Different levels of passing inspection
 

What is the purpose of rules if you are not going to follow them?

I can appreciate being lax with compliance at the Regionals to allow as many robots as possible compete. I presumed that compliance at the Championship would be more strictly enforced, but that was not so. They basically had the same attitude - let the robots compete.

I propose that there be two levels of passing inspection:

1) Safety
2) Compliant

And for Regionals, a 3rd level - Mostly compliant / Warning

If a team passes a Safety Inspection, then it is like the current "Inspected" status, but, is not eligible to for the Elimination rounds.

A Team that passes a Compliant Inspection is fully compliant with safety and the rules, and can fully compete (like the current "Inspected" status).

At Regionals, minor non-compliance that is deemed fixable will be treated as "Compliant", but with a warning that if the non-compliance is not fixed, they will not be "compliant" at the Championship. Non-compliant items would be noted on the Bag and Tag form.

Minor non-compliance would be things like:
1) Bumpers (including covers) that exceed the 2-10" bumper zone
2) slight violations of the frame perimeter (or 20" rule) that could be fixed between competitions using the hold back rule.
3) marginally secured battery
4) over by less than X pounds

The championship would have to figure out what to do with non-compliance that was not previously discovered and noted on the bag and tag form. If a non-compliant item on the Bag and Tag is not fixed, then the team can only pass a Safety inspection until the item is fully compliant.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

You'll also have to take into account the inspectors themselves. We've had inspectors asking us to explain the rules to them.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Le *sigh....

Also what if a inspector missed something that isn't compliant but is found at champs? I have seen robots that have gone though 1 or 2 regionals with non-compliant things before they are caught. Usually when something is pointed out the first line is often "but it passed at _____ event!"

Also don't most teams ask for more lax inspections? :P

Overall the inspection system is to make sure robots are safe, follow the rules, and do not have a competitive edge (extra motors/etc). There is also a double standard... I meet quite a few teams that don't know some of the rules either (at the same time yes some of the rules should be more clear....). The inspection system is something FIRST needs to work on (esp re-inspection) but I don't think this is the solution.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

The problem isn't with the inspection process. It's partially with the lack of rule continuity from year to year, and largely with teams who don't put enough effort into understanding the implications of the rules.

I'll leave comments about "levels" of inspection to the Lead Robot Inspectors.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Please keep in mind the inspectors are human and volunteers and were working very hard to get 400 robots inspected in just a few hours Wednesday evening so that every team would make their first match Thursday morning. We inspected 90% of the robots and could have gotten almost all of them done if all 400 teams had done their part and were in compliance and ready when they came out of the crate or soon there after rather than waiting until 8:00 to start the inspection process.

Would you please explain your context here a little further? I can read this statement and interpret your intent different ways.

A) You observed other robots you believe were illegal. Did you bring this to the attention of an inspector? If so did the inspector refuse to listen to you or investigate further?

or

B) Your team's robot was out of compliance and your team knew it but since your inspector didn't catch it you competed anyway knowing full well your robot was illegal even after one of your students and one of your adult mentors signed your inspection checklist stating your believed you were in full compliance.

I certainly hope you are not implying case B above but I have to wonder how you know the details of other teams inspection process? Did you possibly witness other teams inspection taking what seemed to be a very short time while yours took much longer and thus you made an assumption that other inspectors were being "lax" and just letting anything go while your inspector was being a bit too diligent?

Many of the Championship level inspectors have many years of inspection experience and given a fully compliant robot (as all at Championships should be right?) can inspect a robot in 15-20 minutes. An inspector with less experience may take significantly longer and more thoroughly "check off" one line item at a time on the inspection check list. A seasoned inspector, particularly one with a decade or more of experience often as a team mentor, can stare at a robot for a few minutes, find issues, count motors, eyeball breakers and wire gauge and color, trace pneumatics lines, and spot about a dozen other things at one time. Just because an inspection didn't take an hour doesn't mean it was "lax".

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Closer to A, definitely not B. To paraphrase the instructions to the Inspectors: the robots made it this far, our role is to help them compete. Let's just say that if a robot looked close to violating the frame perimeter in its starting configuration, not much effort would be put into investigating. If the BOM was written on a paper napkin, that was good enough for me.

There was one team that, at reinspection before eliminations, they had non-compliant tape on their bumpers (not red or blue). I told them to remove it, and it was discovered that the tape was being used to assist in the holding on of the bumpers, and not just to temporarily cover holes in the fabric (the allowed use of tape). If they had been picked, I am guessing they would have been allowed to compete, even if no compliant solution was found.

I am not saying that FRC be legalistic. Sometimes there are reasons for violating a rule. For instance, I heard the Israeli teams used 1/2 inch plywood for their bumpers. When asked about it, they said all the 3/4 inch plywood was used to protect buildings. I would let that team compete in the eliminations.

Due to budget constraints, at a Regional, a rookie team made motor controllers from custom circuits. From a Safety stand point, that was fine, but I don't think the team should be allowed to advance. Now, if they get other teams to give them some motor controllers and they pass compliance inspection prior to Alliance Selection, then that is fine.

My team spends a lot of time making sure the robot is compliant. What should I tell them next time they are building and are close, but a little out of compliance? Don't worry about it, they will let you compete anyway? Isn't that exactly the opposite of the speech from the NASA guy about the relevance of FIRST to the real world: "At NASA, we stay within the constraints and don't miss deadlines".

What is this teaching the kids? That it is ok to stretch the rules?

Participation is an earned reward. Build any robot (safe or not), and you can participate in the practice matches (do not have to be inspected to participate in practice matches). Build a safe robot, and you earn the right to participate in the Qualification matches. Build a safe and compliant robot, and you have earned the additional right to be eligible for the Elimination Rounds.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Just so I'm clear, you are saying you were an inspector and this is what you understood Big Al to say at the inspectors meeting prior to doors opening on Wednesday? If so, you and I heard 2 completely different things.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

I'm almost certain that I know exactly what this is referencing, and there were people from several teams in their pit all day working on making the robot compliant. Changes including redoing a LOT of the electrical system and getting some appendages inside of the perimeter. As far as I could tell, the team wound up playing their matches without full functionality, mostly driving around. So they played with limited, legal functionality and were not using their illegal components, which they worked on fixing.

This seems like a good compromise to me, but would possibly be difficult to enforce if more teams started doing something similar.

My understanding of the role of an inspector is to ensure that safe, compliant robots are able to play against other safe, compliant robots. The key point that is always made is that inspection is not an adversarial process where the inspector is trying to fail a team, rather that the inspector and team share a common goal in ensuring that all robots on the field are safe and compliant.



In this context, however, it is also crucial to remember that FRC isn't really about the robots. The game and the machines are a means to an end.



Jason

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Before seeing your response, I adjusted the paraphrase a little, but to me the signal was what I originally wrote.

This is my first year inspecting. At the Regional, the Lead RI said our priorities, in order, are: 1) Compete; 2) Safely; and 3) In compliance. So, help teams to compete safely, and then worry about compliance. When asked about the Championship, the response was: Since teams have already competed (at a Regional), the emphasis is then on Safety and Compliance.

When Al gave the speech at the 2:00 Wednesday inspector meeting, I distinctly remember getting the same impression of inspections as I had for the Regional (the top priority is to let the teams compete). He did go on to talk about the RI's being there to help a robot to become safe and compliant, but at no time were we charged with making sure that each robot was safe AND in full compliance.

Note: If a robot is safe AND compliant, then it is free to compete. As soon as deference is given to competing (which is the signal I got from Al), then safety and/or compliance can be sacrificed for competition.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Inspection, by its nature, is an adversarial process. If the robot is 122 pounds, then it will not be allowed to compete until it is 120 pounds or less. We are the adversary enforcing the rule.

I can appreciate that we are also there to assist teams towards the common goals of safety and compliance. In the preceding example, we can help the team identify places where they can cut weight.

I have had the privilege of twice being assigned to stay with a team until they have passed inspection. I helped them to make the necessary fixes/adjustments. My job wasn't to just keep saying "no", but to help them find a way to a "yes".

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

I was an inspector, for the first time, at CHPs.

The message i heard, and support, was that our goal was to help teams get ready to complete, safely and fully compliant. I don't see those three things as in conflict. It is really the attitude you take into the pit when you walk up.

I think the key is the interpretation of "compliance" and how strict you are. I think any inspector, at any time, could probably keep any team off the field for "compliance" by an inflexible, strict interpretation of the rules. The meesage i received was be sure teams are compliant but use common sense.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

I really enjoy the inspection process both as a team leader who is having our team's robot inspected and as an inspector. I take pride in knowing my kids can answer all of the questions inspectors will ask them about the robot. I also take pride in knowing our robot should be "easy" to inspect. As the size and footprint of the robots have gotten smaller it does get more difficult because we are trying to fit just as much stuff in a smaller space but that doesn't mean the obvious stuff can't be obvious.
In most cases If I lined up 10 robots in front of you, you could tell which ones will have trouble being inspected and which will be easy. At championship I had the pleasure of inspecting some great robots and some less than great robots. I am in the group that heard robots need to compete, be safe, and be compliant. Not, Compete. Be safe. Be Compliant.
I have seen different inspectors put too much focus on certain aspects of the rules.


If you showed 100 inspectors our bumpers 90 would check the box, 9 might have issues with what we consider "supported" or find something else to have issue with. And that one inspector will say they are illegal because they are not perfectly perpendicular to the floor at all times, there are slight loose points where the bumper fabric is sagging a bit and the numbers are .745 inches wide at the narrowest points. Our bumpers don't fall off, change colors during matches (or at any other point for that matter), they are not difficult to tell what team we were on from halfway across the dome, nor do fall below 2 inches of the floor or fail to protect our robot from impact.

The point is, some inspectors see things differently. No matter which inspector we get we will work to make sure our robot is Compliant, Safe, and can Compete. That can be said for most teams at all events. Some inspections take 20 minutes others take hours. it is the nature of the beast.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

I'm with Chuck on this one, and it's something I've discussed with others before - at champs, the intensity of inspection goes up, not down. This is the "big show", which means teams need to get things fixed. It also means that we sit in their pit and help them fix it if needed. I'm not aware of ANY team at champs that had compliance issues yet was allowed to compete, and I got to do a 2-minute look over of most of the robots in Galileo while I was helping to run the scale and size the robots. (Pro tip - someone experienced can look at a lot of the inspection areas while running the tape around the robot - it gives us a chance to walk all the way around, looking into things, and get a feel for what areas are going to need a closer look)

At regionals before, I've let teams compete with something a little out of compliance in order to fix a safety issue - but those teams were well aware that, if they won, I would be stopping by their pit at champs to make sure whatever it was got into compliance.

Big Al asks every LRI attending champs to bring our black vests (otherwise, I'd leave it at home and give my shoulders a rest - that thing is heavy!). He doesn't do it to puff us up or make us feel important. He does it because teams respect the vest, it gives us more authority working with teams, and it sends a message to teams that things are more intense. I can't count the number of times I've been walking around the pits and had to stop and do a double take, then talk with a team to get something fixed... After you get some experience, your eyes just start to jump things out at you, and that's amplified x10 for the LRI's who spend 4 months every year thinking about the rules, answering questions from area teams, pre-inspecting during the build season to help teams find problems early, etc.

Re: Different levels of passing inspection
 

Rich,
I am sorry you misunderstood the message. It is our intention that everyone that shows up (and some that we have to drag to events), play with the same considerations and standards. Every LRI that I have trained understands that teams sometimes get the rules wrong. This is true for rookies but there are teams that build a robot without any help, little engineering mentorship and no money. Every LRI knows this and adjusts as needed to allow the team to participate, learn and get the help they need to have a great weekend. If we don't make this effort, the team will not return next year. That would be our greatest failure.
As to the team you keep bringing up as an example, (please do not use their location or team number) you need to understand a few things to get a feel for where inspectors make the difference.
This team is a few students at a vocational school with no funds, whose sponsor gave them enough money to register and who has a benefactor who paid for their travel to Chicago. (Thanks to all for that) The team analyzed the game and using only what came in the KOP and what they could put together from the junk drawers at their school, built a robot. They had one Jaguar for the left side drive and one Victor for the right side drive. They hand wound a solenoid that acted as a clutch for a shooter they put together with springs and a belt. Their ball pickup was made of hardwood covered in heatshrink. To slow a motor down, they made a diode string to reduce the voltage supplied because they had no access to other parts. They did other things too, because it was the only option for them.
So here we stand, in front of a rookie team who has gone through their first season by themselves, without the benefit of an FRC mentor and not knowing that Chief Delphi exists and likely not having internet access at their school. What do you do? Well this is what I did, and what I expect all of my inspectors to do. You roll up your sleeves and you come up with solutions as they are needed. You grab people walking by the pit, you shout across the aisle to the team who seems to have a few extra students standing around and you go to work. First things first is to get them weighed and sized. It doesn't matter if they are slightly out of the frame perimeter if they aren't driving. So we work on that first. It doesn't matter if they are using a diode string if the mechanism can't be used. We get them to the point they can drive and we keep the students happy and working and knowing that all around them, the LRI especially, wants them to compete. They play a match and the alliance wins. They know they have a lot of work to do so they go back to the pit and the other six people start working on the next thing. The LRI (me) continues to speak to their adults and direct the work and gets them to their next match. And so goes the weekend. I keep the Head Ref and the FTA constantly updated so they can expect a different robot to appear throughout the weekend while we are working on it. Now here is the best part, the team never gave up. They watched at least six teams come and give assistance with everything from bumpers to software to parts. They watched as caring FRC team members who didn't know them, insure that they played. They never gave up because we never gave up. And even though they didn't win, we helped them have a great time and a promise that they will return next year.
So here is the only equation that works in First. First inspires students only if they are here. A student can't be inspired if they are not part of the competition. So we have to get them to that point. They won't continue to be inspired if they are not having a good time, so we get them to that point. We can't continue to inspire if they don't come back so we get them to that point. It is our responsibility to insure that students (and mentors) are inspired. I hope that my LRIs understand that and get the job done in whatever manner it takes. Building robots that compete=the opportunity to inspire.
So how do inspectors help with this process? I want them to believe they are a member of every team on the floor. They need to inspect for compliance but also help teams in need as if they were a mentor on the team. If they can't come up with a solution, then they turn to the LRI. If the LRI can't come up with a solution, they can turn to me and so on up the chain.