FIRST inspections ( following rules )
 

I think FIRST should have more than one inspection at competitions. I've seen teams pass inspection, then put illegal materials on their robots...knowing no one will stop them. FIRST needs to either do inspections more than once a competition, have someone monitor teams, and/or do more weigh ins to keep things honest. I think that would keep teams from cheating at the competitions.

well, you must remember that at anytime you think a robot had an unfair advantage over your team, or any other team, i think that you may call that, and then they will be subject to another inspection. if they pass, well, you look very foolish. if they fail, then i believe they are given a DQ. it's not the best system, but it works.

I believe this topic came up once before some one proposed that the initial inspection take place and smaller ones take place on the queuing line. Also before a team is placed on the field they are to be weighed to make sure they have not added anything to their robot.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. When we tried to exercise this system in LA we were told that all the inspectors were busy doing other things. Admittedly this was on Saturday, so the organizers figured that they could reassign people at that point.

Personally, I think that there should be multiple tech inspections. The robots should be inspected electrically, mechanically and for compliance with materials rules, in addition to the safety and dimensional checks. I also think that inspectors should come from other teams that are active that year, but are not competing at the event. The inspectors should also be experts in the area they are inspecting. ie, I shouldn't be doing electrical inspections, as I'm a mechanical sort of guy, but I sure know my motors. I know one team got away with using a van door motor because the inspector didn't know any better.

A second inspection for finals may be in order. They often do this in racing and other mechnical sports.

Finally, bring back the Bill of Materials. I know it was a pain, but it is helpful for determining just what is legal and what isn't. Include a column for jusitfication on each part, so the inspector knows why you think it's OK to use a particular item. He might even agree with you. We did that this year even though it wasn't required to ensure that all our stuff was legal. Actually it could be just an additional column on the weight spreadsheet you should be keeping anyway. (Unless you LIKE drilling thousands of holes)

If they had multiple weigh ins, the same scale would have to be used because even the most expensive same-model digital scales would have small differences. Our bot weighed in at exactly 130.0 and it could have been higher or lower on another scale.

As for inspections, the FIRST people are already uptight about time limitations so they just need one good inspection. For those of you who cheat or think its okay because everyone has it or does it, just get out!!!! And I do mean all of those bots with extenders. I know that FIRST made a big deal of no extenders and then everyone made them anyway and since everyone did it, they seemed to be okay. As far as I'm concerned, if you even have a question about if something is cheating or illegal, it is. Some of the rules are ridiculous but don't break them, just complain about them on this forum or at the FIRST Team Forums

Re: FIRST inspections ( following rules )
 

If you see something that you think is illegal, ask someone in the pit something along the lines of "We considered using tha, but didn't see how it was legal. How'd you figure it?" Either they might not be aware, the inspection might have missed it, or in their haste to fix battle damage, might have used whatever was handy.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/me is listening to E:\Offspring\Conspiracy of One\The Offspring - All Along.mp3

re: to sanddrag
 

this is a little harsh becuase in the beginning a lot of teams thought the same way and tried things to avoid the entanglement rule and then when FIRST changed the rules to allow extenders a lot of teams created them so how is that against the rules and how is that cheating???:confused:

Re: re: to sanddrag
 

my biggest problem is FIRST changing the rules in the middle of the season. they can't make a decision and keep it. i sure hope this is discussed at the FIRST open forums coming up. and they do need to be more strict about enforcing the rules. a team near us at nationals deliberately put on a illegal material after getting inspected. it was noticed by many teams in the area. this team also managed to get very far in the finals of the competition. this is against the rule that all teams are supposed to follow called, "Gratious Professionalism". Libby Ritchie from team 393 can testify to this very fact.

I know this would slow everybody down, but after competition have the top 2 placing teams go through a post inspection....kind of like nascar how they inspect the winner after each race

i think that could be something to put into consideration. its sad that we even have to discuss this, but i think it may be time for something like this to be implimented

I think they could just have one ref just everyone now and then just take a look at different robots. Teams should be able to turn other teams in for illegal things and the refs should look at the robots. ( If they don't already )

I think maybe the queuing people could serve in a role of default inspectors. As i was doing queuing in SoCal, SV and Nat's, I noticed robots coming by with more and more obviously illegal materials as the day progressed. I think that FIRST should gave the queing ppl the power to refer teams back for re-inspection or better yet assign one inspector to assist the queuing team on each side. That way teams would be able to be inspected numerous times right before they compete.

Additionally, i think FIRST should have a sort of system where teams could report violations of the rules and get them checked out.

If you see something that you think may be a problem just go ask the team, if they refuse to talk to you about it or whatnot they probably already know its illegal, kindly offer that they can take care of it or they can speak to an inspector if they choose not to. You can tell if they know what they are doing is wrong or not, and hey if they really didn't know (or even if they did) just help them fix it and move on.

ashley

I think maybe the queuing people could serve in a role of default inspectors. As i was doing queuing in SoCal, SV and Nat's, I noticed robots coming by with more and more obviously illegal materials as the day progressed. I think that FIRST should gave the queing ppl the power to refer teams back for re-inspection or better yet assign one inspector to assist the queuing team on each side. That way teams would be able to be inspected numerous times right before they compete.

Additionally, i think FIRST should have a sort of system where teams could report violations of the rules and get them checked out.


__________________
Sean....I think this sounds like a great solution! I have thought many times that the queing people would serve this role well.

Though my team wasn't at Nats, our lead engineer and I went with 234 to help and observe. As we walked around the many pits at Nats, we were shocked at all of the very obvious illegal objects on several robots. It's one thing to slip something in that isn't obvious and not get caught, but to have something that EVERYONE can see that's illegal and not get "caught" is amazing! Both are wrong, but surely someone from FIRST could have stopped the very obvious ones as they came through.

It's like they turn their heads and shut their eyes to these things.

As a driver, I believe there should be more than one inspection. When you are standing in the holding area, and checking out other robots, a lot of things make you wonder how legal their robot is. Either have an inspection both Friday and Saturday morning, or have an inspection before finals if you continue on.

Entaglement was not the only issue where FIRST screwed up. I personally tried to get a ruling on a POTENTIAL violation of the build rules by a well known team, but never got a satisfactory answer. The team involved said they checked with FIRST by phone (Notice they didn't use the FRC group so the answer was not universally available), so I let the matter drop.

Basically this team fabricated their own dampers. These used air as a working fluid. They were not hooked up to any compressor or valve. Because they use air as a working fluid, I would consider them a pnuematic device, and therefore their inclusion on the robot would be a violation of a very specific rule. But apparently, since they were not using the compressor or valves, FIRST did not.

I posed the question of our team doing something similar to the FRC group and asked for clarification. I recieved two responses, the first said they weren't going to post my question on the group, the second said "Please don't do this, use the cylinders provided to do this instead". The whole reason that the homemade cylinders were used was to get around the limitation on the number of cylinders. At that point I dropped it. I can't blame any team for proceeding after getting a non-answer to a question. I wish they would have said either "yes, it's OK" or "No, you can't do that".

Sometimes it's hard to make a call that will cause people to have to throw away a lot of work. Those cylinders were beautiful and somebody worked hard to get them right, but you have to do it sometimes.

Some of the comments regarding inspections have been brought to FIRST's attention other issues should be addressed at the team forum. Illegal materials are against the rules and all teams know this. A rookie team might use an illegal part accidentally but seasoned teams know better. If a team wins by cheating it has publicly embarrassed its school, team members, mentors and sponsors. I don't think corporate sponsors will support this type of behavior and teams that do this run the risk of losing monetary support.

There are currently 17 regionals and 21 planned for 2003. The regionals are staffed 99% by volunteers and 1% FIRST staff. Inspectors are volunteers who take off time from their jobs to staff the various events. To request specialists in each area, is a great idea but perhaps not realistic. More than one inspection during the event is a good idea, bringing back the bill of materials is a great tool to assist the inspectors.

FIRST is more aware of teams breaking the rules than you think. Teams do have the opportunity to report unprofessional behavior by a team to the pit administration desk.

I take exception to the comment that FIRST turns its head and shuts its eyes to violations by teams. It may appear this way to you but I assure you this is not the case. If a team lodges a complaint it is taken seriously by FIRST staff, regional directors and event staff. As a regional director for Texas, I have handled many of thes complaints myself.

If you have an issue do something about it don't just gripe about it bring it to the attention of officials at the competition or at the team forum.

When you saw these things did you say anything to the team and see what the situation was? It does no good to talk about it later, talk to them then, see what's really going on and get it fixed. Its as easy as that, in my eyes part of gracious professionalism is holding each other accountable, and I welcome any team into my pit that thinks they may spy a problem.

ashley

Anyone know what the requirments/training that inspectors get? I know that they are almost always voulenteers, but i'd like to know if they get a crash course in FIRST robots. I know there are plenty of things that you just can't pick up unless you've spent a lot of time around these beasts. Going down a checklist just doesn't cut it.

As for adding things on... I think there is some gray area. I saw plenty of teams use electrical tape as a fastener trying to fix things while on deck. Is it legal? No, but I don't think it goes against the spirt of FIRST. I'm more happy to play against an oppent who's stretched the rules a little then to win and have no one to play against because they were DQ'd for making a quick illegal repair. As for adding things that clearly brake the rules after inspection just to gain some functionality (such as those miserable tape mesure teathers), I am completly against that. But I still can't justifey the extra time and hassle of more inspections. They are lengthy and agrivating as it is, I don't think I could handle another round of it. Better inspection the first time around is the only thing I can think of.

I guess this is just something we need to bring up at the forums!

-Andy A.

This is illegal because the rules speciffically said you could not use and gas containing devices other than the ones provided to you in the kit.



At LA one judge was teaching another judge all about mechanics and electrical while inspecting our robot. As for the tape, it can be used for decorative purposes only. It may serve no structural function. So is it illegal? yes for the purpose of a fastener.

i think for the inital inspection, tape should not be allowed for structual support. for subsequent inspections, tape may be allowed, but only if a team has not had enough time to fix something the proper way. it's not fair to be DQ'd just cause you couldn't get the screws in on time. of course, they would be subject to yet another inspection to make sure that the problem was permently fixed.

Re: re: to sanddrag
 

Tethers werent illegial at the start. Only mouse type extenders. ie: the steerable ones. My team tried using a scissors linkage but it didnt work well at all. we tried some other ways too, but alkl completely legal. I think its pretty unfair to teams like mine got screwed because of teams who didnt follow the rules, and were rewarded because of the rules changing.

Re: Re: re: to sanddrag
 

The way I understood FIRST's clarifications of tethers was that 'ONLY' mouse type extenders were legal. Not other types of extenders that ended up looking like child safety gates, and blocked off the playing field.

Every year in the Southern California area we have a scrimmage the weekend before ship. I was the head tech inspector for the scrimmage. The idea was to identify any problems while teams still had time to fix them. All teams were allowed to compete regardless of inspection results. This was a "courtesy check".

The team with the dampers mentioned previously explained what they had done and why. I enquired further with FIRST and recieved the non-answer mentioned previously. Since I couldn't get a definitive ruling from FIRST I decided I didn't need to push it. Besides, it didn't offer what I considered a competitve advantage.

There were other teams, including some veteran teams, that used materials that were not on the list. In some cases they were placeholders for the "real" parts, in others somebody had fabricated a part from something that was lying around the shop not realizing the material wasn't on the list. For the most part these people were gracious and thanked us for pointing out the problem. They also fixed them before ship.

There was one team that used a van door motor. Apparently they were confused because the rules mentioned the van door motor as part of a list of motors. This was an error on the part of FIRST and cleared up in an update. When I asked about it and tried to clear up their misunderstanding, I thought I was going to wind up with a new orifice, courtesy of their mentor. Such reactions do not lead to people wanting to be inspectors, officially or not, even though it was only one of the many robots I went over that day.

In spite of that, I hearby volunteer to do tech inspection at either the Silicon Valley or Phoenix Regional, whichever my team isn't going to. Just my contribution to solving the tech inspection issue.

Re: Re: re: to sanddrag
 

We spent hundreds of $$$$ and countless hours making a 20ft telescoping pole that would never touch the ground. At the competition we lost a match only because the goal we were pushing got stuck on a $25 tape measure extender that was fabricated in like an hour and a half. So I guess that's what we get Cory for following the rules.

Your right in that tethers weren't illegal at the start
but any devices that have the potential of entanglement were - and that was pretty much most types of extenders. And then there was the thing about if entnglement was if it could happen or if it did happen. Uggg they need to get these things straight from the start. At least this past season was hopefully a valuable lesson to everyone.

I also saw a few 'van door' motors, more than I thought I would because so many teams do closely follow the rules. One thing in particular that I never questioned too much but always wondered: A team at nationals had these wide rubber wheels (5 of them) that the student told me they turned down from type of solid rubber but I never noticed giant pieces of rubber say 6x6x8" in small parts? Is it there. As for tethers, I gave up on that a long time ago we should just let it die and hope something similar doesn't happen again.

I agree about the tethers, let's let it die. We had a mouse type, but it was constructed so that it could be removed in seconds if it was ruled illegal. We wouldn't have complained either, we knew the risks going in. Actually, removing it would have saved us an awful lot of hole drilling.;)

As for the rubber, they may have been alternate Skyway wheels, a couple of teams in LA used wheels like that that were legal because they were in the Skyway catalog. Hopefully the student was just confused or meant that they had modified legal wheels.

big wheels
 

The team at LA with the big wheels was us, 696. We used 10x3 Skyway Beadlocks. 10in. diameter 3in wide. I'm not sure what they say on the side but I suppose you could look in the online skyway catalog. They were black plastic wheels with black tires. They also come in a couple of smaller sizes and possibly beige color.

we used smaller wheels like this, and drilled out half of the rubber from the tires to reduce weight :D. worked pretty well too!

Yeah we actually drilled out the plastic rims and the rubber on the tires. I don't know if it saved much weight but we made some good tread and the rims looked really nice.

The wheels I saw were only about 4" in diameter of almost solid rubber and about 6" wide.