![]() |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Dave ............
Are you speaking officially for FIRST on this topic or is this just your opinion? I ask because the information here, your opinion, is viewed by many as "The Word of FIRST". Many are viewing this thread.... yes only a few are posting....but many, many more are making plans to form groups to mass produce components utilizing our resources to fit what you are saying is "Good" and allowed.. Clone robots.... no just very well developed drive chassis, sound programming, and a wealth of expertise at our collective disposal. Does the "Borg" come to mind? Several teams from the Michigan area (we are only one of them) are looking at this slant and viewing it as a way to field two teams from each school, building 3 robots - 2 competition -shipped and 1 shared development robot to practice with. When you move to component built robots the cost and time of development is less..... hey we might only need 4 weeks not six because we can develop these components off season and mass produce them once the season starts. We will share code - one school is a master at "C", one school makes killer drive systems, one school has super CNC machines, one school has several mechanical engineers that are some of the best, and one school has a connection for structural analysis. Just think if this was all on one team.... hey....wait they just could be working together. Six weeks seems short if you have the bodies and expertise to share the resources. Dave, what I am really saying like many before me is..... is this really a good path for FIRST to go down? Yes we will have better robots, stronger robots, but when components are specialized and we only build a small part ( spread over 10 teams ) it is the students that loose the exposure to the real meaning of FIRST. I really hope I didn't mess this thread up. All opinions are my own, but are shared by a few local teams. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
I think I've finally nailed down my opinion well enough to share it.
The way I look at it, there's nothing wrong with sharing designs between teams. Collaborating on the actual build is a bit less clearly okay, though I can see some real points in its favor. But sharing custom fabricated components/mechanisms after the ship date goes too far. My reading of the rules tells me that if such a part is not a) delivered in your crate, b) part of the 25 pounds you make during a fix-it session and bring with you, or c) built by your team on site, it doesn't get to be installed on your competition robot. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Quote:
CD Forum: Post-ship S/W (& H/W) development restrictions FIRST Q&A: Software work outside of FIX IT WINDOWS FIRST Q&A: Mechanical work outside of the Fix-It-Windows FIRST Q&A: Fix-It Windows and prototyping The legality of building and testing prototype upgrade parts, developing and testing "practice code" for the practice robot outside of FIX IT WINDOWS, in my opinion, violates the letter and intent of "ceasing all development" after ship and outside of FIX IT WINDOWS and competitions. Team 4 and Team 980 did no software development outside of those times. Prototype hardware was sometimes built to demonstrate "proof-of-concept", but the competition robot upgrades (built in FIX IT WINDOWs or at the competitions) was almost always very different than the initial development hardware. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
David
In my post I in no way stated or intended that this is what happened with any team. I only sad that it might be a problem because some teams might be of the mind that "well it's the practice robot so It's ok". I had in no way intended to single out team 4/980 or anyother team. I was only pointing out the fact that some people might do this unintentionaly and that it isn't realy fair for others, and against the rules. I'm sorry if you thought that it was an accusation against your teams it was not meant to be. Just speculations. I actualy have a good working relationship with team 4 from the Greater Toronto Regonal and thought the way they acted and behaved was truly a testament to first. Again I'm sorry that you thought that my last post was an accusation and I will try and make my posts more clear and concise to not allow others to think I would accuse them. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
I can understand both sides of this one. On one hand, if teams collaborate and it's the same bot for both teams, whats the big deal if they swap parts. Going off of Kevin's post , if the team still in the elimination rounds uses their twin team's bot, it's still the same bot. If it was a twin that was heavily updgraded, then yes, that gets a little more fuzzy. On the other hand, there are the spare parts rules and everything, and not all teams would have that same advantage of having a twin competition bot. I'd have to say that this is one of those things that needs to be looked at case by case if and when it happens. If teams A, B, and C have identical bots, and plan to bring 25lbs of spares each, such that between the 3 they have a complete robot, while good planning, would be viewed as "unfair". If they didn't strategically plan out the spare out their spare parts, but one team's bot is on the recieving end of some heavy damage and their only way to still compete is the spares from other bots, then the intent is good-hearted and I think most teams would be ok with this. Enforcing the "no collaborating on spare parts" rule would be as hard as enforcing the fix it window; more of an honor system. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
That is an excellent, and absolutely appropriate, question. To be absolutely clear, I am in no way attempting to speak for FIRST, nor should my words be construed to represent any formal or informal decision from FIRST on this topic. Only FIRST can speak for FIRST. All the opinions contained herein are mine and mine alone. Or to be more accurate, they would be my opinions if I actually had one and was willing to make my opinion public. Huh? Okay, let me explain. First off, never take anything I say at face value. The opinions previously represented in my posts in this thread do not necessarily represent my own. But then again, they might. The point is, whether they match what I think or not does not matter. What is important is that they are intended to drive out some deeper discussion on this topic, beyond the simple "sharing parts isn't fair" precept that was beginning to form. The issue of whether there is a fundamental inequity enabled by the current rules, and whether FIRST needs to address this potential issue, is deserving of some deep and thoughtful discussion. If FIRST should decide to act upon this issue, then the implications of any change they may make are profound and may get to the very core of what FIRST holds valuable. As such, the issue should be considered carefully, and ALL sides of the argument should be examined and aired. It is recognized that there are a few people that frequent this forum that have a relatively unique role within FIRST and may be able to bring this issue to FIRST through channels that might not otherwise be available. We are willing to do that, but ONLY if it is worth it and the right thing to do. If we are going to expend a few "silver bullets" to take this argument to FIRST, then we have to be able to support the argument with something more than "it isn't fair." We have to know what the real, logic-based rationale is for requesting what could be a fundamental change to some core concepts within FIRST. And we need you to define that rationale for us, so that it may be represented properly. Simultaneously, if the rationale for the change cannot be defined, even by those professing to be the biggest supporters, then there is a lesson there as well. It is precisely because I think that this is an important discussion that I am intentionally being even more pedantic than normal. I am trying to provoke some insightful discourse on the topic, so that I can determine if there really is a pony in this pile. If so, then I will gladly help take this issue to FIRST. But if the best we can do is "it isn't fair" then this whole topic can, and should, die right here. -dave |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
We all heard Dave V. announce on Einstein that a master link was supplied to one alliance by their opponents. A MASTER LINK was going to keep the team from competing (the OPPONETS supplied it). Does it make a difference if it was a master link or a larger component (supplied by a twin, triplet, or friend)? The robot was not going to be able to compete. The winning alliance gets it, they supplied the part. Oh no…. what if that team had already used up their 25 pounds? Maybe we should check on it and replay the Championship. I will apologize for the sarcasm, but it is the best way to make my point, please don’t be offended. If some of you will be more comfortable with one more rule….have FIRST make a rule. It will not change things, there will still be teams that get it and teams that don’t. I will bet if you look at the rules closely it was illegal for Team 494 to help 1396 create the “one day wonder” robot at the championship in 04 (boy that was fun). My most memorable times in FIRST are not the awards, events, or Championship won, they are the times we have been able to help others succeed. At the Wisconsin Regional Team 494 and 70 teamed up in the elimination rounds (Oh no) with Team 1781. Team 1781 had to play defense on Wildstang in the autonomous period in the final match. When team 1781 arrived at the competition they had no autonomous program. Guess who put one in their robot and ended up competing against them with the program that they had put into the robot…. Wildstang. Do you think they regretted that…no. They get it. Chairman’s Award… you better believe it. More rules….I will live by them. But I guess I just don’t get it. Ask our students, the statement they hear from me the most is “if it’s not fun I am not going to do it”. Let’s not lose that. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
I think the example you use above is not a valid one for the discussion we are having here. A master link is a COTS item and does not count as custom fabricated and is not considered a spare, replacement, or upgrade part per the rules. Such a part does not count towards the 25 pound parts limit. You make some great points in your post...most teams get the spirit of the rules and are honest and honorable when it comes to gray areas.. on a rare basis individual teams falsely interpret the rules or intentionally misinterpret them to try and gain competitive advantage. By the nature of their efforts, collaborating teams are in a unique position to gain more advantage through such misiterpretations than teams who do not have duplicate robots at the same event (not that they all do). Right now there are many individuals and teams who are against collaboration even though FIRST has made it clear that they support it. In order for collaboration to become generally accepted there must be clear statements of their limitations. Right now I can't bring a practice bot to an event to use as spare parts, but I could collaborate with another team and have a duplicate at the same event creating the temptation to use it as spare parts in some situations. As Karthik was trying to say in his post early in this thread, some regulations and limitations on the uses for duplicate robots at events will help collaborative teams to be generally accepted. Such new rules would ensure that the only competitive advantage that collaborating teams have come from sharing great ideas and resources during the build session. Rob |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
There are obviously arguments for both sides of the collaboration discussion. I know that some teams can truly assist young/new/struggling teams and that is awesome. At the same time collaboration seems like it parallels large company behavior of buying out competition or monopoly behavior; which I don't think is the best lesson for the students, nor do I think it supports the long term goals of FIRST (what I believe them to be). With that said, I believe that the FIRST community can find ways to support other teams without having to deal with the questions and issues associated with collaboration. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
To respond to Dave' request for a logic and reasoning based response... I'm not sure this is available. Just about all the rules not dealing with clear safety constraints aren't based on logic as such. The 5 hour fix it windows? Probably based on limiting teams with giant machine shops and budgets. A $3500 budget? A design challenge. Most of these stem from the particular philosophy that FIRST has chosen. I suspect any ruling on this particular issue will in fact stem from how much FIRST wants to encourage collaboration. The rules as written appear to practically limit most teams to an absolute max of 25 lbs of spares. A team might be able to scavenge manufactured spares from another team, but it's not terribly likely. If you read them a that way, however, a collaborating team is very likely to have 100+ lbs of spares at hand. The real question posed here is whether we want a sort of exception to the spares limit available to teams that collaborate or not. So basically whether we want to further encourage collaboration or not. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
As for two or three robots all bringing spare parts for a collaboration, I'd say: if each team brings spare parts for its own robot (which may also be used for any other robot in the collaboration), and another robot in that collaboration runs out of that spare part, I would say that it's like the team that broke made the part during a Fix-it IF both teams scheduled their Fix-its for the same time. If it was not made during the broken team's Fix-it, then there is a gray area in the rules. It could be counted as a spare for one team or the other, and which it is counted for would determine legality. There are two parts to Gracious Professionalism. The Grace part says, "It's legal." The Professional part says, "It is either legal or not, and I think not." So, I think there should be something in the manual (or maybe in Guidelines, Tips, and Good Practices, although this would not get as much publicity) saying that a) teams are allowed to bring other team's spare parts in for them (which would effectively negate the 25 pound rule) or b) no custom part that is brought in by its team or made onsite or shipped with its robot is allowed to be used on any other team's robot (which would mean that no team can bring in any custom parts for any other team, even in a collaboration). Either that, or a balance (say, the second option with an exception for collaborations). This, however, is just my opinion. As I am not currently in a collaboration, I could go either way. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Otherwise, keep suggesting ideas to address this situation—FIRST may eventually seize upon one that it likes.... |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:25. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi