Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Given the answer to Q461, would 1396's 2004 experience be legal now?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The GDC gave us a game in which it benefits us to, if our third bot is bad enough, simply have them sidelined for the duration of the event. Take issue with the GDC if this statement bothers you. It's a function of the game.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No game is perfect the first time written. Or the second. Whether we like it or not, the mere fact that we have a different game every year guarantees imperfections in the rules.

Our first objective as members of FIRST is not to win a competition, rather to demonstrate Grace and Professionalism while competing. If a team ever knowingly sacrifices GP in order to win, I blame the team - even if it seems to be allowed under the rules. A difficulty arises because GP cannot be perfectly defined for all potential human actions and different folks are going to have different interpretations of GP. To me, "Welcome to my alliance, don't put your robot on the field" seems rather un-GP. Heck, if you can do that during eliminations, you could do it during qualification matches, too. In half or more of our qualification matches in our first event, we would have done far better had we asked the "weaker" robots to simply sit and stay out of the way. We wouldn't, however, dream of doing that.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What if you had an idea for a new flavour of cheesecake while you were at the event?

• Some robots are Lactose Intolerant (unable to accept your cheesecake)
• Some robots are on a diet (don't want to accept your cheesecake)
• FRC teams are not Cheesecake Factories (it's unrealistic to expect teams to bring 8 easily upgradeable mechanisms to supe-up other robots with when they have their own robot to look after)

STORY TIME: In 2014, one of our team's mentors came up with an idea for an "easy assist" ramp. Basically, just a passive ramp that, if a ball was dropped on the top of the robot and the robot drove forward, would count as an assist.

Knowing that we were going to seed in the 2nd or 3rd spot, and after looking over our scouting data, we knew that our third robot was going to have difficulty assisting. So we started combing the pits for robots we could add our ramp to.

We found a team with a GIANT arm on top of their robot that could be easily removed with a couple disconnected wires and some bolts. We talked to that team before elims and pitched them our ramp idea. Everyone was excited about the idea, and we picked them. An hour later, they were on the field and their beautifully machined arm was in the pits. Three hours later we all had silver medals. An hour after that, the arm was back on.

Some takeaways:

• We knew that some teams had mechanisms that would make the addition of our ramp impossible (lactose intolerant robots)
• We asked several teams if they were willing to modify their robots, and only one said yes (teams on a diet)
• We built the ramp completely during the lunch break after alliance selections and we were unable to build 7 more ramps (we're not a cheesecake factory)

In the end, our team was happy we got an effective second pic. The cheesecaked team was happy they got a chance to play Saturday afternoon. Our pit got the experience of quickly building a mechanism from scratch. Their team got practice dismantling / reassembling their robot. Everyone was happy! #teamcheesecake

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Both of those things are huge gambles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I do not think that's the most likely scenario though.

There are teams we've worked with before that we know are very willing to do whatever is needed for them to help better the alliance, even if that means removing scoring mechanisms so they can focus on defense, or making other additions to their robot to become a role player on the alliance. Those aren't hopelessly incompetent teams that we've picked because we know we can railroad them into making whatever changes we want...those are teams with solid drivetrains, good coaching, and an ability to communicate well with our driveteam on the field...that may not have been able to score effectively.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

...keeping the analogy going...

Is inspiring and teaching a baker, who is in a very competitive baking competition, by showing them how to integrate mechanisms, play strategically and take a step forward in competitiveness in the spirit of the competition (the FIRST competition)??? - I have a hard time saying no to that question.

This discussion has grown from a singular example of the 2015 competition, to a fundamental discussion to its role in FRC as a whole. I want to continue reiterating the point, that a cheesecaking event is NOT a one-way, wham-bam-done type of event. Every cheesecake I've been apart of or have witnessed has been a very inspirational, very unique activity of two or more teams coming together to do something great.

It appears there are a lot of arguments being made to the 'spirit of competition' while completely ignoring the fact that this could be one of the most inspirational moments for a student.


-Brando

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Every team, at a Regional or District event, paid their entry fee to compete, so they should NOT be asked to "Stay out of the way or Don't move."

*just mt $.02*

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I also think of the webcast spectators, particularly the lesser involved parents, school students not on the team, and others who might be inspired by watching the home town team playing. They go from "We just got picked by the #1 Alliance" excitement to "Why are they not on the field/not moving? Something must be very wrong" and lots of other confusion.

Then the team has to try to explain to everyone when they get back home.

I would agree that it is generally ungracious to pick a robot that you don't intend to use for its basic capabilities. In prior years, power house alliances always at least had the option to choose the beefiest remaining robot to play defense. That's not the case this year, and it introduces a new dynamic that we are still trying to adjust to.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Everyone in this thread needs to take a deep breath and relax.

The rule update is frustrating and vague, and hopefully this situation will be addressed in a coming update.

As for the "GP" debate over sidelining Alliance members, I don't think any single Alliance picked a third partner without the intent of having that partner contribute.

The third partner of all these Alliances have been essential to their victory. And both the teams picking and the teams being picked know that.

Without their ramp/can stealer/smart driving when the main robots are unable to take the field, many of these powerful Alliances wouldn't have been as successful as they were.

And with whatever this new Q&A entails, I'm sure the #cheesecake will continue, and it should. #cheesecake is an important part of FRC, and I've seen teams receive cheesecake one year, only to be inspired and give cheesecake the next year.

Team 20 has been one of those. In 2012 we were awful, not getting picked at our first event. But at our second, Teams 195 and 181 helped us add an autonomous mode to feed balls to a partner. We went on to win the Connecticut Regional with them, and the next year we picked 195, and gave out some cheesecake of our own to other teams.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Perhaps it is best to ask the question, which is a higher priority:

Winning a game or treating our fellow FRC teams with Grace and Professionalism?

There will always be loopholes in game rules... Just because we are "technically" allowed to so something, doesn't mean that we should.

I would suggest: If your third robot is "bad enough,' either you should have picked a better robot (yes, I have played in some very weak district fields with a lot of weak robots) or you should spend your lunch getting that robot to a point where it can take one tote (either shoved out of the feeder station or scratched out of the landfill) and push it onto a scoring platform.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I mean no disrespect to anyone who does supply other teams with said cheese or cake, but what I find interesting is that this action is primarily a competition day thing. 5 1/2 weeks ago someone started a thread asking what people were up to and most teams were secretive about designs and such. If you want true synergy between teams these lines of communication need to opened up far before the bag gets put on the robot. I would be behind cheesing if it was done consistently throughout the season but generally speaking (and maybe I am just deaf to the noise) the most I hear help wise is when a team runs out of a set of wheels and another team pitches in. You get a little chitter here and there about "has anyone tested out x,y,z against this game element" but in the end as long as the games are team based we would all do better if we all supported each other.
I don't mean to cast shade on any helping other teams. These actions are amazing, in times of stress you go and help another team. It is truly beautiful to see it happen in competition to see a team help another team get on their feet.
So why doesn't it happen more in the build season?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Teams do it. We loaned some mentors and students for a couple of days a week to a rookie team we started. Many other teams help each other physically, but only the teams with the resources to do so, can and will. It's hard enough to continue to iterate and improve your team's robot in the build season. I can't mentor two teams in build season without losing my sanity, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. Online communication only goes so far; you can't do much other than make some general recommendations unless you have seen a team's prototype working, or a CAD. After stop build, it's easier to bake cheesecakes and bring them to competition since more resources are freed up.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

It happens a ton during build season, it's just not as public. It's the same way it is at the event, from one team to another team. Most veterans teams mentor young teams through out the season and help guide them through the process. Like I said earlier we regularly give away parts that we don't need to other teams. This year we gave away battery boxes, tote hook things, etc. In the past we have been the receiver of parts made by teams across the country. In 2013, our friends Skunkworks, in Washington, sent us a few custom Versaplanetary plates to help pilot the BB550, we didn't even ask for it. We've had teams send us custom hex couplers. We've given and received cheesecake plenty of times during the build season and at competitions. If you aren't seeing the help that happens during the season please go talk to more teams and find out all the things they are doing.

118 was going to help us with a problem we were having but because of this ruling, I'm not even going to risk it since it would be parts we didn't design.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

You answered your own question. We annually host 4-5 teams in our own (very small) shop to help them get through build season. We collaborate on mechanisms, strategy, design approaches, software implementation, awards writing, pit layout- everything and anything. Come snoop around New England, and you will find 125 members at the heart of collaboration, seminars, open lab days and everything in between all year long.

Just because a team isn't publicly posting an entire design to copy doesn't mean they aren't CheesecakingTheOffseasonTM. To me, it further drives home the point that the Cheesecake is about the magic of collaboration that happens on the path from point A to point B.

You don't hear about this because its not happening in the spotlight of a competition, or in the competition season. Plain and simple.

-Brando

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

You often don't hear about teams helping other teams because... gasp... some teams help others because it is the right thing to do, and not to later brag about it.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

As a former student and mentor for the team who got picked, I can confirm that most people were happy. Students were overall very disappointed with how the robot performed before that. To be kind, we were more of a liability for most of that regional. Everyone was slightly disappointed that the claw didn't work but was also very happy that we were finally contributing. It was a very positive experience for the team overall, everyone left happy, thank you to 3710 and 1241!

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

It is good to hear that I am just not seeing it happen and its just me not having success opening up channels with teams. I have always had issues trying to get details out of people during build season (wow I make it sound like a mafia shake down 'nice auto you got there nyah!')
Either way helping teams is something that needs to be done delicately, its a delicate situation walking in on another teams robot and seeing a flaw and trying to help. You want them to be aware of a mistake but you don't want it to be personal. You want to help but you don't want to hurt people after they spend so much time working on it.
It might not be true at every kickoff but at the one I go to once the reveal is over teams go their separate ways to discuss and design. I guess I just look forward to the day where that doesn't happen and teams don't immediately go into secretive mode.
It would be a lot easier then the current process I do of searching every tag related to the years game on youtube and sort by upload date. Either way I can't think of much more I can say without a a phrase ringing in my head.
"If only complaining would yield some sort of instant gratification and solution to the problem I am faced with!"
This is where the planning begins.

Shout out to Anupams 1000th post!

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Resources?

I know my team had grand plans in December of doing more of this. We were able to field a number of presentations at our kickoff event and build a lot of kit-bots with rookie teams, but frankly, this game was a pretty tough challenge. We spent so much time trying to solve it, we were lucky to answer ~20-25 emails from teams in the area needing input in the last few weeks of build season.

I know at Dallas, I worked with a few mentors from 148 on 2613s bot on Friday. They had a rough year, showed up without any working mechanisms (loss of mentors, new head teacher). They did have an installed pneumatics system complete with a 5 gallon air tank and not a single piston used on the robot. I worked with them on a basic design for a tote pusher, but we also told them that a can-burgler would probably be their best bet to catch heads for elims and drew out a design for them. About half of their team wanted to go the route of a canburgler, the other half wanted to continue designing a vertical lift with parts from Home Depot. I didn't have the resources to help them develop a fully functional lift, and moved to helping other teams with more fixable problems (broken mechanisms, etc).

118 ended up picking them up and adding a canburgler, 2613 got a blue banner, and as far as I could see were quite happy for the experience. They struggled through build season and the first couple days of competition, but with 118s help... found a way to be a part of the winning alliance.

So... I guess I agree that it could happen more? I'd love to be in a situation where in week 5 and 6 of build season, all I need to do is go around to other teams fixing their problems... but I can understand why it isn't practical. There are lots of resources in FIRST to help teams, but those resources get stretched extra thin in build season. People give what they can, and it mostly happens under the radar.

I also like to think that in my short experience in FRC, I have seen more examples of good teams helping weaker teams at competitions for the receiving teams' benefit moreso than the giving teams'. Does it often pay off and benefit the giver? Sure? Do the top tier teams really play with a "win at all costs" mentality? I don't see it that way...

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The issue that most of us have is that the literal intepretation of the rules is at odds with common practice and how we feel Gracious Professionalism should work at competition. Unfortunately, it appears that the GDC intends something closer to to the literal interpretation, based on their response. There's a bit of a grey area with COTS parts in terms of assemblies of all COTS items being considered FABRICATED ITEMS, but some small changes are explicity no longer legal:

-Custom versions of VersaChassis style tubing (stock tube with holes drilled in at at equal spacing). Some teams make this themselves with holes on all sides, or with a different spacing. They can't loan this to other teams at events.

-Slightly modified COTS parts, eg Banebots wheels or sprockets which have been lightened or broached. I have broached 1/2" round or plain bores out to essentially make parts that are equivalent to out-of-stock COTS parts, but they are still a FABRICATED ITEM.

As far as the legality of one team fabbing parts for other teams before or at competition, I would make the argument that if Team A makes parts for Team B, as long as Team B was involved in deciding what parts needed to be made and Team B installs it on their robot, they are sufficiently involved in the process to satisfy the Q&A. The other solution is to consider Team A a sponsor of Team B.

Ultimately, extremely literal interpretations of the materials useage rules are going to cause problems, because there's a spectrum from COTS all the way to billet hogout. Drawing a line anywhere in there is bound to have exceptions.

What most people seem to agree on here is that it's not right to arrive at competition with a pre-built, bolt-on solution to a game objective, and simply finding a robot to slap it on to. This sounds an AWFUL LOT like what's in the huge blue box in 4.1 that defines what kinds of COTS assembiles are and aren't legal. It seems to me that a better solution rather than the strict interpretation presented by the Q&A would a blue box like EricH described, which explains that the intent is not to have other teams provide bolt-on mechanisms to partners and gives some examples. Now, this does mean that some common practices would be considered illegal (eg, bolting on spare intakes), however that is more easily remedied by coming up with ways to build versions at competition with teams, without limiting the small parts sharing and slightly modified COTS items that are extremely common. Don't try to codify what is and isn't a pre-made assembly in the rules. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


This issue is rearing its ugly head this year because of the incentives provided within the game rules to maximize the utility of late round picks in a game with diminishing retuns for high level alliances and the resource and space limiations. These robots are being turned into "enablers" for their alliance partners. Think about it this way: If I'm picked for elims, and I refuse to be cheesecaked, force my alliance members to let me try to stack totes and end up getting in the way or knocking over a stack, I may have just cost my alliance the event. I guarantee you that feels worse than letting them modify my robot to help my alliance win.

On a lighter note, last season the food item was Corndogs, which GameSense ate at the end of our Season Finale show. This year seems to be Cheesecake, so I won't complain about doing that again. Can we make it Steak and Lobster next year?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

That is what I think a lot of teams are missing. At least in Texas I know that if any team walked up to 118, 148, 624, 1477, etc and asked for help building a can burgler on Thursday morning their pit would have 3-4 people in it with in minutes working towards that goal. Once a team is on your alliance you take a little more ownership of them and work with them to make themselves better but most of the time all a team has to do is ask and they will get plenty of cheesecake.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I'd like to expand the example to future years too, since it seems we're debating FRC game policy.


Continuing the hypothetical, a top seeding team is able to build two separate robots that perfectly compliment each other for a particular game. They're able to engineer their 2nd robot so that it weighs under the withholding allowance, and that assembly with COTS components is very quick (such as, install robot controller here, speed controllers here, and these motors here, here and here and with this software your new robot is ready to go).

After qualification, they gift their 2nd robot to their 3rd alliance member, so that the 3rd alliance member competes in eliminations with a completely different robot than they did in qualifications. Does this follow the spirit of FRC?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No it doesn't. It seems like just about everyone agrees that is too far.

The same rule that outlaws the above shouldn't outlaw help.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I guess what I should emphasize is that I would like to see a growth in resources available to all levels of teams starting at Day 1. Not necessarily that teams are doing it for the wrong reasons.
The care and compassion I see in the pits I just would like to hear about more throughout the entire year as this would be a reflection of good community health. Of course saying all this if Cheesecake theater becomes a thing I will be thoroughly upset...

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The teams that are helping others the most in pits, are also likely helping others the most long term.

Everyone needs to get off their high horse, you can't demand others to help.

It's also comical to read in this thread posts from some claiming others should help more, help all teams, etc... The people making these posts have likely helped less teams in total, than some of the teams they are referring to have helped in a single season.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I am pretty sure everyone would say no to that instance. But I think everyone is in agreement that completely altering a robot in elims to fit a strategy is bad; but in the same breathe, adding to a robot to increase its worth and capabilities in an elimination, or maybe even qualification, alliance is something FIRST has always been ok with, as long as the team getting the upgrades believe in them.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I would argue that the 2nd example is very close to the 1st example.

What would make the 1st example OK in my mind is if the mentor team helps them build the robot throughout the entire competition ... not just at the end and after they've been picked. That is to say, the robot that gets picked before elimination is the same robot that is competing during elimination.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Applying this ruling to software help is a nightmare...

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Does the concept of 'Cheesecake' extend to other competition programs as well? I haven't been part of VA FTC in a while, but I wonder about other FTC and VRC competitions.

Personally I think 'cheesecake' is a bit too far - but I don't think it should be banned at the expense of loaning another team pre-assembled items, like a cylinder with fittings, or stock that has a few holes in it, etc. I'm all for showing teams how to fish rather than just giving them the fish. If we give the teams the necessary materials and help them built it themselves from scratch, then it's pretty much the same thing anyways while simultaneously being more like a mentorship rather than a competitive giveaway.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

By the strict letter of the Q&A. Maybe not if prefabbed parts where used. But remember First is more than a robot competition. Exceptions are made for corner cases. That would be one of them.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Can I spotlight this entire post? Please?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No, that's outrageous.

I don't want to brag, but there is no way to make the point below without.

A few people from my team (kids, mentors, whatever) in 10 minutes can solve more problems for many teams than they can solve all weekend. This isn't because we're smarter, it's just a different culture. We live this stuff and spend a lot of time on it. The teams we pick often are just an afterschool program 10 hours a week. They just aren't on the same level as us.

But if you let us work with them for a two hour elims window... Fix their little problems, add features, help them see the world differently... It will change their team.

Why should that be illegal? Why shouldn't we be allowed to inspire and mentor the teams we work with on a more personal level than all 65 at the event? It's simply not possible to give all 65 teams that same experience, but it CERTAINLY means a lot to that one team.

Separately, we help all darn weekend with teams for all sorts of issues. We'd have done the same for the team before elims if they asked for it, but many don't.

This isn't always the case obviously, we have picked teams plenty of times in the past that knew their stuff. Even with them though we do whatever we can to raise their game while we're together.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Sometimes...you cheesecake yourself. We sure had to at Alamo.....

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Personally I volunteer at countless FTC events every year and work with 2 teams closely.
Cheescaking happens at the FTC level, but not as often and usually at higher level events, kind of like division champs for FTC.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Bold emphasis mine.

What I've been continuing to try and emphasize is that handing someone an arm with a hook at the end of it is NOT the inspirational, hard part about a cheesecake. That hook is good for the 2015 game and that game only. The part that will teach them to fish is how you integrate, how you implement, even on the fly. There is not a single team in FRC history who has taken their robot out of a bag/crate, put it on the field and stampeded the competition.

You need to Cheesecake yourself constantly. Showing someone else how to cheesecake IS how you teach them to fish, just in a condensed format where the time to iterate as expired.

#AlwaysBeCheesecaking

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What I'm driving at is that pre-selection and during qualifications, go wild, help each other out as much as you can. Post selection I don't think a team should be allowed to strip out large parts of their alliance's robot and then bolt on their own solution to the game; but they should be allowed to help work to improve the other team's robot.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Yea, I think this is the grey area that makes me cringe... as I'm not sure how to write a rule for it.

There is a very important distinction to me about an attitude in post alliance selection, saying "I am looking at your robot, and I am going to work with you to make you as effective as possible for our alliance, even if it means drastic changes or a limited role". That has value as a teaching/inspirational moment.

If you have brought a pre-built mechanism/passive element that can be bolted onto almost any donor robot, and their only thing that third partner brings to the table is a donor robot and ability to hit a button (or run an auton routine)... the intent of bringing said mechanism in on Thursday really seems much more stilted towards providing your elimination alliance with an advantage, not general goodwill. I also know that we are all quite competitive, and as teams continue to make more modular designs and get better at integration... without a rule prohibiting it, it is tempting to bring these bolt on solutions.

I actually like the idea of doing whatever you want in qualification matches, or maybe even cutting it off Friday evening. If you want to bring a pre-built mechanism in your bag or withholding to help another donor robot succeed... knock yourself out. Make them awesome. However, other teams can scout what you did... and pick up that now awesome robot.

If you want to modify a robot on Saturday, it needs to be from raw materials or unmodified COTS parts.

I'm sure that has 1000 issues wrong with it, but it feels alot better?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I think the difference with this year is that, if there's an alliance on the other side with better potential than you, you can't come up with some clever strategy or play amazing defense to beat them. You just have to hope they fail to meet their potential. Not exactly a feel-good moment.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What would happen if, a rookie team came to you, or one of the other high ranked teams, on the first day of the competition, and said. We only have a drive base, what can we add to it to help you in the finals. We would like to build a can burglar, create an auto that helps score the robot team points, and build a ramp or two that will help your team in the finals. Will you help us do it.

I think this is a perfect opportunity for a team with no hopes of winning, and no plans on going past one or two districts or regionals, to have a much better event that they could have realistically planned on having with another game.

I agree with many people that it seems wrong to grab a low ranked team and turn them into a ramp anchor. But is it different if that team takes the initiative and does it themselves. Especially if they start on it on the first day and instead of just being a ramp anchor, they can also grab a couple of cans in auto, and then move to the auto zone, before being driven to sit in a safe out of the way place. At least they are doing something then.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I have been on some teams that "were on a diet" throughout the build season and competition season. It was not fun nor was it inspiring for anyone on the team. Perhaps, there are more opportunities to give and receive cheesecake at the competitions because some of the teams that had been on a diet finally see the futility of their diet and decide to accept cheesecake.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

There's a 6 week build season and 2 days prior that I'm more than willing to spend helping teams build their robots. As Brando mentioned above, we host numerous teams in our already crowded lab. As well as outright help 10+ teams build their drives week 2 of build each year. And spend the event helping teams (in fact that's a good chunk of my job at Rhode Island this weekend).

Sorry, if with all that our pick still can't move, I don't think we should have to put them on the field. And in a lot of cases, it's not a function of pick a better robot. (27 event district, more than 3 didn't move or show up to numerous matches).

And if you want the most blunt response you'll likely get in this thread - Sometimes the nicest thing you could do for the team is to not make them play. Just let them observe how an alliance communicates, the stresses of elimination play, and what decisions go into it. I think we're awfully focused on the robot being out there, but less focused on the more important issue of what teams take away from playing with strong teams.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

For many of these such teams- especially newer/young ones- the concept of coopertition, where another team is coming to help them is foreign. They may not know the willingness of some teams to help. I've seen this firsthand numerous times.

-Brando

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Also we forget sometimes that the other teams have input in to this. I know if I was on a team that couldn't contribute I'd be working to make it contribute and I'd keep it off the field. Hurting your alliance no matter what the intentions doesn't really help anyone.

We sat out our first few matches at Rock City while rebuilding our robot. We could have driven in all those matches but nothing else. It didn't make sense for us to get in our partners way, we asked most of our partners if they were okay with that decision or did they want us to drive. None of them choose drive.

Going back to last year we played with teams who were happy to just sit and inbound the ball, and at times we played matches where we were happy to sit and inbound the ball. Strategy decisions should be left up the alliance.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The FRC GDC have to take responsibility for designing a game where theoretically, the winning alliance on Einstein can:
- have two robots
- "win" the game in the first two seconds

Whether or not that will transpire is mainly irrelevant, but what is up for discussion is what we do from here.

If you asked me (note: not my team, me personally) whether I would be willing to win a district/regional/district championship where my robot was:

a) not on the field
b) on the field did not move/tethering a cheesecake
c) only moved in the first 5 seconds using cheesecake

I would still be happy when we won, because I enjoy winning, and it would be a ticket/aid for getting to World's.

I honestly don't know how I would feel if it was actually at World's. I imagine bittersweet, especially for scenarios a and b. But I don't know if my team would feel the same, and it is apparent people in this thread would have different answers. It would after all be a valuable learning experience, and an opportunity we wouldn't have otherwise.

Ultimately, as has been said in previous years, GDC needs a means of designing better games, especially avoiding those that unwittingly put GP and winning in conflict. For this year, I think any "ruling"will be difficult to enforce, and it should be left to individual teams to accept or deny a certain role. This specific cheesecake rule is also ambiguous and requires further explanation.

Also while cheesecake is delicious, it's also very unhealthy. I'm not sure if that makes the metaphor more or less apt.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Ironically, the story I've heard several times from FIRST officials at various events is the story of how a robot failed to arrive at a competition and all of the other teams contributed to build a new robot in one day so the team could compete. That single act of the best "coopertition" would now be illegal. What stories will FIRST be able to tell now?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

So you want to tell every alliance captain at every event this year that they are only allowed to play a strategy that their event will allow them to? That is extremely disheartening.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I can tell you from personal experience, it's awesome. In 2006, my senior year of HS, I attended Worlds with 971 as an "unqualified" team (aka, pre-registered). We didn't play in elims at our one regional (SVR) and we placed 80th out of 83rd in the division. Our robot could barely move, and we only won one match. It was still one of the most inspirational experiences I've ever had, and the same was true for the rest of the team. We made friends with teams from around the world, and that experience of observing and being awestruck by the best teams in the world was a catalyst for 971's rise to one of California's top teams.

Any way you qualify for Worlds, go. It's incredible.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No, if you want your 3rd bot to do something specific that would benefit multiple alliances, go help all 3rd bots to accomplish it.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Ohh yes... the help everyone or help no one gambit... always a favorite strategy of mine.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

If you truly have another team's best interest at heart, you want them to do their best regardless of what alliance they compete with.

I'm arguing that team ZZZZ shouldn't get to compete with 2 team ZZZZ robots instead of 1 team ZZZZ and a third bot.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Forgetting what the C in FRC stands for?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What is your opinion on the two scenarios I presented earlier?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

"Hey guys, we need (blank) because we smoked/bent/broke/otherwise destroyed a system on our robot, we couldn't afford to bring spares, would you happen to have one we can use?"

Common situation.

Is our reply going to be the following now?

"We have several but we can't give you any due to the rules, sorry."

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I have no idea what you are arguing about but...

I think we all want every team to compete at the highest levels but sadly reality dictates to me that I have a finite number of resources with which to impact the teams at an event and you better believe I'm going to put all of them into my alliance for eliminations. Don't get me wrong, I'll go out of my way to help an opposing alliance to give them extra time to repair things by using a timeout or by loaning them parts or expertise but that C still stands for Competition.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

This is almost the model that we used last year at Champs. The difference is that we approached two rookie teams that we had seen in video review and we offered to help them create a mechanism that would make them a strong contributor to their alliances and even put them in place to be on an alliance. We gave each of the teams extra parts that we had brought along. Those teams improved from their regionals to 5-5 and 4-6 in the Newton Division--at one point one of them was 5-1 and was in contention for highest ranked rookie up to the 9th match. It was perhaps the single most satisfying effort we had last year. We would do it in a heartbeat again. (I personally donated $1,000 to one of the teams this year.)

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

So long as the team receiving modifications consents to them, I don't see a problem. That means no "hey, do this or we won't pick you / make you sit out" situations.

I would frown upon swapping out so much of a robot that it no longer belongs to its team, but it's hard to define ownership. If FIRST wants to write a rule around this, I think it's going to have to have some "to a reasonably astute observer" clauses in it.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

My interpretation of the Q&A is to prevent either scenario, but I disagree with how they did it.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

No, in eliminations, I want my 3rd robot to fit into the strategy that the ALLIANCE deemed necessary to win the regional/district.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

That's asking the impossible, to help the entire universe of other teams at an event. All teams have to pick and choose who they can help and with what resources. You haven't proposed a feasible alternative criteria for how to narrow that resource deployment. Since this is a "competition" the first one is helping better one's own competitive position. What's the next one?

This gets to another point I make frequently: Do NOT count on the "goodness" of the community to achieve an overall goal. "Social norming" where the community develops behavioral expectations can be helpful, but they will never be sufficiently effective to achieve the overall goal. The goal can only be achieved through effective and holistic design of the rules, mechanisms and incentives.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I was thinking more of matches not against you where their loss would move you up in the rankings.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Ditto from 1678. See my other post about last year's Champs.

Also, 254 probably would do the same based on their outreach in the Curie Division last year.

I know that 971 is often going from pit to pit to help at their events. We've benefited much in the past.

In short, I can give clear examples of how top tier teams have given virtually unbidden assistance to teams that ask (or sometimes don't know to ask.) That's one of the things I love about this competitive model--it can cost your team to withhold help from another team.

Unfortunately this year's game has created a situation where the required level of help still may not make a team a truly effective alliance member. (See posts in other threads on this issue.) So alternative strategies are necessary to make third-tier robots effective alliance members, which includes technology transfer.

The GDC should have thought this through when they designed a game that is technically equivalent to climbing to the 2nd pyramid rung (or higher) in 2013 or balancing two robots in 2012, but with no alternative meaningful scoring method or other role available.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Then the question is, how are you going to get the 3rd bot to accomplish your ALLIANCE strategy. Are you going to gift them a complete mechanism which completes the task, or are you going to work with them to create a new mechanism which completes the task?

In my opinion, the former violates the spirit of the competition (you are only allowed to field one robot). The latter is to be encouraged.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

If the 3rd robot is ok with either, both are fine. If, as an alliance, it is determined that the 3rd robot needs a 2-bin grabber and we have a spare version of another, how would it be detrimental to anyone to put it on that 3rd robot? In the same instance, if the alliance members can come together and build a 2-bin grabber before elims and put it on the 3rd robot, how would that be detrimental to anyone?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

We've served cheesecake to as many teams as we could, but there's only so much to go around. See my other "non cheesecake" post on the limitations of who you can help, and further on considering appropriate incentive design in games to really achieve overall FIRST goals.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Where is the line between providing them with a mechanism and with an entire robot?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Perhaps an even better response from the GDC would be to step up and take responsibility for unintended consequences that they've created this year. I gave them full credit last year for what I thought was a great overall concept that got more teams involved than ever. But that also means that they should express their mea culpas rather than trying to prohibit an informal process that has been one of the most fruitful means of teams helping each other. As others have said its probably too late to save the game this year, but the GDC should take to heart an important lesson about future games.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The definition of "robot" in the rules?

I mean, if you have ever heard of one team completely giving a robot to another team for use in elimination matches I'd love to see it. Because it really seems like you want this to be either 0 or 100.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Important point: in past year's games this was basically an infeasible strategy. Teams had to bring something useful to the table before they could be considered for an alliance. This year is VERY different and it can be prevented in the future by keeping that in mind in the game design without ANY special rules about assistance.

That said, Mike has listed several examples of how adding cheesecake to what was otherwise a complete meal of a robot has made a team a more attractive alliance partner. Are you saying that the robots that show up a competition MUST be a complete menu with no dessert provided by other teams? That's way beyond the tradition of FRC.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The new rule interpretation does not allow a team to do either of these approaches. That's the point of this thread.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

This isn't about the six week build season and, to my knowledge, this isn't about you, specifically. It is about how strong teams should treat weak ones in elimination matches.

Personally, I am yet to be at an event where there were no mobile robots available as the last pick. And, most immobile robots, generally just need a little help. Of course, in the extremely rare situation when there are no robots that can be chosen aside from those that are broken beyond a reasonably quick repair, I would expect them to be left off the field. It just seems to be at FIRST events, by the time we get to the end, those robots have had so much help that they are all moving.


I so disagree with this. The kids came to play. Help them to find something to do. With only two other robots on an alliance, certainly you can send this weaker one to one corner of either a feeder station or the landfill to work on dragging a single tote to a scoring platform. Yes, for some teams, putting up 2 points will be a victory. I'm yet to see a mobile robot that is not worthy of attempting this.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I disagree. The rule interpretation does not at all disallow bringing in COTS parts and a design for a device, going to a different team and suggesting they install the device. You can even help them to build/install the device. What you can't do is build it yourself and deliver it to them, already created.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I cannot disagree more. The GDC completely reversed the gains it made last year along these lines. The failures to encourage the use of the 3rd robot in the alliance were obvious to us from day one.

And loaning parts (and the associated expertise that often comes with it) is one of the greatest ways for teams to interact and for students to learn outside of their own team organization.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Having been on a team whose strategy was to build a complete robot around a specific role to make ourselves an attractive alliance pick, it hits close to home.
Back in 2004, my team created a robot solely around hanging on and defending the bar. With today's teams, I have no doubt that an elite team today could design a mechanism to install on a 3rd bot that could mimic our robot's ability to move on the bar; installing this singular ability would make the least competitive team a perfect fit to the most competitive team.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I have two answers to that question:

1) For this year, there is a premium on surprise in the game because the outcome is likely to be determined in less than a second--in the opening auto period. Do the math and you'll see the answer. Any revelations could spoil that strategy. That's a problem particular to this year's GD.

2) After what I thought was a successful GD last year, I called for the GDC to announce in September if the game would require teams to interact on the field to increase scores. You can find my posts on this on CD. As I've said above on this thread above, I don't believe that we can rely on the "goodness of our hearts" to achieve our goals. We need carrots and sticks, mostly through GD. And beyond that the GDC should be taking actions prior to build season to encourage teams interaction.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

What we did at Champs last year would be prohibited this year. That is fundamentally wrong because those teams would not have had the great experience that they did.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

So? That means there were negatives that that "elite team" saw in picking your team vs the other team. Just because your team made that strategy, doesnt give you the stranglehold on anyone else using that same strategy.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Some of the responses and questions in this thread are so preachy it's a little absurd.

Having been on the receiving end of cheesecaking before, I can assure people that it is one of the most inspirational aspects of FRC that your mentors and students can witness. That first blue banner or medal sparks much more than a single trip to a championship event. Witnessing a captain be SO GOOD that they can fine tune their alliance and strategy to knock out wins is the best example of a role model team ever. Have all the cheesecake you want, I say.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

If the parts you contributed to the rookies teams were COTS, it would be just fine. The Q&A interpretation encourages you to help other teams build new devices. It only prohibits building things for them.

From the Q&A:
"3) No, but you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that."

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

You need a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous, and nothing more. I have a robot that can grab 2 cans in autonomous. Instead of picking my robot, you pick a robot that can't do anything, (which includes driving), then install your extra mechanism which can grab 2 cans in autonomous.

How does making your alliance more competitive hurt anyone else? You skipped over my robot in favor of your extra mechanism.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Now you are assuming they cannot drive. Show me a regional and/or district where a robot was picked as a 3rd alliance member that could literally do nothing.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The team picked probably works better with the captain, either historically, or because they are friends.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here...?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

How could helping my alliance in eliminations possibly hurt anyone else?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

In my humble opinion I think that gives the wrong incentives.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I agree with you, and I strongly believe we shouldn't have a game that drives those incentives but it does. Flat out it does. Toms post assumes all things being equal, but in real life there are things like relationships between teams, competency of the drive teams, mentors, pit crews, etc. that would go into a decision about which team to pick.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I agree, this isn't a fun aspect of this year's challenge. I think I can safely say that no one likes this, but we play the game we are given.

Unfortunately, this year, sometimes the robot role that fits the winning alliance strategy is not "inbound the ball/shoot a few frisbees and play shutdown defense" but rather "be sized, willing, and able to receive a mechanism that gives us a better chance of not getting eliminated due to lack of game pieces."

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The point I think that's being missed in most of this discussion (excuse me if I missed it in the 13+ pages) is that no one is being FORCED to add things to their robot.

Maybe you find it more inspiring to find and correct that flaw that has been holding back your design. Great! Do that! Maybe you could even ask one of these "elite teams" to help you (I know that many will, having had some interaction with them). Also great!

I'm willing to bet that most of the "cheesecaked" (more on this later) teams started in this way. With members of the "elite" team trying to make their robot work. At this point said "elite" team finds that "Hey this team is pretty good, and are easy to work with, maybe we could suggest a relatively easy change that would make our elimination alliance stronger"

It is at this point that the team to be cheesecaked can say yes or no. "Sorry, we're comfortable with our now-working mechanism and will take our chances at getting picked" Or even, "Our students would prefer to continue working on our mechanism than spend the time adding the cheesecake". Great! Awesome! More power to you! However, this team to be cheesecaked could just as easily say "We've had a lot of fun and learned a ton from working with you so far! We'd be happy to do whatever is needed to help win."

I very much doubt that any of the "powerhouse" teams have randomly chosen a robot from the field without talking to them, and steamrolled their student and mentors in to changing their robot against their will. I also very much doubt that any of the cheesecaked had no discussions with the "elite" before alliances were selected.

We can't make broad generalizations (in either direction) about what is inspiring for a particular team. Some may be inspired by seeing their design come to life, and others may be inspired by doing whatever it takes to win. Neither view is wrong, they are just different.



As a side note: Isn't cheesecake really more of a pie? And isn't Boston cream pie really more of a cake? I propose making this trade.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

You are absolutely right. Go straight to the GDC and demand that they never design a game like this again that so diminishes the role of the 3rd robot. But don't expect teams in a competitive environment to act solely out of the "goodness of their hearts."

Look at the posts from individuals on teams that are being quite successful this year. None are saying "leave us alone because we're perfectly happy with the status quo." They are universally saying "we're stuck with the cards we've been dealt. Why cut off the best way that we can help other teams just because the deck came out so stacked and the no one is willing to look at how to really reshuffle the deck?"

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I have yet to see a robot that could only grab 2 cans in autonomous and wasn't already competent enough that it would be picked up in the first round of the draft. You're describing a pretty technically challenging task that is way beyond most teams this year (which is another point of this thread.) (I've watched quite a few webcasts.) The choices have always been between robots that might at most be able to put up 2 tote stacks.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

If the intent of this Q&A is actually targeted at stopping ramps being passed between teams, I'm not sure what the wording of it is actually accomplishing. A COTS ramp can be built with two items, one if which is the string/tether.

It's doing more harm then good, and it doesn't even accomplish it's intent.

Seems like week 4 q&a controversy is becoming an annual event.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I don't, but that's why there is a need for this type of rule.

I'm describing a hypothetical example, although my team from 2004 would be a good example from a different game.
There are teams that build a robot around their technical capabilities, specifically dissecting the game to determine how to maximize their utility to a high ranking team.

I don't like the idea of high ranking teams creating extra mechanisms to fit their needs of an alliance and then picking a robot based on its adaptability to add (read - easiest to bolt on) that mechanism, instead of picking another robot based on its present ability or future ability after a little help.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

The problem is that in this game the present and future abilities don't exist. When we are talking about canburgling, the race is going to be sub .2 seconds at the high levels of play. Trying to improve a mechanism to that speed isn't likely possible. In other years it would definitely make sense to take a team that already has a mechanism, (collector, launcher, etc). This year not so much. If the team's established mechanism this year can get an RC in .5 seconds it won't matter since the RCs will be long gone at the highest levels of play. At that point you don't have abilities even if you think you do, it's the nature of this game. As many people have said, nobody really likes this idea, but that is the game we have been given.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Just as an anecdotal example, I had first hand experience in a case where an alliance captain (Team A) made a first pick of Team B which had a pretty reliable mechanism to accomplish a key specific game task.

Team A thought their mechanism was superior to Team B's and realized that due to the great similarity in a portion of the mechanism, they could 'transplant' Team A's solution onto Team B's bot, by only drilling a couple holes and attaching a couple very trivial parts. Team B was not asked about this plan prior to picking or after picking. Team A simply arrived at Team B's pit after alliance selections and basically said, "we are going to do this." and proceeded to do the work in Team B's pit.

In the quarter finals the transplanted mechanism failed, twice, the second time with magic smoke, but both matches were still won due to the overall strength of the alliance. Team B decided to revert back to its own solution, and in a later match, Team B's original mechanism outperformed Team A's mechanism.

Team A was a well respected and routinely highly ranked team.

So it is not in all cases that the 3rd bot's team will be consulted or given a chance to accept a suggestion for change.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I hope you're not planning on building a can grabber then...prepare to be disappointed if you think you can win that arms race with a mechanism that takes more than .25s to secure the can.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Did you ever consider colliding with the cans just enough to make a precision grabber fail?

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

http://www.dallasfrc.org/videos (match 49 is a good angle)

I think it would be in your best interest to watch video of 3310 please.

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

Looks like we can all enjoy our Cheesecake once again:
In addition, here is the updated Q&A 461:

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

I would also invite you to watch Match 49 of the Dallas Regional that Cooper linked...

Your robot wouldn't move fast enough to "collide with it"

Edit:

It's been reversed!

Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
 

For anyone wondering, this seems to be the key phrase in the updated R17 rule.

Edit: oops, just realized this has already been posted above