Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   If you could change one rule (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40096)

Gdeaver 20-10-2005 23:56

Re: If you could change one rule
 
So far allot of posts have have dealt with eliminating rules. I've always liked the way First was a microcosm of the real business world. To continue this, maybe First should increase the rules and regulations. This would expose students to the art of regulatory compliance. I Know as a small business owner each year more and more of our time and effort is devoted to making sure that we are in compliance with all the Federal, state, local and insurance regulations. Reading through volumes of legalese and applying them to a business is a skill set just as demanding as any engineering problem. For the past 2 years we have assigned 2 or 3 students to the legal team. Their job is to know the robot and comp rules, track the q and a forum and to make sure we're in compliance. As to the post about not passing inspection because a cylinder was not on an approved list. To bad. You didn't follow the rules. In real life your team could have been faced with hefty fines. Violating some EPA and OSHA rules carry felony criminal penalties. Rules and regulations are part of our society. Learning to deal with them is a life skill.

fnsnet 21-10-2005 18:55

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdeaver
So far allot of posts have have dealt with eliminating rules. I've always liked the way First was a microcosm of the real business world. To continue this, maybe First should increase the rules and regulations. This would expose students to the art of regulatory compliance. I Know as a small business owner each year more and more of our time and effort is devoted to making sure that we are in compliance with all the Federal, state, local and insurance regulations. Reading through volumes of legalese and applying them to a business is a skill set just as demanding as any engineering problem. For the past 2 years we have assigned 2 or 3 students to the legal team. Their job is to know the robot and comp rules, track the q and a forum and to make sure we're in compliance. As to the post about not passing inspection because a cylinder was not on an approved list. To bad. You didn't follow the rules. In real life your team could have been faced with hefty fines. Violating some EPA and OSHA rules carry felony criminal penalties. Rules and regulations are part of our society. Learning to deal with them is a life skill.

Very well said, my friend.

Billfred 21-10-2005 20:38

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I'll throw another one out here.

Every time there's onboard video from a robot, it livens things up. Problem is, nobody seems to have weight to spare for such things.

Now, at the risk of going against my usual the-rules-is-the-rules mentality, suppose that cameras for the big screen or local media (think TV stations, not team media) were considered a freebie for weight purposes, so long as the team can quickly extract the setup for weigh-ins.

Or, if you really want to make these things interesting, imagine that FIRST settled on a standard camera setup, and included a mount for such a camera in the KOP as a non-negotiable part, right up there with the robot controller and the LEDs. (A small breaker not connected to anything would also become non-negotiable.) As teams queue up, they would receive the camera and mount it onto the robot, connecting it to that breaker. Bada-bing, you've got three or five or six extra views of the field with no labor cost attached.

That's my thought process, at least.

mechanicalbrain 21-10-2005 20:49

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billfred
I'll throw another one out here.

Every time there's onboard video from a robot, it livens things up. Problem is, nobody seems to have weight to spare for such things.

Now, at the risk of going against my usual the-rules-is-the-rules mentality, suppose that cameras for the big screen or local media (think TV stations, not team media) were considered a freebie for weight purposes, so long as the team can quickly extract the setup for weigh-ins.

Or, if you really want to make these things interesting, imagine that FIRST settled on a standard camera setup, and included a mount for such a camera in the KOP as a non-negotiable part, right up there with the robot controller and the LEDs. (A small breaker not connected to anything would also become non-negotiable.) As teams queue up, they would receive the camera and mount it onto the robot, connecting it to that breaker. Bada-bing, you've got three or five or six extra views of the field with no labor cost attached.

That's my thought process, at least.

Why is their no weight to spare? I happen to have a camera and a transmitter on hand just no scale that registers the weight. Its not more then a couple grams.

Jeffrafa 22-10-2005 03:52

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdeaver
So far allot of posts have have dealt with eliminating rules. I've always liked the way First was a microcosm of the real business world. To continue this, maybe First should increase the rules and regulations. This would expose students to the art of regulatory compliance. I Know as a small business owner each year more and more of our time and effort is devoted to making sure that we are in compliance with all the Federal, state, local and insurance regulations. Reading through volumes of legalese and applying them to a business is a skill set just as demanding as any engineering problem. For the past 2 years we have assigned 2 or 3 students to the legal team. Their job is to know the robot and comp rules, track the q and a forum and to make sure we're in compliance. As to the post about not passing inspection because a cylinder was not on an approved list. To bad. You didn't follow the rules. In real life your team could have been faced with hefty fines. Violating some EPA and OSHA rules carry felony criminal penalties. Rules and regulations are part of our society. Learning to deal with them is a life skill.

-- Excuse me for the Novel, but I tend to be lengthy when I have something to say

I agree that teams ensuring that they are within compliance of the rules is part of being eligible to compete. The inspection process should be simply to ensure that teams are within the rules so that the robot is safe and legal to compete, not a process where the referees are having to hunt for what isn't right about the robot. Now obviously a thorough inspection requires them to dig through the robot - but the teams should be well versed in the rules and sure that their robot complies, not hoping they pass inspection and don't half to correct anything.

On the other hand the trouble I have is when the rules aren't logical or justifiable. Every rule and law from organizations like the EPA, OSHA, FCC, or any other federal or trade law is written for a reason and is a logical safety or regulatory compliance to protect the consumer, the environment, etc... Laws from any of these organizations are specifications that a product or device has to comply with, never do they go so far as telling you that you must use part XXX-XXX from supplier such and such, they instead tell you the wire size that must be used, or the fuse size for the application in order for the product to be safe and functional. This leaves the manufacturer of the component open to the discretion of the company using the product.

In terms of the pneumatics scenario that has been discussed on and off through this thread, there's a difference between a part being safe and correctly spec'd to conform to requirements and a part that is modified and illegal because it is unsafe. In the case of the team that had a modified cylinder - it makes perfect sense for them not to pass - the part has been changed and is no longer capable of meeting its original safety specifications. On the other hand requiring the use of only a small number of actuators off of a few pages of the bimba catalog is absurd. There are tons of perfectly good pneumatics manufacturers that carry cylinders identical in safety and specifications as those same bimba cylinders, yet they do not comply.

Now I don't know the case internationally, but in the state of Oregon there isn't a single bimba supplier. We are also allowed to order identical parts from parker hannifin, but the only close parker pneumatics distributor was unable to obtain the cylinders we needed within the final 2 weeks of build season. Even the bimba supplier in Washington, who we also made sure to contact, was unable to obtain the components we needed. This left us to resort to the possibly illegal, but only fesable option of buying from the local suppliers of pneumatics components from companies like SMC, Festo, and Norgren, who had what we needed in stock locally. These three companies are leaders in the world of pneumatics components and are all excellent contributors to FIRST (SMC is a platinum supplier on FIRST's list http://www.usfirst.org/about/2005/2005frcsponsors.htm ). They all produce fine products that easily meet, if not exceed the quality and specifications of identical bimba cylinders.

Now we never were restricted from competition as a result of these cylinders last year, but the idea that FIRST would restrict the list of actuators to one provider, especially when they receive huge sponsorship and donations from at least five other manufacturers is absurd.

The rules regarding pneumatic components should be that they must meet certain specifications and remain unmodified from off-the-shelf, not that they must be one of 10 specific cylinders out of one company's catalog. If ensuring that cylinders meet specifications means teams must compile a record of specifications of each of the cylinders used to hand to referees during inspection, then so be it, but going so far as restricting manufacturers is ridiculous.

- Jeff

Matt Krass 22-10-2005 13:16

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I've been reading this thread and I've noticed something.

Nearly everyone who says the rules should be relaxed, as far as I've noticed, is stating that many rules are "absurd" or "unjustified" because they do not promote safety such as the pneumatics rules. Everybody is claiming they should be open because other parts are just as safe.

However these arguments make the assumptions that the rules in the FIRST Rule Book are all entirely for safety. There is something to be said about the challenge of the competition as well. Many of the rules are safety oriented but many are simply oriented at, and I'll say it, making it harder for teams. They may not have any logical rhyme or reason but, they don't have to! They exist to make it more of a challenge. Using limited pneumatics to do something is a lot more impressive then having unlimited pneumatics to do something. I've seen some creative ways to make our limited pneumatics sets do some crazy things that wouldn't be as impressive if teams could have gotten any part. Not all of the rules are safety, some are design constraints just to be...design constraints. It'd be considerably easier and less creative if the rules opened up.

For example, in past years many teams went for 4 motor drive by coupling the Bosch Drill to the CIM motor, this year they used 4 CIMs, whether you used kit gearbox or not, it wasn't much difficulty to make a 1 CIM transmission in to a 2 CIM transmission. Linking the Bosch and CIM was considerably more difficult and we saw a lot of neat designs for that.

So, some of the rules are simply there to challenge you, try to keep that in mind when you're challenging the rules.

That's my two cents.

*raises Flame Shield and runs*

Elgin Clock 27-10-2005 01:19

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdeaver
So far allot of posts have have dealt with eliminating rules. I've always liked the way First was a microcosm of the real business world.

I agree and believe that more scholarships should be available to non-engineering related fields.

"The robot is a vehicle" has been stated before many times, but sometimes that vehicle does not always take all students down the path of engineering.

I'd like to see business schools get in on the act of offering scholarships for all those non engineering types that make up every team who work on spirit, chairman's award, bookeeping, travel management, and other various non-engineering roles on the team.
Wouldn't it be great if not just the people who work on the robot directly could go to college someway or another through some sort of scholarships in FIRST?


Also, I have a bold idea that a team should not be allowed to sign up for a regional (at least the first one anyways) which is more than 100 or 200 miles away from them. Teams from CT for example shouldn't be allowed to sign up for one in CA for their first one. You have money (to travel). Big deal. That money could be spent more wisely spreading the word of FIRST closer to your home base.
Pus, they are called regionals for a reason, why not give a chance for the teams who live nearest to them to sign up to them first?
I also think rookies should get the first chance for preregistration for regionals. If you are a rookie, you more than likely have a limited budget and need that closest regional to sign up for as far as travel is concerned before you choose 2 or more.


And please note, unlike most people's gripes about the rules this has nothing to do with how me or my team got burned by a rule at one time.
It's just something I personally would like to see happen as FIRST grows and matures.

Steve W 27-10-2005 08:00

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock
I also think rookies should get the first chance for preregistration for regionals. If you are a rookie, you more than likely have a limited budget and need that closest regional to sign up for as far as travel is concerned before you choose 2 or more.

Most, if not all regionals hold space for rookie teams to sign up. These are held even through the second round if there is a chance that a team will sign up.

I took a quick look at the first round sign ups. The regionals that are full are mostly from the regional area. The reason that some teams pick a far away regional first is that they need to get plans and funding in place early so that they can go.

ChrisH 27-10-2005 10:14

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock
IAlso, I have a bold idea that a team should not be allowed to sign up for a regional (at least the first one anyways) which is more than 100 or 200 miles away from them.

If you set it at 100 miles then the San Diego teams would not be able to sign up for any Regional, nor would Team 60. Even 200 miles is marginal for these teams, some would make it within the limit others not and I guess Bakersfield and Fresno would just have to wait for the Central California Regional to start teams. I'm not even getting into Utah, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, or Alaska.

I get your point, but out people in the East tend to forget just how big and sparse the West can be. Even requiring teams to go to the closest regional first won't solve the problem because for these teams the closest is not always the cheapest to get to. The difference can amount to thousands of dollars in travel costs.

Billfred 27-10-2005 10:17

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisH
If you set it at 100 miles then the San Diego teams would not be able to sign up for any Regional, nor would Team 60. Even 200 miles is marginal for these teams, some would make it within the limit others not and I guess Bakersfield and Fresno would just have to wait for the Central California Regional to start teams. I'm not even getting into Utah, Idaho, Montana, Hawaii, or Alaska.

I get your point, but out people in the East tend to forget just how big and sparse the West can be. Even requiring teams to go to the closest regional first won't solve the problem because for these teams the closest is not always the cheapest to get to. The difference can amount to thousands of dollars in travel costs.

So suppose that instead of a concrete distance, a team was limited to the four regionals closest to it. (For example, 1293 could go to Palmetto, Peachtree, Florida, and VCU.) Would that solve the problem?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:30.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi