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)

Rickertsen2 18-10-2005 20:33

If you could change one rule
 
If you could change one FIRST rule what would it be and why?

I know i would eleminate the "custom cylinder order form". I feel that it is overly restrictive and hampers the developement of some really cool mechanisms. It prohibits all sorts of parts that pose no safety hazard, are available to all teams, and would allow for a great deal of novel mechanisms. I believe the intent was either to restrict teams to Bimba or to limit the bore and therefore force of actuators. If they want to make sure teams buy Bimba products, they should simply have a rule such as

"Any off the shelf actuator made by Bimba is legal so long as it does not violate any other rules"

If they want to make sure we don't use something capable of outputting excessive force then they should make a rule such as:

"any off the shelf actuator is legal so long as it does not have an effective piston surface exceeding XXX and does not violate any other rules"

Billfred 18-10-2005 20:43

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Here's one I've pondered since mid-build our rookie year--why keep teams from using the packaging of the kit? Back in 2004 when we had the four LED lights, I made a holder out of some small box in the kit that would've held up fine (especially given the amount of protection it would be surrounded by), yet it would've been illegal.

Cory 18-10-2005 20:47

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I'll go back and look at the game rules and such, to determine my final answer.

But in the meantime, my interim answer would be to eliminate those darn SLU lugs and let teams use the old connectors.

phrontist 18-10-2005 21:25

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I think you should be allowed to control your robot with whatever you want. Get rid of the rules that prohibit external power and added logic. What saftey/fair-competition/fun-competition purpose do these rules serve?

I've heard many great ideas on these forums for control mechanisms, the majority of which are illegal due to these rules.

You know you want to see the muscle tension actuated robots next year :D

mechanicalbrain 18-10-2005 21:35

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
I'd say the rule about actually touching the loading zone triangle was pointless. It made so many nice robots look very cheap with zip ties and junk hanging off the front. If a robot is clearly over it, then it would be touching it if something was hanging down, regardless of that something existing or not. Plus, what is easier for a referee to look at? A whole frame rail or bumper of a robot being over it? Or the tip of a minuscule thread or zip tie touching it?

And also I would never design a game where a single penalty due to an action committed by one robot can easily change the outcome of what would have been a very strong win for the alliance.

yeah that single rule brought us from 8th place to 30 something.
I want the transmissions of radio signals from custom circuits to become legal. I really wan't to put a camera on our robot and be able to pick it up at the player station.

Collmandoman 18-10-2005 21:36

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I see how some would like the whole don't crush your opponent ranking point score algorithm, but I believe it's not indicative of how the real world is. I believe ranking points should instead by the point differential instead of the losers score.
This would create more offensive scoring robots, and sort of break down the push/shove robots from outerspace.

dlavery 18-10-2005 21:43

Re: If you could change one rule
 
So far, everyone is takling their personal pet peeve and trying to find a way to make the rule associated with a certain topic/application/mechanism less restrictive. That is fine, and everyone is certainly entitled to riding their own hobby horse. So I will hop on mine. I think that folks are headed in the wrong direction. I think that we should look for potential rules that can be made MORE restrictive, and scale back the "almost anything goes" philosophy that has become associated with the robot construction rules over the past several years. I believe that this philosophy has lead to a lot less true creativity and innovation in the robots, as teams have just gone out and bought solutions to design problems rather than creating solutions from a kit part that was never intended to do the job for which it would now be used. I would be all in favor of adding more restrictions back in to the robot construction rules to bring back some of the real creativity that every team displayed during the early years of FIRST.

For example, what about a rule that says "no threaded fasteners of any type are permitted on the robot."* If it were up to me, I would add a rule like that. Oh, wait, it is... :D

-dave

* you think I am joking, don't you? hehhehheh

phrontist 18-10-2005 21:55

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I am absolutely in favor of more creativity in the competition. It's too easy to buy your way past creative hurdles, so in that sense many rules could be made more strict to force us to come up with creative solutions. That said, the same objective could be reached by loosening some of the restrictions, like my aforemention controls rule/"hobby horse". ;)

No threaded fastners would be very interesting indeed...

phrontist 18-10-2005 21:57

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain
yeah that single rule brought us from 8th place to 30 something.
I want the transmissions of radio signals from custom circuits to become legal. I really wan't to put a camera on our robot and be able to pick it up at the player station.

Okay, that is a terrible idea for reasons that should be obvious if you have the technical expertise to realistically try such a thing. Imagine the sheer chaos that would develop if you were allowed to transmit all willy-nilly. Never mind the FCC, I'm sure you would find reason enough to regret this rule change when your robot became unresponsive due to my "creative" spark-gap generator.

Collmandoman 18-10-2005 22:03

Re: If you could change one rule
 
well then... I would get rid of the fixit window between regionals, and in turn allow more lbs of spare parts to be brought with teams. These teams know what they have to do, and part of the challenge can be preparing a set of routines to replace and fix parts once the next regional comes around. I would leave a fixit window for the champ though.

dlavery 18-10-2005 22:16

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sanddrag
No Dave, see without threaded fasteners you'd have to allow tape again

Not at all. An amazing amount can be done with welding, brazing, housed joints, polymer-based adhesives, rivets, spring clips, e-rings, Dutchman pins, proper interference fits, pocket hole joinery, soldering, collaring, swaging, pinned tenon joints, etc. etc. etc. There are LOTS of ways to connect one item to another without using the bolt/washer/nut answer that almost everyone defaults to - and without resorting to cheap-looking tape. :)

I really like the idea of a rule that will really push teams about of their "comfort zone" and into an area where they have to think about ways to solve problems by other than the obvious solution.

-dave

[/me gets off hobby horse]

mechanicalbrain 18-10-2005 22:24

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by phrontist
Okay, that is a terrible idea for reasons that should be obvious if you have the technical expertise to realistically try such a thing. Imagine the sheer chaos that would develop if you were allowed to transmit all willy-nilly. Never mind the FCC, I'm sure you would find reason enough to regret this rule change when your robot became unresponsive due to my "creative" spark-gap generator.

OK, let me explain myself on that one. Like obviously it would have to be on an unlicensed frequency (and some regulations as to the voltage of the transmission) that does not touch the 900 MHz that the robot runs on I'm thinking 2.4 gigahertz (which in fact is most common for camera transmissions). In fact the rules do allow for cameras and even for those cameras to transmit, its just that if you transmit to the control station the camera is no longer a non functional decoration and illegal.

Gdeaver 18-10-2005 22:25

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I'll go with Lavery's wish to restrict the materials and methods. Give the students a box of raw materials that includes all permited parts. This will stress thier brains instead of the teams pocket book.

Manoel 18-10-2005 22:50

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
So far, everyone is takling their personal pet peeve and trying to find a way to make the rule associated with a certain topic/application/mechanism less restrictive. That is fine, and everyone is certainly entitled to riding their own hobby horse. But I think that folks are headed in the wrong direction. I think that we should look for potential rules that can be made MORE restrictive, and scale back the "almost anything goes" philosophy that has become associated with the robot construction rules over the past several years. I believe that this philosophy has lead to a lot less true creativity and innovation in the robots, as teams have just gone out and bought solutions to design problems rather than creating solutions from a kit part that was never intended to do the job for which it would now be used. I would be all in favor of adding more restrictions back in to the robot construction rules to bring back some of the real creativity that every team displayed during the early years of FIRST.

For example, what about a rule that says "no threaded fasteners of any type are permitted on the robot."* If it were up to me, I would add a rule like that. Oh, wait, it is... :D

-dave

* you think I am joking, don't you? hehhehheh


Dave,

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Even though it was fun to be restricted to 20' of timing belt and spending countless hours coming up with ingenious mechanisms actuated only by latex tubing (a lot of them!) and those nice springs FIRST used to supply, I consider that the overall level of competition has been significantly raised since FIRST relaxed the rules concerning materials and parts usage.

One could also argue that this occurred concomitantly with FIRST's efforts to provide teams reliable, quality, out of the box solutions - chassis and drive trains, basically.
Many threads have debated the Inspiration issued associated with those ready solutions, but I will not go deep into that.

I have a feeling (emphasis on feeling - absolutely no "scientific" evidence) that students are more inspired by an amazing robot that is well designed and built (thanks to those "permissive" rules) than by a specific jaw-dropping mechanism devised in a glimpse of geniality.

Of course, that's a moot point when you come to Beatty, because they're (very!) consistent in presenting us with a robot that is all of that. :)
Then again, I can be very wrong, and maybe that's an issue to be discussed in another thread.

[CONTINUES...]

Manoel 18-10-2005 22:51

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Philosophical issues aside...

Regarding restrictive rules, they really force teams to be more creative, but back in the days it was very bad for international teams. The "Small Parts" rules were a nightmare to us. I do believe that, if such rules were considered again, special attention should be taken.
Having to use an 8 pound sprocket shipped from 6000 miles away is insane, and the costs associated with that rule - shipping (and FAST, build season is almost over!), customs (87.2% of the total value!) - could very well mean one less student is able to make it into the USA. :eek:

As for creativity and, in your words, "creating solutions from a kit part that was never intended to do the job for which it would now be used", it can also be accomplished without said rules. This year our team used a car jack to tilt our 4m long arm. You can't say that this isn't creativity at its best (and no, it wasn't my idea :p), and the jack sure was never intended for that use.

My ideas might be a bit confuse, but there's some food for thought.

PS1 - There are other ways to force teams to be creative. For instance, when your 1/4" tubing bag has a big 20 feet written on it, and you do your figures and... NO WAY we can cover the entire robot with that length. So you proceed to install a solenoid valve on the very tip of you 4m arm, only to wire everything up and find out that the bag was really wrong, and you actually had 20 METERS of tubing to work with. Just leave the manual full of those small typos and teams will be creative, I assure you. :p

PS2 - Can we have pop rivets as unrestricted on the Addition Hardware List? :ahh:

Rickertsen2 18-10-2005 23:15

Re: If you could change one rule
 
this thread is getting off topic

Karthik 18-10-2005 23:22

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rickertsen2
this thread is getting off topic

I've split the thread. For discussion of Sanddrag's idea that teams should strive for higher levels of quality, please see the following thread.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=40099

Elgin Clock 18-10-2005 23:43

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdeaver
I'll go with Lavery's wish to restrict the materials and methods. Give the students a box of raw materials that includes all permited parts. This will stress thier brains instead of the teams pocket book.

I disagree.. I don't want to see cookie cutter bots. Although, the financial advantage for a "kit bot, and that's what it would be.. a kit bot, would be a good thing.

But still.. I don't like the idea of a "kit bot".

Take this year for example, I was glad that FIRST offered the kit chassis for teams to use but I would HATE to see the mandatory implementation of that chassis alone for every team. I personally hated working with the kit chassis for the simple reason of loose nuts and screws and washers to affix things together with. When crunch time comes in the pits, a neat robot (custom machined by your team) helps you and loose hardware that is hard to work with hinders you.

While something may be said about keeping the rules fair and making robots uniform for fair play, I think that weight, and size restrictions make that possible.

As for rule changes. I agree with Billfred.. I want to see what teams want to do with the shipping containers and other "currently non kit" things that our parts come in.

I mean c'mon.. we let that tape measure rule slide in 2002 for the reason of "we wanted to see what the teams would do with them." ie: explore creativity.

Why not do the same and make up for that horrible idea for legality of tethers announced so late in build way back then by letting the same apply for the packing materials. But this time let it be known the rules of that on day one of build.

Rickertsen2 19-10-2005 00:27

Re: If you could change one rule
 
As an extension to my earlier post, i would like to give a few examples to highlight the absurdity of the pneumatic actuator rules. Last year, we had two 1 1/16" bore cylinders on our robot. When we went up for inspection, we were rejected, because the custom cylinder order form allows only for 3/4", 1 1/2" or 2" bore cylinders. I welcome any attempt to explain the rationale for such a thing. 1 1/16" is between 3/4" and 1 1/2". Does that particular size pose a safety hazard? That must be it.

How about this. For the 3/4" and 1 1/2" cylinders we are required to order them with DP mounting (1/4" pin in the back). If we want to, we are allowed to press the pin out leaving a 1/4" hole, but we are not allowed to order the cylinders with DXP mounting (no pin. just a 1/4" hole). Pressing the pin out and ordering a cylinder with DXP mounting leave you with the EXACT same result, but one is illegal.

There are other useful mounting styles that are prohibited as well such as the D mounting style which allows a cylinder to be mounted by two screws inserted near the front, perpendicular to the cylinder as a whole.

What about rod-less cylinders (picture a pneumatically powered linear slide) prohibited?

How about locking cylinders. These would be a heaven for multi-positioning. Seems like these would lead themselves to innovation to me.

How about multi-position cylinders. I can imagine all sorts of neat mechanisms with these. Again, great potential for all sorts of innovative mechanisms could be made with these.

How about double ended cylinders (a normal cylinder but with another rod sticking out the opposite end)

These are only a small sampling of the prohibited pneumatics actuators available that i think would be of great benefit. I could see logic in restricting parts such as off the shelf pneumatic grippers, but the parts i mentioned above a far from pre-built solutions. They are all very fundamental components.

Cory 19-10-2005 00:35

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rickertsen2
I welcome any attempt to explain the rationale for such a thing. 1 1/16" is between 3/4" and 1 1/2". Does that particular size pose a safety hazard? That must be it.

My guess is that it's because it's part of "leveling the playing field" Bimba offers us a limited number of select bore and stroke cylinders for free. I imagine the reason we're only free to purchase those specific cylinders above and beyond that quantity is so that the team that only is able to get the free ones, and not buy more has the same cylinders as the teams that could buy anything in Bimba's catalog.

If that makes any sense.

Rickertsen2 19-10-2005 00:37

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory
I'll go back and look at the game rules and such, to determine my final answer.

But in the meantime, my interim answer would be to eliminate those darn SLU lugs and let teams use the old connectors.

I didn't like those a whole lot either, but they weren't THAT bad. You will not get a better connection than a properly crimped crimp on connector. If some cannot handle this task, others should not be penalized. These parts were not readily available which made it difficult to find replacements. I think it would be a good idea to include them in the kit but not make them mandatory. At the very least, other similar setscrew connectors should be allowed as alternatives.

Tristan Lall 19-10-2005 00:46

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain
OK, let me explain myself on that one. Like obviously it would have to be on an unlicensed frequency (and some regulations as to the voltage of the transmission) that does not touch the 900 MHz that the robot runs on I'm thinking 2.4 gigahertz (which in fact is most common for camera transmissions). In fact the rules do allow for cameras and even for those cameras to transmit, its just that if you transmit to the control station the camera is no longer a non functional decoration and illegal.

Two clarifications here:
  • It's the power ("wattage"), not the electric potential difference ("voltage") that is of concern when dealing with a transmitter (though powerful transmitters often have high-voltage components).
  • On-board cameras which transmit independently of the radio modems (using frequency bands other than 900 MHz) are allowed, provided that approval is granted by a FIRST Engineering representative.

Cory 19-10-2005 00:56

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Two clarifications here:
  • On-board cameras which transmit independently of the radio modems (using frequency bands other than 900 MHz) are allowed, provided that approval is granted by a FIRST Engineering representative.

His issue was he wanted to see teams be able to pipe the feed onto a monitor in the driver's station, which was discussed ad nauseam elsewhere.

Tristan Lall 19-10-2005 01:53

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Having dealt with the chaos the pneumatics cause at inspection time, I think there's a need for some simplification of the rules.

If it's decided (by the ones making the rules) that for 2006, pneumatics will still be substantially the same in terms of the types of devices allowed, then I think the rules should be broad enough to allow all sorts of variations on a well-defined theme. The rule might allow, for example, "any unmodified pneumatic cylinder rated by its manufacturer for operation at 120 psi, with the following characteristics...", followed by a chart or detailed description of exactly what's allowed and what's not. A good start might be "non-repairable, single-ended, non-rodless, with optional magnetic piston, with optional piston seals and/or rod seals, with nominal diameter of ≤2 in, and with stroke ≤24 in"; note the absence of things like the material of the cylinder, the mounting method, the types of ports, the types of seals, the manufacturer or the source.

By not specifying a Bimba part number, it avoids the difficulty of cross-referencing an identical cylinder from Parker (because of small differences in design), and it potentially opens the door to the many other manufacturers who also produce similar apparatus. I hasten to add, of course, that if the intent is to generate business for Bimba, a sponsor, then it is reasonable to restrict teams to using their products. If it's the capability, not the brand that's important, then we should broaden the rules.

This also has the advantage of eliminating inspection decisions based on the letter of the law, rather than the function of the cylinder in question. By careful examination of the rules, updates and Q&As from last year, inspectors at Waterloo and Toronto had access to a reference of the exact model numbers from Bimba and Parker that met all conditions. Even so, there was interpretation involved, when really, there was no need for it. For example, is a Bimba cylinder with suffix DXP equivalent to a DP? It was decided that (for Waterloo and Toronto) they would be treated as being DPs, because mechanically, a DXP is a DP, with dowel and clevis brackets deleted and nuts substituted. The cylinder itself is the same, incorporating provisions for both mounting styles, and the hardware is COTS (for both types). But since the DP was on the official form and the DXP wasn't, by some fractured logic, if the sticker on the side said DXP, it was to be rejected, even if it were being used as a DP. (We chose to set aside the actual letter of the law, and substituted a reasonable, ad hoc modification of that rule. So sue us, or rant about the inconsistent officiating.... Even though the inspectors would have been within their rights to reject a DXP, it serves nobody's interests to appear as heartless bastards who would take pleasure in watching a team pull their cylinder off, because of exactly one extra letter on a sticker.)

Rickertsen2 pointed out that there are a lot of other pneumatic devices that are safe, cost-effective, widely available and useful. As simple a measure as permitting anything from within the Bimba general catalogue would allow for a substantial variety of new capabilities for the robots. On the other hand, if FIRST tends toward Dave's opinion that sometimes there is too much variety in the types of off-the-shelf mechanisms permitted, it would be a simple matter to scale down the rule to permit "anything from pages [some range] of the 2005 Bimba catalogue". In either event, the arcane, arbitrary pneumatics rules need some readjustment in order to ease the burden on teams and officials alike.

Steve W 19-10-2005 07:45

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Ah, the old pneumatics problem. I guess that the easiest way to answer Rickertsen2's question is : It is a rule. That's it. There doesn't always have to be a reason for it. We don't always know the reason for it. We don't always agree with it.

That being said I will agree that something should be done to open up a few questionable rules with pneumatics. The problem may be that FIRST doesn't have the resources at this time to tackle this type of rule change and it is better to err on the safety side (Don't jump on this safety comment) than to have a perceived accident.

Al Skierkiewicz 19-10-2005 10:43

Re: If you could change one rule
 
For my two cents, the rule about SLU 70 connectors is just wrong. SUA is a family that is the same but a better fit for rookies to use, wire, solder. Veteran teams should be ble to use a better crimp or solder connector as they see fit. The SLU is used for specific purposes and is not designed for shipboard use. Translated that means it doesn't work in environments that move. Teams that have trouble soldering the SLU would have a better chance with the smaller terminal.
Another rule that drives me crazy is wiring to valves should be allowed to be the smae size wire as the valve is supplied with. In most cases that is #22.

BTW for rookies reading this thread, the Guidlines and Tips document should be required reading for all rookies before touching a tool.

Bill Beatty 19-10-2005 10:43

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Remove all restrictions on the manufacture of spare and replacement parts. I mean true spares that do not change the form or function of the robot. It would help hold down costs and be more like the "real world experience" in sparing up for the next scheduled campaign.

"Mr. Bill" Beatty

meaubry 19-10-2005 11:59

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Eliminate the quota on the number and kind of motors or pnuematic actuators you can use - let the battery, storage container & pump, along with the overall weight define the allowable number. Each design (team) would need to find the appropriate balance between available power and usage.

ChrisH 19-10-2005 12:58

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Having dealt with the chaos the pneumatics cause at inspection time, I think there's a need for some simplification of the rules.

Rickertsen2 pointed out that there are a lot of other pneumatic devices that are safe, cost-effective, widely available and useful. As simple a measure as permitting anything from within the Bimba general catalogue would allow for a substantial variety of new capabilities for the robots. On the other hand, if FIRST tends toward Dave's opinion that sometimes there is too much variety in the types of off-the-shelf mechanisms permitted, it would be a simple matter to scale down the rule to permit "anything from pages [some range] of the 2005 Bimba catalogue". In either event, the arcane, arbitrary pneumatics rules need some readjustment in order to ease the burden on teams and officials alike.

On the other hand I don't feel like the inspectors should have to memorize multiple pages of the catalog to be able to tell whether or not a cylinder has been modified. Modification of any actuator increases the risk of failure. Failure can have dramatic consequenses and lead to injury or death. There was at least one case I know of where a team modified a clinder in a way that was potentially hazardous. It made it through two inspections before being caught precisely because the next inspector down the line was intimately familiar with the cylinders and what they should look like. The modification was done so well that it looke like the cylinder belonged that way.

By limiting the types of cylinders then people who are not pnuematics experts have some chance of catching these things. But then I'm from the Dave Larery school of thought.

BTW I do think the rule about having to use the FIRST pnuematic tubing is a little rediculous. I'd say any tube or fitting with the required pressure rating should be OK. One team managed to make their own coiled tube by heating the kit tube. You think that didn't void the rating? but it was technically legal even though it would have been better for them to use a tube that was made that way and wasn't.

Ken Patton 19-10-2005 13:30

whoa baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
I think that we should look for potential rules that can be made MORE restrictive, and scale back the "almost anything goes" philosophy that has become associated with the robot construction rules over the past several years. I believe that this philosophy has lead to a lot less true creativity and innovation in the robots, as teams have just gone out and bought solutions to design problems rather than creating solutions from a kit part that was never intended to do the job for which it would now be used. I would be all in favor of adding more restrictions back in to the robot construction rules to bring back some of the real creativity that every team displayed during the early years of FIRST.

-dave

I have to disagree. The type of creativity that gets applied when a team is coming up with a new use for some existing piece of hardware or software is different than the creativity required to successfully implement some new design concept. At the risk of being a bit flippant, I would call it "junkyard engineering" versus "real design."

Not that JE is unimportant. We all do it! Its fun, cheap, and fast.

As someone already mentioned, the unrestrictive type of rules would not prevent teams from taking off-the-shelf items and creatively using them.

But... the restrictive type of rules would prevent teams from implementing great NEW ideas, because presumably there would be material or content limitations.

Take for example, the omni wheel. Some might think that AndyMark pioneered its use in FIRST because they are the ones who make it easily available to us all. But before AndyMark, there were teams that concepted and designed their own. I would suggest that Team 67's use of their own omniwheel design in 1998 was due to the relatively unrestricted nature of the rules back then (ignoring the fact that even then the rules were relatively restricted compared to today). If teams were given a choice of only using wheels from a certain source or kit, would any of us have the chance to learn to deal with scrub by designing something new?

The above might be too restrictive of an example, but hopefully it gets the point across.

What was more creative: Beatty's use of a bucket from page xyz of the SPI catalog for the base of their detacheable skewer in 1997, or the concept of a detacheable skewer?

My vote is for allowing teams to create something from nothing. I occasionally tell people that the magic part of engineering is the ability to make something from nothing. Making something from something-else is not as impressive in my opinion. It is not as inspirational. And (again my opinion) its all about the big I.

Ken

Billfred 19-10-2005 13:50

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisH
On the other hand I don't feel like the inspectors should have to memorize multiple pages of the catalog to be able to tell whether or not a cylinder has been modified. Modification of any actuator increases the risk of failure. Failure can have dramatic consequenses and lead to injury or death. There was at least one case I know of where a team modified a clinder in a way that was potentially hazardous. It made it through two inspections before being caught precisely because the next inspector down the line was intimately familiar with the cylinders and what they should look like. The modification was done so well that it looke like the cylinder belonged that way.

BTW I do think the rule about having to use the FIRST pnuematic tubing is a little rediculous. I'd say any tube or fitting with the required pressure rating should be OK. One team managed to make their own coiled tube by heating the kit tube. You think that didn't void the rating? but it was technically legal even though it would have been better for them to use a tube that was made that way and wasn't.

(Fair warning: I'm not a pneumatics expert by any stretch. Take with a mineload of salt.)

Just as a thought to the former sentence--suppose FIRST loosened the cylinder requirements to a reasonable chunk of the Bimba catalog. Then the burden would be placed on teams to prove to inspectors that the cylinder had not been modified from its COTS condition. This could come in the form of FIRST posting a PDF (or series of PDFs) with pictures and other identifying techniques to show what the stock, unmodified cylinder is supposed to look like. Teams would then bring the applicable sections from this PDF along with them to the inspection table, just like their cost accounting form. If the cylinder on the robot doesn't clearly match the cylinder in the FIRST Book Of Cylinders, then the robot fails inspection.

As for tubing, it did seem a little bit silly from my view in the corner. If my understanding is right, (properly-rated) tubing is (properly-rated) tubing.

Steve W 19-10-2005 14:33

Re: If you could change one rule
 
The reason behind the tubing is probably due to the fact that SMC was the supplier as Bimba and Parker were for cylinders. 2 years ago we in Canada were able to use SMC cylinders as they were an official sponsor in Canada. That provided a lot of issues when we went to the US to compete. Don't forget that FIRST is international and all that is good for US teams is not always good for the rest.

Matt Leese 19-10-2005 15:49

Re: whoa baby
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Patton
I have to disagree. The type of creativity that gets applied when a team is coming up with a new use for some existing piece of hardware or software is different than the creativity required to successfully implement some new design concept. At the risk of being a bit flippant, I would call it "junkyard engineering" versus "real design."

Not that JE is unimportant. We all do it! Its fun, cheap, and fast.

As someone already mentioned, the unrestrictive type of rules would not prevent teams from taking off-the-shelf items and creatively using them.

But... the restrictive type of rules would prevent teams from implementing great NEW ideas, because presumably there would be material or content limitations.

Take for example, the omni wheel. Some might think that AndyMark pioneered its use in FIRST because they are the ones who make it easily available to us all. But before AndyMark, there were teams that concepted and designed their own. I would suggest that Team 67's use of their own omniwheel design in 1998 was due to the relatively unrestricted nature of the rules back then (ignoring the fact that even then the rules were relatively restricted compared to today). If teams were given a choice of only using wheels from a certain source or kit, would any of us have the chance to learn to deal with scrub by designing something new?

The above might be too restrictive of an example, but hopefully it gets the point across.

What was more creative: Beatty's use of a bucket from page xyz of the SPI catalog for the base of their detacheable skewer in 1997, or the concept of a detacheable skewer?

My vote is for allowing teams to create something from nothing. I occasionally tell people that the magic part of engineering is the ability to make something from nothing. Making something from something-else is not as impressive in my opinion. It is not as inspirational. And (again my opinion) its all about the big I.

Ken

I think that either direction can increase creativity. If you have less restrictive rules, you can be more creative with your overall design. However, given that there are a limited number of off-the-shelf components available for use, most teams will stick to those and end up with a less creative robot. If you're daring, you'll design something more creative because it will give you an edge in competition (if it works).

Now, if you restrict the rules, it means that each subcomponent will end up being more creative. Why is this? Because you can't just buy one off-the-shelf. If AndyMark is selling a shifter, I'd be much less likely to design my own when I could just buy one from them. Is it the best shifter possible? Probably not (no offense to either Andy or Mark intended here, very few things are the best possible). Now if I'm not allowed to buy one, I may spend my time designing one and I may make one better; in all likelyhood, at least, it will be different and I will have applied creativity to it.

I end up believing that the restricted rules make it more creative as I think most teams end up using off-the-shelf parts whenever possible. The less off-the-shelf parts you have, the more creative you have to be in designing what you'd like to do.

Honestly, I think the key is not to so much restrict which parts are used but the total cost allowed for purchasing things to go on the robot. This requires great creative in deciding how to build things at the lowest cost and what you really need to include.

Matt

Collmandoman 19-10-2005 16:11

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Manoel
Dave,

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Even though it was fun to be restricted to 20' of timing belt and spending countless hours coming up with ingenious mechanisms actuated only by latex tubing (a lot of them!) and those nice springs FIRST used to supply, I consider that the overall level of competition has been significantly raised since FIRST relaxed the rules concerning materials and parts usage.

One could also argue that this occurred concomitantly with FIRST's efforts to provide teams reliable, quality, out of the box solutions - chassis and drive trains, basically.
Many threads have debated the Inspiration issued associated with those ready solutions, but I will not go deep into that.

I have a feeling (emphasis on feeling - absolutely no "scientific" evidence) that students are more inspired by an amazing robot that is well designed and built (thanks to those "permissive" rules) than by a specific jaw-dropping mechanism devised in a glimpse of geniality.

Of course, that's a moot point when you come to Beatty, because they're (very!) consistent in presenting us with a robot that is all of that. :)
Then again, I can be very wrong, and maybe that's an issue to be discussed in another thread.

[CONTINUES...]

One of the best posts I've ever seen on CD. I agree completly; I'll also add to this -- creating even more restrictions will force more strategies/ideas to be thought up by adults.

mechanicalbrain 19-10-2005 16:26

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
Two clarifications here:
  • It's the power ("wattage"), not the electric potential difference ("voltage") that is of concern when dealing with a transmitter (though powerful transmitters often have high-voltage components).
  • On-board cameras which transmit independently of the radio modems (using frequency bands other than 900 MHz) are allowed, provided that approval is granted by a FIRST Engineering representative.

Actually your right but your hard pressed since wattage its hardly listed on most comunication RF devices and that wasn't what I was referring to. I believe its super high voltage that allows electricity to jump through air (I was referring to the spark generator thing). At least as far as I understand...

Frankly I would like to see a longer autonomous mode. This kind of plays on what Mr. Lavery was saying about adding difficulty and strictness of rules. Lets say that 1/4 of the time was spent in autonomous. Yes i know that its hard for teams to make autonomous modes that work well especially for new teams but I think it would be interesting to see how teams adapt. I guess what has held this back is that some teams with access to programmers would have huge advantage. Oh well, always trade offs.

Bill Gold 19-10-2005 16:27

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Collmandoman
...I'll also add to this -- creating even more restrictions will force more strategies/ideas to be thought up by adults.

This doesn't necessarily follow. However, it does seem to imply that either you don’t have much faith in the ability of your fellow students (high school and college) on teams in this program or you believe that all teams’ actions are already dictated by adults and that there’s no such thing as a student run team. I believe that no matter what the rules are regarding parts of robots will say that the vast majority of teams will have the majority of their robot designed and built by students. This isn’t to say that I abhor professional input, design, or manufacturing. I actually love and am very thankful for what all these amazing engineering role models put into this program year in and year out.

My $0.02 after not having posted anything significant in months.

Collmandoman 19-10-2005 16:50

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Gold
This doesn't necessarily follow. However, it does seem to imply that either you don’t have much faith in the ability of your fellow students (high school and college) on teams in this program or you believe that all teams’ actions are already dictated by adults and that there’s no such thing as a student run team. I believe that no matter what the rules are regarding parts of robots will say that the vast majority of teams will have the majority of their robot designed and built by students. This isn’t to say that I abhor professional input, design, or manufacturing. I actually love and am very thankful for what all these amazing engineering role models put into this program year in and year out.

My $0.02 after not having posted anything significant in months.

Yeah, I didn't explain that too well. I have tons of faith in our students. With that said, every years challenge is not a piece of cake. The existing restrictions make it difficult enough to create a functional robot in 6 weeks. When you add more and more restrictions, the ideas generated by the students one by one become unusable one by one for the team. Mentors/Adults then have to step in and lend more advice(sometimes advice can be the same as building a robot for a student). Our team tries to use the mentors/adults/engineers as last resort materials, because when we suggest ideas it becomes less and less theirs.(Please try to take that to what I mean, and don't argue that lending advice is what we should be doing -- you know what I mean)
Anyway, cause and effect, more restrictions -- keeping the 6 week build period constant - will lead to more adult created concepts.

Rickertsen2 19-10-2005 21:16

Re: If you could change one rule
 
If we had a one year build period i might be able to see some logic in the restrictive school of thought. I think that by forcing teams to reinvent the wheel , rather than buying one off the shelf, you cause them to waste time on unimportant and mundane details. Rather than engineering a cool new carriage as a whole they are faced with figuring out how they are going to make wheel spokes. A greater repertoire of available parts lends itself to an exponentially greater wealth of new ideas by allowing teams to focus on what is really important.

Alan Anderson 20-10-2005 00:13

If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain
...wattage its hardly listed on most comunication RF devices... I believe its super high voltage that allows electricity to jump through air (I was referring to the spark generator thing). At least as far as I understand...

If I understand what you're saying, you don't understand very far.

First, power is listed in the specifications of practically every RF transmitting communication device in existence -- often in milliwatts, and sometimes up to kilowatts and higher. Second, it's not electricity which travels from transmitter to receiver, it's electromagnetic radiation. You don't need particularly high voltage to generate radio waves.

Andy Baker 20-10-2005 18:16

Re: If you could change one rule
 
(I split off the discussion about eliminating the ship date - however, I mistakingly took Alan Anderson's post with this split-off thread... sorry, Alan. Some other mod may need to fix this split and put Alan's post back into this thread, as I could not determine how to do that.)

Here is the eliminate ship date discussion

carry on.

[fixed the merge, Thanks Andy.]

Not2B 20-10-2005 20:00

Re: If you could change one rule
 
The rule I would change... well, it's not a rule. But every year I think it would be fun to have ONE totally off the wall requirement or restriction - one that is different every year.

Change the box size
No more than 3 wheel on the ground
Robot gets extra points if it can shut it's self off at the end of the match

Whatever...

teamtestbot 20-10-2005 20:22

Re: If you could change one rule
 
This reminds me of past discussions about the Battlebots tech regs on their forum. The rule book had grown to a rather ridiculous length that was very specific about what could or could not be done(up to and including a revision at one point that specificied red colored power lights, IIRC).

For me, the less restriction on the design and build process the better. I might even go as far as to say reduce the amount of kit parts so teams will -have- to find options.

Andrew Blair 20-10-2005 21:27

Re: If you could change one rule
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
For example, what about a rule that says "no threaded fasteners of any type are permitted on the robot."* If it were up to me, I would add a rule like that. Oh, wait, it is... :D

-dave

* you think I am joking, don't you? hehhehheh

Ha, being a mechanical guy who adores set screws, my heart actually skipped a beat when I read this post Dave. No more microwave porkrinds...... :D

fnsnet 20-10-2005 21:57

Re: If you could change one rule
 
I must agree with Dave. Teams seem to go out and buy the hardware they need to solve a problem ready made, instead of building a solution themselves.

The problem is, relaxing the presure of overcoming obsticles in the competition would undermind the whole idea of FIRST. The idea is to give students chalanging problems with no clear and obvous solutions. This promises that no two teams will have the same idea to solving the same problem, get every student thinking, and it gets the brainwaves flowing around the room. If FIRST gave the students all the answers upfront, the challange would be gone, and the inspiration part of FIRST would vanish; replaced with an apathy for "building the same old robot." With each passing year, I look forward to hearing what limits FIRST places on the students, and I enjoy watching the minds of the students churn as they sit around talking about how they could overcome; creating solutions.

My moto:
If I can tell any old joe that knows nothing about the competition about the game that needs to be played, and he understands it the first time I tell him, then it's failing in it's mission.

Don't think of FIRST's limits as stupid anoyances, think of them as challanges that you must overcome, together as a team. We are drawing the line in the sand... don't whine about it, step up the the challange.

Dave Flowerday 20-10-2005 22:17

Re: If you could change one rule
 
First let me address some comments from other posts I've seen here that imply that more restrictions in materials will mean less creative robots:

FIRST has been peeling away restrictions (rather than adding) for years. In 1995, you were given a KOP, a list of certain materials and quantities that you could use (i.e. 1 4'X8' sheet of 1/2" plywood, 3 8' 3/4" dia pieces of electrical conduit, etc), and a very small ($250?) budget that could be spent on additional parts from the Spare Parts Inc. catalog. I think you may have been able to use as many fasteners as you want and other really small things like that but I think nearly everything else was regulated. As far as I could tell the robots back then were just as creative as they are today. Sure, some of the designs today are fancier, but there was plenty of clever engineering being done back then with limited supplies.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Collmandoman
When you add more and more restrictions, the ideas generated by the students one by one become unusable one by one for the team. Mentors/Adults then have to step in and lend more advice(sometimes advice can be the same as building a robot for a student).

It may have been just my team, but back when the above restrictions were in effect, we had many occasions where students would be the ones coming up with creative solutions. It seemed like some of the kids were better at being creative with what they had where the adults were more used to having freedom to use whatever materials and parts they thought necessary in their design. I remember a bunch of times where there would be a problem that needed to be solved on our robot and the adults would just dump out what was left of our KOP and other leftovers from Small Parts and say "we need to find a way to make this piece here work and all we have to use is this pile of stuff."

I may be drifting a bit too far off-topic here, but..
One of my favorite experiences in FIRST was when our team attended the very first Chief Delphi Invite in 1997. Back then it was a one-day event. We showed up at 8am, each team was given a kit of parts and told that inspections were at noon and the competition began at 1 (or something like that). The KOP was pretty basic: I remember a sheet of Styrofoam, some duct tape, maybe some coat hangers and other "household" items, and a pair of drive bases from some children's RC toys (think of the bases of plastic Tonka trucks with a wired remote control), one tank style and one standard 4 wheel with steering. We were supposed to basically pick up Frisbees off the ground and place them on a shelf.

The creativity shown with such a limited set of materials was amazing. We found also that the limited time and materials also really leveled the field between the kids and adults. Working with that stuff was so different than what our engineers were used to at work that I don't think they were really any better off than us. It was so much fun having to think really fast and not having much time to plan - I keep thinking that we need to recreate that event with our own team as a fall activity. It's amazing how much you can learn about teamwork and problem solving in just 4-5 hours!

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