Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

That is, in my opinion, an incredibly stupid rule change. For one thing, nobody can agree on what a robot is, and therefore it can only cause undue controversy (as if we needed any more). Additionally, the only time a team would do this was week 0.5, so it's a bit of a moot point. Finally, if some team did bag their practise robot for a non-week 0.5 event, this totally screws them over. I do not like this one bit.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Check back later when someone has spent the time or money to circumvent this and another rule is made that still leaves the door open for someone to spend time or money to circumvent it just to see another rule made that...

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

they need to get rid of the bag and tag it just benefits teams that can afford to build 2 robots.

my team among that teams that build 2 robots i want to be able to spend that money elsewhere

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

In case anyone is wondering what specific drawings are being referenced:

GE-16019 on GE-16023 are the dividers between the defences

GE-16028 is the Cheval de Frise platform

GE-16038 is the Sally Port door assembly

GE-16178 is the Cheval de Frise platform assembly

GE-16181 and GE-16184 are the cleats at the bottom of the batter

GE-16185 is one of the batter segments

GE-16213 is the "roof" of the tower

and GE-16241 is a spacer for a U-bolt

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Ohh well... Rule 5.5.900... ;)

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Are you talking about the blue box in 5.5.2?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I do not like the new blue box explanation of what "enter" means. I understand it, and I largely agree with what it is trying to do, but I don't believe it is right to twist the intent of the original in order to do it. The issue of a "spare parts robot" should have been addressed explicitly instead of wedged in to an unrelated spot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Oh frabjous day! Finally we can just use any pressure regulator that's stopped down to 60 psi instead of having to find one that is both rated for 120 psi and has a maximum output pressure of 60 psi.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

To do that would be to acknowledge openly that the 6 week build season is a myth and that many teams have them.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Care to explain? ;)

I agree the wording of this ruling is a little weird and would like a better wording of bringing it to the event and what does that constitute. Does an event mean a specific venue or larger like the campus an event is taking place at? There are definitely some characters in FRC who could give teams a hard time depending on how they interpreted that rule and it becomes a different issue when you are traveling from a great distance to an event and won't know how your robot faired until you get there.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

So now instead of making an extra robot and putting it together and then bagging it we just make an extra robot don't put it together and have those parts bagged?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

But thou shalt not assemble them into the form of a robot while at the event or place them in a configuration that to a "reasonably astute observer" could resemble a robot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Transformers robots in disguise...

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Can we ban the words "reasonably astute observer" forever. It's a bandaid when you can't come up with a concrete rule and shouldn't be in the rule book.
I would rather them say "Hey if you push this rule, HQ might tell you it's illegal. Its a risk you are taking." That's basically what it means.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I actually impounded a spare robot as Lonestar LRI once. A team brought it in on Thursday morning to remove part of it for their competition robot. Since it was well over the withholding allowance, I told them to pull whatever they wanted or thought they needed right away (under withholding limits), then impounded the remainder for the rest of the regional. On account of the examples of it being illegal to keep a collection of spares in the parking lot and bring them in one at a time. They were understandably grumpy that they couldn't just leave it in their trailer instead of me impounding it, but I'd been approached by people concerned that they'd brought an ENTIRE spare robot. So I had to deal with appearances as well as actual rules at that point. I'm pretty sure Norm's forgiven me by now.

All of which is to say that practice robots, spare parts, and withholding allowances make for lots of complications. While the 5.5.2 blue box is a little clumsy, a separate rule would likely be just as awkward to cover cases like bringing a practice robot to practice with but not use for parts. You couldn't possibly cover that case with any other existing rule, but writing up a rule for that specific case would likely miss others that I haven't thought of. The blue box entirely rules out bringing a practice robot to help your team in any fashion, bagged or not, which is just a more general case of the specific case above.

Also, does the 5.5.2 blue box have some sort of unintended, deleterious consequences? It doesn't seem so to me, so it seems like a pretty good update.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

"Reasonably astute observer" = Whoever's in the HQ hot seat this weekend. You'd better hope they've had their coffee this morning.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

The biggest problem is that for teams that did bag two things that look like "robots" (not ROBOTs) for the intended purpose of having spare parts they will be in trouble for something that they had no idea was illegal and it's already in the bag(s). Also the current rule does not prevent teams from assembling a 2nd robot at the event, you just can't bring it to the event. You can still build it there from mechanisms that you bring.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Will there every be an obvious solution the GDC could implement to dismantle such an impressive myriad of self-constructed problems?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'll grant you that this is a broken update for anyone who's bagged a "robot" for spare parts. Retroactively making things illegal is not cool. Also, I'll admit I hadn't considered that teams could actually bag an entire mostly complete robot as a spare, since that's so far outside my team's experience. In that light, a more targeted ruling to keep teams from swapping in an entire robot as a "repair" for a broken robot would be a better idea. Seeing as philosophers are still arguing about whether someone is the same "person" if you instantly swap all their atoms for identical but different ones, I don't think I want to tackle that rule tonight...

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Remove bag day?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Frank, after some consideration, I have but one thing to say to you:



Seriously though, no hard feelings. We found a loophole and you closed it. This doesn't mean we're giving up. ;)

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It can't be that simple, can it?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm pretty sure I saw the annual "remove bag day" thread a week or so ago, but if y'all want to start up another one, it'd be more productive in it's own thread. As opposed to a largely unrelated team update thread.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I agree! Glad the wording was changed. I'm pretty sure that's what was always intended, but just wasn't written down properly. Opens the door to some other COTS parts.

It seems like a clear wording to me... and doesn't change the original intent of the rule. I'm not sure what we're supposed to be upset about in this thread. :confused:

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

The day the GDC does that will be the day that these problems can start being fixed.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Please do give up at finding loopholes.

The reason rules like these have to exist isn't because bag day or the GDC, it's because teams try to find ways around the rules. For a long time, the culture discouraged "lawyering" the rules instead of following the intent. Teams that try to find the loopholes to gain an advantage rather than following the intent is what causes rules like this to be necessary.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

This is certainly an old argument, but I continue to disagree with this outlook. Most fundamentally, teams frequently do not, and in many cases effectively cannot know the intent precisely. Every uncertainty begets the concern that another team will more accurately gauge FIRST's intent, and get away with a more rewarding strategy. The nature of competition therefore fundamentally induces teams to seek the limit of what's legal.

Similarly, when officials have to weigh the intent of the rulemakers against the conduct of a team, they find themselves also having to confront this uncertainty. How can an official know how to draw the line between permissible and impermissible conduct if they aren't willing to entertain and compare different interpretations before settling on a definitive answer?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Dang it Jim, I'm an Engineer, not a Lawyer!

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Thank you Cad! Was just about to scour the manual to figure out what those drawings were :D

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I refuse to follow rules that don't exist. Why would you do that. Not to mention that they didn't lawyer anything! You've always been able to bag spare parts. They bagged spare parts. There was no upper limit. They bagged a lot of spare parts. They didn't go around anything.

Why are there limits on spare parts? The reason teams feel the want to grab parts from their robot in the trailer is because it's ridiculous not to let them. How many robots has the GDC crippled for an event because something critical broke without a legal spare? Is there any good reason?

+1 on banning "reasonably astute observer." If you had 3 reasonably astute observers they'd have 5 different opinions on what counts as a robot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Do we have a definition of "event?" If we leave our practice robot in the trailer at the parking lot and walk out there to drill off some parts if needed, is that now illegal?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Does 3467 need to get their practice robot out of their high school before their district? Would 190 need to move a robot off campus before WPI can hold their event? Good thing 1885 isn't fielding their robot at the event in their high school, they'd have to drop their practice robot off at the local Subway...

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

That depends on when you were planning on drilling off those parts and what those parts are.

If they are COTS parts then there is no issue. If they are non-COTS parts and it is during robot drop off there is no issue. Otherwise there is an issue.

This Team Update didn't make that illegal, it's been illegal.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Unless those parts you drill off are completely COTS parts, this practice has always been illegal. You get to exercise your withholding allowance once, at load-in, not bring in 5 lbs here and 3 lbs there.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Alright, thanks for the clarification!

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

As I understand it, 900 not only ". . .bagged a lot of spare parts" at Palmetto, they drove their spare parts around on the practice field to work on their stability problem. This astute observer sees that as a second robot, no matter what it looked like in the bag without all its complete systems and parts.

Was this group of spare parts inspected for safety before being allowed on the practice field? Did it have a sticker? I can see where having a nearly complete robot for spare parts in a bag on bag day could be legal, but not if it goes running around under power on the practice or competition fields.

I vote for a rule which allows only inspected robots to be powered up and driven around other robots.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

No. Absolutely not. Never. The day we do is the day we've stopped being the Zebracorns.

Every year we (900) sit around and read the rules after Kickoff and then we write up our goals on the board, like a lot of teams probably do... Unlike a lot of teams, one of those goals is always "break the game".

I don't expect everyone to understand that concept or why it is important but it's something we always set out to do... be that by throwing a ball 50 feet, or by building a new robot at an event, or by working with machine learning like cascade classifiers to detect the undetectable, we have a specific goal to do it. It's part of our team's culture and is as unique as our pants.

Those who keep saying that we've violated the "spirit of FIRST" or the "spirit of the rules" are forgetting that this is an engineering sport and it's not tiddlywinks.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Based on a reading of the new rule (emphasis mine):
I would argue this precludes it being anywhere near the venue, even if it is in the trailer and only COTS items are removed. While that WAS legal, I don't think it is anymore. It didn't say bringing it INTO the event, it just says bringing it.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

4761 locks the shop during the event we host and we treat it like we are at someone else's school. The practice robot (not bagged) will be locked in the shop.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Trust me, I'm not forgetting this is an engineering sport. But breaking the rules is not engineering. If I issue a requirement for a contract, and you come back with a design that "technically" meets that requirement, but doesn't meet the intent of what I want accomplished, I'm not going to issue you that contract. Sure, you found a way to satisfy my requirements, but it's not the product I want to pay someone to produce. Engineering involves finding solutions to problems, not merely sidestepping them.


Further still, bringing a practice robot to an event isn't finding a novel strategy that "breaks the game," it's bending the rules. It doesn't even seem to meet your "Zebracorn" design philosophy, as it's not even a design choice. The only cultural value you seem to be stressing with this move is trying to thumb your nose at the GDC (at best).

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Okay, this goes a little too far. AT THE TIME that the team in question bagged their practice robot and brought it to the event, this was an ENTIRELY LEGAL act. It was smart. Less than a day between bag day and load in at the event? Very good idea to bag the practice robot to have at your disposal during the event; it was certainly of more use to them there than being out of the bag for another 18 hours or so. Some degree of rest was probably a better use of that time anyway.

Rules updates should not been applied ex post facto to vilify teams who acted entirely within the rules at the time.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Not that am advocating layering the rules but. That is why mil specs are so long & buyer & sellers have ridiculous terms and conditions. Companies routinely underbid contracts knowing that they will make it up on change orders. Like it or not this is all real life engineering that you need to be aware of even if you choose not to participate.

Back to FRC. The real underlying issue is how to limit the resource requirements of the competition or do we even try. I am not sure either side has the moral high ground. This same discussion goes on in Formula One BTW.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Indeed it does. :)

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

No one has been vilified... Frank sent a nice email thanking us for being understanding about the situation and explaining their (GDC) thoughts behind the rule change. I said I have no hard feelings. I think people are reading a lot more into this and making it a passionate and lively CD discussion as always.

If you think we are villainous for our shenanigans then you don't know our team and are just being a whiny jerkface. The Zebracorns complied with all rules that existed (and even some that didn't) at the time of the competition and will comply with all rules that exist now moving forward.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I agree with this. Some of the most important tasks my team and my classes undertake are the ones for clients. Learning to make something that the client or customer wants is important. And yes, sometimes a really novel approach is awesome. But if you submit a bid, get a contract and produce a final product that technically satisfies the the terms in the bid but is not what the client really needs or wants you are not going to keep getting clients.

Breaking the game, to my reasoning, isn't finding a loophole in the rules about spare parts. It is great to think about the rules of the game and come up with an off the wall strategy that may never have been considered by the GDC. Such as figuring out you can redirect soccer balls right back into a goal with the right bot in a fixed position. And when that is a strategy goal you should always prepare for the possibility that someone clarifies or changes the rule and takes that strategy off the table.

All that said, I see what teams likely want this year. If you can bag two complete robots, you can effectively absorb twice as much damage. It makes practice field work less risky, since you aren't worried about breaking the competition robot. And I do think that teams that bagged two robots shouldn't be penalized and should be allowed to use one as spare parts for the other. Teams that bagged just spare parts of every component can do the same thing.

As for the "Reasonably astute observer" part of the rules, the trade off of getting rid of that phrase is a lot more rules.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Can we just get rid of bag day and withholding allowances already? Who does it really stop anyway? Anyone who wants to be competitive (with some rare exceptions) just builds another robot. Rebuilds from the drive base up are not unusual even with just 30 pounds. Teams now plan their entire seasons around gradually upgrading and rebuilding their robots over the course of multiple events. No matter what insane patchwork of rules the GDC writes, any team that wants to win the world championship is going to squeeze every last drop out of the rules to do as much as they can as long as they can. Let's be done with this nonsense, so we can save teams across the world thousands of dollars each and make all of FRC more competitive. Aren't we all sick of this?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

no.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm 99 44/100% certain that the phrase "enter a robot in an FRC event" was originally meant to mean approximately "submit a robot for inspection in order to compete using it". That's the usage of "enter" that goes along with a competition such as a foot race or dog show.

The new definition in the blue box turns "event" into a place instead of a competition, and turns "enter" into a physical movement instead of the equivalent of pointing to a robot and saying "That's what we will be putting on the field." It reinterprets the meaning of the words to fit a desired goal.

As I said before, I am basically in agreement with what this change does. I'm just disappointed that the GDC chose to redefine what "enter an event" means instead of finding -- or creating -- a better place to say "don't bring more than one FRC robot capable of playing the game". The current wording does have at least one effect that I consider undesirable: it now makes bringing things like FRC-sized showbots illegal, even if they could never pass inspection.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Yes.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

What frustrates me the MOST about this update is the change of the size of the vision target. Why was this necessary?

(Time to adjust target and change our auto-targeting code).

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

The game manual talks about intent.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

This was in update 7; they forgot to alter the text until now. The diagram has showed the proper height for a month.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

This would be my response if someone were to get overly upset upon said loophole being closed as a result of their actions.

I personally applaud this effort, so long as you ("you" meaning anyone reading this with this mindset) understand, as it seems Marshall already does, that FIRST has the right to change the rules on you if they feel that you broke the game badly enough that it is now less enjoyable for everyone else. Finding a unique solution not explicitly prohibited is a different story altogether, and can often result in some pretty cool, entertaining robots.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Kevin,

I can say I learned my lesson the hard way for sure on that one. It was definitely an oversight on my part as our team lead. No hard feelings and I completely understand the position we put you in as LRI.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Smells like gracious professionalism in here... :)

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I do agree that there are many people who are sick of bag day along with the rules and restrictions that come with it. However, there are many teams and people out there who are in full support of bag day, many of which claim that they will no longer be involved in FRC if these restrictions are lifted. Frankly, I don't know which camp I'm a part of. However, I do know that there are enough people on both sides of this argument that we can't just assume that everyone wants to end the "6 week build".

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm with Chris on this one. I think everyone knows that the teams with the resources will build 2 or 3 or as many robots as needed to be competitive. Bag day really only hurts the teams that can only build one robot and that's a good chunk of FRC teams. 4329 builds two robots because it gives us a huge competitive advantage. We've iterated a lot over the past week in our shop & fixed things that would have absolutely killed our first regional performance.

Remove bag day and you level the playing field for a lot for teams. Districts help with un-bag windows but a lot of us aren't there yet. Not wanting to change this because 'that's the way it has always been' is silly - look at how well District events are going and how people were very hesitant to switch at first. Change can be a good thing and is necessary if we want FRC to grow.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Does this count as breaking the game?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I, personally, would like to see bag day rigidly enforced and no withholding allowance. This would eliminate a lot of loopholes.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

First let me say that I consider my team to be a typical “mid-resource” team. We are more fortunate than some but far from an “elite” or “powerhouse” level team. We have never won a regional competition but are usually competitive and at least play in eliminations. We do this by building as simple and robust of a machine as we can that achieves our game strategy and objectives. We pride ourselves on the quality of our robots even if they aren’t CNC’d and powder coated. Our robots are 100% student designed, fabricated, and built using a miter saw, band saw, drill press, and small benchtop manual milling machine and lathe.

FIRST is not fair. It never has been and never will be. That’s not the point and I don’t think we should be trying to write rules that try to limit the “haves” just to try to artificially “level the playing field” for the “have nots”. Every team is different and every team has their strengths and weaknesses. It should be up to each team to be able to maximize their strengths where they can.

In my own team’s situation, one of the ways we “level the playing field” against the more “elite” teams with lots of high end in house fabrication capabilities and mentors that are way smarter than me is we use a lot of 80/20 T-Slot extrusion. Another way is we design for modularity, reliability, redundancy, and maintainability. We may not be able to design and fabricate the fanciest robot parts but we can design simple reliable parts that are easy to manufacture given a simple machine shop and a bunch of kids learning as they go along. We also rely heavily on COTS items from AndyMark and VexPro, etc.

With that said it has also become the norm in this modern era of FRC that more and more teams are building 2 machines during their build season. Most would call these two machines a practice robot and a competition ROBOT. In the old days this was less common but so was going to more than one regional competition in a season. Now a days it is almost a given that to be competitive you have to build a practice robot to continue driver practice after bag & tag and go to more than one competition. It’s not an absolute rule but it sure helps if you have the resources to make it happen. In my opinion it is the biggest reason that bag & tag simply hurts teams with fewer resources than those that can afford to build a practice robot.

For a couple years now, my team has strived to raise ourselves to the level of that later group. We have built a second practice robot and gone to 2 competitions now since 2012. Over these last few years we have also increased the amount of spare parts we fabricate during build season and bag on bag and tag night. We essentially build as many spare MECHANISMs as we can afford and think we might need as replacements. In 2013 we built an entire spare Frisbee shooter and bagged it on bag & tag night. In 2014 we built an entire spare catapult and bagged it on bag and tag night. Last year we had spare mecanum drive modules and lift parts and a spare mechanism we called the P.O.T. (Pusher Outer Thingy) that was designed solely for doing coopertition and bagged all of it on bag and tag night.

This year we took it to the next level. We built 3 complete machines. We started with a prototype robot as we always do and were satisfied enough with it by about the end of week 4 of the build season to start duplicating pieces and parts for the competition robot and spare parts. Again, our robot is really simple this year. It’s a “rebuilding” year for our team and we knew going in that our collective student “experience level” was lower this year. We lost some top notch seniors last year. So we didn’t even try to design for the high goal or hanging. We bought Rhino tracks from AndyMark and built a simple but hopefully reliable drivetrain around them and added a simple ball collector/arm/low goal scoring mechanism. The entire robot is 80/20 t-slot, lexan cut on a bandsaw, and some plates and brackets here and there made from aluminum flat bar, angle, channel, etc. We have 8 motors total. 4 CIMS, 2 Mini-CIMS, and 2 BAG motors. All the gearboxes are COTS (2xAM ToughBox Minis, 2x AM RAW Boxes, and a half dozen VEX Pro VersaPlanetaries. No custom gearboxes for us. Throw in the RoboRIO, PDP, VRM, 8 X Talon SRXs, the main breaker and RSL and that’s about it. 85 lbs total inspection weight (no battery, no bumpers). We think it works well but I guess we will find out when we get to our first competition in a couple of weeks.

Knowing the reduced level of student experience on the team this year we made a conscious decision right up front after kickoff not to shoot for the moon this year but instead build our robot to be easily maintainable and repairable and have plenty of simple “spares” that we can quickly replace on the robot if needed in the hopes of being able to “win the war of attrition”. It was obvious to us that this game is going to be brutal on the robots. We hope one of our strengths this year is to follow the K.I.S.S. principle and be the “last man standing” when others have built over complicated machines that are prone to failure under the stress of this game. We may have missed the mark completely but that was our strategic decision.

Thus the decision to build the 3 identical machines. One “practice robot”, one “competition ROBOT”, and a complete set of spare parts. In addition, we built additional spare parts of things we are particularly worried about including the gearboxes and our ball collector/arm. We are potentially most vulnerable when our ball collector/arm is outside the FRAME PERIMETER due to impacts with other robots. The only difference in our practice robot and our spare and competition robots is the wiring on the practice robot isn’t quite as neat and tidy and it doesn’t have the orange RSL. The competition ROBOT and its twin spare parts robot are as identical as we could possibly make them given the limits of our manual machine shop capabilities and students fabrications skills. The only significant difference may literally be the length of wire stripping. The robots weigh exactly the same.

Here is a photo of the 3 robots lined up side by side:



In the photo the “practice” robot is on the left, the “spare parts” robot is in the middle, and the “competition ROBOT” is on the right. The kids literally had to put a little piece of blue painters tape on the back of the “competition ROBOT” that said “comp bot” to keep the 3 straight when they were fabricating and installing pieces and parts. I made them pick one.

Here is a photo of just the “competition ROBOT”. Note the piece of blue painters tape on the back bar of 80/20 t-slot:



As I have stated above, the entire machine is modular. It essentially can be broken down into 5 major “modules”. The core “chassis”, the left and right Rhino track modules, the ball collector/arm, and the electronics module. The Rhino track drive modules can be removed via 3 X ¼-20 SHCS each and unplug the 2 CIM motor Anderson connectors. The ball collector/arm removes from the “shoulder” motors via 4 screws and unplugging of 2 more Anderson connectors for the BAG intake motors. The entire electronics “module” can be removed via 6 wing nuts.

Here is a photo of the “competition ROBOT” disassembled into its major “modules”:



We have run drills on how long it takes to disassemble and reassemble the entire robot. It takes under 10 minutes for only two of my students (that know what they are doing) to completely disassemble the robot using only a handful of hand tools. Re-assembly takes slightly less time. I am confident that even under “competition stress” two of my students could completely disassemble and reassemble our entire “competition ROBOT” in under 30 minute, probably closer to 20 minutes, while replacing any faulty “module” from our spare parts supply.

This photo was taken just after a “re-assembly” drill:



It represents our fully functional “competition ROBOT”.

Our desire is not to gain any sort of “competitive advantage” by entering more than one ROBOT into any FRC competition where we compete. Or intention is to simply enter our one “competition ROBOT” and have a complete set of spare MECHANISMs available in our pit for repair and replacement if needed.

Here are our “spare parts”:



To a “reasonably astute observer” it may look like a robot but as far as me as an LRI and me as a team mentor can tell it doesn’t meet the FIRST definition of a ROBOT because we pulled the RoboRIO off for safe travels reasons. The RoboRIO can be mounted back in seconds. It Velcros down and just plug in the power (Anderson), the CAN bus (2 pin connector), the RSL, and a USB camera. The RoboRIO will count against our 30 lb withholding allowance because we have “assembled” it by adding the Velcro and wires and connectors. The yellow tote in the above photo contains additional spare parts that we didn’t want to count against our withholding allowance including more spare COTS but assembled Toughbox-Mini gear boxes and VersaPlanetaries, and additional spare set of assembled Rev4 pulleys for our Rhino track modules, and some misc. fabricated structural plates and pieces. Strapped to each side of the yellow tote are two spare ball collectors/arms (one on each side of tote so one isn’t really visible as it is on the far side of the yellow tote).

To be continued in the next post due to image count limitations...

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

... continued:

It is my understanding of the rules and definition in the 2016 manual that what is under the yellow tote in the above is a spare MECHANISM because it doesn’t meet the FIRST game manual definition of a ROBOT (doesn’t have the control system (RoboRIO)) but is “a COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts”.

Thus this is our “competition MECHANISM” just prior to sealing the bag:



Note also that the RoboRIO has been removed thus it does not have a “control system” so it doesn’t qualify as a ROBOT.

Finally here are our two bags as they were bagged on bag and tag night and as they still sit right now:



Obviously the “Competitition MECHANISM” (which we intend to add a RoboRIO from our 30 lb withholding allowance to upon unbagging and then get inspected) is on the left. A complete set of spare parts (both COMPONENTS (in the yellow tote) and whole MECHANISMs) is in the bag on the right.

Our intention is to immediately disassemble our “spare parts MECHANISM” into separate “modules” (or sub-MECHANISMs) once we are allowed to unbag, have our pit setup, and can access the appropriate tools. It is not in any way our intention to “compete” with two ROBOTS. We simply desire to make transportation easier and more manageable by having all our separate spare MECHANISMs assembled into one larger MECHANISM so all those parts aren’t loose in the bag. I believe this is entirely within the spirit of the competition and in no way un-GP.

I fully agree that it would be against the spirit of the rules if a team brings two robots and attempts to gain a competitive advantage by say:

1) Building two differently designed robots. For example a low bar, low goal, breacher robot and a wholly different high goal, hanging robot and attempts to compete with both by starting with one and tries to “upgrade” to the second at some point in the course of competition play.
2) Build two identical robots (as in my team’s case) but choose to use a legally inspected one on the competition field while the second un-inspected one was used on the practice field for testing, etc.
3) Building additional robots to hand out to their alliance partners to use during eliminations.

The question I do have is what then actually constitutes a team’s competition ROBOT? It is fairly clear in my mind that “something” becomes a team’s competition ROBOT when we stick the inspection sticker on it. However, WHAT is that “something” that constitutes the ROBOT? Every single piece and part can be removed, replaced, repaired, “upgraded”, etc. throughout the competition as long as the team follows the re-inspection requirements in T15. What rule(s) would actually restrict us from replacing every single piece and part of our legally inspected “competition ROBOT” with an identical spare replacement “module” from our pile of spare parts we bagged on bag and tag night and brought in legally at load in? Nothing as far as I can tell. It would be entirely legal and within the spirit of the rules and completely GP. Teams routinely build and bag all manner of “spare parts”. However, taken to the next level, what would restrict us from keeping our “spare MECHANISM” that looks identical to our “competition ROBOT” except for a missing RoboRIO and if needed due to a catastrophic failure, replace ALL of our MECHANISMs we have preassembled into one giant MECHANISM as a complete spare “robot” at one time and go to the inspection station and asking for a re-inspection and thus creating a whole new ROBOT nearly instantaneously? Again, just for clarification I/my team have no intentions of doing anything like this and absolutely will not because I believe as a team mentor that this is against the spirit of the rules.

My questions to all are:

1) Was anything we chose to do during build season or up until bag and tag night against the letter, intent, or spirt of the rules as you read, interpret, or understand them?

2) Would anyone interpret anything we chose to do during build season, what we bagged on bag and tag night, or what we intend to do at competition to be un-GP?

3) Given our team’s “resource level”, which I imagine to be fairly typical of the average team, is our conscious decision to play to our strengths by hoping to “win the war of attrition” giving our team an unfair competitive advantage in any way by bringing a complete set of “spare parts” that are currently bagged in an assembled spare MECHANISM that to “a reasonably astute observer” might appear to be a ROBOT?

4) Prior to last night’s update I firmly believe we followed the rules as they were written at the time up until bag and tag night. As an LRI, I can assure you that it is not the GDC’s intent to dis-allow teams bagging spare parts. Does the new wording added to the blue box in last night’s update clarify or muddy the intent of the rules regarding spare parts and what constitutes a ROBOT and/or what can and can’t be brought to an event in a bag?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Well, all those image came through much larger than I intended. Sorry about that.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

If a team bagged a ROBOT and an assembly of spare parts, but the assembly of spare parts was lacking wheels, would a "reasonably astute observer" think that an assembly of spare parts without wheels could play this game?

*Note that this is not possible to do at this point in time, so this is a hypothetical argument...for this season...under the current rules and updates.

It has ALWAYS been legal to bag as many spare fabricated parts as you want. I don't understand AT ALL the point of this discussion of it being assembled to resemble a robot or not. Even if Team 900 used their spare parts on the practice field (not the competition field during practice? I'm a little unclear on this), I see no problem whatsoever. Teams test half built, uninspected robots on the practice field all the time.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Our spare parts were only ever used in our pits or the practice field (though some were modified and put on our competition bot which we got fully re-inspected). It was also NEVER used on the practice field when we were queuing or on the competition field, at the request of the LRI which we happily complied with.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I think it depends on what you want to teach the students. What if the engineers at Google had decided that because cars are vehicles driven by people, they couldn't start to automate that process.

What if the Wright brothers had listened to the whole world telling them that it was impossible to fly? Where would this world be if all the engineers and inventors just accepted what is and what has been assumed? Cars? Space exploration? Computers?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Yeah my programmers corrected me -- they knew about it already :)

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

The team that holds off building anything significant, goes to week 1/2 competion, copies 1114/118/2056/179/33/67's robot. and competes week 5/6

Or even team xxxx competes with weak robot week 1, copies and builds a completely new robot copying zzzz team that won their event for their week5/6 DCHMP/CHMP event.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It's really entertaining to me that people actually think this would happen.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It happens in VEX.

I'd instead prefer a 4-6 hour unbag window every week. Maybe ban teams from adding non-COTS parts during those hours. That'll eliminate the need for a practice bot and stop copying.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Happens in VEX and FLL. Not like people can't build a robot that is already preconcieved in 3-4 weeks. People do a decent job of doing it in 3 days. Will it be as good as the original? No. But it will still be decent.

I mean the elite teams just wouldn't reveal their robot/compete at early events. Nobody would be allowed to take pictures of their robot or film it without them getting annoyed.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

We actually held off on designing one of the components of our robot this year until we could see how all of the other teams did it, that way we could choose the best approach without dedicating all the hours to prototyping. This is mostly because we're sinking all of our time into other parts of the robot, but still... It seems to be an effective approach for some things.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

But it'd be feasible to re-design and then iterate on that robot in the course of a few weeks... it's much, much less so in FRC.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Phoning in an event in FRC to try and copy something that may or may not effect how you do at another event is just stupid; at any level of robotics competition.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I'm not so dense that I fail to understand it happens in VEX (and FTC, I guess?) but this is not the VEX Robotics Competition; this is the FIRST Robotics Competition. We have gone in year-in and year-out with strategic design convergence happening in FRC. The venn diagram of "teams with the resources to fly out to an event and copy a robot" "teams that actually need just that one key to be any more competitive than they are already" does not have a large cross-section. Last I checked, VRC robots did not cost thousands upon thousands of dollars and be built with a custom structure like all of the teams you just mentioned.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Ditto. Even when potential "game-breaking" strategies, such as the 11 page thread on CD from 2010 describing, to the letter, 469's game breaking strategy that year: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=80202. I think that teams like to be independent, so they are inclined to come up with their own strategies, just like how we rarely see duplicate bots anymore.
The one issue with no-bag that I can really be scared of is that a team will not finish their robot by their first event, and because there is no bag time they won't be able to fix the problem.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

There are plenty of teams that build multiple robots that aren't currently powerhouses. I can think of 20+ off the top of my head that are relatively mediocre (regional quarterfinalist/semifinalist) robots that would have the resources to build and copy another robot. And lets be honest, all you need is a few copies of a very powerful robot for people to be upset. (triplets flashbacks?)

Or like I said, don't build anything but an adjustable drive train till week 1. Build one robot and just copy someone. Or at least take heavy inspiration from them. Heck people could have build a wooden 2014 254 clone and been way more competitive than they were with their actual robot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

A team that would wait until week 2 of regionals and copy a robot like 1114 isn't going to be good enough to actually get the details right. How many 1114 clones were there in 2014 that were anywhere near as good as 2008 1114? And that was with 6 years of hindsight to utilize.

This just isn't a valid concern, IMO. Teams could probably make something that visually looks like 1114 (or insert powerhouse team here), but it's just not going to perform out on the field. The only teams capable of copying them are making robots that are already as good as them.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Chuck,

Thank you so much for sharing your team's experience this season. I love the modular approach. I'm sure your students are learning a ton from the experience this season, for us it's been like managing a small production line!

We elected to not bag two of our three robots. Too much code, practice and iteration to do over the next two months for just one robot. We didn't get a picture with all three out of the bag, which was definitely a mistake! ;)

Regarding the withholding allowance:

Even if withholding allowance was gone, we would find ways to make the parts we need at the event within the allowable rules (we could bring in copies of each part and match drill all holes at the event to be within the zero withholding allowance rule).

Question for the group:

There used to be a clause in the rules about bringing in "functionally equivalent parts" or something like that. This allowed teams to have spares of parts in their pit without gaining a significant advantage. Anyone know why that rule isn't around anymore? These last couple of years I wished we could bring spares in, it would make me a whole lot less nervous about our robot snapping in half! :ahh:

-Mike

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It happened 7 years ago when 33 rebuilt their entire scoring mechanism to copy 67s at practice day of the championship. Of course teams would try it with all the additional resources available to teams.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Then why the hell didn't anyone do that? Surely it would not have weighed more than 45 pounds (in 2014) or be easy to replicate at a venue/through unbag time? Why didn't I do it? Why didn't 4476 do it?

Through the current district system a team in Indiana can register for 3 districts and their DCMP=4 events for $10000 and get 120 pounds of withholding and 24 hours of unbag time after "STOP BUILD DAY". Someone needs to call up 234 or 1024 or 5188 to scrap their whole machine now and start copying Arsenal because the opportunity already exists.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Of course, it won't be as competitive as the original robot, eg, 1114 will likely always be better than any copy that anyone could make.

I don't really think the 2008/2014 1114 clone analogy is that great. They are different games. 2008 all their robot had to do was get over a specific height, 2014 was much more of a precise shot. I'm fairly certain that if you made some 2014 1114 clones play the 2008 game, you would see a relatively close competitiveness level. Quite simply I don't think they would be unable to shoot the ball over a bar reliably. EG these robots could truss quite well. Just not score in the highgoal.

Because it's not easy to do within the time constraints/withholding allowance as opposed to a fully unbagged robot that you can do whatever you want to the robot. And evidently not every team is going to do that. I'm not familiar with 5188 in 2014, or 422. But the other three i'm fairly certain are more competitive/equally competitive as a wooden 254 copy.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I would love to know the answer to this too. Did withholding allowance end up killing this? I can't remember if both were in effect at the same time (ignoring the year that withholding allowance got added last minute).

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Then give us an analogy that would fit this situation.

And bin grabbers from 2015 and minibot/minibot launchers from 2011 dont count.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I think that's the point. Right now it's not realistic to just copy a robot because of bag day. Removing bag day may make it more feasible.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

So because there isnt any proof of this happening, it means that it would happen if the rule changed?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Why stop at just 4 events? Barring schooling issues, you could go to all three Indiana events, an out of state district, and the state tournament. If you bag all your withholding allowance for each event, you could theoretically have enough configurations of your robot by champs to overcome just about any challenge your opponent throws at you.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Could you explain to me why you don't think those "count"?

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Yes. No bag day would mean it is more realistic to copy entire robots/subsystems of robots. I am relatively confident that at least shooters/pickups/hangers/whatever will be copied on a much larger scale due to it just being easier to do. Thus upping general competitiveness and lowering design diversity.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

A good analogy is all of the 469 clones that surfaced in 2010. In Michigan they have a lot of powerhouse teams that had the resources to copy their game breaking strategy and with unbag time unique to them. On top of that we had expanded withholding allowance rules in light of the massive snowfalls the northeast received that year. By MSC, nearly all of the major teams there had copied 469. Later on, 469 lost to 67 at World Championships with the mechanism they themselves had originated.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

So you believe teams will spend tens of thousands of dollars to "compete" early on and wait till good teams play and then try to copy what they have based off streams and then hope that what they tried to copy will help them maybe when a later regional?

Show me a team that will do that and I will show you the worst set of mentors in FIRST.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Post a link to 1 robot that copied 469 from 2010 and having it pay off significantly. I sure dont remember it.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

We regularly make in season changes to our robot based on what other teams did that year and we are definitely doing it this year. The copies won't get you 100% there but they can definitely help. We did a full robot rebuild last year that got us at least into the playoffs at both our regionals and at championship. Last year we actually took a lot of inspiration from 118 and 1678 for the rebuild, so I guess we choose pretty well. Hopefully we don't have to do that much of a rebuild ever again but you can do a lot with 30 pounds of fabricated parts at 3 events. The bag rules make the changes harder but not impossible and even without them no one is going to take 254, 1114, or 118s design and make a better version during competition season, it's just not possible.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Me either.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Because there was only a limited amount of ways to actually build these things, 99% were made to be modular to begin with, and to be competitive everyone had to build them to begin with.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

It's not realistic for most teams, but it is possible for some teams currently (with high resources).

Any time the combination of the rules and the metagame making something that only elite and well resourced teams can do a huge competitive advantage, it's a bummer.

It's not possible to level the playing field entirely, but the more we can remove areas where throwing time and money at the problem (past the point of diminishing returns for most teams) the better for everyone.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Not that I agree or disagree with the argument but why wouldn't bin grabbers and minibots count? If anything they are perfect arguments for teams cloning each other within the withholding allowance rules. In my view, it can definitely be argued that lessening the risk of copying would drastically increase copying. A team doesn't even have to commit to the situation being described where a team waits until week 1 of regionals to start building. They could just build two robots like they already do. One that they build to the best design they could come up with and another to copy another team if their design can't cut it.

I'm not sure where I stand on having bag day. I'm not so sure it would lift the bottom teams up all that much rather than just solidify the dominance of the elite teams. Even if elite teams mess up and have a bad year, they can just copy or redesign much more easily.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

Yes, but you guys didnt build half a robot just trying to wait to see what 118 and 254 and 1114 built to copy it later. You modified what the complete robot you had, not just copying what they built and placing it on top of your half built robot.

Re: Team Update 14 (2016)
 

I totally disagree with this. Only 51 tried something similar as a re-director into the goals. Others just put up a piece of lexan to keep them on their side of the field.

No one could copy 469.