![]() |
Spare parts and duplicate robots
I would like to start by disclaiming that this is not meant in any way to attack, bash, or diminish the accomplishments of any team that was involved in collaboration this year. This is not meant as a new collaboration debate. This is intended to alert FIRST and this community to a situation that may need some new rules created to address it. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please think about what you are posting before you do it, and be sure that what you post is respectful and constructive. If you want to debate collaboration, please go look up one of the threads on that topic.
Over the last several competition seasons, FIRST has made an effort to control what teams may bring to events and use as spare mechanisms, and made effort to restrict teams from bringing duplicate practice robots to events for use as spare parts. With the emergence of teams using a collaborative approach to designing and manufacturing their machines a situation exists where duplicate robots may coexist at the same event. With the increasing frequency of collaborating teams, this offseason is the time for FIRST to address how these teams should interact with one another regarding the use of parts from one “clone” robot as spare, replacement, or upgrade parts on another. A situation could exist where one “clone” is competing in qualification or elimination rounds and may need access to some spare, replacement, or upgrade parts. There could be temptation to use parts off of another “clone” who is not currently competing in a qualifying round or who has been eliminated from the elimination rounds to make the needed repairs or maintenance. It is my interpretation of the rules that if a team were to use parts off of another “clone”, these parts would not fit the definitions of “spare parts”, “replacement parts” or “upgrade parts” as defined in the manual, and would also not comply with rules R01, R16, R26 (if the robot the parts came off of had competed at a previous event), R29 and R46. FIRST needs to create a rule for next year’s competition that specifically addresses this situation so that there is no “grey area” or room for interpretation. It is my opinion that if all teams can only bring 25 pounds of spare mechanisms to the competition with them, that collaborative teams should not be allowed to pull parts off of one another. Lets please keep the discussion civil Rob |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
A rule like this would make sense to me. If you have a 4 team collaboration, the could concievably coordinate spare parts and bring an entire robot of spare parts between them. It does seem a bit unbalancing. If the robots truly are exactly identical, you could concievably have a collaborating team donate their entire robot to another team for the elims so they could just swap control systems between matches if the robot hit a land mine or something.
It would be a tricky rule to word, however. You don't want to overly restrict teams helping each other. The best wording I would think would be something like "Teams may only use the 25 lbs of spare parts they have brought on site, any spare parts in their crate, or COTS items, kit parts or raw materials from any source." The point being that you can't use manufactured parts from other teams. The problem being that that might prevent another team from manufacturing a part on site for you. So maybe a clause for "or parts manufactured on site." I'm not certain it's a big enough issue to worry about yet, but it potentially could be. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
I think this is a discussion that needs to be had, and hopefully FIRST will follow it. I agree with Rob's and Kevin's comments. We're already at the point where such things as swapping in parts from another team with an identical robot can happen.
It'd be great if there were a way to enable teams to help one another (helping to make a part on site, or lending a spare COTS item) while also living up to whatever spare-parts-rule FIRST decides on. Some possible questions that the new rule might address: 1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running? 2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running? 2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then? 4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them? Definitely something for the rules-makers to noodle on..... Ken |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
You've correctly pointed out a loophole in the current rules, and one into which I looked quite deeply, knowing the Triplets were coming to Waterloo. Parts from one team, given to another, aren't covered by the limitations on part fabrication—<R29> (the 25# rule) only deals with parts "to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site"; parts to be used on other robots aren't included. (Note that references in this rule to "the" robot refer to that team's robot—otherwise it doesn't make much sense, in context.)
So, this means that if I fabricate a device (wholly separate from my robot), and give (not sell) it to another team, at the competition site, there's no rule that forbids it, and furthermore, there's plenty of precedent that would seem to permit it. Basically, the rules assume that a team will perform all work on its own robot, and don't cover the case where another entity acted on their behalf, but without their prior knowledge! (And, in the case of the Triplets and other clones, as long as they have plausible deniability, it's essentially impossible for an inspector to determine that there was prior knowledge or intent—to say nothing of the language in the rules which leaves a grey area surrounding "their" robot(s). It's easy to speculate that they're smart enough to take advantage of this, but without proof of actual violations, the ruling has to be in their favour.) What we ought to see is some statement of limitation on the ability of teams (or other entities) acting on behalf of another team to fabricate parts outside of the regular rules, and furthermore, we could use a ruling on whether or not the intended use of the part (i.e. on whose robot it will reside) has any bearing on its legality. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Would you all similarly object to teams that did not collaborate sharing parts from their machines with one another?
I understand that the collaboration among teams that is now taking place makes the situation you describe more plausible, but questions about a rule as you've described above should be answered without regard for 'collaboration'. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
There was a discussion last year on the 25 lb limit that pretty much crystallized my understanding of it. Dave Lavery (I think) hypothesized a team that brought a 100 lb spare robot in a truck, and went out to grab different spare parts from it. They added up to less than 25lbs over all, but they clearly had over 25 lbs of parts available to them. 4 collaborating teams would have 100 lbs of fabricated spares actually available to them. Ditto for a team getting a fabricated spare from some other team. Whats to prevent them from asking the other team to carry in and store spares for them, aside from GP? I think the whole intent is to strictly limit a team to just the 25 lbs of spares to keep the playing field level. And again note that I'm only talking about the restricted fabricated spares here. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Quote:
When it comes to question 3, I think we need to be careful. I recall a situation in 2005 where a team's tetra gripper was damaged beyond repair. Another kind team stepped in, and lent the team their spare gripper. I would hate to see a rule preclude something like this happening. As Tristan and Madison mentioned early, where and how do we draw this line. Yes it comes down to intent, and intent is always difficult to determine. Do we let the lead inspector be the judge of whether the predetermined intent to circumvent the 25# rule? A way of enforcing the simpler part of the 25# rule, would be to have teams declare their spare parts on Thursday morning, and have a sticker with a team number placed on them signifying ownership. Let's keep these ideas flowing. (Rob, great thread idea) |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
There may be logistical difficulties with tagging or otherwise identifying spare parts that have been declared at inspection and/or at check-in. In St. Louis we've had a policy of checking teams on their way into the venue Thursday morning to see what spares and potentially dangerous tools they are bringing. We've stationed a few robot inspectors at the entry doors for that purpose. The policy started in 2005 as an attempt to prevent a repeat of the 2004 incident in which a team brought a spare robot into the venue and used it to practice while they completed the competition robot in their pit. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
I'm going to take the opposing side on this one and say that I have no problem with the teams sharing parts. If one team brings 25 lbs of transmissions and the other brings 25 pounds of appendages, I think that is excellent strategic planning that should not be frowned upon.
Collaboration is a whole new approach on FRC and I think it will continue to grow and improve the program for the better. I don't see any problem with collaboration contunuing to spare parts. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Sanddrag,
I think the everyone would agree that it's great strategy. People are questioning whether it's fair to other teams that can't or won't collaborate with other teams. Imagine a world where 50% of the teams have mananged to get into a 3-4 team collaboration and can do this spare parts trick to effectively triple their spare parts. How fair is it to the other 50% of teams that can't use any tricks to get access to 75 lbs of spare parts? Also to Karthik, I too was considering how situations where teams donate fully functional systems to other teams. I agree that it's an incredibly generous thing to do, but I am undecided as to whether it's a good thing to encourage or not. You might end up with teams bringing a set of super tetra grippers to outfit their alliance partners with for the elims or some such madness. And under current rules, it's a toss up as to whether the extra grippers would be bound by any 25 lb weight limit. The good probably outweighs the bad in these instances, but as you said, it would be a very tricky thing to draw a rule up for. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
These types of arrangements happen in the corporate world, and even the sports world, all the time. NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates, all the time. Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France because his teammates worked up a strategy to impede his biggest competitors while maximizing the resources they could share to support his ride. Ford makes strategic corporate alliances with specific parts vendors all the time, with the full knowledge and expectation that the supplied parts will be interchangeable across multiple car models - and even with some of their competitor's models. In every case, these moves are considered smart business. The practice is not condemned, but rather applauded. And please don't say that teams should not do it because "it isn't fair." WHY isn't it fair? "Fair" by what standards? Just because a few teams got together and decided to work for a larger common good than just their own interests, and another team chose not to take advantage of the same opportunity, how is that not fair? Just because a few teams figured out how to maximize their potential resources within the rules, and other teams didn't, how is that not fair? To be blunt, just because some other teams figured out a smarter way to play by taking advantage of exactly the same resources that everyone else had and you didn't, how in the world is that not fair? As has been said several times, FIRST is not meant to be fair. Neither is life. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. I am looking for a logical, well reasoned, fact-based argument for why the sharing of fabricated parts between teams should not be allowed. I haven't seen it yet. -dave |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Note, however, that when I referred to limitations, I said "outside of the regular rules" in reference to those situations where an agent of a team manufactures something at the team's behest, or alternatively, where a team accepts a part which, if it had been constructed by the team, wouldn't be legal (e.g. made outside a fix-it window). Right now, I would be forced to be permissive in my interpretation, because there's no rule that disallows this sort of thing*. But it appears to be exploitable to absurd degrees: what if 188 built a significant portion of a robot for 116, and vice versa? If exchanges of parts are legal without exception, do we have a problem? (Recall that these are not subject to the 25# rule, since they're originals, and not spares, replacements or upgrades.) Those robot parts would be, in effect, excused from much of 5.3.3, because of the fact that those rules cover what a team may do for their robot, and not what they may do for others' robots. So, am I lawyering again? Maybe. But it might also be characterized thus: like any good engineer, I'm reading the specifications as published, and seeking clarification of the ambiguities and oversights. There's no sense in being dogmatic about our "technical common sense" when the opportunity exists to decide upon a definitive interpretation. The fact of the matter is that FIRST's intent is not clear on this matter, and this interpretation, while not rock-solid, is apparently valid, given the letter of the rules. So I wonder, is FIRST willing to permit this extreme case as well? Even if it allows teams to effectively circumvent the fix-it window rules? I could speculate wildly that the loopholes (or whatever we wish to call them) were purposely included in the rules, to reward the "smart" teams. But all talk of fairness aside, I can't really see how that would help the competition, or FIRST's greater goals. To an observer, these sorts of crazy situtations, should they ever play out, would look like incompetence, rather than strokes of genius—because whatever deeper purpose they serve would be obscured by the outrage and confusion. And as a practical matter, who would want to be the person charged with explaining the intricacies of who can, and who cannot build what, when and for whom, to an irate team? In summary, it's not the sharing that's the problem; it's the degree of sharing theoretically permitted by the 2006 rules. *Except <R29> which would tend to rule out part-sharing, as well as on-site part fabrication due to the shipped-with-the-robot limitation on all fabricated items. Since that portion of the rule is never strictly enforced, and in fact is contradicted elsewhere (in <R19>), I would have to ignore that portion of the rule as erroneous—it can't logically co-exist with <R19>. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Let's look at everyone who collaborated this year. 1114/1503/1680--We all know that the reason this collaboration was started was because the area couldn't support 3 independently operated teams. Combined, yes they do have a lot of resources. Individually, obviously they wouldn't. 70/494--As can be seen in this thread, 70 was on the verge of extinction until 494 stepped in and revived them. 980/4. I can't speak for this collaboration, but nobody has ever accused either of them of being rolling in dough in the past. 254/968--On the outside, you'd think that 968 has tons of money and resources, as they've had beautiful robots the past 4 years. Looks couldn't be more deceiving. They consistently achieve more with less than the vast majority of FIRST. I don't see anywhere where two or more super powers are collaborating to wipe the competition off the map. I see 4 groups of teams who are all working together, each bringing different assets to the table, to inspire the maximum number of students possible. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Quote:
As for the ways to get around the $3500 limit, I'm sure they're out there. But what team in FIRST is really willing to risk their reputation to get that edge? Parts-swapping across teams is one thing, intentionally subverting a clear rule in the manual is another. What should the lesson of FIRST (or, since we seem to be talking exclusively about robots, the robot-building part of FIRST) be? Work within your resources to build the most effective machine that you can--and, at the same time, work to increase those resources. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
So, let me see if I got this right..... if we creatively go around some aspects of the rules beyond their current form (i.e. they don't yet cover this area), we are being "smart."
I'm sorry Dave, but in my opinion this is the sort of response that encourages people to be cynical about the rules and to lawyer the rules. I think you're wrong. Back to the question. What is wrong with allowing or encouraging this? And, we are not allowed to use the word "unfair" because unfairness is okay.... hmmm.... How about that it violates the first sentence of R01? "<R01> Each team may enter ONE robot into the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition. That robot must be assembled using materials from the 2006 FIRST Kit of Parts, and other allowed materials as specified in the Rules, and must fully comply with all Rules." I assume the word "ONE" is capitalized because they mean one, and not one-point-five or two. How about that it violates section 5.3.3? There is a pretty detailed fabrication schedule given, and it is made clear that all teams are to follow it. If a team is "smart" and they figure a way around it by using parts that were built during some other team's fix-it window, it is my opinion that they are not following section 5.3.3. How about that it creates uncomfortable conflicts of interest among teams? "Hey we both made the elimination rounds - awesome! - but you know, we are the lead team here, and we don't want to break the lead robot. Plus, we think our alliance is going to win, so we are going to need to strip some of the good parts off your bot in case we need em for the finals." "Aw, come on B-Team, you KNOW we only entered you to be the support robot. So what if you have a qual match in 20 minutes - we need your bumper-buster and we are 6-0 right now. Give it up. We'll try to get it back in time." How about that it creates situations where the idea of "competition" is subverted, due to conflicts of interest? "Hey we both made the elimination rounds - awesome! - but you know, we are the lead team here, and we think you should not play defense on us in the quarter finals. We gave the last spare subsystem to you (you know, because we each brought a different 25 lbs of stuff), so we have gotten you this far. Make sure to go easy on us." How about that it will discourage teams who choose to treat this as an exciting COMPETITION? If you think that teams who are complaining about this sort of thing don't have the opportunity to do it themselves - after all, you suggested they didn't figure out "a smarter way to play" - you are living on another planet. There are teams who are choosing not to do it. Suggesting they were not smart enough to do it is insulting. Give them some credit for NOT looking for ways around R19, R20, R29. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
1) NASCAR, where all of the cars are equal and for the most part the same car (NASCAR keeps moving toward it's "common template" approach). and 2) Formula One, where each team MUST develop and build its own car from scratch. Collaboration between teams is strictly forbidden. To the "sure, why not?" question, you should ask this to the leaders of Formula One or any Formula One fan and you'll get the same answer: because it will ruin the sport. Personally, I really don't like NASCAR. I love the engineering aspect of Formula One. I don't ever want to see FIRST become a bunch of people driving the same robot around the field. Every collaboration makes me think that FIRST is moving one step away from F1 and one step closer to NASCAR. FIRST turning into NASCAR is one of my biggest fears. Anyway, I really don't like the idea of duplicate robots cometing in the competition for the above reasons. That being said, I'll get back on topic: My answer to all of Ken's questions is "No". I don't want to see teams pre-planning their spare parts so the collaborators have another advantage over the non-collaborators. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Our team has a practice robot that is a clone of our competition robot. This robot became useful between competitions for fixing problems or making new or modiefied parts. And we would usually take these new completed parts that we improved to the competition to replace. But the only parts that we regularly took to the competitions was our tank tread modules. But I do agree we have to draw the line as far as what you may take from a team with the same robot.
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Again, I am looking for a clear, well thought out, fact-based argument for why the referenced parts sharing is a bad idea. Why is it necessary for FIRST to address this issue at all? If there is a real reason, then please point it out. So far, I am not seeing one. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-dave |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
I have a hypothetical. It's really easy too. You've got quadruplets in a regional. It's their one and only regional for the season. Only one of them managed to make it to the finals, the rest being eliminated. QuadA-Team competes in the first round, gets knocked over onto the railing, and breaks their intricate shooter mechanism in half. It would take them 30 minutes to replace it with the spare in the pit. But thanks to a nifty modular electrical system, they can swap robot RCs in just 5 minutes. QuadB-Team says, "Well why don't you guys just swap your RC into our robot and compete with it?"
Letting teams donate parts off an eliminated robot invites all sorts of craziness like this. However, after (finally) reading R29, I think it already prevents teams from doing ALL of these things. Here's the rule: Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
I'm also afraid that if FIRST continues to support this type of "advantage" for teams, this "smart" behavior, it is going to increase the barrier of entry for new teams (you need more resources, more money, more people etc; which may be hard for many new teams to deal with). If FIRST wants to continue to grow the number of schools and teams we can't make it harder for new teams to have fun and be competitive. I really think the ultimate goal of FIRST is to increase and support the level of education on a local school level (across the world), the harder it becomes for a single school to enter/compete, the less effective FIRST becomes. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
|
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Dave,
I'm glad you are taking part in this thread, as someone involved in rules creation your input is valuable to all of us. You provided a sterling argument supproting collaboration and the way it mimicks real world situations. Unfortunatley, I feel that you did not address the original point I was trying to bring forward in my post. I was not trying to once again debate whether teams should share resources, but whether it should be legal for clones to use one another as spare parts during competitions. Let me put forth an example: Two teams collaborate during the build and make exactly identical robots called "Thing 1" and "Thing 2". Each manages their spare parts separately. They compete at various regionals and both end up competing at the Championship event, but end up in separate divisions. Both end up competing in the elimination rounds of their divisions. "Thing 2" is eliminated in the quarter finals, while "Thing 1" wins their division, but had to use up all of their 25 pounds of spare parts to stay working. Now I would like to pose 2 scenarios: A) "Thing 1" takes the 25 pounds of spare parts from the eliminated "Thing 2" out to the Einstein feild to repair themselves between matches. B) "Thing 2" leaves their eliminated machine on the Georgia Dome floor so that the pit crew of "Thing 1" may scavenge parts between matches on the Einstein feild. In my interpretation of the current rules, both scenarios would violate rules R01, R16, R26, R29, and R46. In scenario "B" any parts taken would not fit the definitions of spare, replacement, or upgrade parts as defined in the manual. My effort is to get a specific rule to address these two potential scenarios so that the aforementioned rules are not subject to interpretation or "gray areas". The fact based argument against sharing parts in this way is clear in the rules per my interpretation. If my interpretation is wrong, please let me know. If it is correct, then we should introduce a rule specifically about these situations so that there is no temptation to falsely interpret the rules stated above. Rob |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Just a bunch of peeps out here with opinions. You're the only one who's posted so far that gets a vote. Ken |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, I just want to be clear on the issue with teams building parts for one another: while that may be fine in principle, the rules (as currently written) don't provide for a clear limitation on the timeframe under which this process can operate. It is not the fix-it windows, because those refer to teams working on parts for their own robots. One could reasonably determine that the prohibitions should be extended to teams working for one another, but then issues arise like whose fix-it window applies (one/the other/both/none)—but that's a ruling that will be made later, at each competition, and puts everyone in a precarious situation where everything hinges on matters of interpretation, and the officials' willingness to extend the rules beyond what's written, and the teams' willingness to accept that sort of ruling gracefully. It serves nobody's interests to let it come to that stage; all FIRST has to do is account for these possibilities in the rules. If that means a long-winded, even legalistic rule, then so be it. Because the alternative (i.e. conflict) isn't worth it. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
I realy have no problem with the colaberation, or even the donation of parts to from one robot to another. My largest problem is the problems that it has with the FIX IT window rules. Say there is a three team colaberation, and say that all three teams have decided to go to 1 regonal all together and 1 regonal by themsleves. So you have team A that decides to go to a regonal in week one. They work on thier robot and their code because there are a few bugs in the code and the design. Then week 2 comes along and it's the regonal that all three have decided to attend all together. All the work that team A did in the first week on their robot and code is then sent to teams B and C before the second regonal so that when the FIX IT window opens before the competition the two other teams can fabricate the parts they need to make the modifications. This I think violates the FIX IT window rules since the parts had been designed before teams B and C had their FIX IT Window open. This is lawyering the rules and may or may not be alowed. The more blatent problems with the FIX IT window is the use of a practice robot. This practice robot is used between the ship date and the competition to find bugs in the design and the code. So durring practice with your practice robot you find a problem with your shooter which requires a small part to be made. This part is designed and made for the practice robot and works perfectly. The team then waits for the FIX IT window to open and then makes that part for a "upgrade" that is brought in as your 25 lbs. But did they not design that part outside the fix it window? Does this not break the FIX IT window rules? Finaly this team works on their code for they're practice robot to make the robot's autonomous code work more smoothly and makes the robot function better. They then arive at the competition and upload this inproved code into their robot. I know that there was a specific question in the Q&A about programming and the Fix it window and the answer was along the lines that you are alowed to think about changes to the code but are not allowed to actualy code anything. Would they not have been coding for their competition robot when they were improving their code for their practice robot? Do teams rewite the code line for line when they get to the competition to avoid this? I find that if this is if not against the rule at least against the spirit of the rule, which i beleive is almost as bad as breaking the rule itself. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
Quote:
"Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw! The Ford-powered Sharpie Innovation FIRST Intellitek Microchip Allen-Bradley Autodesk Poof-Slinky Carnegie-Mellon University Craftsman Tools Dewalt Krispy Kreme Mountain Dew Thunderchicken 217 robot really kicked some butt out there today! Boogity boogity boogity!....." Who wouldn't want to see that??? :) We now return you to your serious and on-topic discussion thread. |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
When collaboration started pandoras box was opened for a wide variety of concerns.
My take on this subject goes like this - I love seeing teams "help" each other - it builds and bonds and makes everyone feel good. But, each team individually should account for the 25 lbs and also meeting the intent of the rules as written. The best thing that could happen is to eliminate many of the rules that lawyering or being "smart", causes this kind of controversial debate - obviously the rules are NOT clear or else the majority of the teams just aren't "that smart". Sorry - I got off track for a second there. Back to the topic at hand - Teams should NOT be allowed to swap complete mechanisms with other teams, but - parts and raw material are completely okay in my mind. Even if the interface is designed through collaborative efforts, each TEAM is responsible for their own robot. The mechanism was designed for a single teams application - yes, I realize that many teams could swap many mechanisms and they would work just fine - but, why is that okay?? 6 weeks - one robot (defined as the sum of the mechanisms manufactured and assembled to function as a single machine). The single simple rule should be - if the mechanism is designed and built by your team, it should remain ONLY on your teams robot. As far as the rules go - sometimes less is more. Good discussion - lets not allow this one to degrade though, everyone should respect the fact that each person should be allowed to state their feelings and sometimes we all just need to agree to disagree. |
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.... |
Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
I see collaboration as a creative way to use the (current) rules to your advantage.
|
| 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