FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...before-kickoff

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I'm glad to see that this rule is no longer ex post facto.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

If the rest of the manual is like the new R13, it is going to be so much nicer. Simpler and clearer is the way to go.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Now teams have only 3 days (one of which is a holiday) to make a decision and act on a rule released prior to kickoff (which has never been done before), without knowing the game? But we have a week during build season to do our window shopping on FIRST Choice....

Some teams may want to make a decision about open-sourcing their past designs only after the new game is announced, and I don't in any way fault them for that. It's strategic, and is not uncommon in the business world. But now, the new rule makes it a philosophical decision instead of a strategic one, which I'm not necessarily in favor of.

Also, what constitutes "publicly available?" If it's not posted, but you (or anyone else) ask for it, and I e-mail it to you, is that publicly available? If I post it at some obscure link online that no one will ever find, but is not behind any sort of password or restriction, is that publicly available? What if I sat in front of the grocery store next to the girl scouts selling cookies, and I had a table full of free flash drives with our robot files on it?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

The really interesting thing about this, is what is the definition of "complete information sufficient to produce the design" I could see an argument that if someone just posts a .step file of their CAD designs that is not enough, as it doesn't have the mfg tolerances required to produce it. Yes, it will get you 95% of the way there, but still not necessarily enough to produce the designs.

I doubt this will ever actually become an issue, but the way that it is worded could open the doors to some debates.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I would see a STEP without a Bill of Materials as incomplete.

You would also need some sort of Drawing with notes or Assembly procedure. How would I know from a STEP if something is a press fit for example?

-matto-

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I'll take a flash drive and a box of Thin Mints please!

David

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I don't see how R13 this year is that much different than last year, except more explicit and clearer. How would you be able to use a design that met the 2014 rule but didn't meet the now stated 2015 rule?

For reference, 2013 R16.

I think there is a clear trend that teams can make a reasonable plan based off of. I see the blog more as a polite reminder with time to act, rather than a change of course. I appreciate the reminder.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This is not a new rule.

Emphasis mine.

All Frank is doing is telling us that this rule is still there, reminding us that it exists, and clarifying it.

If teams could release the design after kickoff, that would defeat the purpose of this rule. It exists to encourage teams to share their experience and help make the entire FRC community stronger at building robots. If a team is down for doing that, then they should release all of their previous CAD and code for everybody to use (or at least the stuff that they think will be useful). If not, than they don't get to enjoy the benefits of using it themselves. There should be no trying to manipulate the system and only making things public to benefit your team.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

If you wanted to, you could release toolpaths for some nonstandard CNC machine that nobody has that would cut out your parts. Technically, it's enough information to make the part. Then, you could put this information on a computer in the middle of the woods in a public park. Finally, you could put assembly instructions together, save them as a word perfect file, upload it to google drive, and post the link to that google drive document in the middle of a 10,000 page pdf document on one of your team's websites with hundreds of thousands of fake links.

That is obviously not the intent of the rule.

It's better then 2014 and earlier years when a very similar rule was released at kickoff, at which point it was too late to take advantage of it.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

are we jumping the shark here? We are going to be posting our files shortly. Feel free to ask questions, but you are really asking a lot from folks, considering we don't do real drawings for our build team! ;-)

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

So is a step file good enough? Or do we need to post assembly instructions and part drawings (so a team without cad could read it)?

Hypothetical question, if we haven't actually finished the design, should we just post what we have?

(I know that this isn't official, but I couldn't think of anywhere official I could ask before kickoff)

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

With teams required to release designs before re-using them, I bet there are a lot of designs (both CAD and code) out there that are great resources, but not well publicized. A lot of top teams re-use drive base designs from year to year with minimal change, so I would expect to see a lot of drive bases out there, but I don't know where to look.

Is there a way to link this stuff into TheBlueAlliance similar to how robot photos are now linked? I don't think it makes sense to re-host everything, but a central searchable place that points to all the appropriate places would be very nice.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

www.frcdesigns.com ?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

As others have said, it is really not a new rule. Maybe it would be better off as part of the manual that gets released before kick off. But it means that if you design a gear box, publish enough information that a reasonable person could make it, you can use the same plans. You also cannot use critical information you withhold. Something that was a little unclear in previous years rules blue box descriptions.

Like a good many rules in First, it is relying on the GP on teams to fully follow the rule.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This explains what I was going for pretty well.

<digress>
I worked as a Mechanical Design Engineer for 8 years in Aerospace. The released drawing package must be standalone and unambiguous at all times. The customer can pull their design and have someone else make it at any time (and they sometimes do!). Perhaps this makes me a little more "detailed" than many others with regard to documentation.
</digress>

Most drawing packages I have seen in industry include a STEP modeled to nominal dimensions without tolerance.

From the many STEPs I have seen on CD, things often missing are:
- Fastener details (.190 nominal shank is a #10, but is it 24 or 32 TPI?) (Please don't model the threads and make me count them. It makes so many more faces for the STEP importer!)
- Bolts, screws, snap rings, etc missing (I can see a feature for retaining the shaft but no idea what goes there)
- Vendor specific parts missing (where can I buy it?)
- Lubricant/epoxy/thread-locker/etc callout missing
- Tight tolerance parts (+/- .005 assumed, but a few parts are probably +/- .001)

I don't think you need a full ANSI-Y14.5 compliant drawing to accompany your STEP file. But a quick spreadsheet of the parts and where to buy them and a 1 page write-up on how to assemble the parts (including any weird things about the assembly) would cover it IMO.

As my first boss always said: "Use your best engineering judgement"

-matto-

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

A lot of the information you list (especially threadcount on screws) is often stuff where you have a fair bit of leeway in implementation, though. I don't think leaving bolts/rivets out of your CAD really constitutes "withholding critical information."

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think we are pretty much in agreement here. Do realize that publishing a complete package like that is not a trivial task. Even for professionals with years of experience. Which is why design packages often come with project engineers to implement them. :] I would consider a good faith effort acceptable. Also GP would dictate that the originator be receptive for reasonable requests for more information.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I know people are playing devil's advocate here but for those of you seriously questioning how much to publish. The way I see it is that you should publish what you use to build it. If you use a CAD file then publish the stp. I can't imagine an LRI going through a teams posted documents and determining if something is complete or not.

HQ is encouraging teams to share their designs, so share your designs.

Also in the past the determination between using an old design and redesigning something based on an unpublished design was so vague it barely mattered.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think this a huge thing teams overlook. Half the challenge for me in FRC is figuring out where to source components from so I don't have to make inferior equivalents.

I don't really care about the team's catapult arm calculations, but if they can tell me where they got their COTS release mechanism, that is huge.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

For PCBs, wouldn't releasing a zip file of gerbers be fine? All other components that are soldered onto it are COTS parts (well...generally).

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This is something I've never understood. I've seen tons of teams use the same drive base year after year after year. Sure, they may have changed the overall dimensions, or adjusted the gear ratio, or changed the diameter of the wheels, but it's obvious that the design was based off of last year's design.

I do think it's fine to learn from previous years. We had success with a roller claw in 2007, so we didn't bother prototyping another type of grabber in 2011. My question is, where do we draw the line? If I make a WCD in the offseason, can I make the robot 1" wider, use different wheels, and change the gears in my gearbox and use this during build season without posting the design?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think we're missing the biggest point. Showing there's an R13 means there will in fact be rules this year. I was a bit worried after the game hint.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Note that this R13 removed the restriction on parts created before kickoff that existed in 2014's rulebook. Ostensibly, one could create robot elements prior to kickoff and then use them in the 2015 season so long as the design is published before Saturday. In years prior, the team would have to rebuild the part after kickoff using the design published before kickoff. Unless there is another rule prohibiting the use of parts created before kickoff, this change seems to allow teams to build parts now and use them in the 2015 game. Of course, that's only three days away.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Even better, we know there are at least twelve other rules to look forward to.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I have a feeling they either split the rule, or this was only part of the rule.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Hmm, this is a pretty big assumption without seeing all the other rules. I think I will just wait until kickoff in a few days before building a drive system without seeing the field, just to be on the safe side :rolleyes:

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think we need an answer to this questions as well, because if something is incomplete, then even the team designing it cannot actually build it. Should any semi-complete designs be posted as well?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

What we have posted today should meet the spirit of the rule. If there are question, that's what the discussion section on CD is for :) without any guidance on this rule, we are doing the best we can.

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?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I would rather not give a flying toaster what people think. These are, after all, the same "everyone" that think any robot that isn't a zip tied together piece of trash is "mentor built" and who can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that teams go to multiple events. In short, "everyone" thinks a lot of other stupid things, what's one more?


In conclusion, I'll reiterate, it's a stupid rule that isn't enforced because a) it's impossible to enforce b) it's useless because experience and knowledge >>>>>> a finished design not specific to the game needs.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I'm not going to respond further beyond reiterating that I said "everyone involved" not "everyone".

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

As for as the Team is concerned, the LRI is the final word. If he (her) asks for proof, you need to provide proof to his satisfaction. Much the same as documenting a pressure switch is legal. A complete refusal would at the very least delay your inspection sticker.

Go back and read Jon Statis's post of what an reasonable LRI would do.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Cool, and you know what, I'm willing to share that knowledge. I'll do a blog post on it, or a whitepaper, or you can ask. I might not release the code, why? Because it's not clear or it's optimized for performance not readability and releasing it could make the concept seem harder than it is. Or maybe I use a library that has a license that prohibits me from releasing it. Or any of a handful of other reasons.

Here's an example: I've got an update to a spreadsheet I use for figuring out strategies, I've released the original but I'm not releasing the new one, know why? Because I don't know how the changes will work and don't want anyone who doesn't understand the inner workings to use it and get wrong information.

Course, it's a moot point for 125 software, we're open source from Kickoff.

Your confusing a care of showing folks "HEY IM COMPLIANT WITH THIS RULE"... "oh, nobody cares" with not wanting to teach people stuff.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Remember that rule says designs, not component. You seem to be treating the PCB as the only think you're reusing, whereas I think you're reusing a lot more.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Well, this sure is a healthy attitude to have towards your fellow FRC participants.

You know, you might want to step back, read your posts, and think about why people seem to think you're saying things that you're not. I strongly suspect it's not because "everyone" else can't read.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Man this all escalated quickly. I believe the concept of level playing field through equal access to resources is great but this falls in line with another major debate that will be happening soon.
This is like bag and tag in my mind.
In all honesty if you make something you should be proud of it and if you share it in the right environment the only thing that will happen is it will improve. You might get feedback or find a typo, my question is why wouldn't you want to share what you know or did?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

That's not how it works. If I look at your robot, don't recognize a pneumatic component and ask you for the data sheet, you can't just claim it's legal and not provide me with the proof that it is. If you try, I'm going to tell you there are two options - provide the requested materials, or remove it. Without doing one of those, you won't get your inspection sticker, plain and simple. The same is true with this rule - if I ask to see the posted design, you need to show it to me or remove the item from your robot. Otherwise, you won't get your sticker.

There's absolutely nothing in the rulebook that says the burden of proof is on the inspector - the burden of proof is on the team. That's one of the reasons why the inspectors spend so much time talking to the team, asking them questions, and getting them to talk about the robot. Otherwise, we'd just walk up, look all over the robot, and either give you a sticker or tell you something is illegal. That's not how inspection is supposed to work.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I guess I need to re-read the rules. Oops.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

There is always tension in FRC between extremes. Engineering is always going to borrow and modify ideas; I suppose the extremes in this case are: "don't create (or learn) anything in the off-season", and "we will design and use anything we want in the off-season, because it's a stupid rule that no one can enforce anyway". It reminds me a bit of the student vs. mentor build argument, or the Ri3D debate about whether students should come up with their own solutions or learn things from a video.

I think that FIRST is quite clear about what its goals and intentions are for all of these situations. The problems come in when people (usually through inexperience or ignorance) misinterpret those goals and intentions. In this case, we should have our students strive to build a shared knowledge base in the off-season (shared within the team, and with the larger FRC community), while not giving themselves an unfair advantage during build season. They should share what they've designed, as far as it's progressed, in whatever manner they can (they are, after all, high school students, and not professionals), if they think it's worth using. And we should police ourselves, rather than flaunt the rules knowing that they are essentially unenforceable. It would ruin the overall experience for us all if we all have to go around suspicious of each other all the time.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

What constitutes a design?

We often mockup things in 2d as a sketch, and never detail in 3d until we commit to a concept.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Good question. We often design entire components, subsystems, and robots in 2D. Do we have a design or just a bunch of sketches?

We can make a robot from them, but I doubt anyone else could.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

My team does almost all of it's detailed design in 3D, so I wouldn't know how detailed your team's sketches are. However, in my opinion, if someone can fabricate the device into a mechanism, then it might be a good idea to post it.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

That's not quite what he's asking.

His (and my) point is that design is a different thing to different people. While 67 can fabricate a quality machine from 2d sketches, many other groups would need more documentation and drafting.

So, what are you required to post? The design you actually used? or a more refined package that allows everyone to fabricate off it.

The problem with holding you to an external standard, is there is always a better idiot and it would be impossible to publish something that any team could use without putting undue burden on the designing teams in terms of extra work.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Since I think it is fair to assume a majority of designs used for any given year are developed within the 6 week build period, am I responsible for proving that if someone called it into question? The questions so far have been how to prove off-season designs were publicly posted, but what about proving designs weren't from the off-season and therefore would have to have been posted?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Reread the rule. It says source files must be shared. Not designs.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

If someone can without a reasonable doubt prove that your design is similar to something that doesn't exist (the off season project you didn't do) then I think we have a different issue.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I suppose the argument of custom vs COTS also comes into play. Say I want to make a swerve drive, and I have a past design of my own, a full machine shop, and plenty of raw materials, but no funds to purchase a COTS swerve drive, or perhaps I just wish to experience the process of making my own over buying one. My past design is functionally equivalent to the COTS model. It will take me say three weeks to manufacture, as opposed to 3 days to buy one.

By making one off my past design, how am I any better off competitively than the team that bought the COTS one? I'm actually much worse off competitively, just somewhat financially better off.

There should be a provision allowing teams to re-use past designs that are functionally equivalent to COTS parts currently on the market, without having to publish the design. Otherwise, it becomes competition of fund raising rather than a competition of manufacturing ability, which it once was.

Of course, you'd have to define functionally equivalent.

And before anyone says it, I know, what's our objection to just open sourcing everything? Before I go any farther down that train of thought, I know that's the start of yet another dead horse that has already been beaten, and I'm not looking to go there.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think this captures the point better. If team A thought team B has a part on their robot that was made before build season, even if an LRI comes over to inquire about it, team B would have had to either posted it publicly online before build season or designed/built it during build season. While it's easy to provide proof showing you posted it before build season, there really is no great way, and especially no air-tight way to prove that it was designed/built during the season.

So this shows that there is no way to enforce this rule, because if a team says they did it during build, then who is the LRI to say otherwise?

This rule has always been more about honor system than anything else. To be legal you just have to be honest and follow it yourself. Could you not and get away with it? Sure.

Whether you agree with the rule or not (I personally don't really see the point) it is what it is.

A separate issue is what Adam has it as far as what constitutes using a full design that was done ahead of time? If I add a lightening hole to a single piece, does that mean it's technically not the same design? This has and probably always will be the debate, and will continue to just be however you choose to interpret it because no one can enforce it anyway.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

And alternately, a freeze frame from a reveal video 2 days before ship day can be enough to replicate a design from 2010 (148/217 collector), or a minibot video where the aspect ratio and speed up the pole show that a working minibot can be made without the transmissions in 2011 (1625 video week 4-ish).

I think they way they wrote the rule is fine, but I can see where enforcement of it could get wierd (some define things more stringently then I do).

I have never fully understood the rules against "pre-designing" and then using. I get some of the thoughts and intentions, but it seems to go against a lot of best practices in engineering.

Of course, I am more of a give a benefit for those that do extra than penalize. In other words, I would prefer to see a "best pre-season design/whitepaper" award than trying to make ideas you cam up with in off season illegal..

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I never thought that the simplest of blog posts could get so much attention. I think that a lot of people got fired up about this because they are passionate about FIRST and want to see it work the way they view as being best.

In my adult life, I have seen people argue over some silly things, I have even argued over some myself. What I have learned from this came from my 3 1/2 year old daughter the other day. The rules aren't there for you to bend or break, they are there for you to follow as best you can (okay, some of that came from her mother...).

This rule provides every team with a great opportunity to use what they have learned while sharing that knowledge with the greater community. It also provides a phenomenal way to measure your own character (much like bag and tag). You can take it for whatever it means to you, but just beware that others will view your actions based on their own beliefs and not yours.

With that said, I'm going to go read books to my little conscience of a daughter.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This is supposed to be an honor system sort of thing. If you've planned to build something in the offseason, and you've created software/drawing/models of it, you should share them with the community. The documentation doesn't need to be so specific that it tells you how to fixture the parts on your mill, and it shouldn't be so vague that it only contains a fuzzy screenshot of your CAD software.

As others have said, the rule cannot reasonably be enforced, so there aren't strict criteria that define design, publicly available, prior to kickoff, and complete. FIRST trusts you to make the judgement call as to what is reasonable for your specific design. That's a good thing.

If you want to get stupidly technical, there's no restriction on the design being available after (or during) kickoff, and no limitation to how early before kickoff you can post it...

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I'm deeply saddened by the hostility and bitterness shown in this thread. Instead of picking apart everything put out by FIRST, from games to rules to refereeing, let's view each as an opportunity to improve and make the FIRST- and the world- a better place.

Instead of declaring it a "stupid rule" and "useless," let's find out ways to use this to everyone's advantage. I have an idea- popularize sites like frcdesigns.com, as mentioned before, to help rookies and other young teams grow and improve.

It is well known that most of the teams represented on Chief Delphi are veteran teams, many of them four or more years old. The high 3000's-5000's teams aren't very well represented here. Let's use our power as young, tech-savvy future engineers and scientists to help other, especially younger, teams. Post your designs and point younger teams in your area to your designs. Help them design some drivetrains before the season starts. Help them be prepared for kickoff. You will make the whole FIRST experience enjoyable for a whole other team of students, making them more likely to stay in the program.

Let's spend our time making FIRST more fun and inclusive, rather than taking a curmudgeonly attitude towards the program.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This. I mean, come on, people, pretty much the entire build process is already on the honor system. If you want to use something, make your best efforts to comply with the rule. It's not that hard. Post it on CD and make a topic on the appropriate forum. No "proof" needed from either side.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I wish FIRST would allow not only posted designs, but also pre-fabricated components. In a day and age where you can legally purchase so many FRC-specific items, why discourage teams from building their own? Perhaps teams could be required to declare them on their BOM with a link/reference to the design. This would eliminate the underlying cause of much of the strife expressed in this thread.

I really don't see how pre-designed or pre-fabricated components give teams an advantage that is worth regulating. Parts built without knowledge of the game are either "generic" in nature (gearboxes, chassis components, etc.) with commercially available "equivalents", or else they are likely to be of marginal use or detrimental for the new game (roller claw, elevator, etc.).

There will always be a wide range of abilities among the teams. Veteran teams will always have an advantage over new teams due to their previous knowledge, experience, etc. However, individual teams don't win competitions - alliances do.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think it is more of an attempt to level the playing field between teams that have access to the machines to make the parts compared to the teams that don't.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Think about how the prefabricated parts rule interacts with the 6 week build rule.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Our team has worked to develop a strategy for becoming more competitive with teams that posses advanced CNC fabrication capabilities. We do our drive train development in the off season, emphasizing the use of COTS parts. We then pre-buy, at risk, as much COTS stuff as we reasonably can, so we can start assembling our drive train on kickoff weekend. Sometimes we get lucky, and we can use a drive train design with little modification. Sometimes we don't, and we need to scramble. But, in either case, I'd LOVE to be allowed to be allowed to prefabricate our components. Your most precious resource during build season is time. Pre-purchasing COTS parts saves time. Advanced manufacturing capabilities both saves time and provides flexibility.

So, why build something when you could purchase it? Because FRC vendors leave much to be desired. (I originally wrote a much blunter sentence, but decided to be more tactful.) Their quality control is bad. They advertise products they don't keep in stock. They run out of parts early in build season and don't restock until it's too late. Our biggest build season disasters haven't been design problems, they've been vendor problems. The only tactic we've been able to use to combat this is prebuying parts and doing QA on them before build season starts. Even then this sometimes doesn't work. This year we developed a drive train based on one of the most popular gearboxes from last year, the VEXpro 2 CIM ball shifter. We have been trying to order them for over a month, but they've been out of stock.

So, I'd love it if FIRST changed the no prefabrication rule. All the robot parts we make during summer drive train development and fall student skills development training would become potentially useful competition robot parts. As it is, these either end up in the scrap bin or are carefully labeled as practice bot parts, not for competition or competition spares.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

It all boils down to the word created. If the rule had said materialized, things would be so much simpler. FIRST really needs to hire a linguistics analyst. I mean this is a matter of existentialism. Once a design idea is thought, it's already been created. How do you supply proper source for that?

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

+1...

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Pre-fab would be a little unfair, I think. At least with designs it's possible to share everything. You can't exactly give a sample item to every team.
It's the only good way to keep a level playing field IMO. It's definitely not a rule I like (swerves are resource-heavy, after all) but I see the necessity.
If there is a better solution, I would be very pleased if it was implemented.

EDIT: Yes, veteran teams have an advantage, but there's no need to make the gap even wider.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

In years past, there were three possible sources of components/designs in a robot:
1) COTS items
2) items designed and/or implemented during build period
3) items designed outside of the build period that were published as public domain prior to kick-off.

I maintain that, if a team wants to design items (before the build period) that they may use during build, those designs must be readily available - that's the cost that FIRST assigns to the privilege of shifting these activities outside of the build period. Not providing all of the pertinent information needed to implement the design (by reasonably skilled parties with reasonably available resources) violates the spirit of this option.

We'll need to wait until Saturday to see if the 2015 rules are different in this regard.

I heartily agree with the earlier poster - these type of rules should be released with the administrative rules.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Am I the only one that thinks that Frank's post was a game hint? I'm serious, BTW.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Which part? The rule isn't exactly something new.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Pre-fab components are a huge advantage for teams. The longer a team has been around, the more pre-fab "components" they have. Many games we have today are similar to previous games that have been played. For example, Logomotion could have been played with a robot from Rack 'N Roll with only a few changes. How would you feel going up against an Einstein-winning robot from a previous year, one that the team spent the entire 6 weeks driving and improving? Rebound Rumble wasn't all that different from Aim High (similar balls, shooting, etc). Aerial Assist and Overdrive. Allowing pre-fab components opens the door wide open for older teams to have an even bigger advantage than they already do.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

You're right - it's not new at all. That makes it strange that he would emphasize the rule.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

It is so the rule isn't retroactively enforced after kickoff. It is a rule that most veteran teams know but rookies may not and learn the work they did has been made partially invalid. Only due to a rule enforcing something that happened before the rule could have been known.

I hope that makes sense.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This is my take on it, as well. Occam's razor tells me that it is extremely unlikely that this is a game hint.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

You would never see an "Einstein" level team (or any right minded veteran for that matter) re-use a complete robot, or even a complete game piece manipulator mechanism from a previous year. Teams would build a better one that is optimized to the specifics of the game piece and game. Their knowledge base is the true asset, not the hardware. Besides, they wouldn't deprive their students of the build experience.

My point is that "In a World" (great movie BTW) where you can buy FRC-specific COTS assemblies, why not let teams use a gearbox, swerve module, leftover gusset/bracket, or chassis they built previously (provided they publish the design and declare it on their BOM)? Let them have the same "workload-shifting" advantage as a team that uses the kit chassis or a checkbook. The current rules discourage us from building anything that can be purchased (which increases every year), and really don't provide veteran teams with a meaningful advantage that is worth regulating (IMHO).

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

But if so much change is coming, why do I want to use my old designs? :rolleyes: ;)

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I'd like to think that the rule clarification has to do with extending the season so roboteers can work year round. (And that popping sound you just heard was mentors heads exploding at spending more time. The slap sound was divorce papers being served. C'est la vie. It's hard to turn brains off once you get them started)

The off season design stuff is cool. For example I'd love to see the details of Aren's swerve design, the "COT support" for the main shaft is a key thing. So I'm thinking a step file and a BOM should cover most of it.

But we've come a long way from the days when I'd cruise the pits and see robots covered with trashbags to hide the internals.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This was a thing? Wow.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

It was. And trying to get a picture was a very interesting event. I have lots of shots of team shirts suddenly on top of drive trains....

Aye matey, 'tis a great memory of roboteers, just mere lasses and lads, hiding the bounty of their efforts :rolleyes:

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

Ok this opinion might not be too popular but I feel it needs to be discussed by others. I always thought the now rule R13's two primary intents were for teams not to use the 'same' robot each year and that other teams could be inspired to try other's designs in a GP way. I love this rule as I have spent hundreds of hours looking at other teams' designs just so I might see something that would help our kids. My problem is that it seems like teams are now, just days before kickoff, all of a sudden posting their designs. I can't say that these designs wouldn't have been posted without the blog post of the rule release, but I can say if a team released their design just due to the post instead of to help other teams then I am a bit disappointed of the community just because it seems like some teams , general statement not pointing out any individual, are just doing it because it was a rushed point. On the other side it is always nice to remind teams of this helpful rule, but it would have been better to put it in the already released admin manual so that teams get more than a few days to look over quickly done up designs. Hopefully I'm not to big of a scrooge on FIRSTmas and I hope every team has a fantastic build season this year.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

I think some of it is more that teams are trying to get their offseason project CAD files into a presentable state that others would understand all of the details. There are teams working on their offseason designs up until the last minute.

Re: FRC Blog - Some Tidbits Before Kickoff
 

This. We had every intention of releasing our designs earlier, but life got in the way.