Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I should have been more specific with my examples. I also should have said that these details need to be listed when they matter to the design. Some more detailed examples:

Last year for our shooter release we used a COTS dog gear with the stock screw. We wanted to stay as COTS as possible but kept shearing screws. We tried plain carbon, 300 series CRES, titanium and finally A286 CRES screws before they stopped failing. If I only had a STEP of the screw you would have no idea you need a specialty fastener.

I have rarely been designed into a corner where I want to use a COTS screw but need to make sure there is 3 full threads engagement worst case. If the next size screw is too long and will hit something I have had to go from an easy to find UNC thread to UNF, UNEF or UN threaded screws.

Look at the STEP for the Vex 3 CIM ball shifter and tell me if there is any retaining compound and if so where/what it is.





Overall I would say if it is non-standard, vendor specific or failed once and you had to replace it, disclose that in addition to your STEP.

Bonus points for telling folks where to get the parts cheap and easy. Let us use what you have learned. My favorite example of this is 3/16" red spade terminals - every year I bring an extra box to competition because many rookie teams get the more common 1/4" wide spades and they fall off their RS??? motor and make problems.

-matto-

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

If we're being pedantic, I'd argue that there's no requirement here that a shared design be useful or that it work at all. The absence of fasteners, thread counts, retaining rings, assembly instruction or GD&T limit the usefulness of the design, perhaps, but don't necessarily represent an incomplete design.

Further, there's no requirement that teams using design information shared before kick-off cede any right to refine or modify that design. Consider, then, that adding the missing fasteners could be considered a design revision and that there's nothing that prohibits any such scenario.

More interesting than this particular rule, in my mind, is that FIRST has rewritten some or all of the manual itself. With any luck, the language will be clear, concise and straightforward, but based on the discussion happening here already, I'm not getting my hopes up.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I would think at a bare minimum you'd need a components list in addition to the gerbers. I think you'd probably also need a schematic.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Not every design is a finished design by the beginning of the season. Should I not be allowed to use it because all I did was release step files because that's all there was at the time?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

The only reason I would look through a team's posted documents for completeness would be in response to a specific complaint from another team.

Frankly, this is an example of a rule that is almost impossible to enforce 100%. Sure, I see the many of the same team's every year, and I may, at some point, think that a design is similar. So I question them, they tell me they posted it and show me the website on their phone, and that's about as far as it can realistically will be taken at an event. How can I verify when the design was posted to their website? I can't spend the time to go over their CAD model in detail to determine if it really meets my idea of "complete".

Further, what a team does in the off season other teams/inspectors don't generally know about unless you actually post something about it. So, it's largely up to the teams to self-enforce this rule. The intent here is, I think, two-fold. First, it's intended to help level the playing field - a 20 year old team can't have an advantage by having a large library of designs that a rookie doesn't have. Second, it's a chance for less experienced/knowledgeable teams to learn from the designs of those teams with more experience.

At the bottom of the inspection checklist, right above where we have both a mentor and captain sign, is a statement that says "We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team's robot was built [...] in accordance with all of the 2014 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. [...]". We trust the teams to do what they feel is within accordance with the rules, and that statement is them telling us that they did. Draw the line where your conscious and common sense tells you it needs to be drawn.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

The only requirement is to manufacture the product, which, in this case, the only real manufacturing required is the PCB. Since all the other components are COTS, they can be soldered after kickoff. There are no rules mandating the designs be documented.

Heck, if a team really wanted to, they could minify/obfuscate all the software they want and it would still follow the rule if they released it. As long as you can compile the code or manufacture the part from the source given, hence (complete information sufficient to produce the design), then it should be good. Is it necessarily within the spirit? Maybe not, but it sure does comply with the rule.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Posted where? If I post something to my personal website (public) is my team allowed to use it? One would assume so but if you were to search CD and not see it posted and disallow it...

Of course, this is a stupid argument to be having because no inspector has ever checked to see if a design was published prior to build. And even if it wasn't, no inspector should ever force a team to rebuild a subsystem at an event just to force compliance with this rule. It would be against the goals of the program.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

The burden of proof would be on the team to point the inspector to the posted designs.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Why? My team claims, via entering their robot at the competition, that it complies with all rules. Therefore, the burden of proof should be on the inspector to prove that it does NOT. That's how it is with every other system, they are just easier check.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This is always a quandary with inspection. If an inspector finds a team's drivebase has a component that is in violation of a rule, and that component is central to the functionality of the robot, lead inspectors will very rarely enforce the rule requiring a redesign of the entire drivebase. I've seen it happen. I've been the first inspector.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

So if another team complains that a team used a part manufactured before kickoff, and the inspector asks the team if he can look at where they posted the design, the team doesn't have to tell the inspector where the design was posted before kickoff?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Realize there are at least 12 other rules. So the rule against using parts manufactured before kickoff could (read probably) still be there. So you can use the published design to make new parts after kickoff.

Publishing just enough of an design to make it "legal" & not useful is really against GP & the intent of the rule. While there are individuals that might think that way I hope that is not a general philosophy on any team. If I can across it, I would use my mentoring skills (such as they are) to change the attitude. :)

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

He could ask, if the team says it was why question it? Why should I have to waste my time proving an unsubstantiated claim? If the other team can prove I didn't fine (good luck proving it).

Which is why I've always thought this was a pointless rule. Who cares if I use the same velocity control code I developed in the off season, the domain knowledge I gained from doing it means that it's mostly a matter of rewriting it anyway. Same with mechanisms, at some point designing an elevator becomes a function of doing the same thing then tuning it to meet your specific design requirements. And I don't see FIRST mandating that we can't use knowledge gained in the off season, I don't view designs or code as any different than knowledge.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Showing where you posted it removes all ambiguity. Would you rather have a robot that you say followed all rules regarding part/design reuse or a robot that everyone involved knows followed all rules regarding part/design reuse?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

The people that would like to know how you did it care. Why keep it from other people when you can help them gain the knowledge also?