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- :)

It should be changed... but, in the mean time...
 

I agree that this rule is an oversight and should be changed. I especially like Chris Hibner's green box comprimise.

But...

In the mean time, we better all make spare parts now. If you were planning on making enough parts for a second robot for driving practice, maybe those parts should be shipped with your competition robot. We have a couple of weeks before we need to make that decision, but I can see many teams opening up their crates at a Regional with parts for two robots.

And...

This leads us to a few more problems:

Crates are gonna be heavier this year. Oh well.

Teams will be making parts in haste in their pits (or traveling trailers), using heavier machinery than usual. This is not good, since safety may be jeapordized. Actually, this could be the trump card in all of this. If this logic is correct, we can state that this new ruling will make the pit environment more unsafe. This fact may be a deciding factor with encouraging FIRST to let us make repair parts until the next Tuesday.

Andy B.

Question on interpretation
 

Andy, my interpretation of the ruling is different from yours. Does anyone know of another rule that will clarify this matter?

The ruling Mike Martus quoted said all machining must be done at the competition. It doesn't say that all spare parts must be shipped with the robot. My interpretation is that you can make spare parts during the 6 weeks of build and bring them with you to competitions.

Mike

I think it was a Yahoo thing...
 

My recollection is that FIRST said that all improved raw materials must be shipped with the robot. As to where they said it, I think it was on one of the questions on Yahoo.

Anyone else have similar memories?

Joe J.

P.S. Message #358 seems to support a contrary view:


But... Message #459 supports the ship all improved parts side of the coin:

I wouldn't object IF...
 

there was a halfway reasonable chance of actually getting something worked on at an "official" event machine shop.

Our first year I personally waited for several hours at Nationals for a fifteen minute job to be done. It seems the team that got there ahead of me needed their entire frame rewelded. We missed a practice session as a result. Fortunately that was all we missed. This was at the best shop I ever saw at a competition.

I don't know about other venues but here in LA you can expect to NOT have ANY machine shop availability UNLESS there are some drastic changes from last year. Fortunately we didn't need shop services, but there are some pretty ugly stories from those who did.

I'm not saying that there isn't a shop, but it was so overloaded that there was no way you could count on getting anything done there. Not to mention that you had to be driven over there in a "shuttle" that came once in a blue moon.

Last year we had about 40 teams and at least half were experienced. This year there will be 80 teams and twice as many rookies as last year. I am planning on spending most of my time there helping other teams get their machines running and I am NOT looking forward to the line for the machine shop. Especially when FIRST has basically shut out the possibility of bringing your own.

As for spares, while that is possible for some obviously vulnerable components, in many cases you just can't know what will break. A few years ago I talked to a guy whose team lost the finals at Nationals because a little tension spring broke at a critical moment. That spring had never given them trouble before and they had been to at least one regional prior to Nats.

It's sort of like that Dilbert cartoon where the pointy haired boss asks Dilbert what kind of unforseen problems he expects and how long will they take to fix.

We'll bring along just about all the tools we can carry and if they are not in our fists in use any team is welcome to borrow them or our expertise. But we will not be bringing our own mill, lathe or welder, and somethings just can't be replaced by a vise and a drill motor.

End of Elegance-Dr. Joe is right
 

What else can be said?

Dr. Joe is right. This year is the end of elegance in FIRST.

I've had 2 years of experience with FIRST (last year and this year).

Last year (at least I thought) was great! At the J&J Mid-Atlantic regional, there were a few rookies, but otherwise teams knew what they were doing. There was a sort of magic in that arena, everyone supported each other, and we had a blast.

The concept of referees calling judgments is EVIL! Judges are partial, and vary from regional to regional. Something a team uses to win the finals at one regional could get them disqualified at another. The game itself is skewed via human error. HAL the computer can't judge every regional.

The nature of the game required intelligence, and information on other teams. I filled that role on my team. I worked like a madman, but in the end, achieved the Delphi Driving Tomorrow’s Technology Award, an accomplishment that I am most proud of. That pride will stay, not matter where FIRST goes.

This year, the J&J Mid-Atlantic has an entirely different set of teams, about 10 (out of 36) being rookies. A lot of local teams that were there last year have left.

I believe that FIRST has been expanding very rapidly during the past few years, and we are now paying the price, as FIRST tries to make a rookie-friendly game to accommodate all these new teams.

This year's game (quite opposed to last year) requires NO finesse. Last year, elegant solutions paid off with points and wins. The most ingenious robots (47, 45, 71, 365, etc) were the ones that won, and deserved to win.

This year, complex mechanics will be shoved and smashed, while the simplest 'bulldozer' can win out, because it can dish out, and take, more punishment than anyone else. It becomes better by bringing anyone better than it down, rather than by bringing itself up.

Teams having the ability to disable (practically) another robot by nullifying its ability to move, for the whole 2 minutes:

Is this contradictory to the spirit of FIRST or what?

I think this year will be a downhill year...it truly is the end of elegance. It is the end of an era, and a dawn of a 'mass marketing' FIRST. (This is, unless FIRST gets back into shape real quick)

It will probably be Battlebots this year, but it won't matter that much to me. Nothing at this point will change that; it's practically practice time

Who knows, if enough people complain, and enough robots get totaled, FIRST might go back to the old style of playing.

I witnessed some matches from 2 years ago, from the J&J Mid-Atlantic. Some people on this board may know which matches I'm talking about. These matches were akin more to Battlebots than FIRST, and they made me both sickened and ashamed of my team's behavior. A superior robot was beaten by another robot, by constant ramming and bashing, for the FULL 2 minutes.

This was in the finals.

The refs let it slide.

I apologize, on my OWN behalf, to that team. They know who they are, and they know what I’m talking about. It was ungracious, unprofessional, against the spirit of FIRST robotics. They should have won, and by my book, they did.

Do you think that teams would agree not do ungracious and unprofessional things, even if they may profit form it? Unlikely, unless the agreement is from the top down. And some engineers and teachers and mentors may miss the point, and favor malicious tactics in place of building a really good robot.

I’ve been in FIRST long enough to notice. At the Nationals, another team punched out their robot on the bridge, knowing full well they weren’t going to the championships, so neither were we (they didn’t like us that much.) It WILL happen this year too, I am sure of that.

Rookies also (by nature) build general simpler robots, because they don't know the ropes. They would, being new to FIRST be natural teams to push the envelope of what is legal and what isn’t.
Thankfully, FIRST states that putting a black plastic tarp over the opposing alliance station is illegal. (Real question, also brought up by a freshman on my team.) This goes to show how many evil or unprofessional alternatives there are to building excellent robots.

*********

If experienced and rookie teams make some sort of pact to not turn FIRST into Battlebots, by not participated in such behavior, than that would held remedy the situation. An unspoken rule of gracious professionalism and morals can save this year. I probably won’t happen, but as ladies and gentlemen, of high moral standing, I think we can, as individuals, do our best to stamp out these actions before they occur, either by boycotting offending teams in the finals, and demonstrating the REAL way to play in FIRST.

For this year, though, I'd stock up on the extra parts and hankies, because it won't be pretty. Robotics in general hasn’t been that much fun this year. Something is lost, but I can't quite know what. It may just be my team, but perhaps it’s something more. The End of Elegance, how sadly true. reminds me of that old Don Henley song. End of Innocence.

Speaking for myself, I really don't want this year to become like that match 2 years ago. I hope that the referees crack down hard on that behavior before it becomes a major issue. This ruling, however, promotes that, and is against what I had though FIRST stood for. Now, I not so sure.

Sorry if I rambled, I just needed to get this off my chest. It's been a long and dark six weeks at team 303.


Yours truly,

--Ben Mitchell
As always, representing himself and not his team

Re: I wouldn't object IF...
 

This is exactly the reason why I suggest FIRST modify the rules... I do not believe all the teams will be able to do the necessary repair or manufacture the replacement parts on site at competition. It is one thing to have to share the shop between 10 teams... It is totally different if we are sharing the shop with 40 other teams.

No, I don't believe teams will be going around trying to damage robots... But Yes, I do believe accidents will happen due to the nature of this year's game. Especially rookies and second year team.

As I said: 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...

Also, Learning to repair your robot, and improve it after watching 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. I don't see that happening if teams are waiting 4 hours a day to get in the machine shop, and the rest of the team sitting in the pit waiting with a damaged robot.

My main reason for asking a modification is this. With this year's rule and on-site machine shop capabilities, FIRST seems to be saying to teams: "So your robot is broken. If the machine shop can't fix it, well, too bad. Your robot will have to remain broken all the way to the end." I think teams deserve a bigger chance than this, especially rookie and second year teams.

I hope FIRST will be able to change a little bit of the rule... Even if it's only allowing teams to go back to their headquarters during the three day of regionals to make spare parts. At least that will shorten the waiting line at on-site machine shop for teams who can't get back to their headquarter.

I've read through this entire thread. Everyone makes some good point here or there.

Personally, I consider the football analogy to be the most disgusting thing in this whole issue.
Football and Gracious Professionalism are mutually exclusive philosophies.

By making this ruling, it is now now FIRSTs responsibility to ensure that the machine shops at all competitions have the capability and manpower to handle any machining work that went in to the creation of each and every robot. If you are going to tie our hands behind our backs, then you are going to have to feed us.

Consider this a possible solution. If the machine shop at the competitions are unable to support the machining of repair parts, for whatever reason be it lack of capability or time, then FIRST should put in place a process allowing a team to waiver the rule within some reasonable limits. What would be a reasonable limit? The Tuesday ship to the drayage time limit sounds very fair. Or going to an off-site machine shop that can handle the work.
I'm sure others might have more or better suggestions on this subject.
Let's hear the suggestions for fixing this. We've already heard about how much it stinks.

Additionally, I also feel strongly that it is up to the mentors on all teams to ensure that the drivers and operators of their robots understand the importance this year of good sportsmanship. No excuses about getting "caught up in the heat of the battle". This can be as much of a mental game as a physical game. It's up to us to decide how to play it.

Well, this has turned in to a bit more than 2 cents worth. I hope it will help someone think up a solution to the problem.

I do not like this rule. What is the point in placing all these restrictions? It isn't fun when you're a student, go to a competition, have a little part break in the first match and your season is over. Meanwhile there is a machine shop down the road you can go to and you could be back in the competition in hours.

However, I don't think this is a major deal. This just means MAKE SPARES of all custom parts!

- Patrick

$$$ my friend....

Would any of you like a little cheese?
 

What does this mean? Football is a contact sport, yes, and a rough one, and so will this game be, but there is nothing inherently graceless or unprofessional about either of them.

The essence of engineering is to take what is given in a situation, and make the best possible solution out of it. If my job requires me to build a robot to help an astronaut, wishing that I could build a giant car crushing robot instead doesn't get me any closer to my goal. Similarly, whining and complaining about a percieved loss of elegance does nothing to advance either your solution to the problem or the game in general. Granted, I haven't been around the game as long as many of you - last year was my first - but the spirit of FIRST is unchanged from last year. We are still out to teach high school students what engineering and professionalism are all about, and there is already too much whining and negativism in the workplace. We don't need to perpetuate it by showing examples of this behavior in response to a game.

Know now that everyone's robot will have at least one crisis during the competition. You can either fix your robot and help those teams that need the help fix theirs, or you can stand around and wish that you could take the robot back home and fix it in your shop. One course of action will allow you to keep competing, and one will not.

Here here.
I agree with you verdeyw. Lets make our point known, and then get back to work.

Re: Would any of you like a little cheese?
 

Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing. - Vince Lombardi
One statistic that is most useful in tracking the success of an offensive lineman is pancake blocks. This is where you flatten the defensive lineman and lay on top of them until the play is over.
Football is very enjoyable to both watch and play, but I wouldn't exactly call it graceful. I also wouldn't look at many of the legal actions in Football as being professional in any other setting.

FIRST does read this forum. FIRST does listen to teams' inputs at the end of the season. FIRST has made rule changes due to the unforeseen effects on teams. However, you can rest assured that no rule will change if FIRST is unaware of any adverse effects. While I am not advocating complaining about each and every rule, when a rule of this magnitude is made, FIRST needs to realize the impact it will have.

Many teams will have crises this year due to broken parts. Again, I wish it were as simple as you said. And yet, the reality is that many teams will probably not be able to continue competing. Many teams do not have the budget to build several spares of each and every part, nor will they be able to accurately predict exactly which parts will fail in this high-impact football-like game. I expect we will need to make many repairs to our robot, and I also expect our team will be helping as much as we can, but you're living in a dream world if you think that several teams won't be sidelined due to this ruling.

A pancake block is graceful - it doesn't happen through brute force. It happens when an offensive lineman catches a defensive lineman off guard. It happens through quickness, not meanness. And it is an example of the teamwork that is required in this year's game, but absent in last year's. Last year a single great robot, assisted by 3 others that could move without dying, could score big. This year, those robots have to be able to actually push things around to make a difference. Bulldozer bots are an improvement over remote control cars.

And FIRST evidently noticed some adverse effects which led to the creation of this ruling. There is no reason that, because a team is nearby to three regionals and can afford to go to them, that it should be able to have an extra two and a half weeks with their robot.

I was discussing this thread with the team today and I might have to retract part of my objection to the footbal analogy. Here is a point made by one of my football playing student/mentors. In football, you block, you shove. You get penalized for holding (aka grabbing the opponent). Okay FIRST, you want to use the football analogy, you had better outlaw holding or grabbing. Pushing/blocking is legal, holding/grabbing shouldn't be.

Well, there seems to be a lot of very heated discussion here over this issue. I hope that FIRST will come around and realize that this decision breaks down one of the fundamental beliefs in "gracious professionalism", i.e. helping out other teams. How many veteran teams have helped out rookies or even other veteran teams when a defective design broke down during a competition. How often have I been told "it is more important to compete than to win". It is for this reason our adult advisors make ourselves available during competitions to help other teams. We have literally helped many teams over the years (and have been helped), and those teams were able redesign, or rebuild a broken robot and compete. The students of those teams getting the opportunity to see first hand "gracious professionalism" at it's greatest and getting the chance to compete. How many times have other teams even taken a time-out to allow us to make repairs or mount up a spare even though they were the opposition team/alliance.
To allow some work on redesign helps everyone achieve their best without harming the "level playing field" concept. The few days available in the past helped maximize the experience for the students. Considering that some teams will not compete at nationals, there should be some leeway in this ruling to insure maximum effort by each team and minimal interfernce/damage.
Let's remember that this program is designed to give students a positive experience and demonstrate cooperation even between competing corporations working towards a common goal.
Good Luck All,

It would seem to me that Al's post above says it all and that truth and justice will prevail. F.I.R.S.T. Must see this and reconsider. We have built a Tank and could probably be droped off a 10 story building but I recall our first year back in 1999 when we were advised to build a strong Robot but being Rookies we didnt know what a strong Robot ment.
We thought we bult strong but were wrong, we had our share of problems and many teams came to our rescue including TEAM 111 Thank you....
This caring and sharing will end this year as its every man for him self. why would any team want to fix a teams bot that might come out the next game and cause damage that in effect sends you home.
I know our team cant afford to make enough spare parts to cover all problems but all the rich teams and well funded teams wont have this concern. Last year we had a robot that as soon as we played the first game it was apparent that we had a very serious flaw and if it hadnt been for the three days between shipping and the end of the regionals we would not have been able to compeete in the nationals.
If F.I.R.S.T. DOESNT KNOW IT BROKE THEN THEY CANT FIX IT.
I HAVE STUCK PINS IN THE MAP AND EVEN THE CORNERS BUT I FOUND ALL CORNERS WERE THE SAME AND THE MAP FULL OF HOLES...
Nick237

Geez...
 

Ok, I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for posting this, but... wow, guys... calm down. I understand the reasons behind everybody disliking the rule, but come on... nobody ever said the competition was going to be easy, and this is an incentive to use our alotted weight to make our robot as robust as possible. We all have the same problem we need to work around here, so let's do the best we can, right? It's an engineering challenge, and there's really no point engineering a robot to be overly fragile anyways. If you do things right, you should be able to protect all of your robot's vital components. We asked for head-2-head competition back, and we got it, and as a result, we got the consequences that go along with it. There's no point asking for h-2-h action if we can't handle the fact that THINGS MAY GET BROKEN. It's a fact of life, so we should all just deal with it and then go build our robots. There's no referees in the real world, and if you view it as "just a game", then it seems to me that you're getting too worked up about it. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. I'm off to keep workin on the 'bot.

Keep it real

I agree with azn dawg. Has anyone thought that this is a way to try to minimize the hits that dean hates so much? Also, people are thinking what is a robot hits me? What if you hit another robot and break who's fault is that?

This game is all about planning. Let's face it, being a 2 on 2 there is no way you can guarantee safety during a match for your robot because stuff happens. a possible back up would be to put all of the possibly needed parts into the crate with the tools so that you can fix what has been broken

The last things I have to say is if you have the raw materials you should be able to fix the part that has broken without too much trouble of prefabrication.

p.s. it feels good to post again

Are you kidding....... Your in the finals and theres 2 minutes between games, you discover your main gear box has to be rebuilt what are you going to do whip out some raw material and wave a magic wand, because thats what you will need to save you.
Your assuming that the machine shop will drop everything they are doing just to fix your Robot, Your assuming there is a machine shop???.
Wake up. If you think you can fix all major parts with some raw material in the blink of an eye then why do we need 6 weeks to build, why not have the teams build their bots at the Kick off.
Its nice to know that your team has so much money that it can afford to make so many extra parts just in case. But many teams are not in that group (us included) so many of the posts above are thinking of their plight. Who needs the chalenge, not me. Give us the 3 lousy days.
Nick

THE MAP IS FULL OF HOLES
 

Thanks Al, you've made my point exactly. Like I said before, teams at FIRST events do not just let other teams flounder when they need help. When a team needs help, the helpers have to stand in line! That is the beauty of this organization, and it will not change because there's more contact in the game.

Nick, I'm sorry, but you're completely off base here. In 1999, there was just as good a chance that a robot that team 111 helped fix would come back to compete against team 111. The truth of the matter is that it's much more fun to compete against robots that work than it is to compete against broken robots, and, more importantly, it is in the spirit of the game to help!

Bad news - those three days aren't going to help you, even in this situation. Better hope you have a good partner, maybe even someone who's robot you helped fix.

The thing that distresses me the most about this thread, though, is that no one has addressed my point about teams attending multiple regionals having an unfair advantage. Am I off base with this statement? And please be civil - just because we disagree doesn't mean that we can't do it graciously.

Re: THE MAP IS FULL OF HOLES
 

I have no problem with multiple regionals, we are going to 2 and I wish we could get to them all but we dont have the funds. The attendence of many regionals is factored by the total amount of $$$ that a team has and that might be what your talking about. Good luck to any team that can go to multi regionals but your going to see a much different game this year. Will teams be chearing for other teams like they have in the past, I dont think so.
The fun is the Nationals and if your an even team then the spirit might be with you but if your an odd team then its Win or Loose except theres an added twist, if your Bot is damaged you cant fix it.
Nick

I have no problem either with teams going to multiple regionals. If you have the means, and the regionals are nearby, then go for it! The problem is that, when teams get those three days after a regional, it's after every regional. So those few teams that can attend three regionals can have more than one additional week with their robot than those that only attend one.

You can also attend nationals by winning one of the regional chairman's awards, or one of the technology awards.

I'm not a big fan either of the regionals-as-qualifying-event paradigm, but it's a happy problem to have - FIRST is growing! FIRST was stuck between a rock and a hard place for this one. The bottom line was that there are too many teams for them to all to go to nationals. So some must not be allowed to go. They chose evens and odds. (A better solution might be to go by the year a team joined, so that all rookie teams can go to nats.) Alternatively, in order to keep teams from losing that helpful spirit, they could have said that winning a regional doesn't help a team go to nats, but that eliminates a lot of teams with great robots. So they chose the lesser of two evils in letting regional winners go on, trusting the participants of FIRST to abide by the creed of gracious professionalism, and not allow the prize of going to Florida to cloud their judgement. Was that the correct assumption? Only time will tell, but I'd like to think that it was.

You make some great points that I have to agree with but its more important that FIRST agrees with than us.
I think I would like to see some thing very new happen next year that might solve a few of the problems. so how about this idea. Love to see if you love or hate it.
OK we all agree that FIRST has grown to big to fast. so with this in mind FIRST had to shorten the playing field and they did it by the ODD/EVEN rule. Boooo.
Anyway what if next year they know how many teams are able to go to the Nationals and the know how many regionls there are so they divide the regionals into the National and come up with an average.
For instance if the # is 24 then the top 8 teams and their aliances get to go to the Nats. This in my mind is the fairest way to have the best of the best attend the Nationals. Yes there will be disapointment but this way you get to go on the merit of you Robot and alliance, not by the type of # at the end of your team.
With this system when you get to go its because you did it right, not wrong.
Works for me.
Nick

FIRST in the desert?
 

I'm sure that this arrangement was considered, but dropped because of what you talked about in your previous post. This type of arrangement would not de-emphasize winning, it would cause winning to be more important than it is. It also would not allow some teams to ever go to nationals. There are a few top tier teams: teams with exceptional funding, exceptional engineers, great school support, and fantastic students. These teams would go every year in the current system or in the one you suggested. But should one team be able to go to nationals instead of an equally talented team because they happened to get a better draw in the qualification rounds? I don't think so. And on top of that, there will always be some teams of students that scrape along with little to no sponsor or school support, but work just as hard as those that do. Should these teams never be able to go to nationals?

My personal favorite idea is to skip Disneyland. Have the competition outside on a dry lake bed in New Mexico. NASA's a big FIRST supporter - have it at White Sands. There's plenty of room for all. We'll camp out - we'll have us a big ole time! :)

To me, the biggest thing wrong with the rule being discussed is that it will probably result in a lot of 'cheating.' Cheating is not 'gracious professionalism,' but teams which find themselves in desperate situations may be inclined to chance it.

What I am thinking of is a team which breaks a major part or assembly near the end of one of their regionals. If it is something that would be hard to make in the pits at the next competition or that they may not have time to make in the machine shop, they may be inclined to make the needed parts at home and 'sneak' them into the next competition.

While no team would want to do this, it could, and probably will happen if it would be a team's only way to get their broken robot running for nationals.

Re: Sad News.....
 

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :cool: :cool:

Kit, i agree with you... A team that NEEDS to manufacture a part and does so, will probably do so no matter what ruling we encounter. I think, however, that many of us are forgetting what appears to be the intention of FIRST with this ruling. It seems that they are trying to level the playing field for rookie teams. Let's face it, if they wanted to see complicated machines this year rather than tractor-pull competitors, they would have put ONE 10-point black ball on each side of the field. They're more concerned that the experienced teams have the ability to quickly develop and manufacture a drive system, allowing weeks to develop a good ball gatherer. Yes, they expect many teams to go for the balls on the field already, but I, for one, don't know of too many teams who have a working gatherer capable of actually putting more than a couple of balls in the goal. --Especially when one hit on the last ball in the row will send the rest scattering. Many teams have told me that they put everything they had into a Bully-bot, capable of taking the goal away from some team who might have been skilled enough to put balls into a goal. This encourages aggressive strategies.
If FIRST really wanted to help rookies they would change the rule!! It is less likely that a rookie team would know which systems would fail in aggressive competition. Thus, they would also be less likely to have premanufactured spares shipped with the bot.
If they wanted to level the playing field in terms of wealthy teams v. poorer teams they're wrong again. Sugar daddy sponsors can easily afford to ship practically two bots in the first crate--thus complying with the rule. Poor teams? --They have to manufacture during the competition.
Finallly, those teams, like ours, who go to one regional then to the nats. would hate to spend the tens of thousands of dollars to get everyone to Fla. only to find that we won't be able to compete because we broke down in the regionals and couldn't repair it in the ill-equipped shops at the regionals. Explain where the learning and positive experiences are comming from in this situation.

Re: THE MAP IS FULL OF HOLES
 

Those three days will help you believe me! Last year our team went way overboard in the original design of the robot... To make a long story short; at the regionals we just plain stunk!! It was a battle of ego's in the design and unfortunately we placed I think second to last in our regional. In those three days after the comp. we totally redesigned our robot. It physically performed a heck of alot better at Nationals, but unfortunately we were still subject to some bad alliances so we came in near last again.

I wonder if FIRST changed the rule because of teams like mine....
I wonder if they will not be checking the robots twice this year like they did last year, once at a regional and once at the Nats. Maybe their just trying to save money by not having inspectors at both venues!

One can only Guess what FIRST's motives were?!?!?!?!?
Logical or otherwise???????

I meant that the three days wouldn't help you fix the robot two minutes before the final match. You would still have to sit out the final match, and hope that you have a good partner.

You are correct. However, I think Nick was referring to something else. If you break your gear box in the last match of the regional, you then have to ship your robot in the next hour. Therefore, you cannot get your gearbox fixed before the next competition. When you get to the next competition, you are limited to hand tools and the inadequate shop facilities that are provided. These tools are not going to repair something as complex as a gear box. It would be nice to at least be able to take the gearbox with you, fix it, and ship it by Tuesday.

One big problem with this ruling is that it provides some motivation to not be in the finals. If you're not in the finals, you get an extra three hours or so of pit time to fix your robot before it ships. If you're in the finals, you only have the time from your last match to when they start hauling boxes away. If you play in the last match, that might only be 30 minutes.

I believe the original intent of this rule is to stop drastic redesigns of robots as well as limit the practice time with the robot (so teams don't get huge practice advantages by going to a bunch of regionals). I don't see any problem with allowing teams to take home their broken parts so they can fix them. If they want to keep teams from spending three weeks "fixing" them, then make a rule that the replacement parts must be shipped by Tuesday.

Regional Advantage
 

This ruling affects everyone adversely, especially those who go to multiple regionals. Not because teams that go to multiple regionals will no longer have enough time to redesign their robot, but because teams that go to multiple regionals increase their likelihood that a major subsystem will fail. If after every regional you had 3 extra days to repair and replace damaged components, this would not be an issue. Now, if my team goes to 3 regionals, there is a chance that we will be forced to simply watch our human player shoot during the second and third regionals due to an unforeseen failure that could not quickly be repaired.

However, it is interesting to note that this ruling offsets the imbalance of Nationals qualifying points awarded during each regional for those going to multiple regionals.

I have to agree with all about the addition of time to repair. In 2000 the ball grabber on our robot was destroyed beyond repair in the finals of a regional. We were able to weld up a new one for Nationals and bring it on the plane. Same exact design no improvements. If we had to do that in the pits, I would have rather got a refund on the plane tickets, hotel charges and watched on NASA channel. Should we have built 2 spares and shipped them in 6 weeks, sure it's easy to say that now. I don't know how a team could even build two robots worth of spares in 6 weeks, our team can not with the time budget allowed.

Hey if we wanted we could have built a mini-fridge battlebot with 20 wheel drive this year that no-one could have broke (multiple team members are working on Battlebots right now also) but that wasn't the goal. I think the point is even more important for the real veterans of the event. The robots are an engineering miracle for space, weight and time.

You don't bring a Ferrari to a smash up derby which is what some teams think this is.

this is a long thread so I'll try to be short. In our two years we were not fortunate enough to have 3 days to work on our robot anyway, so this more or less reflects what we've done already. Our first year at nats "2000" we encountered mechanical problems and did not perform very well even though we were in the finals at Houston. We did win the Nat rookie allstar. We learned a valuable lesson build tough, even for last years friendlier comp. We succeeded in not having any failures for the two events last year. I believe this does level the field a little more.
The overwhelming support and help by teams at the events is what sold me to continue on as a mentor. It is a lot of work and time away from my family (my wife is very supportive) It is this support and spirit of "i don't win unless others win also" that kept me from leaving after 1 year.
Remember there are more important things than the robot, it is just an ends to a means. Put your focus on competing as well as you can and spread GP throughout .
Winning at all costs is not necessarily a win.
I do wish we could send extra identical spare parts after the intial 6 weeks but Oh well.
Hang in there only 2 more weeks.

The Sky is not Falling, but FIRST is Making a BIG Mistake ...
 

A big mistake if they do not change the rule.

First I have to say that in my opinion, this rule is very cruel. It will make a lot of people angry at each other. One might graciously accept or at least swallow having their robot damaged by another based on a strategy to "incapacitate". But definite not if they know they will no longer be able to compete because it cannot be repaired.

I am just wondering how Bill Beatty feels about this rule. I know Bill has strong feelings about teams being allowed to do anyhting to improve their robot after the 1st 6 week period. But I wonder how he feels about not being able to do repairs off-line. Hey Bill, I want to hear Carnack wisdom.

Last, I want to say that there is a way around most of this without cheating:
All you have to do is consider your damages and use the time between competitions to plan your actions precisely when yo get to there to do the repairs or improvements. We did this in 2000 when the rules also required shipping your robot from event to event and improvements only on site. We conceived a design which could easily be built on site with simple raw parts and were able to practice building it before we got there. That way we knew ahead of time exacly what to do on practice day to fix our design. It worked well enough to allow us to be #1 seed and win the Midwest reional.

New Rule
 

Raul,

Good to hear from you. Haven't seen many of your good words lately.

I like the fact that the new rule limits the redesign of a machine after the competition has started, but I don't think this is the way to achieve it. I would prefer that FIRST just make the rules of what is acceptable and let professional ethics take it from there. Maybe I have blind faith in the profession, but I figure if someone is going to bend the rules, no amount of controls is going to stop them. I have seen the extreme amount of effort you put in to stay within the rules.

I think the new rule adds additional cost and burden during the build process. We would always machine spares during construction, but usually not totally complete them until we got a chance to see that everything is working. Then finish them up and take them to the competition. Last year you had to finish them, but you didn't have to pack them. This year packing the crates for 5:00 Tue is going to be tough!

The biggest problem, though, is what is a team to do if they have a catastrophic failure during a regional. I think that Joe's idea is not only a good one, it is necessary. Any robot can break this year!

Looking forward to seeing all you guys and your creations.

Regards

Another Perspective
 

I’m such a junkie for these discussions…

Is Gracious Professionalism where you find it…or how you define it? Or does it exist as an absolute truth, independent of the rules of the game?


FIRST is a program that has benefited thousands of children, and some older kids too…I’m witness to the latter as are many of you who read this. FIRST has taught us some invaluable lessons. I monitor this site as part of my continuing ed plan. I’m admittedly fascinated by the dialog.

If I might, I’d like to share this insight…..

Gracious Professionalism is not a natural act. For one thing it’s too hard to do without deliberate concentration…it is not yet reflexive in all of us. Winning is winning and loosing is losing, no matter how you define it, and no matter how many winners or losers a particular game has.

Winning is a nice thing…but losing is the character builder and the better teacher…..(hold this thought until the end of this missive.)

In 96’ or was it 97?… Chief Delphi won rookie of the year that year…and if I’m not mistaken…the CD Robot that competed in NH…was a lesser cousin to the awesome clawed machine that performed so well a few weeks later in the nationals……

Because of that, the robots our team took from regional to Nationals were thoroughly reconfigured between events…we believed making better robots was a form of gracious professionalism….those were the hardest 3 days of the competition…especially since they followed those grueling 6 weeks…..

The Chief Delphi 3 day robot “Fix” was an awesome display of redesign and reconstruction …as far as we knew only the Clinton Crew and Bill Beatty, built perfect machines “Out of the Box”…cause they must have had a big box full of nearly perfect machines.….

I remember that Joe and company were playing to win.…. so was that team with all the 1’s (111) and that was nothing to be ashamed of…nobody was pretending that winning was not important…and each time that our kids played the Delphi kids, or the Clinton kids or the wild Stang kids or any of the students from the other teams, we played to win…knowing we had the opportunity and abilities to fix whatever broke.

This new ruling will “Shackle” those teams who play to win. This rule will serve to negate creative adaptation and will as it is intended to do….make everyone a bit more careful..and a bit less aggressive…this is my theory about the rule…it will serve to offset the temptation to take out another team’s bot’,,,cause the risks of taking someone out are reciprocal…you remember..action and reaction…conservation of momentum…also the rule requires more due diligence during the 6 week construction period (read make it harder to get the job done well) during the already intensive (read too short) 6 week period.

The logic of the ruling is inescapable as Joe describes it, and equally clear from the perspective outlined above……and it is flawed in it’s premise.

The rule serves to create equality by limiting and restricting the use of team resources that we all share, such as time, strategies and creativity. Instead, FIRST and those who participate in FIRST, should promote parity through expanding team resources and options and restricting the monies spent….and loose the victim mentality. After all FIRST is the participants…no FIRST teams…no FIRST…

Example: Designers are necessarily limited in 5 essential ways:

Time (no one has forever to do anything)
Money/Resources (no one has everything)
Power ( you can’t use nukes)
Weight ( Even the rich teams gotta stop bolting stuff on eventually)
Knowledge (Even the Motorola Guys/Gals stop and scratch their collective craniums sometime)

First creates artificial values for some of these…and perhaps the ideal mix has not yet been developed.

In First, Time is finite and clearly defined…the restriction on parts ( the kit) is intended to save time (Locating and developing appropriate technology is by far the most time consuming aspect of any design project…but also the most educational…kits save time, but they limit the knowledge you gain by sourcing and comparing) That’s why modular homes and kit homes are far less costly…and desirable, than custom homes…reduced options…

In FIRST, Money is definitely NOT clearly defined….or even restricted in any meaningful way. Sure the robot has to have x dollars in the final product…but teams we all know and love spend tens of K’s developing the forms of the few hundred dollars in copper, aluminum, plastic and steel that ends up on the robot, …so the money limitation does not serve the purpose it is intended to serve..it does not level the field…read the posts…5k – 15K per bot…and more.

There are teams who have competed with true 500 dollar robots…the flying pig comes to mind…
So how did the competing teams level the playing field….spare parts was one way….

And the next 6 weeks were spent making spare parts….always we made spare parts….

Spare parts take time…poor teams can trade time for money, brain power and ingenuity can overcome deep pockets and limitless resources…so restricting the money spent on the machines,,,not the time, will promote some of the parity required and desired……it seems less appropriate to limit the time making the things that can be so very advantageous…things that decide winning or losing…the spare parts!

I’ll try to close the wide radius I’ve drawn..…winning is not an expectation for the majority of players..but participating fully is…and a broken part can mean not participating.

Make things really fair, limit money more than time or spare parts…

With respect to busted robots….there have been busted robots throughout the 10+ years of FIRST…it happens…During the 95 games, the first FIRST nationals were decided by a two out of three match between two bot’s, where each team toppled the other and where robots were broken in the heat of competition or combat…(whichever word offends least)…and no higher Gracious Professionalism could have ever been demonstrated then was shown by Wayne Paradise and the Clinton team…who gave up their time outs…their help, tools and expertise…and yes…their SPARE PARTS to help heal the robot they knocked over, a robot team who eventually went on to beat them in that final match……..think about what you just read….Robots get bumped, they get whacked and they break. And great positive life lessons should be the outcome…not crying or feeling victimized…but to do this right…you gotta BE a gracious professional and you gotta have spare parts!

Mr.B

FIRST lost a lot when they lost Mr. B. & the folks from Plymouth...
 

Glad as always to hear your voice on the forum Mike.

We miss you more than you can know.

Here's to you and the gang from Plymouth North.

Joe J.