Please read R17
 

I know there are many teams out there who may have broken this rule without knowing. Hence, why I'm drawing it to everyone's attention. By violating this rule, you're punishing all the teams who are staying within the rules. For seemingly unenforcable rules to work, it depends on the honesty of all teams out there. Since Friday at 5:00pm has passed, I urge all teams to put their tools down until the opening of the next Fix-It-Window. We need to work together to uphold the honour code. I can't tell anyone to obey the rules, all I can do is ask.

I know the teams of NiagaraFIRST have put all our tools down, and will spend the next week working on drive team practice, and strategy. There may also be some time spent on poker. :)

Also, when it comes to the restrictions outside of the Fix-It-Windows on mechanical and software development, please read these Q&A's

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=680

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=647

Re: Please read R17
 

At least we can't be prevented from pondering! And I'm thinking that two five hour periods within three days during spring break after six weeks of work so we can hurry up and rest is unreasonable. We plan to follow the rule, but don't give a hoot what others decide, or accidentally end up doing.

Why is it that FIRST wants to see a bunch of malfunctioning robots? It's only the powerhouse teams that benefit from such dogma.

Flame-on, but I have a right to my opinion. I'm not alone. Many other die-hard FIRSTaholics are considering FA as well.

Re: Please read R17
 

As far as I can tell, the Fix-it Windows are designed with teams attending the later regionals in mind. Without any restrictions on robot development after the shipping deadline, teams attending week 1 regionals would be at a distinct disadvantage to teams attending week 3 or 4 regionals. The later regionals have the benefit of seeing how the earlier regionals play out in terms of strategy, design, etc. and would have the ability to fabricate "spare" or replacement parts based on what they see as working vs. not working. Essentially, the fix-it window caps what would otherwise be a practical extension of the build deadline from the shipping date, to the date of a team's first regional. Granted, there are rules about upgrade parts and identical replacements already in place, but without the specific guidlines of the fix-it window, teams could continue coding and fabricating competition parts up to 4 weeks after the robot shipped.

Of course, there is no real way to enforce that other than the team's honor, but I'd like to think the majority of teams can see past the need to bend the rules in their favor, and take a written rule at face value. Afterall, a deadline is a deadline is a deadline. In the real world, if a deadline comes up and a product isn't ready to roll out, there are consequences. Can't always bend the rules in the real world, and that's exactly what FIRST is supposed to expose students to- how the real world operates.

Re: Please read R17
 

Indeed. Some parts of the Fix-It Window rules as they were written this season are odd to me (see also: painting the control board only happening within the window), but them's the rules. We all knew there'd be some unusual ones when we signed up for this.

I'll be drilling the rules into 1293's collective heads. I hope that the other teams at Palmetto will do the same, then implement them and we can all have a good time.

(And remember, if you're throwing darts at a printed copy of the manual because of R17, there's always the Game Design threads here on Delphi and the team forums after the season. Input is a wonderful thing in my experience.)

Re: Please read R17
 

The amount of sense this rule makes is irrelevant. It is still the rule, and breaking this rule violates something that i'm sure all of you have heard of. Does gracious professionalism ring a bell?

Breaking this rule gives teams an unfair advantage over the teams that have a sense of honour and GP. I urge everyone to think about that. Even if "everyone else" is doing it, does that mean you should? Does that mean the rule doesnt matter? Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else did it?

FIRST is trying to change the culture, and when parts of the organisation dont follow it's own rules, it undermines that culture change. It violates the FIRST credo of gracious professionalism, and if FIRST itself doesnt follow it, how can we expect the world to?

Not saying that everyone won't follow the rules, just a friendly reminder.

Re: Please read R17
 

First, I would like say team 217 will be strictly following the rules. Even if our practice robot breaks we will not fix it unless we are within the fix it windows(that's basically what the rules say, right?).

With that said, what, exactly does this set of rules accomplish?

For those of you that say the playing field is level for week 1 teams, I ask you this:

Why does my team get 30 hours of fix-it before our 1st regional (week 3) and a week 1 team only gets 10?

The only thing this rule does is make the teams weaker at their first event. Many teams will not be scoring right away due to simple bugs that could have been fixed given the opportunity.

The big picture is this: WE want people not involved in FIRST to watch us. If our robots are not working correctly due to some obscure rules, then people not involved in FIRST will be uninterested.

You can put me on the side of "we think these rules help no one."

-Paul

P.S. - I will have a lot to say about this after the season is over.

Re: Please read R17
 

Is this true? If I attend week one and week two events, I can work on my robot Thursday, Friday, 8AM until 8PM and Saturday 8AM until 4PM. That is 32 hours plus 10 hours fix it window. That is 42 hours times two weekends, or 84 hours I have to work on our robot. That is almost three times as much as Paul who is competing in week three for the first time. If I have to go up against the ThunderChickens I think that is just about right. Good luck to all.


.

Re: Please read R17
 

Well, more accurately, if the spare/replacement (for the real robot) parts on the practice bot break, you may not repair them outside of the fix-it window, if you still want to use them as spares/replacements.

Actually, I'm in general agreement with Paul, Jack and others; I don't really see the benefit derived from being so dogmatic about the post-competition fix-it windows. That said, we've got to try to make sense of it all, and to try to adhere to it.

On a related note, I'm not sure what to make of those two Q&As that Karthik listed. On one hand, the first one doesn't even answer the question fully—are we to take that to mean that further development of prototypes is allowed, so long as they don't become actual robot parts, or spares or replacements for actual parts. That's seemingly what they're saying (and I realize that I'm on the tenuous ground of interpreting their non-answers to mean that something is not forbidden—but precedent would seem to support this interpretation).

On the other hand, reading the second one alongside the first seems (at first glance) to imply a double standard for hardware and software, where non-competition code is likened to competition parts. This really doesn't make any sense. Since <R17> doesn't in any way limit non-competition robots ("their robot" must, by context, mean their competition robot), their analogy is broken. Since they (in the Q&A) refer to the "final product"—the competition robot—I can only assume that they are only restricting software development for competition code, and that development of practice code, so long as none of it is copied electronically to the competition code, is legal. It's a little unclear as well, because the question referred to practice robots, while it seems (thanks to the reference to the "final product") that the answer concerns competition robots.

Re: Please read R17
 

OMG our mentors never mentioned this window and we MISSED it totally *smacks head for not reading it myself and insisting we continue meeting*

Re: Please read R17
 

Though we, as we should, will be following the fix-it- window parameters, my feelings on it are mixed. From every angle, there is something right, and something wrong. If the window rule does not exist, teams with lots of resources can build many robots, creating backups out the wazzoo and perfecting the thing. However, who needs the time more than the rookies? They are the ones who need that extra week or two to complete proof of concept-to build past the six weeks, and not having a robot is a minor obstacle. Then again, the game consists of a 6 WEEK build period, not an 8 or 10 week build.

What gets me alot is the fact that you are permitted to buy as much stuff as you want, no ban on manufactured parts that I can see, so, in effect, money can win the day. Example: I can buy a chain tensioner($50) and put it on my robot at the competition, and I can buy an idler sprocket($6), but I can't make any kind of holder for it out of the fix-it-window.

I have no defined complaints, and I have no solution. I simply have mixed feelings.

<R18>

Re: Please read R17
 

Let me say that I have spoken to no one about this, I am just a disinterested 3rd party on this.

My thought is that they are trying to level the playing field on several fronts.

First, they are trying to allow teams that go to one regional and it happens to be a regional later in the season some of the advantages of teams that go multiple regionals. They get the benefit of seeing how the game is played and some opportunity to do something about it before they compete for the first time.

Second, they are trying to keep us from killing ourselves on the programming front. FIRST programmers have a lousy job. They are the last ones to get access to the robot but the robot doesn't work without them. More and more teams were making the choice to build 2 robots and to develop the code after the ship date on the second robot. FIRST (correctly in my opinion) viewed this situation with dismay. I think the rules are an attempt to try to put some limits on that process.

Are these rules perfect? No I don't thinks so. They are going to unfairly harm some teams and help others. But, I generally agree with the reasons (at least the reasons I have inferred) for them.

Are there improvements we can suggest for next year? Yes, I think so. I am especially encouraged by the fact that we have ended the debate about "if you can enforce it you can't have a rule." The FIX-IT rules are totally on your honor rules. Given that this is acceptable, it opens up other creative methods to the issues (we could for example have a period just before ship date call "Programming & Practice" days where teams cannot improve their robots, only drive and program with some rules about fixing broken parts).

The important thing is that the rules are the rules and we all agree to follow them. We can address next year after the season is over.

Joe J.

Re: Please read R17
 

Yes Joe, the rules are the rules, but if the rules get so ridiculous some of us may choose not to play anymore and that is the bigger shame.

I am extremely fed up with rules that WILL HURT ROBOT performance for many teams and the robots will not be attractive for people outside of FIRST. This is the last front that we, the FIRST community, are failing at ... miserably. We must do things to make the robots perform great right out of the shoot. A little bit of debug time not restricted by two five hour windows (why can't it be five 2 hour windows?) will not hurt anyone or anything.

Two five hour windows that have to be fit in before Friday is ridiculous for a team with mentors who work until 5 or 6 every night.

I have to tell you I will be very vocal about these arbitrary rules after the season is over.

-Paul

Re: Please read R17
 

Paul,

I agree with you on many things.

I especially agree that Spectator Friendliness has been a significant weaknesse of past FIRST competitions and that Spectator Friendliness is one of the main keys to FIRST accomplishing its goals.

In some respects, I believe FIRST has given up this idea.

I think at one time, the vision was that we only needed FIRST teams to survive on their own for a few more years because eventually the NCRA (National Competitive Robotics Association) would fund March Madness out of the TV proceeds much like NCAA Basketball teams live off TV funding.

But... ...for good or ill, FIRST has decided that it is in it for the long haul.

To that end, they are trying to listen to sponsors and participants that tell them that they are being killed by escallating costs due to the expanding season, duplicate robots, rules that turn the 6 week build time into 4 months and so on.

The rules are trying to address that. We can talk about what it means to teams and to the game play etc. but I think they are trying to address an important issue.

We all have ideas as to how to improve the system. I think that FIRST has shown itself to be a responsive organization (responsive does not mean perfect).

In the mean time, I am hopeful for an exciting, spectator friendly game this year.

Joe J.


P.S. I am not an insider with respect to FIRST. I have had no conversations about this topic with official or semi-official FIRST folk. I am just using my eyes and ears and brain to form opinions. The above message assigns motiviations to FIRST as though I was a fly on the wall at meetings where this topic was discussed. This is certainly not the case. JJ

Re: Please read R17
 

you know I really dont see why they are so . . glah about this. . . well on the programing front any way. if youve shipped your bot youve shipped your control board and any code you do generate is untested and therefore worthless.

but I do see the reason for the 10 hour thing when it comes to mechanical parts(teams in the latter regionals could completely redesign their robots in 4 weeks).

ohh well the rules cant be perfect, and its the only real way to deal with the fact of staggered regionals with out staggered kickoffs.

an on the subject of spectator friendliness, the real trick to this is game design . . . having a robot play basketball is very spectator friendly(better than picking out cans by a human controlled see saw). while yes many of the teams will not be as good as others there will always be enough to make a spectator who knows nothing about robotics go "OMG thats cool what those high schoolers can do."

Re: Please read R17
 

Paul is correct, and I find it ironic that if FIRST were that concerned about everyone putting down their tools and relaxing after 6 weeks of intensive designing, building, programming, testing, altering, modifying, practicing, and shipping - that they would have allowed the teams to decide when they could best fit the total of 10 hours of fix it time into their schedules.
This way is gonna be way more of a burden than if they had simple said "you get 10 hours total, between this time on this day and this time on that day - now go divide it up the best way it fits your teams use of the time".
After all, it is truly up to the honesty of each team to abide - and we will abide, but this doesn't help a thing as far as I can see.

What next? No prototyping ideas in the off season? everyone put down your tools after the main event in Atlanta? The real giant leaps occur when teams are allowed to continue making robots that work - and when teams are gracious enough to share the concepts/designs and even more improvement is made.

Robot games with robots that don't work - just aren't appealing to most people. If this is to level the playing field it will NEVER be a reality.

Just my 2 cents for what its worth

Re: Please read R17
 

As is having to ship the RC, when we can legally buy another one and program on that.

Re: Please read R17
 

Or change out a few libraries and just program on the older (minus the PBASICs) controllers.

So now my views on R17, from a programmers perspective. With all due respect, I don't think that the people (person?) who wrote R17 have ever had to program during the six weeks. I know the FIRST standard for programmers is that a couple days is lucky. This year I was given about two full days and a couple hours worth of "Hey, mechanical team has to change this piece. You can have twenty minutes with the bot." This is definetly not enough time to program anything more than a medium complexity robot.

I will bet money that if you ask the majority of programmers what they want during the six weeks, the answer will not be a new compiler. Nor will it be a new language, or a different IDE or a faster processor. It will be either more time with the bot or a second bot for testing. The former is not feasible on most teams (six weeks is already a strain) and the latter is not feasible due to financial complications. The only options that a programmer has is write all his code during the first five and a half weeks and testing at the last couple of days. This leads into my next thought...

Programming is not merely writing code. To successfully program a FRC bot, you need to design the code framework, read up on the datasheets of the sensors you are using, write the actual code, debug the actual code (syntax and whatnot), load the program and finally... TEST. Testing is by far the most time consuming thing out of the entire process. Lets take a PID loop, for example. Someone who is familiar with PID can write the actual code in under half an hour. However, after it has been loaded onto the robot it will most certainly take them at least half an hour of tuning. Testing is not possible after the six weeks (lack of a robot, unless you can afford to build a second) so I don't think writing raw code should count towards "software development." If a programmer knows how to write a certain function, they should not have to take time out of their testing time at competitions to write it.

So if you've been following all that, congratulations. It's probably a tad hard to understand, I tend to jump from topic to topic. What I've said basically amounts to...

• I don't believe that R17 should apply to programming. There simply is not enough time given to programmers.
• The most beneficial thing to a programmer would be more time with the robot or a second robot purely for programming. The first option is hard due to time constraints, and the second due to financial constraints.
• Writing raw code is only a part of the software development process. Testing code is much harder on the complex systems that most programmers wish to design.
• Programmers shouldn't need to take precious testing time to write code.

Re: Please read R17
 

Do in part to my stupidity we also missed the window. I had miss read and thought that we had 10 hours after ship, before the next regional. We decided to take a break till Monday and then start our fix it window. I am in agreement with the 10 hour window. I would also like to see the teams manage that time in the way that it best suits the team and it would have to end Wednesday 12 PM before the first regional. This would be fair to all teams, easier on mentors and students and probably followed by most teams.

Re: Please read R17
 

Whether or not a rule makes sense does matter. A rule with a high likelihood of being broken needs to be examined from a few perspectives:
1. What was the intent of the rule
2. Does it achieve its intended purpose
3. Might there be a better way to accomplish the same goal

Intent of the rule
With respect to the fix it window rule, I can only surmise the intent was to:
1. Create a finite period of work for teams and corporate mentors
2. Put teams "with" and "without" abundant resources on equal footing
3. Not give teams playing their first competition later in the season a longer time to get ready

Does the rule achieve this?

Creating a finite period of commitment
As FIRST is a mentoring program, FIRST anticipated they would have to have to ask corporations to lend their engineers/technicians to teams. They also anticipated having to answer the question "How much time are you asking for?" In an effort to entice rather than scare away potential mentors, FIRST believed by imposing a ship date and then limiting work time beyond the ship date, it increased the chance of finding and keeping mentors to work with teams. Did it work?

I think the answer is no. It did limit the time they can work, but not without putting an undue burden on the mentors who must now eat, sleep and breathe FIRST during this finite period to get the robot done. It is not uncommon for team members, mentors included, to literally give up their families, friends and school during the 6 week build period. If we are honest with those we solicit for help, it certainly doesn't make selling participation any easier. And if we are not honest about the sacrifice they must make, we set the teams up for hardship when the mentors seldom come. The finite period also creates a situation where time is so short, mentors must hijack the project to finish on time, leaving everyone else to watch. This problem is magnified when you consider the mentor feels a responsibility to the corporate sponsor to produce a robot the company will be proud of.

Another point to consider is whether we have undermined our efforts for longevity of teams by putting too much pressure on them to finish within a finite period. The mentor (and even the student) who has sacrificed everything during the FIRST season, may not have the support of his family, friends and school administration next year or two years down the road when he/she chooses to participate again.


Leveling the field based on differences in resources:
Does providing a fix-it window close the gap between the teams with and without abundant resources? It seems to me teams with the most resources (manpower, money and access to machines and engineers) have a far better chance of finishing their robot during the six weeks and accomplishing what is needed during the fix-it window. Therefore the rule actually increases the disparity between the teams with and without abundant resources.

If it takes some teams longer than others to produce a great result, why should FIRST or any other team care? Think of it this way: If it takes one person 20 hours of studying to get an A, but it takes another only 5, should everyone have to stop at 5? Don't we want to teach that you have to work hard to compensate for your weaknesses, not give in to them? The time is there, why not let teams decide how they want to use it? The benefit to FIRST is that the competitions should be more exciting and inspirational when all the robots function better.

Leveling the field based on when you play first event
This argument can cut either way. There are many factors teams consider in choosing which event to play in. Travel budget is one. Level of competition is another. The fix-it window cannot compensate for all of these factors. For instance, everyone knows competition on the field is the lowest at the beginning of the season. You could argue teams playing early that have mega resources which allow them to finish in plenty of time to test, are at a distinct advantage and have a far greater chance of winning earlier. The fix-it window actually helps them by limiting how ready their opponents will be. Similarly, those playing later for the first time will be up against repeat players who have already had the chance to learn what needs to be fixed, what strategies work better, etc.. Either way, teams have to weigh the advantages of playing early or late and decide this for themselves. The fix-it window won't eliminate these factors

Additional factors
Not only does FIRST dictate how many hours you can spend, but also when those hours may occur. Teams are tired after ship date, and equally tired after competitions. Often students and mentors have let other things in their lives slide and need to concentrate on getting those things back on track. Students need to catch up on missed school work, mentors need to catch up on work. Additionally, after a competition, it is often the case that parts need to be ordered and received before a replacement, spare or improvement can be fabricated. Telling us when we can work just doesn't make sense

A Better Way
FIRST should continue to level the playing field by limiting parts, motors, weight, size and overall costs allowed on the robot, but not on how hard teams can work. Let teams decide this for themselves.

I am a proponent of allowing teams to work as many hours as they choose, on whatever days they choose, to accomplish whatever they as a team choose to accomplish. I love to see robots evolve over the course of the season, even if that evolution is the result of imitating a concept from another team. This is how it is in the real world. This is what sharing info is all about. This should be what FIRST is about.

Re: Please read R17
 

I completely agree. Isn't the point that we work hard? Woodie Flowers mentioned at kickoff that he gave us a time frame too small, team too big, etc. Time frame too small is right. My team just barely finished our robot. We didn't have time to create spare parts. I agree that we shouldn't be able to create new parts, or completely redesign the robot, but, especially with this year, there will be A LOT of colliding, and new parts will be needed. Ten hours isn't very much time, especially for temas with limited machine shops.

I know at the NY regional, one team has their machine shop two blocks from the competition area, but what about teams from CT and the surrounding area? How can they get replacement parts?

Re: Please read R17
 

With this I agree. After the build season, nobody wants to do ANYthing for a few days, and so we did not do much of anything during the fix-it window. Trenton regional is this week, so we'll be making shields and drilling out sprockets Thursday - hopefully there will be someone kind enough to loan us the use of a drill press, and maybe a lathe. Not to mention that the mentors all work for a living, so spending just one more night from 5:30 to 10:30 is right out of the question.

I'd rather see "OK, you have 10 hours total between now and the regional, use them wisely."

Don

Re: Please read R17
 

This may seem crazy, but maybe they think that you should finish the robot during the build. Not 75%, but ready to rock out of the crate.

Re: Please read R17
 

I believe that is the premise of the rule. In theory, that would fix all of the problems FIRST has with boring matched by forcing teams to do all essential robot work before the build. But as you know, things get hectic, and as with any project, schedules fall behind, and the final details often get forgotten.

Re: Please read R17
 

Bottom line is that 6 weeks is not enough. It never has been enough. Now, with this year's rules you needed to be done in four weeks compared to six weeks in previous years.

Re: Please read R17
 

Maybe that's the point.
You need to be DONE in 6 weeks; then back to your kids and job.

It seems like FIRST is making a statement saying "Dragging this out into a 12 week process, is not what we intend to happen. 6 weeks, means 6 weeks."

Like Joe, I don't want to put words in FIRST's mouth, but this seems to me to be a pretty clear attempt to force engineers in FIRST to NOT work on FIRST. "Ok, robots have shipped, go do real work and wait for regionals."

I'm not saying I agree (in fact, I don't), but this could be a direction the powers-that-be want us to take.

-JV

Re: Please read R17
 

I also want to point out that over the past 11 years of doing FIRST - I have had some of the very best experiences while helping teams that were 75% or less completed and far from "ready to rock out of the crate".

I seriously do not think that this "fix it window" rule is to assure everyone finishes their robot during the build, but then again, I have been known to be wrong before.

My point was that robots that don't move are boring to watch - almost painful and if the team cannot schedule 2 - 5 hour long work sessions to make/repair replacement parts or debug programs - the overall level of FIRST participation doesn't get any better. If a team can only schedule the group for 2 - 4 hour sessions, 20% of the opportunity to improve things is wasted.

With Engineers and Mentors working during the day, 2 full evenings (5:30 to 10:30pm) now need to be scheduled instead of being able to spread that 10 hours out and find a balance between, work, FIRST, and seeing the family. This puts me in a tough spot -
a) Honey, I know we finished the build, but theres alot of things that still need to get done and we can ONLY get them done in these 2 - 5 hour windows
b) Team, I can't make this schedule so we'll just do what we can and we'll get done what we can get done, let me see when the other coaches can be here and if the school is open that late
c) What fixit window(s)? - if on one knows, no one gets upset

If they wanted the project completed in 6 weeks - than JUST SAY IT - the fix it window rule allows teams to extend the build cycle for repair and replacement parts - as well as, and more importantly - for programming/debugging. Giving control to the teams for when the 10 hours is to be scheduled, isn't gonna hurt anyone.

Re: Please read R17
 

The bottom line is this: they GAVE teams a working robot chassis that can be built by the end of the day of the kickoff presentation. They GAVE teams code that can find and track the target. You now have 6 weeks to build something that can pick up and throw the balls. Teams that build a functional robot in six weeks should not be penalized by allowing other teams to keep working after the ship date. Of course you could build a better robot in 8 weeks, but you only have six. Thats the point. If that means you need two weeks to practice then the build season is four.

Re: Please read R17
 

I understand that this rule is partially intended to level the playing field, but I think that certain teams will always have an advantage (due to financial or machining resources) that will not be able to be restricted. Instead, rules like this penalize the rookie teams that may need more time just to get to the level that a more advanced team can within the 6 weeks.

My main complaint about R17 is from the standpoint of programming. While I understand that there are often constraints on mechanical development in business situations, the software development often continues. Firmware updates correct major issues in electronics (I know my current PDA would be useless if not for post manufacture updates), operating systems and computer software are patched constantly due to new discoveries and games are updated to ensure stability and compatibility. Last year FIRST said that it was OK to fix problems in the code as long as the changes were retyped at a competition. Now there is the ruling below:

This seems unreasonable to me due to the fact that any code that is necessary to run a second robot (which we have for driver practice) would have to be duplicated on the competition one. Therefore, I understand this rule to say that no improvements could ever be used on the main robot. If I were to develop a better autonomous or shooter control, I could not in any way use this in competition, as a recreated code would surely use the same structure and statements. This ruling discourages improvement and makes me reluctant to change any code to better the control of our practice robot, because if I did anything more than think about it, it could not be used. Then, I probably will not have enough time to debug at the competition, or remember what needed to be implemented.

This total restriction therefore does not make sense if FIRST would like to see the best robots possible from all teams, because code is one area where all teams should be somewhat equal. We can all retain the control system and work with something to refine our code. This ruling only gives an advantage to those teams who had the ability to finish their robots more than a day before ship. While I will follow this and not continue coding, I believe FIRST should rethink this restriction in the spirit of innovation and gracious professionalism to the less privileged teams.

Just my opinion from a member of a team who has gone from building one robot to two during my participation. I have experience both ways, and believe banning after-ship coding only hurts both types of teams.

Re: Please read R17
 

just a fewthings to say:

Everyone here seems to be focussing on the fix-it window IMMEDIATELY after ship. there are duplicate windows following each regional competition per <R20>.

that said
1) I agree with everyone who thinks the first fix-it window should be more flexible than just two 5-hour work periods. Alternatively, give teams a break and move the post-ship fix-it window to the two days immediately preceding the first regional event.

2) I see no reason that they have to limit programming to that period alone. Why not let teams experiment with new controls (ie. steering wheels)? As it is, teams attending multiple regionals have MORE programming time than everyone else. I know our programmers would KILL for more time, because they know they're not going to get very much at the events.

3) If a team gets their spare parts made by a machine shop, does that shop have to complete the parts within the fix-it window?

Re: Please read R17
 

I'm not going to let Steve take all of the blame. I misinterpreted it too, despite having read and understood that rule, long, long ago. We were under the wholly mistaken impression that it worked like the other fix-it windows, that is, it could be taken until 5:00 on the thursday of the next event. (This is why everyone needs to read all of the rules; even the guys who are well-versed in them can make mistakes.)

On the other hand, I wasn't planning to admit it to the world that we'd botched our timing.... ;)

This is something that isn't specifically addressed in the rules, for the case where the machine shop is paid for its services as a non-sponsor (sponsors' employees are considered team members by 5.3.4.4, and are therefore apparently bound by competition rules). However, I think that it's implicit in 5.3.3 (<R15> to <R20>) that teams are not permitted to allow their agents (i.e. the non-sponsor machinists) to perform work outside of the legal periods, because the rules hinge upon the team's intent to use such parts in competition. While a non-competing entity can't violate a rule on its own, it is incumbent upon the team to ensure that if the intended purpose of the part is to be used in competition, that the part is fabricated during legal periods. For a contractor to work on the robot (or a part thereof) after the build season would require that it be uncrated, which violates <R16>. Even during a fix-it window, only teams are allowed to manufacture parts—a contractor working on fabricated items (primary/spare/replacement/upgrade) destined for the robot during this period would violate <R16>.

It would be nice of FIRST to slip a paragraph into the rules next year describing the permitted scope of the contractor-team relationship in more detail. It isn't urgent, because I don't think that the intentions of the rule-writers are really that unclear—it's just that actually proving it through the rules requires a little bit of careful examination.

Re: Please read R17
 

The problem I see with the Fix-It-Windows as written is that FIRST is attempting to level the playing field by regulating the clock time spent after ship day. However, clock time does not equal man hours and therefore FIRST may be inadvertently stretching the gap between the "have" and "have not" teams even further. Two, four, or even 10 five hour "Fix-It-Windows" are not the same for a 10 student, 2 mentor, team with only a hacksaw and a drill press and team with 50+ students, 10 mentors and a million dollar CNC machine shop. A better Fix-It-Window rule might be to specify a set number of total man hours that a team can use at their discretion after ship day. Maybe a big team is heading to 2 or 3 regionals and wants to use all of their alloted man hours early after ship day. What about a small team that can only use their sponsor's machine shop on weekend? Maybe that team can only afford to go to one regional and are going to one of the latter regionals and need to spread out the alloted man hours over all of the weekends preceding their regional. What difference does it make if a team needs to work on Friday night or Saturdays, etc. We are all on the honor system to abide by the Fix-It-Window rules. What difference does it make when a team use their alloted time due to their members schedules?

Re: Please read R17
 

It doesn't. Which is why I hope they change it for next year. An hour is an hour is an hour no matter when or where you spend it.

Re: Please read R17
 

The irony is that they have over achieved.

As much as we’d like to put on a show and to be all that we can be, I would not think of asking our buyer to put that Kevlar order aside and order us some aircraft grade aluminum tube because powers-that-be demand we have the robot done on Tuesday, and the spare helix done by Friday. I would not consider asking our welders to put that HWMMV kit away and weld us up some drive platforms because the team across town worries that we’d tilt the playing field if we came in this weekend. I won’t ask the kids and teachers to do their five hours after midnight because that’s the only time Bob and I get to use the water jets.

We want to be a positive force in our community, and maybe to encourage our country’s best and brightest to go to work for the ones who’ve put themselves in harm’s way.

We don’t need the powers-that-be to schedule our priorities. We’re well aware of what they are. It will always be first things first – lower case. If that becomes unworkable, then that’s a shame.

Re: Please read R17
 

Except you can't...because IFI is out of them...as well as camera housings.

Re: Please read R17
 

Really???? Hmmm... ...again, I have no inside information, but it does seem strange to me that IFI is out of a product they have used for several years.

It could just be a production problem (perhaps some chip is out of stock)

But... ...perhaps there is another explanation...

...Are they running down their stock because they are totally redesigning the RC for next year??? I don't know, but it is an interesting thought...

Joe J.

Re: Please read R17
 

You could always upgrade your previous RCs to the 2006 model for $120.

-JV

Re: Please read R17
 

However...
There is escalation in FIRST.
Team AA builds a shifting transmission, and increases the level of competition. Now lots of other teams think they need a shifting transmission to keep up.

Team BB has a swerve drive, so now others feel the need for a swerve drive to be competitive.

Team CC has the resources to build 2 robots and give their drivers TONS of practice time/robot tweaking time, so now many more teams feel the need to do this.

Jack,
We can set our own priorities, but in some cases that means making the decision to put in a substantial amount of extra time, or being less competitive (due to this escalation). Many of us (most of us) would put in the extra time, because we care, and because we strive to achieve.

FIRST it seems, would elminate this decision, by eliminiating the escalation.
Any teams that want a practice bot, needed to get it done earlier. If you couldn't get both done before the end of the 6-weeks, then you should have made some hard compromises. (i.e. we can't build 2 swerve drives, but we can build 2 6WD robots, we'll do 6WD instead.) These compromises may not be pleasant (why be ambitious and risk missing the deadline?) but them seem to have become necessary.

-JV

Re: Please read R17
 

Got the RMA number this morning and a 2004 RC is going to FED-EX shortly to get it there before y'all leave for the first weekend in battle...

Re: Please read R17
 

Then why do they put out answers on the Q&A like this?

(here is the link)

Pasted word-for-word for clarity below.

This approves building (or fixing hardware, etc.) a practice robot after the ship date, as long as nothing altered or developed will ever be in a FIRST competition.

Andy B.

Re: Please read R17
 

I wasn't going to reply because I agree with a lot of what has been said in this thread and I feel that it is like the "how much should the mentors do vs. how much should the students do" debate. It will rage on forever and both sides have their points. I do have some viewpoints from some of the statements.

- I think saying teams that have a second robot and use it for practice is not cheating and saying that the teams that do are cheating, is unfair.

- The spare parts we have were either made before ship date or will be made during the fix-it-windows next week. We were all just too burned out getting the robot ship-ready to take advantage of the fix-it-windows last week. We did finish our robot enough to get several hours of practice in before it ships which was nice.

- I think shipping the RC (or electrical board) only hurts those teams that can't afford a second RC and victors and spikes and it probably prevents them from building a second robot...giving them the advantage of practice like the "have" teams.

- I believe I understand what FIRST is trying to do with the rules, but I think it is a very difficult thing to do. And I don't think the rules are really accomplishing the goal. But, I hate people who pick apart the rules and don't propose a solution, so...

1. Forget the specified "fix-it-windows". Just say that after ship date before the first tournament weekend, all teams can only build spare and replacement parts if you are going to use them on the competition robot. Programming is not allowed.

2. From 8am EST on March 2 (beginning of the first tournaments), all teams can make spare and upgrade parts and parts until 5 pm Saturday night, EST. Programming is allowed.

3. From 5 pm Saturday night, EST until 8am EST March 9, teams that competed that weekend are allowed to make spare and upgrade parts, and program. Teams that did not compete, can only make spare parts, no programming.

Repeat for the rest of the season. the 25 pound rule applies to all parts that are not off the shelf replacements.

I figure this gives all teams the chance to make parts, upgrade or just spare, at their home shop, and yet does not have unlimited time for all teams and punish those who compete early.

Of course, as I type this, I start arguing with myself about this... But, they are just my thoughts...

Re: Please read R17
 

One of the aspects of human nature that never fails to amaze me, you can tell someone:

this is whats going to happen, then this is how you are going to feel, and then this will be your reaction, and then this will be the result...

and then the person follows those steps exactly, and acts like some strange thing is happening to them - when you TOLD them ahead of time!

A few years back Dean Kamen spoke the following words at the kickoff meeting:

>>> "At some point in the next few weeks you are going to feel like you are involved in some robot building contest, and then you are in serious trouble!"<<<

Does FIRST need a creed? Do we all need to join hands before each meeting and recite the creed? Would it help?

FIRST is not a robot building contest
FIRST is not designed to enterain the masses
FIRST is not fair
FIRST will never be fair
We need to inspire students to be engineers and scientist or the standard of living in our country will plummet.

I gotta say it - many of the people posting in this thread ARE in serious trouble!

How can you possible think 8 kids with one mentor in a HS shop class can EVER compete against a team with 30 students, 20 engineers, and the entire assets and resources of GM at their beck and call?

Would you think those 8 kids could design and build CARS in their shop class and out sell GM, or any other corporation? Then why do you think they can do the same designing a robot?!

Teams with big money and vast resources are going to be top competitors - this is not a question of fairness, its reality! If FIRST gave you from now until the sun winks out, that wont change anything.

Stay focused on the prize! If your students go on to become engineers then you have accomplished something meaningfull. (Mentors that run around ranting at FIRST are not going to inspire anyone).

If a bunch of people sit in bleachers for 6 hours and think you have created the most entertaining poof ball flinging robot in your region then by the time they get home and flip on the TV nobody will care!

Re: Please read R17
 

Ken, I think you've hit the nail on the head here. There is too much of this "levelling the playing field" talk. If a team doesn't have 10 engineers and 5 teachers and 40 students, is that the fault of FIRST or of the team? If the team wanted to compete on a "level" playing field with these teams, then they'd find a way to do it - increase fundraising activity, promotions, etc. This whole thing has nothing to do with "levelling the playing field."

That being said, there is no reason that a team should be artificially stopped from innovating their design once the product is shipped. Engineering at a big business never stops when they release their product. If a team has the resources to maintain their pace making spare parts or upgrades after they ship the robot, I believe that they should keep doing so. If you don't, then the next week or two should be a good time to relax and unwind.

The line is already drawn at the competition. You must recreate the upgrades from scratch at the competition. You are only allowed 25 lbs of FABRICATED ITEMS and must follow all of the rest of rules R21-R29. This makes the fixit windows redundant and pointless.

It's like one class I had. After each test, we had a 2 minute "pencil-down contemplation period" followed by a 2 minute "open note" period. The contemplation period is pointless, because if you're not done with the test by this point, the two minute open note part isn't going to get you much further. The open note period only helps the people that have an answer or two "on the tip of their pencil" and need a slight reminder, and since they're most likely already done with the test at this point, they spend the "contemplation period" twiddling their thumbs.

The same can be related to this issue. The teams that are struggling to get their robot together before ship aren't going to be helped by these Fixit windows, since they probably don't have the resources anyways, and the teams that do have the resources have probably already made extra parts during the season and are most likely using the time off for further upgrades. These robots are most likely far more complicated anyways, and if you can successfully build a complicated robot, and have it work beautifully, then you should be able to take all the time you want perfecting your "practice" bot. You still only have the Thursday of the competition and 25 lbs of material to do the same tweaks on your competition bot.

Re: Please read R17
 

Hadn't seen that Andy, thanks for pointing it out.
(The Q&A is something I haven't put in the effort to follow this year, not being on a team.)

To answer your question, I have no idea.
Maybe they just ruled that way, because they knew

It's possible I'm misreading things and nothing I've said above is valid. I can't (and won't) speak for the powers that be, I've only issued my interpretation; but I'd like to believe there is some intent here beyond making Paul (and others) aggravated.

*shrug*
-JV

Re: Please read R17
 

One kind of interesting note, is that while I'm not supposed to be developing upgrades for this year's robot (and I'm not), I am already designing next year's transmission (and am doing so legally). :)

Re: Please read R17
 

Warning! The post got long. read only the first paragraph and you will be fine. Read past the first paragraph and I may make you angry....

As many of you reading my posts in this thread have inferred, I am frustrated with the rule. Why? There are several reasons, but the number one reason is that I had 40 inspired and excited kids on ship day and they are dropping by the day. Is this my fault? Maybe. Is it because I keep telling them, "no, we can't do that because then we can't use it at Detroit (our first comp), so we must wait until after [xxxx]"? Probably. Is it because when they ask me "why?" I can't give them an answer other than, "because it is in the rules and we must obey the rules"? Most definitely, yes. I can't muster up any B.S. to give them a logical reason for the rule. Bottom line is that this rule does not help anything. I have offered my services in the past (see: kit transmission of '04 and '05) and things got better. I will offer them again .. let's see if FIRST takes me up on it.

Now, let's talk about the robots since we do actually have to build them and we pay good money to "play" the game. Without the game, there is no FIRST ... period.

FIRST is sending us mixed signals. We are told (by the rules that are drafted) to finish our robots earlier. We are also having the use of sensors pushed down our throats (see kit of parts sensor listing). Take it from a real robotics engineer who makes robots for a living: using external sensors ALWAYS means more debug time. This is a simple fact. Even if the sensor is "plug and play", real world obstacles come up and have to be debugged. If the students are not allowed to spend the necessary debug time, they will simply get frustrated and stop trying. Those of us that know what it feels like to get a complex machine running after debugging many small problems must share that experience with the students (and anyone else who doesn't know the feeling). Rule R17 goes against that very principle.

#1. I do not like R17 because it doesn't enhance the ability for mentors like me to inspire the students.

#2. I do not like R17 because it hinders the ability for the robots to put on a great show.

#3. I do not like rule R17 because it forces me to be away from my family for two more days after ship if I want to get around #1 and #2.

If you accuse me of not getting FIRST, then you don't know me.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Please read R17
 

Intent. That is the key word. This year, the intent of this rule and many others is quite unclear. Perhaps we would better appreciate the rules if we knew the intent. But Q/A responses such as "the robot controller is part of the robot so it must be shipped" do not at all help us understand the intent of the rule. A lot of the Q/A responses seem quickly put together to get teams to (how else do I say it) shut up and follow the rules. So many of the responses in there don't give any basis, reasoning, or explanation of intent.

For FIRST's sake, they should let us know what they are trying to get at, rather than letting us make potentially false assumptions.

Re: Please read R17
 

FIRST makes the rules based on feedback at the team forums

FIRST is not operating in a vacuum. The rules are developed by taking into account the feedback they receive at the team forums following the close of the season. This is the purpose of the forums.

Teams complain bitterly about the playing field not being level.
Teams complain about the amount of time being spent
Teams complain about all sorts of things.

If every complaint was analyzed in terms of FIRST's goal of inspiring students to choose engineering, science and technology careers, the result would be vastly different.

Teams would be encouraged to program and try out new code.
Teams would be encouraged to develop and improve their systems.

The learning would not stop simply because the robot ships, unless.....
its about winning, and fairness, and competing successfully, not about learning.

So, which is it?

Re: Please read R17
 

FIRST does not always listen. FIRST has had a large number of turn overs. FIRST does not ever give us the intent of the rules. They do however expect us to read their minds. <R17> seems to have the intent to allow teams to spend a bit of time to get ready but they are dictating that we cannot choose our time before the first regional. Many of us barely get through and we look forward to a bit of a break. Why should FIRST care if we spend 10 hours in one day (which is legal) or five 2 hour sessions?

I have even asked in the Q&A if the Q&A are official rules or just the updates (as it was last year) and the did not reply to that part of the question so I asked again and I am still waiting for an answer. The answer should be in the updates as how can the Q&A answer if the are official until given that responsibility.

Re: Please read R17
 

[quote=Steve W]Why should FIRST care if we spend 10 hours in one day (which is legal) or five 2 hour sessions?

Exactly correct Steve -
I have no problem understanding WHAT the time is to be used for - it is clear in both content and intent.
I have a problem with WHEN it must be used - in both content and intent (I just don't get why it was for 2 - 5 hours sessions without regard for the team being allowed to determine when the best use of the 10 hours could be scheduled)

Re: Please read R17
 

I feel that FIRST is torn by the trends of development. How do you keep established/successful teams from becoming complacent while still keeping new teams encouraged? Learning is a very important aspect of FIRST, however, school boards, sponsors, and even some mentors can easily fall into the trap of using competitive success as a benchmark for the team’s achievement. I feel that it is FIRST’s intention to make learning and inspiration the primary achievements, while it is human nature to place competition at the forefront.

So what is the answer? I don’t believe there is an answer that can be recorded in <RULE> format. Life (and FIRST competition/philosophy) is comprised of grey areas; however, the competitive drive of teams is forcing FIRST to define every aspect imaginable. It is my personal feeling that FIRST has been most successful when the “code” of Gracious Professionalism can stand on its own… will there be specific twists and manipulations of this unwritten rule? Yes, but there will always be controversies, and it really seems that with more specific rules come more frustrated individuals. I respect each member of any FIRST team that is truly trying to help students…how they choose to do so is up to them.

Re: Please read R17
 

What about competition classes? I have felt for a long time now that the divide between the "have" and "have not" teams and the rookie and veteran teams is getting wider and wider. I see more and more use of sophisticated equipment like CNC and water jet machines which really increases that gap. It is really getting harder and harder for the little teams to be competitive. This one reason I really love the kitbot chassis and transmissions and drop in wheels from IFI and all of the wonderful products AndyMark markets specifically toward teams that may not have the resources to build their own. With the increase in popularity of FRC (well over 1000 teams this year) maybe it is time to start thinking of breaking up the FRC competitions into classes. Why not have a separate beginner/rookie only class, an advanced/veteran & rookie (if they want to) class, and then maybe even an "unlimited"/open class where either can compete together and some of the restrictive/penalty/materials (but not safety) rule don't apply? Or maybe an amateur vs. open sort of classes like in other sports? You can compete in the amateur class until you have reached some measure of success (i.e. competed for 3 years, or won a Regional, Chairman's Award, etc.).

Re: Please read R17
 

That's an interesting thought that I think merits further consideration. Unfortunately there are many here who will insist that this program is NOT about the competition and that any effort to balance or classify the participants is useless. I am one that feels that "the competition" is very much needed in FIRST, if for no other reason than to draw in more "outsiders". The competition is the carrot for many of us, and it is certainly the more (and possibly only) exciting part of FIRST for those not directly participating.

While I do understand and agree that the larger goal of FIRST is to inspire sutdents to recognize their potential for a rewarding science/technical/engineering career, the action and the "more exciting parts of FIRST" are required to keep us growing and attracting new schools, communities and corporations (they want people to see those logos on the robots).

Getting back on topic, and regarding R17, I feel strongly that the rules should be as simple as possible while accomplishing the important goals of FIRST (Basically, give us the extra "fix-it-window" time or don't, but don't be so picky about how or when it is used). The GDC and rules committee should avoid long, drawn out, complicated rules for trivial issues (and I DO feel they have done an outstanding job this year overall).

Mentors and other volunteers in all areas are also desperately needed if FIRST is to continue growing and thriving. And the more difficult and frustrating you make the experience for them (us), the more difficult it will be to find and retain good people to do this work.

Re: Please read R17
 

Ken & John,

I agree with the intent that both of you are trying to get at, but by not being directly associated with teams this year, you are both not really qualified to monopolize this discussion. Believe me, it is entertaining, but you are detracting from the point.

Rule R17 actually goes against the "students working with mentors" idea. We lost 5 of our 10 hours due to the time constraints put on all of us. Now, our team did meet, but there wasn't much inspiring going on. Unless you call pegging me with more darn poof balls exciting.

Can we please get back to R17? If we can get FIRST to slightly modify the rule for after week 1, that would be fantastic. My ideal, "10 hours, starting Saturday at 5:00pm and ending Thursday at 8:00am. Use them anyway you want them."

-Paul

*Note: For those of you that don't know, John is one of my closest friends in FIRST; but I still had to call him out about not working with a team this year .....

Re: Please read R17
 

Well, it's not quite what you wanted, but it's better:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=734

You're still only getting two five-hour windows, but at least they can now be on a Saturday, which most folks are used to not having during the season anyway. ( ;) )

For all it's worth,

Billfred

Re: Please read R17
 

I'm sorry for causing a distraction in this thread, for those interested: I split the tangent-discussion into this thread. I realized early on that this was a tangent, and should be discussed elsewhere, but got caught up in the discussion.

Sorry again.

-JV

So... new clarification/change on R17... good enough?

Re: Please read R17
 

Good direction - at least it gives us Saturdays back. Our primary programming mentor is only available on Tuesday evenings and Saturday mornings.

But there's work to be done for next year's rule. Paul promises some post-competition comments, which I look forward to seeing. I will just say now that FIRST has to define what their purpose is in limiting post-ship modifications. Once that purpose is defined, the mechanism of implementing it will become apparent, as will how the rule should read.

If the intent is to allow teams 10 hours per week, why not just say that? Does it matter if it is divided into two periods of 5 hours, or 3 periods of 3, 3, and 4 hours? We don't want to get ridiculous with it, using a chess timer to or timeclock to check in and check out each individual minute. Just come up with a way to have more flexibility.

I don't want a continuous Fix-It Window. But I don't want to be out of technical compliance with a rule simply because our schedule doesn't fit the schedule of every other team in the country, while still meeting the spirit of the rule.

Re: Please read R17
 

Bringing this thread back to life to see if Paul will now make his points known.