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?