling that this drastic a change has been made this long after kickoff. Do you suppose the GDC will reconsider given the backlash and how clear the Q and A seemed to make the rules before? :mad:

Ian Curtis 16-01-2013 00:05

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibsy (Post 1216289)
One day later and that 5% would've included us...

I think calling the rework annoying is an understatement... Full design and CAD just having some of the details added, and now we have to change it completely.

I'm still reeling that this drastic a change has been made this long after kickoff. Do you suppose the GDC will reconsider given the backlash and how clear the Q and A seemed to make the rules before? :mad:

Actually the more I think it's not a good change. But I'm still pretty sure the 5% comment stands.

Donut 16-01-2013 00:10

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dellagd (Post 1216283)
Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

When the seeding algorithm was changed in 2010 is probably the biggest change ever during the season. I think it was a good change (gave incentive to win) but that is a huge change to have mid-season.

They've changed size dimensions before as well, I don't know if it's always been so critical to a task like this though.

Jibsy 16-01-2013 00:15

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis (Post 1216293)
Actually the more I think it's not a good change. But I'm still pretty sure the 5% comment stands.

I don't think any major change like that is a good one at this point. Even if it makes climbing easier in some people's eyes, I would say that 95% of teams who are actually going to be climbing successfully to the 30 points (perhaps only a few) already (had) a design that was well on its way, probably nearing completion. No sense making many many teams start over, even if there are a few new options that they had previously ruled out.

I agree with your 5% comment; however, manufacturing and resources aside, time is still the most valuable asset in an FRC season. There will definitely be other solutions, I just have a hard time believing that this rule will result in more successful 30 point climbs (which is my interpretation of the purpose of the change).

BJC 16-01-2013 00:17

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
The basic reason I can see them doing this is for enforability. It's already difficult to determine if the robot will fit within the 54" cylinder when on flat ground. Robots breaking the cylinder when transitioning between levels while climbing (especially unintentional) is basically impossible for the refrees to be certain of. In close matches no one wants the deciding call to be made by a ref who from 15 feet away may have seen a robot momentarily break an invisible cylinder...

mrnoble 16-01-2013 00:20

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Is it possible this rule change was more in response to concerns that robots that fall over would be in continuous violation, rather than concerns about complex climbing mechanisms? I know that was discussed as a concern at the beginning of the season.

Still stinks though, especially for cool ideas like some that have been spoiled now. Very sorry indeed, folks.:(

Tristan Lall 16-01-2013 00:27

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dellagd (Post 1216283)
Has FIRST ever made such a big change like this before?

Yes.

2002: Rules and rulings associated devices that look like motorized tape measures were reinterpreted at the events. (Affected parts usage and entanglement.)
2003: Rules for reacting against field elements were changed in March, after the build season. (Ruined 68's strategy.)
2011: A rule against strategically blockading the field was inserted in week 5.
2012: Changed the definition of bridges in week 6. (Ruined 3928's strategy.)

Edit: For clarity, week numbers identified above were during the build season.

Aren_Hill 16-01-2013 00:33

Re: Team Update 1-15-2013
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall (Post 1216312)
Yes.

2002: Rules and rulings associated devices that look like motorized tape measures were reinterpreted at the events. (Affected parts usage and entanglement.)
2003: Rules for reacting against field elements were changed in March, after the build season. (Ruined 68's strategy.)
2011: A rule against strategically blockading the field was inserted in week 5.
2012: Changed the definition of bridges in week 6. (Ruined 3928's strategy.)

I get the feeling the kids won't be very phased tomorrow :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:19.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi