New FIRST Ruling -Wow the implications
 

FIRST has ruled (answered) the question regarding making spare parts for you robot.

They have said ALL repair parts MUST be fabricated during the 6 week build cycle or at the competiton. NO parts may be made and brought to the competition. Parts can only be made from raw materials at the competition.

This means FIRSTERS, that if a special shaft or gear breaks at a regional you MAY be out of the entire competition including the Championship. Machine shops on site are often poorly equiped and very busy ( more so this year ).

And, add to that the flavor of "Football" style play FIRST is encouraging many robots will be in trouble.

This is also encouraging the disregard of "Gracious Professionalism" that would encourage a team to break the rule to survive and keep their robot running. How would anyone know if a part was smuggled in to repair their machine. hey, in past years we at least had until tuesday to make repair parts.

Here is the exact question and OFFICIAL answer.

Suppose a part breaks at a regional that requires machining or
welding or some other process that we do not have access to at a regional.
Is there any time after a regional when we can make replacement or repair parts?
Of course, we will not have our robot, but can we at least make
replacement or repair parts?

While I am at it, how about improved parts? Is improving a robot allowed after shipdate? If so when?

Answer from FIRST) You may purchase off-the-shelf parts (rod, gears, bearings, etc.)
and bring them to events, but all fabrication work must take place
on site at events. On site machine shops should include welding and basic machining capability. You are welcome to build improved parts at events.

If you agree that this ruling is terrible, PLEASE contact FIRST and voice your opinion. I have posted a poll to see what others think.

Of all my years being involved with FIRST (7) this rule really shows me something.

I don't condone breaking the rules or anything, but I don't think any other team will feel at all offended if another team absolutely needs to machine parts during the off team in order to survive. If someone is so badly damaged that they're out for the rest of the competition I think they've already payed their dues.
Fixing parts to survive is different from trying to get a jump start on the competition.

I'm not implying that our team would break the rules in this situation. This is just my opinion.

Sad News.....
 

It's lousey that my team is expected to go through all of this effort to "Inspire" by way of building a robot and competing in a contest only to be put out of it all by a "Body Slam".

What if the damage occurred due to some "Un-Gracious Professionalism". Am I expected to just forget about it and go home?

What if it's something that just unexpected, some part that shoulda but didn't. Am I expected to shrug my sholders and wait for two years to go to Nat's? Would FIRST give me my money back for the events I could not attend? Will FIRST get a gaggle of lawyers knocking at the door to get those refunds?

Hmmm, soooo many questions.

I wouldn't come back at all, honestly.


:mad:

The End of Elegance
 

This ruling has hit me about as hard as any I have ever had from FIRST. Since I read it at lunch I have been moping around like a whipped dog...

To my mind, this ruling together with several others means the End of Elegance in FIRST.

The Football references. Dragging is okay. Grabbing is okay. Fork lifting is okay. And now, even after I take a hit, I have to rely on overworked staff at a regional or go without.

It is depressing to think that a battlebot wannabe will essentially be able to take out whomever they want with little recourse for the wounded machine/team ("Hey, I was just trying to score! Read the rules, it said expect to be hit, FIRST event compared it to FOOTBALL, ever heard of the Monsters of the Midway? etc. etc.").

I was willing to take the chance of a single bad event when I thought that I could have a CHANCE at fixing whatever mangling took place.

Now I see little hope for this. We are spending our creative juices thinking about what we can take off our machine to make weight for more armor.


Believe it or not, this rule has me seriously considering having someone ready to run onto the field at a moments notice in order to get the match stopped in the event of our machine getting too badly damaged. Better to take the DQ than to risk missing the Championship Event because your robot is being damaged beyond repair on the field.

I am not putting it too strongly when I say that I HATE THIS RULING.

Joe J.

I saddly have to agree that this rule "STINKS", What ever happened to the (GENTLER-KINDER-FIRST) ? Or was this all GARBAGE TOO.
I dont know if any of you noticed that although were alowed to put Bumpers on Our Robots the weight of the Bumpers are included in the over all weight of the Machine, (130lbs).
If a team is in its last game and is not going to the Nationals then it has nothing to loose and could go out with a bang, The Bang being your machine. As far as the Machine shops are concerned they neednt bother, We had a part a few years ago that needed to be milled, if we had waited for them to do it we would still be there.
We bring our own equipment and last year our team had its own milling machine and lathe, we offered the equipment to any team that needed to use it but when FIRST found out they tried to shut us down.
This latest rule is just another nail in the coffin of FIRST. From the one coach rule to this latest slap its getting to the point where entering this program is to much work and not worth the effort.
Were told to build it strong but then there is some "OBSCURE" rule that might put us out of the game if a judge decides that a robot was mallicious, what kind of Bologna is this.
Im really looking to do Battlebots after this, Hey Dean thinks its OK so why not. Besides at least with Battlebots theres very few rules, no dead line, you can buy anything any where and theres over $50.000 in prize money. and lastly no boring speech about the same old thing year after year.
Sorry but im a little upset at this latest nonsence.
Nick237
PS. Dont bother calling FIRST, anything you tell them will be "Taken under advisement" as they last told me when I called.

not a good learning experience...
 

It is unfortunate that teams will be penalized just because they didn't know better about building a really strong robot for competition, and have no chance to learn about that at the actual competition and fix it...

It is one thing to encourage teams to build a robust and strong robot... It is another thing to tell teams, that they will have more chances of winning, and ultimately for the championship when robots around them are in worse shape.

ALL their hard works will be ruined, just because their robot is damaged in a match (accidentally or intentionally) by the nature of the game, and have no way of fixing it. Is it really the spirit of FIRST if team's experience is ruined just because of a bunch of words on paper? Are we not here to inspire the young ones about engineering and technology? Aren¡¦t repairing, improving, and adapting better ideas to inspire and teach the kids?

Learning to repair your robot, maybe even improve it after observation of the competition and other robots, is a really valuable learning experience. A lot of teams have benefit from that by going to competition, experience the matches, talk to other teams, and learn whatever they can from all the people around.

It is unfortunate that teams won't be able to take advantage of that learning experience, because they will have to wait till they get their robot back afterward before they can really fix their robot and make improvements.

Since when did we start coming up with rules so strict that we have to give up a good part of learning experience for it?

Since when did we stop telling teams that "you should try as hard as possible, even if your machine broke down during competition¡K You can still fix it if you work really hard at it!" ?

Since when did we stop giving teams chances to learn from their mistake? Since when did we start saying, ¡§You failed. This is it.¡¨

So, I really urge FIRST to modify the rule about on-site manufacturing of spare parts.

Sure, teams can slap together a much of raw material, and try to make a replacement. But other than that, they will have to wait for the shop at competition, that will likely be fill with 40 other teams trying to make spare parts/replacement parts. I am sure the on-site machine shop has similar capabilities as the shop at teams¡¦ head quarter, but it won't be the same when they are sharing with 40 other teams.

So, my suggestion is this. Allow teams to go back to their head quarter and manufacture parts during a limited time. Every one can go back home after competition, make whatever parts they might need on the robot, and bring it to the next competition. Teams closer to the regional won¡¦t have an advantage that way, because they won¡¦t be taking the robot home, while far teams can¡¦t.

I understand that it is hard to implement this rule, and check and make sure that teams actually do stop manufacturing parts after the time limit¡K But I believe, over all, everyone will gain more from this ruling compare to the original ruling.

I am just one of many opinions. So please reply if you have different opinion.

return of da "S"
 

1) I agree that this is a bad rule, and I think FIRST will probably change it once they realize how much it affects teams.

2) lets b fair when criticizing FIRST. It's a stupid rule and needs to be changed, but sometimes we get so ticked that we just make things up which simply aren't true, such as:

This is just ridiculous. ne 1 who knows Dean at all will tell you he has ZERO respect for Battlebots, wants nothing to do with it (as do most of us), and does not think it has any value at all. Dean has NEVER said he thinks BB's is OK, and I know we all know that. Just because Battlebots used footage of Dean, W/o his knowing or his permission, doesn't mean Dean thinks they are ok, it just shows how they operate.

Again, while everyone seems to agree this is a bad rule, this statement is just not accurate. FIRST listened to teams more than ever this year - teams wanted head to head 2 vs 2 competition, teams wanted more motors, teams wanted electronics opened up, teams wanted more flexibility in parts like sprockets, gears, belts, and so on. Teams wanted remote kickoffs and regional team forums. FIRST made more changes this year at the request of teams than ever before. This is a bad rule, I agree. But just because they say "Taken under advisment" and don't use every idea you, me, or other people might give them does not mean they don't listen to teams - I think they listened a lot this year. So yea...that my 2 cents...

~ej

I don't like those 8 votes to jsut break the rules...

We havn't had much luck with the on-site machine shop. Last year at VCU, we were told that they were unable to drill a hole in some steel of us without some special bit. (He is even on the A&E show saying this)
Those three days last year were not all that busy, as we had ended up fourth at the regional, but two years ago we compleatly rebuilt a critical subsystem because the other one didn't work. That was some of the most intense and rewarding work I remember. Thakeing something that we thought would work, have it not, and then reengineering it in a short amount of time to make it work.
I think this rule is yucky. :(
Note to FIRST: Please revert to the way it was.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh ............ those old "only two weeks until we ship" nerves!

Frayed? Burned out? On edge? Perplexed? Frustrated?

Sit down. Relax. Take a deep breath.

Repeat after me : "It's going to be OK; It's going to be OK; It's going to be OK......."

Now, think. Think hard. What is FIRST? Why did you get involved? What is it that keeps you coming back year after year? What is the value that you get out of it?

And, what makes you think that a couple of rule changes can make all of that disappear? All of our - OUR - hard work, down the drain - because of a rule? I honestly do not think so. There is far too much of value here to just dismiss it now.

Listen to me, please. FIRST is what WE make it. We - all of us - working together. That's what all of this is about. I'm not some Unibomber sitting in my dark cabin plotting out nefarious schemes and evil mechanisms to destroy the FIRST world. And, I don't think anyone else involved in it is doing that, either. I am going to do my best to work within the rules, in the spirit of Gracious Professionalism promoted by Dean and Woodie, and to make this game - which no one has ever played yet - work out as well as all the others have. Any team with a 'slash and burn' mentality is going to get frozen out of our community pretty darned quickly.

Certainly, we need to send our constructive criticism to FIRST, and make our opinions known. But calm down. Nobody listens to people that yell at them, and that's what is happening here.

Surely, when respected people like Dr. Joe and Ed Sparks are upset, something is not right. But, is it as wrong as we are making out? So wrong that we are willing to chuck the whole thing? God, I hope not, or I have been going down the wrong road.

Let's get back on track, people! If the FIRST community can't come together and work this out, then what hope is there for the world community? And, just who do you think is going to inherit THAT mess? Dr. Joe and Ed and I aren't the ones that are going to straighten that out and live with it. It's the students that are going to grow up and do that. So, what are we adults doing to help them get there? Carping about some silly robot rules? Think about the larger issues, please. There is too much at stake for us to fall apart over this minor issue.

We are supposed to be examples - GOOD examples. Let's act like it.

Sorry for the ranting, but I really think this was going the wrong way. I'll get off the box now.

Ranting, Yahoo Message #725 and a new name for Zone Zeal...
 

I am sorry if I am ranting a bit here, I don't often flame about things (though perhaps others disagree). But, this is a very big deal to me and I think to a lot of folks.

In message #725, quoted above, Eric at FIRST tries to argue that nothing much has changed because the rules are not much different from prior years.

BUT... HERE IS THE THING:

In the past, OUR robot has never been a legitimate game piece for THEM.

In past years, if I was trying to score somehow, they could try to stop me but I had a bit of control with that process. If I didn't try to score they had no real reason to come after me. So it was (relatively) easy to have a ref say that it was malicious to go attack a robot away from the scoring area.

Not so in Zone Zeal. In this case, my robot is never safe from attack. IT IS A LEGITIMATE GAME PIECE FOR THE OTHER SIDE! Grabbing, towing, hoisting, lifting, pushing, etc. are built into the game.

I am willing to accept that fact. What I am ranting about is the fact that now I am forced to build a machine that is so robust that it can be expected to have no significant damage during this rough and tumble interaction, because if it does, our team is effectively sidelined for the Championships.

This on top of the fact that a number of aspects of the game are tilted toward brute force pushing has made me re-name the game.

From now on, unless something chances, my new name for the game is "The End of Elegance"

Joe J.

Compromise Suggestion (crate for parts)
 

I really believe FIRST gave us this game in an effort to show us the error of our ways. We complained so much about last year having no competition that they went overboard with the interaction hoping that someone will break down and say, "this stinks that our robots are breaking down all of the time, I would rather have the all-for-one game back." With the addition of this latest ruling, it's like they're trying to break us down or something.

I love the head-to-head competition and as much as it's going to stink to have everyone's robot broken down all of the time, I would still rather have this game than last year's. However, I think FIRST needs to find a happy medium like the 2000 game.

With that being said, I really think we need to have a few days to make replacement parts and even improved parts. The problem with this is that teams can make parts for the entire time between competitions and bring them to the competitions and FIRST has no way (outside of "gracious professionalism") to know that those parts were made during the allotted time.

Suggested Compromise

How about this suggestion: Previously, FIRST made us ship robots by a certain time on Tuesday following a competition, and we needed to show verification that the robot was shipped on time. Why not give every team a separate "parts crate" that needs to be shipped by the deadline on Tuesday? All of the replacement parts and spare parts must be shipped in this crate and you must show verification that the crate was shipped on time.

With this suggestion, no parts can be brought to the competition (with the exception of off-the-shelf gears, bearings, or stock) - the only parts that a team can use is the ones from the "parts crate". When the competition ends, the teams must ship the robots but they are allowed to take home the parts crate, make parts until Tuesday, and then ship the crate by the deadline.

I think this is a workable compromise. In order to keep down the cost of shipping and the added hassle of the extra box, FIRST should limit the size. In fact, why not say it has to be one of those green boxes that the kit of parts comes in?

I'm with Chris
 

I agree with Chris with regards to the 2000 game. The 2000 game had interaction, blocking, fighting for position just like this game. However, two major differences: (1) goal in 2000 was fixed and each team had their own goal, but this year goal position is key and much more fighting/tugging will occur and (2) your robot can score for the other team (against its will).

I think FIRST attempted to make the game like 1999 (position of puck/goal), 2000 (balls in goals), and 2001 (moveable goals & robots position scoring). Also, it looks like they tried to make it easier for broken down robots to score (4 dead robots 60 QP for the coin toss winner).

As a result, some other "bad" aspects have come in to play.

We must make our comments and hope FIRST can ammend some of the not-so-good rules.

my take
 

Some replies to previous posts:

Leo M - VERY well said. Every year there are many moments when most of us need to step back and think of the very things you spoke about.

Joe J - I agree about the time to work on parts rule. I think it will change, but even if not, I have one slightly different take: I really don't think the interaction will be quite at brutal as some fear. I don't know of many teams designing robots to pick up others, and I also agree that any team who goes out of their way to viciously handle another (with the obvious probability of damage) will get no respect from the FIRST community, making it not worth it - they can go join the WWF of wedges.

Chris H - good idea about the Till Tuesday work on parts (if you thought of a funny 80's reference there, you are too old to control a robot;) ). I doubt they can institute that this year, but if they don't, be sure to bring it up at the team forum for next year.

Paul C - well said, and true, as FIRST has shown in other instances this year, if the vast majority of teams can bring a bad situation to light, they may try to fix/change it. That could still happen here.

Leo M - again, VERY WELL SAID. and again, we all need to think of what Leo said - especially in the stress of the 6 weeks.

Good luck to all - have a great day!

No one said that it was going to be easy...
 

Lets get this straight, first of all - FIRST is not Battlebots, and even with the amount of interaction allowed this year, FIRST will not become Battlebots. Even if the games themselves were exactly the same, FIRST will not be BB because of FIRST's code to be gracious professionals at all times. BB doesn't have that.

Does anyone seriously believe that there will be bloodthirsty teams marauding across the playing field, destroying any robots in their path? It stands to reason that no one in this thread complaining about the ruling would behave that way, so why are we so quick to assume that other teams will? IMHO, gracious professionalism includes giving other teams the benefit of the doubt, i.e. assume that they will behave as professionally as we would.

However, even with GP, there will be robots damaged by game interaction. That's inherent in the game. So what can we do about it? We can cheat, by building parts between competitions, we can rely upon the kindness of strangers (which is rarely overestimated at FIRST events), or we can get smart, and build spares beforehand of parts likely to break.

Finally, I would like to say that, yes, it would be nice to have those three days with our robots after the regional, like last year, but I do see the logic in the ruling. It reduces the advantage that rich teams have over those with fewer resouces by not allowing those teams that can afford to go to three regionals have more time with their robot than those that can't. It's that simple.

As a (former) long time employee of FIRST...I couldn't read all these posts and not respond. I know how hard it is for teams to have rules changed on them in the middle of design and build, and sometimes during an actual competition event! (That has happened before as some of you know!)

When you call the FIRST office, you might get "We'll take that under advisement." I know when I was handling several hundred phone calls and emails, I used that response more than once myself!....but I ALWAYS took your requests, comments and suggestions seriously, and I know that FIRST still does.

If you continue to bring these unsatisfactory issues/rule changes to FIRST's attention, they are bound to listen and make adjustments. That's why, like SupaE said in his post....FIRST does listen, at the Team Forums (this was designed just for YOU!), through e-mails, through phone calls and at the events. Just bring issues to them rationally, and they'll get it...sometimes not right away...but they WILL get it!

Lots of positive changes have been made and incorporated into this season...and I'm sure there will be lots more changes in the future...so hang on to why you started with this program...it IS what you make it! Make it GREAT!

my two cents.......
-Lori- :)