Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Rules/Strategy (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Spare parts and duplicate robots (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47155)

Rob 04-05-2006 10:20

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

Kevin Sevcik 04-05-2006 10:58

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.

Ken Patton 04-05-2006 12:29

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

Tristan Lall 04-05-2006 12:44

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.

Madison 04-05-2006 12:47

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'.

Tristan Lall 04-05-2006 12:53

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass
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'.

Quite right; collaborators (by definition) bring the element of intent into the balance, but the rule should apply to all cases.

Kevin Sevcik 04-05-2006 13:20

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Krass
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'.

In answer, yes I would object. I don't object to teams sharing kit parts, COTS parts, AndyMark parts, raw materials, etc. I just don't really agree with teams having more than 25 lbs of fabricated spare parts available to them because they know 5 other teams are using the same custom tranny that they are. If it's something you had to machine for your robot, you should be responsible for bringing the spares and you shouldn't be able to mooch a premade spare off another team because you used your 25 lbs on other things.
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.

Karthik 04-05-2006 14:53

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Patton
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.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ken. As most of you know, I'm a firm believer in collaboration. Ken and I had a good discussion on the possible problems with collaboration in Toronto, and this current gray area is one of them. For collaboration to proceed in FIRST, the teams who participate must eliminate any possible conflicts in interest. The collaborations should be to help team development and growth, not an excuse to circumvent existing rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Patton
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?

3. 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?

I would answer "No" to all four questions. The only caveat, is for questions 1 & 2. If a team would like to pull a COTS or KOP part off their robot to give to another team, more power to them. At the Great Lakes Regional, the triplets came to the event with 16 belts between our three robots. Since these were unmodified COTS parts, we felt comfortable sharing them between the teams. They did not fall under the 25# spare parts limit. Actually, at the championship, we measured these belts for both teams 48 and 195, who had some difficult with breaking their belts.

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)

Richard Wallace 04-05-2006 15:09

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Karthik
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.

Maybe this could be added to the inspection checklist?

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.

sanddrag 04-05-2006 15:30

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.

Kevin Sevcik 04-05-2006 15:43

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.

dlavery 05-05-2006 00:49

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Patton
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?

I am going to answer "Yes" to each of these. Or to be more accurate, I would say "Sure, why not?" What is wrong with allowing, or even encouraging, any of these options? I absolutely do not look at this as a loophole in the rules. Instead, I see this as an opportunity that FIRST has given to all teams, some of which may be smart enough to recognize and utilize that opportunity. It has been suggested that FIRST needs to issue a statement that limits that ability of teams to act on behalf of other teams to fabricate parts. To which I respond: why in the world should FIRST ever do such a thing?

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

TimCraig 05-05-2006 01:41

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
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?

Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind. Why have any limitations at all? Why not let the rich teams spend as much as they like? There are already ways to get around the $3500 limit anyhow. Should the lesson of FIRST be that money is all it's about? Maybe life isn't fair but should the competition be made that lop sided?

Tristan Lall 05-05-2006 01:54

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
It has been suggested that FIRST needs to issue a statement that limits that ability of teams to act on behalf of other teams to fabricate parts. To which I respond: why in the world should FIRST ever do such a thing?

If the statement is "no problem" then that's just fine. To me, the most basic issue is that FIRST say something, because there is obviously controversy surrounding the issue. Right now, it seems very much like a loophole, because the rules don't explicitly cover these situations, and, quite frankly, some officials (i.e. volunteers such as referees and inspectors) disagree on the limitations that are currently in effect—this doesn't help the overall effort to maintain consistency between events.

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>.

Cory 05-05-2006 01:57

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TimCraig
Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind.

You might have a valid concern, if this were true.

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.

Billfred 05-05-2006 02:41

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Patton
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?

I'd be game for items two through four--that's just good planning. But a still-competing robot? I could see a bit of an issue with the first item, though. Suppose Redateam creates two rookies in a Tripletesque arrangement, then finds themselves at the first question. What do the rookie teams do--bite the hand that feeds them? Ideally, the rookie team would keep themselves in one piece (going back to what Dave said last season about being legal and graciously professional, but still dumb), but I've always been a fan of clarity in the manual as to what FIRST is looking for.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TimCraig
Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind. Why have any limitations at all? Why not let the rich teams spend as much as they like? There are already ways to get around the $3500 limit anyhow. Should the lesson of FIRST be that money is all it's about? Maybe life isn't fair but should the competition be made that lop sided?

The Triplets in 2005 consisted of one pretty successful team and two rookies. The Martians/More Martians collaboration this year was between another successful team and a team lost its mentor. 968, who collaborated with 254 and made it all the way to the last match on Einstein this year, initially planned only to attend their local regional. While you may still have successful teams collaborating in part (Division by Chickens, 2005) or in whole (254/60, 2004, or 254/22, 2005), it seems like the more recent trend is for one successful team to help bring up a new or improving team. If the arrangement works well for them, more power to 'em.

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.

Beth Sweet 05-05-2006 09:03

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Billfred

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.

Billfred has entirely summed up our team's motto. Everyone wants to have enough money to go to 4 regionals, Atlanta and have a fancy catered banquet, a practice robot and 2 t-shirts per day but when it comes down to it, you just have to work your posteriors off and move that money around to the most important places. (I haven't read the rest of this thread and I have no idea whether this contributes, but this quote is basically our team motto)

Ken Patton 05-05-2006 09:24

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.

Chris Hibner 05-05-2006 09:25

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
I am going to answer "Yes" to each of these. Or to be more accurate, I would say "Sure, why not?"
...NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates...

I'm a big racing fan. In racing, there are two paradigms:

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.

travis48elite 05-05-2006 09:26

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.

dlavery 05-05-2006 09:32

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
If the statement is "no problem" then that's just fine. To me, the most basic issue is that FIRST say something, because there is obviously controversy surrounding the issue.

I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

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:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
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?

Please, yes! We will be sending you the specs for some parts by the end of the week! :) The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TimCraig
Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind.

As Cory has pointed out, the actual data associated with patterns of collaboration counters this argument. It is this simple: this is not what happens, and the data supports that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory
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.

And just to complete the story, despite what some mis-informed people on this very forum may believe, Team 254 is far from swimming in cash or resources either. Their entire mentoring team is composed of four college students. No professional engineers work with the team. The financial support they receive from NASA is actually less than the amount received by many other NASA grant recipients. They don't have a lot - but they are very, very good at doing a lot with what they have.

-dave

Kevin Sevcik 05-05-2006 09:34

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:

<R29> Teams may bring a maximum of 25 pounds of custom FABRICATED ITEMS (SPARE PARTS, REPLACEMENT PARTS, and/or UPGRADE PARTS) to each competition event to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site. All other FABRICATED ITEMS to be used on the robot during the competition must arrive at the competition venue packed in the shipping crate with the robot.
The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

Mike Shaul 05-05-2006 09:40

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
... NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates, all the time.

I personally, don't like the idea of making FIRST into NASCAR. We'll all end up with the same robot and the competition comes down to 2 things, drivers and who can "push" the rules the furthest. My favorite part of FIRST is seeing all of the different robots and solutions.

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.

Mike Shaul 05-05-2006 09:43

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

I completely agree.

Rob 05-05-2006 09:43

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

Ken Patton 05-05-2006 10:50

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

Nobody is asking for a vote Dave. Its a simple discussion, a valid question was asked, people are interested in what the right thing to do is.

Just a bunch of peeps out here with opinions. You're the only one who's posted so far that gets a vote.

Ken

Tristan Lall 05-05-2006 13:25

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

You'll note that I said "controversy", not "popular outcry". I'm not talking about an outpouring of resentment from the masses; I'm describing a disagreement among interested parties as to the nature of the rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.

Like I said before, if FIRST thinks that this is fine, and expresses that position, then there is no problem. However, doesn't FIRST realize that it might be imprudent for a team to base a major strategic decision on something which is simply omitted in the rules, and which is bound to generate dissenting opinions among participants and officials? Basically, if I show up with my robot (which has taken advantage of FIRST's lack of a ruling on the matter), and an inspector or referee, who is familiar with the spirit of the rules, decides that it violates certain principles, how am I to argue? To not state clearly what is allowed invites teams to push the limits of the existing rules, and forces officials to make interpretations which will inevitably be inconsistent. (I say inevitably, because the rules themselves are in conflict, much less their interpretations; see below.) It is a relatively simple matter for FIRST to write the rules in a more comprehensive way, to take into account the interactions between teams and other entities; to not do so only tempts conflict at a later stage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
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:
The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

The trouble with <R29>, as I noted in the footnote above, is that it contradicts the more explicitly worded <R19>. <R29> says that all fabricated items not included in the 25# must arrive in the crate—clearly this is impossible, because <R19> (not to mention years of precedent) allows fabrication on-site. The reasonable way to interpret this allows fabrication on-site by ignoring that part of <R29>, but, to be consistent, it also opens the door to the sharing of fabricated parts.


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.

Tyler 783 05-05-2006 14:50

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by travis48elite
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.


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.

Travis Hoffman 05-05-2006 15:59

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner
FIRST turning into NASCAR is one of my biggest fears.

What, you wouldn't want to see Woodie interview Paul Copioli after the finals in Atlanta and watch Paul douse the crowd with a 2 liter of Mountain Dew as he exclaims:

"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.

meaubry 05-05-2006 16:54

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.

Mike Martus 05-05-2006 17:57

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.

Alan Anderson 05-05-2006 18:29

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.

David Brinza 05-05-2006 19:57

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler 783
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.

In the case of the Team4/980 collaboration, we discussed how we would handle FIT IT WINDOWS early in the build season. Keep in mind that we were two teams, building two competition and two practice robots, but working in the same space. We had shared designs, common parts and common software. Our decision was to utilize only two 5-hour FIX IT WINDOWS per week (same as if we were only a single team). In some ways, that put us at a disadvantage, because we had twice as many parts to make and even though we had the students of two teams, we didn't have twice the number of tools and machines. We felt it would be unethical and taking unfair advantage of FIX IT WINDOWs had we used four per week (two per team).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler 783
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.

The whole business of developing both hardware and software outside of the FIX IT WINDOWS was heavily discussed in these forums and in FIRST Q&A:

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.

Tyler 783 05-05-2006 20:07

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.

David Brinza 05-05-2006 20:29

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyler 783
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.

I never took your post as being any sort of accusation. Nor did I intend for it to appear that I was "on the defensive" either. I just wanted to let others know how our collaboration handled FIX IT WINDOWS because it was something we wrestled with this earlier year.

Ryan Foley 05-05-2006 21:20

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Shaul
I personally, don't like the idea of making FIRST into NASCAR. We'll all end up with the same robot and the competition comes down to 2 things, drivers and who can "push" the rules the furthest. My favorite part of FIRST is seeing all of the different robots and solutions.

This exact fear came about when the new kitbot chassis came out too; everyone thought we'd see a bunch of robots with kitbot drives and nothing else. It's been 2 years, and we have still gotten a huge variety of robots in FIRST.

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.

dlavery 05-05-2006 23:02

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Martus
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..

...

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.

Mike-
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

Pat Major 06-05-2006 03:58

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
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.
-dave

I am against a new rule, I am against any new rules, there are already too many rules. Let’s get rid of some rules (that would make a great new thread “What rules can we eliminate”). I can’t image being a rookie and having to learn all the rules.

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.

Rob 06-05-2006 09:04

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Major

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.

Pat,

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

Mike Martus 06-05-2006 09:24

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
Mike-
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

Thanks Dave, I think you are visionary in many ways...old wise one :)

David Brinza 06-05-2006 10:08

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat Major
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.

There weren't any rules broken by any of the teams that contributed to Team 4's "one day wonder". The chassis, drive and electronic components were all from the KoP from various teams - they were not fabricated spare, replacement or upgrade parts to which the 25-lb rule limitation applies. Almost everything else on the robot was COTS or raw material that was cut (measured, then cut again), drilled, riveted and/or bolted together right there in the pits. Any rule that would prevent this sort of cooperation between FIRST teams would not only be opposed, but also ignored by the majority of teams. That sort of cooperation is a part of FIRST nobody would ever want to lose.

Mike Shaul 06-05-2006 13:24

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dlavery
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.

I really feel that this is a serious issue for FIRST and I hope that FIRST does take a close look at what its long term focus is and how these issues impact it.

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.

Kevin Sevcik 06-05-2006 13:55

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Foley
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.

I think perhaps you missed my point. My point was that if that sort of part sharing were allowed, it would amount to a collaborating team having an entire spare robot waiting in the wings for them in the finals. Non-collaborating teams don't particularly have an entire spare robot available to them.
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.

EricH 07-05-2006 00:50

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by David Brinza
There weren't any rules broken by any of the teams that contributed to Team 4's "one day wonder".... Any rule that would prevent this sort of cooperation between FIRST teams would not only be opposed, but also ignored by the majority of teams. That sort of cooperation is a part of FIRST nobody would ever want to lose.

I seem to remember 4 (count 'em, 4, and there may be more) "one-day wonder" robots. You guys are this year's. 04 had a team in ATL while thier robot was at their school. '01 had a team show up with just a kit and pretty much nothing else. Sometime around then another team had their robot destroyed in shipping. I think FIRST would be crazy to implement a rule limiting this.

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.

Tristan Lall 07-05-2006 01:26

Re: Spare parts and duplicate robots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH
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)

Just one little issue here (and FIRST didn't do a good job of publicizing this): the GT&GP document was not binding as if it were a part of the official rules. So unless it that document is included in the official rules next year (bad idea, due to the likelihood of redundancy and/or contradiction), your proposed rule should properly go in "The Robot".

Otherwise, keep suggesting ideas to address this situation—FIRST may eventually seize upon one that it likes....

sanddrag 07-05-2006 01:33

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