![]() |
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Voice of Dissent
Quote:
I feel the same way you do, however I think we all have to realize that FIRST has implemented this system based on feedback from US, the participants of the competition. I have no doubt that there WILL be flaws with how it plays out. We all just have to take things this year with a grain of salt, and work through the imperfections in the system. (and figure out ways to make it better!) Hopefully cool heads will prevail this year, and any such "witch-hunts" won't take place. I trust FIRST (or certainly some of the people in this competition, like yourself Raul) to iron out the flaws, and make this promising idea work out. For the record: I can't wait to see your bot either! See you in Houston. :D |
realize we have built a new thread here but....
I like and dislike the anonymous rule violation idea. As FIRST grows we have more teams, which means more people, which means more people looking to bend the rules to far (Most teams have a member or two that try to do this. Its just in the odds that eventually a few teams will be created made up of these types of members) So in that sense I like the ability to "blow the whistle" with out creating a huge PR problem. But its misuse can be dangerous...or will it? Assuming your robot is built to the rules it should be able to survive a second (or third) inspection. But the hassle of having to do it will be a drag. Back to the original question. If it were me? I would take the gears in question, stock, to competition and get them in machining as soon as possible. I would not fault you for looking at different gear ratios, just not building any custon gear box (And any stock gear that is altered is a custom gear) Hope it all works out |
This thread has become really long and involved but here goes...
I think there is an easier way to look at this. If you showed up on Thursday, were the first team to practice and realized that your gear ratios were incorrect, you would try to find a way to correct it as soon as you could. You might find a suitable gear that could be overnighted, Small Parts at the event might have the right stuff, or you might find a team that has everything you are looking for and is willing to trade.(This happens more often than most teams know.) Regardless, you get the parts and do your weight reduction at the event and everything is within the rules. As long as everything is modified, fabricated and/or assembled at the event (or during whatever time limit is set by FIRST following a regional) then it should be legal. To take this to the extreme, we attended an event last season (early regional) where one team came without a robot and another came with a non-functional robot that was 145 lbs. The first team assembled a robot at the event and the second was able to modify and reduce with help from other teams. I know that there were teams fabricating parts for them, lending tools and tech support and even giving away spares to help them. All of that was done within the rules both spirit and stated and showed gracious professionalism as well. Additionally the students on those teams (and no, i don't know if they were rookie teams) I think had a better experience. |
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Voice of Dissent
Quote:
If one of those cards just says "team XYZ has a non-compliant robot" and they happen to be ranked number 3, I don't know whether I'd care to re-inspect them. Without further details I'd tend to think it was just harassment. If the complaint had a team number or other indication of who it came from, I'd probably check to see just what problem they thought they saw. I might even be able to explain to them why what they thought was a violation in fact was not. On the other hand if the card said "team XYZ is using a window motor from last year", that is easy to check out. In this case a glance would do it, and the team wouldn't necessarily even know they were being "re-inspected". Last year teams sometimes got away with alot. But the inspectors tended to not be as familiar with the kit or the rules as I hope this year's will be. I personally know of teams that used van-door motors last year, one even claimed they were in the kit (they sure were, for 2001 but not 2002). I am hoping that this year will go better with the greater freedom in sources, and greater knowledge on the part of the inspectors. We'll know by Sunday |
Your subject indicates that you believe purchasing these gears would go against the spirit of the rules but is legal within the letter of the rules. I say stick with the spirit of the rules and make the modifications at the competition. Sure it's a little more work, but you'll sleep better at night.
my 2 cents |
concerning Raul's concern
I know there is a seperate thread within the original thread, but to Raul's concern - I am also very worried that this could really get out of hand. In principle, it might make sense to allow whistleblowing, but I hope that people running the event will use some consideration when in comes down to reviewing/re-inspecting a team. I can see that every team at any event could probably question something about every team - I am very concerned with the lack of good sportsmanship and gracious professionalism. If FIRST wants to allow a red flag questioning a team on the grounds of a rule - I don't think it should be done anonomously. If you are concerned - then what do you have to hide? I also think that if a team falsely accuses another team - the team has a right to know whom it was. Wouldn't it be ironic if the team that is questioned ends up picking the team that challenges them? Or better yet, a team picks the other without knowing it was that team that questioned their integrity? Would seem like it would be poetic justice for that team to decline the offer - after all why would you want to be on the same team that you accused of cheating? Seems to me this is just another opportunity for bad sportsmanship to rear its ugly head. Complicated rules just mean 1000 different interpretations of them - probably why this thread has so many opinions as to what to do. The simplest games are those with the fewest rules.
|
changing gear ratios is a major thing, making spare parts consists of creating things that are already existant on the robot....that is making COPIES of already existant parts... so the gear change does violate the rules...however the fabrication of replacement lighter parts is not a major design change, the new parts happen to be lighter....which is not a violation because it does not change the essential function of the robot....this is just how we have interperated the rules.....yours is up to you.
|
to the off topic question.....there is allowment for whistle blowing here....but there were a few robots last year that i saw with major violations that we tried to help to get them within the rules. But if a team is significantly benifiting by a rule violation they should be looked at, but if not leave them alone. also, always remember safety...if the violation was able to escape detection at inspection, but still presents a safety risk, bring it up with the team first.....dont rain on someone parade, and don't wait til the finals to bring it up....that is mean. Lets all be gracious professionals here.
|
In response to Jmrc.
http://jive.ilearning.com/thread.jsp...370617265#4197 Quote:
If a team had shipped a 131 lb. robot I think it would be outside the intention of the "identical spares" rule to repalce several parts on your robot with lighter "identical spares" to make weight. (assuming that these lighter "identical spares" were not made during the six week build period) |
Thank you for all of your input. We will not walk any fine line and we'll stick to our initial thoughts of:
"Currently, our thoughts are to bring the off-the-shelf sprockets/gears to the regional and modify them (lighten them & broach keyways) in the pits." Robonaut Ricky can run a 4.2 forty and we've been working with him to carry the gears in his teeth so he maintain his speed. So, if you're trying to get parts to the shop in a hurry on Thursday at the Lone Star Regional, say HI to Ricky ... he'll be at the head of the line.:D Thanks again, Lucien |
In my opinion, these rules are characteristic of the few problems of FIRST. In order to figure out what they mean, you usually have to assign a team of approx. 3 students to memorize the rule-book and obtain/learn all new updates as the year progresses. If your team has a problem, it then becomes the responsibility of this compliance team to get an answer. In this case, what caught my eye was that "NO "new" parts can be manufactured by the team after 5:00 of the ship date". To me, this basically means that you can't decide an idea was bad at 5:05 and begin working on a new way to fix it so that when you get to your first regional, you can simply bolt it on. Many people agree with me on this, however, I also believe something few people do. I interpret "NO "new" parts can be manufactured by the team after 5:00 of the ship date" to mean NO NEW PARTS. Think for a moment about all the teams at any regional you have been to that are frantically working in the pits, not doing repairs, but adding new components or even rebuilding their robot from the ground up. The tethers of last year's game come to mind. Many people would point out that since there is a FIRST machine shop at almost (probably) all regionals it is legal to make new parts. To them I simply say that the machine shop's original intent was to replace broken parts. Well, I imagine this will cause quite a stir, so I'll stop now.
|
Quote:
But... then, Update #20 came out and it all changed. Read pages 8-9, items 1, 2, 3, & 4. FIRST now says the new mechanisms may be made during the competition and after a Regional competition until the Wednesday following the competition. This opened the door for many modifications. Update 20 Andy B. |
If I remember, the "until wednesday" rule is sort of how it was last year. You could build parts for 4 days, then too, I think. It's still not as open as 2001, though. I remember teams were allowed to take their robot home until Wednesday that year.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:01. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi