Important Q/A forum responses
 

Let's duplicate/point out the important FIRST Q/A forum here so we have a centralized location for the possibly strategy/material/process changing responses. Only post responses to questions that have to do with things that are not covered or are unclear in the manual or that contradict the manual.

GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

I thought it should be pointed out that the GDC has started to answer some questions. Here are some of the interesting ones I found at first glance:

Coaches may NOT have laptops on the field

The wrap-around exists!

Herding of more than one piece is illegal

Legs may only be pushed in order to control them

Scoring of other alliance's ringers results in a penalty, but ringer counts, as long as it's the only one in the leg.

Post other interesting links you find, or comment about the ones posted.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

How 'bout defining AM two speeds as COTS mechanisms, which means they must be purchased after kickoff . Those AM people will be making lots of money.

As an aside to AM employees: Interested in selling some stock? :rolleyes:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1100

EDIT: Perhaps this came across the wrong way, and is actually quite irrelevant after what Andy said about this rule change.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

We are not happy about this ruling. That is an understatement. I don't forsee anyone winning or "making lots of money" in this situation. I see alot of needless paperwork and shipping for teams to become legal.

I still want to see an official FIRST update on this.

Andy B.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

This is not the link you were talking about? It is a link to a question about herding tubes.

I was curious what ruling you were referring to.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Sorry. I was referring to the thread found here: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1098

-Guy

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Oh, yeah - I saw that in the Q&A and thought that might be what you were talking about. I just misread the claim "Legs may only be pushed in order to control them" to read that the only way in which you can contact the legs is when you are pushing them to control and score.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I assume this means that a team cannot intentionally sway the spiders to keep an opponent from scoring? I was looking forward to that type of defense, and teams overcoming that.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Did you read the answer here? http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1098 It says the legs "may be pushed".

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

If you read on though...

Re: Spider attachment clarification

The Spider Legs are considered part of the field structure, and are covered under Rule <G33>. The Spider Legs may be pushed to one side, from the front, or from the bottom, to stabilize them during the process of hanging a game piece. However, they may not be grasped, held, or severely restrained without violating this rule.

I believe they will not allow you to just go forwards and backwards into the rack for the duration of the match, but this would be a useful question to submit.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

And <G33> says
They've already said we can push as long as we don't break. The Q&A was only referring to how much constraint could be put on the spider to be considered grasping. And I can hardly believe that "disruption" would mean putting the spider into motion, else no one would ever be able to nudge it, even accidentally.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Yeah, I agree. The Q&A question was specifically asked in regards to contact while attempting to score, so it seems the GDC answered that question specifically with "...during the process of hanging a game piece" instead of a general ruling about spider contact.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

a questiong about the herding clarification... if your home zone is littered with pool tubes, can you move them out of the way to make room for your robot to deploy ramps and such, or is this still considered herding?

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

While this will not effect our team personally, I can definately see that extra money will need to be spent on everyone's account, and excess paperwork will need to be done. It reminds me of our team having to disassemble the spare KOP gearbox at the door of the Pitt regional in order to get in, only to re-assemble it on the other side. We didn't use it on the robot.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Why did you have to disassemble anything to get into the event? I can't imagine how this is in anyone's best interest, nor do I recall a rule that would prevent you from bringing assembled mechanisms in as spares.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

<R29> last year seems applicable. Most of the components of the KOP gearbox were available as COTS, but the gearbox itself would count as a fabricated item, and would be subject to the 25 pound limit. Taking it apart would let you slip a lot of the weight through as unrestricted COTS components.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Andy, are you implying that teams should plan to return any COTS MECHANISMS purchased from AndyMark prior to kickoff so that you can refund their $ and then turn around a reship them back to the team and recharge them? I only see this serves to waste your time, team funds for double shipping, and additional paperwork on both ends. While I think I understand the intent of the rule, this solution, while seemingly legal, seems totally ridiculous for all involved.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Yes it is an annoying rule, but it has a purpose. It provides another layer of rules to ensure teams are not designing or building before season starts, the build season is 6 weeks long. This time is for designing, ordering, building, and testing. You can't say Dave didn't warn us (and here), my team almost got into this situation but I decided to take Dave's advice on this one :ahh:.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

I feel confident in in saying that Andy, I, and many others wholeheartedly agree that it is, indeed, a completely ridiculous thing. You must admit that, as the rules are currently written, the only other options available to these teams are to either buy more transmissions or chunk their current transmissions in the trash and kiss their money goodbye. I'm pretty sure neither of those options is preferable to a lot of paperwork getting the transmissions legal. Obviously what would be best for these teams would be for the GDC to reconsider this rule.

EDIT: Jonathan. Saying Dave warned us is like saying the tooth fairy warned us. Everyone here takes anything he says preseason with a grain of salt, for good reason. Unless he was deputized as an official spokesperson for the GDC and I didn't notice, then saying that he warned us is a pretty poor defense. Aside from which, making a preseason, non-authoritive announcement of a possible rule change on CD? Exactly how may teams is that supposed to reach? If FIRST was serious about telling teams they could, and should, have sent an Email Blast.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Good point there, but I have learned with Dave that you can tell he is being deceiving an sincere. In those two posts when i first read them I didn't see the deceiving trickery in his post, I saw a general warning to teams about purchasing parts early. I do agree that if they should have sent out and email blast about it, and i also agree that Dave is not a spokesperson for the GDC and likes to play games with us sometimes.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

Can someone point me to the rule or ruling that says COTs have to be purchased during the season?

Thanks
Joshua

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

<R17> says, among other things, that any MECHANISMS (COTS or custom) that were purchased before kickoff cannot be used on the final robot.

Re: GDC Official Q&A Is Up!
 

The version of R17 that I have printed says:
"Prior to kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are encouraged... Teams may gather all the raw stock and COTS COMPONENTS they want. .... Any MECHANISMS purchased or assembled prior to the kick-off presentation may be used for...."

Unless this was changed in update #2 I don't know where you are seeing what you are seeing and if the AM Transmission is a COTS item why wouldn't a team be allowed to pre-order?

Joshua

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Read the whole rule:

<R17> Prior to the Kick-off: Before the formal start of the Robot Build Season, teams are
encouraged to think as much as they please about their ROBOTS. They may develop
prototypes, create proof-of-concept models, and conduct design exercises. Teams may
gather all the raw stock materials and COTS COMPONENTS they want. But absolutely no
fabrication or assembly of any elements intended for the final ROBOT is permitted prior to
the Kick-off presentation. Any MECHANISMS purchased or assembled prior to the Kick-off
presentation may be used for prototyping or educational purposes, but CAN NOT be used
on the final ROBOT.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Read Update #2. It clarifies, and improves, a lot of things.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Note that this got flipped around in Team Update #2 (PDF link).

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Oh, we of little faith.

Props to the GDC for fixing the COTS MECHANISM rule quickly. To paraphrase what Andy Baker said a while ago, anyone can err -- great thinkers fix their own errors.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Agreed... Thank you to the GDC for making this adjustment and improving the clarity on these rules.

Andy

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Any thoughts about a manipulator that surrounds the Spider Foot?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

The GDC used the words "severely constrained". Surrounding is constrained, is it severe? Do you want to risk your design on the ruling of a ref at the competition(s)?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Referees will not wait until everything on the field comes to a rest to figure out the score: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1604

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Apparently the GDC has a bad sense of humor.

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...light=pressure

If a rookie team asked this I'm sure they would get a straight answer.
But seeing as it was 3 teams who have been in FIRST for 5+ years then I think this was an example of sarcasm.

Not cool. :(

edit: Looking at the title of this thread, I'm guessing this answer would more suit a thread named "Unimportant Q/A Forum Responses"

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

To follow up on Elgin's Unimportant Responses idea, take a look at this one:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1508

It's a little surprising that this question was asked six times, and it still wasn't really answered. I'm guessing that most teams have figured out that stores do indeed sell sprockets, but that they're interested in buying the exact sprockets that are in the kit, so they don't have to do "minor additional machining (broaching keyways, enlarging bores, etc.)". Is there any reason for FIRST to be beating around the bush with this one?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Saw this answered today:

Q:We were wondering if we could hang signs during Regional Competition where our team is sitting?
A:No. As stated in section 3.11.3, teams cannot hang banners in the competition area. This area is designated for official FIRST sponsors' banners. Teams may only hang banners in their own personal team station (within the pit).

I'm sure that will be interesting.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

It's the same rule every year. And every year regionals have team banners hanging everywhere. I'm not going to speak on the beaten-to-death-topic of teams showing disregard for this rule, but if regionals and the championship are continually decked out with banners which stay up for the entirety of the event, why is this rule in the rulebook ever year?

On another note, we have to ship 2 batteries this year. :mad:

However, it is perfectly acceptable to bring the rest of your batteries in a car. :confused:
Does anyone here have any insight why we must ship the 2?

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1683

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Edit: I missed a key part of <R11>, the part under the box. I still don't like some of these rules, but I've struck out the erroneous parts.

I normally go with the flow when it comes to Q&A, but this new direction they're taking with the fabrication rules are getting highly irritating.

Irritation #1: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...=3878#post3878

<R11> says, in part:

I read further, thinking I missed something in the Robot section of the manual, and could not find any part of the manual definitively saying that the OPERATOR CONSOLE is part of the robot. Further language in the manual seems to indicate the opposite:

It seems like if they're going to go this route (which, in my humble opinion, is more frustration than anything), a further update to the manual would be required.

Irritation #2: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...=3897#post3897

This one obviously rules out some past designs, but I sincerely hope their view of "temporary" will be one of those much-feared subjective situations. I'm telling my drivers to keep their arm down as long as they can safely do it.

Irritation #3: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread...=3897#post3897

Now, I will concede that the 12V battery is part of the robot. But somebody tell me, what's the benefit to this rule? While most everything else has changed with the batteries, I can't see why we can't put them in the trunk of the car Thursday morning like the past two (or three, or maybe more) seasons.

This sure seems to be the season of seemingly odd rule changes.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Possibly this is to keep from the rare possibility that a team may forget to bring it the day that they are traveling. Or, if a team must travel by air, some teams may have trouble getting their batteries to the regional/championship venue (i think 1 of our extra batteries were sent back by security on our way to Atlanta last year...).

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

This season, a lot of rules are costing veteran teams a lot of money. Our crate just squeaked in under the weight limit with only the robot in it last year. Now we have to put the controls in it. Okay, our robot is 10 lbs lighter, so we'll still squeak it. But now we have to put the batteries in it? Goodbye Ben Franklin.

Oh well, FIRST isn't cheap. Whadayagonnado?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Irritation #4
Regarding <R29>:The GDC has just made the kit-bot illegal and/or, utterly useless as built out of the box. I refuse to speculate on the reasoning here, for fear of losing my sanity. I have no idea why the whole "fit in a 28" x 38" x something box with something dimension vertical" paradigm wouldn't work this year.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

This is quite odd. I mean, there's a lot of rules that we can say "are part of the game challenge" but, this is like the "gotta touch the triangle" thing of 05. It is gonna add ugliness to a fair number of robots out there. If it isn't dangling strings from their front frame rail,it is ugly sticks rising from their centers. I think this is probably aimed at discouraging teams from fielding a rolling box whose soll purpose is to get in the way of other robots, but if a tall stick satisfies this requirement...

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Perhaps the GDC is tired of seeing a lot of knee-high motorized brick-bats charging wildly around the playing field?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

This would make sense except they turn around and give simple suggestions for how to make these robots legal in about 10 minutes. So I really just don't know what we're going for here.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

You need to read ALL of <R11>.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I agree with you 100%. I like to see good looking robots....but with a random stick out of no where to hold a flag? I understand the reasoning (ok...only a little) But it especially complicates the design of robots with ramps, as now teams need to place their flag holder somewhere, and hope a team driving up the ramp doesn't take it out.

Last year we had to go to home depot and get PVC and make a new flag holder because ours was an inch too short. Seriously, like it was going to affect our performance....maybe we would have been first seed instead of second if we didn't have that inch....

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

This response is interesting. I don't think it is a departure from standard practice since Q&A was introduced, but it does clarify how Q&A responses are to be used at events; i.e., as guidance.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I'm certain they used the same language last year because Mike Betts and I have had this discussion a few times. Last year we came across similar comments at the end of build season that made us question whether or not the Q&A was binding. In the end we decided as we usually do if we feel a Q&A response is relevant to something we did we will have it printed in hand so that we can make sure the apporpriate "guidance" is available to an inspector.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Say Blueabot is 28W X 38L X 18 H - one of the infamous "rolling bricks" - and would have to start the match on end. Would the flag mount have to be on a pivot so it would remain vertical as the robot's orientation changes as soon as that first horn sounds?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I say make the flag holder tall enough they don't need to start on end and avoid the issue.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Are you referring to this rule?

<G29> ROBOT orientation - ROBOTS must start the match with their long (maximum) dimension in
a vertical orientation. After the start of the match, ROBOTS may change their orientation
such that the long dimension is either vertical or horizontal. Refer to Rule <R37> in Section
8 to determine how this affects the use of bumpers.

I think what it is intending is that the "long dimension" is talking about the available long dimension, and not the robot's actual measured dimension. Even though it is 18" tall that dimension is still the long dimension (as 4',5', or 6' is available). I think they just want to prevent people from having a huge starting footprint with the 4'-6' available size.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Nope, it's measured dimension. Here's the GDC's answer on that:If it was just the "available" dimension, then all this verbiage wouldn't be necessary. They obviously intend it to be the measured dimension.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Thanks for clearing that up. What an odd rule. Do you have the Q&A link to that?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Looks like the GDC is implementing a "No Pretty Bumpers" Rule. Last year we thought our embroidered bumpers were the snazziest part of our robot. Looks like no more eye catching bumpers for us. :(

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1879

Also of interest, if you ink/dye your team numbers on your bumpers, and you drop ramps, another instance of your team number can appear to satisy<R14>.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

About the operator console:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1800So.... everyone's doing all their cost accounting for those bump-plated, ground effect lighting festooned operator interfaces with four $50 joysticks plugged into the $130 USB chicklets, right?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Oh geez... didn't think of that. Does this also mean that everyone's favorite CH Flightsticks are not legal this year, since they are no longer publicly available?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Take a look at <R51> (bolding added for emphasis)

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Joey,

Unless FIRST revises their rules, I agree. The CH Flightsticks are illegal.

Goodbye old friends...

Mike

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Karthik,

Missed that one, thanks. I think the whole it is included, it isn't included, it is included again rulings on the OI are just a bit confusing. Obviously.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I agree with was last said. You do NOT have to include the cost of the operator controls into the cost of the robot based on the R51. It states EXCLUDING THE FOLLOWING...

So we do NOT have to inclued the cost of the $130 chicklet and the 4-$50 joysticks in the 3500 we get for the robots. If thats what you were to use.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I have so much trouble thinking that this is the intent of the rule, but that is definitely how it reads. I can't imagine that they would want to effectively ban every gameport controller except for the KOP sticks. If this holds up, don't expect to see more steering wheels than you can count on one hand this year. I don't figure that very many teams will be shelling out $200+ for a Chicklet and a USB wheel. I always kind of liked how they treated the OI differently from the robot, and allowed teams to go nuts. Pick up some old sticks from eBay, add some cathodes, work on it after the ship date, don't account for it. I hope the Q&A will give us a reprieve. Otherwise, expect a lot of cookie-cutter OIs from everyone but the wealthiest. Also expect a lot of teams to not figure this out ahead of time and be furiously searching for KOP sticks and redoing their OI on Thursday of their first regional. That's not how it ought to be.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Joey, et al,

You can use almost anything that is COTS or manufactured by the team for the OI. But because the CH Flightsticks are no longer manufactered, they are not COTS and not allowed.

JMHO

Mike

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I understand the COTS rule. The problem that iCurtis points out is that nobody makes gameport joysticks these days, with the exception of AVB, whose only remaining analog product is the stick that comes in the KOP (See http://www.avbusa.com/pc.htm). I always thought that the OI was kind of fun because there weren't a whole lot of limits on creativity; buying old sticks, gamepads, and steering wheels from eBay was okay. If you can point us to anyone still making analog gameport sticks, I would be thrilled, but I'm pretty sure they've all died out.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I posted a Q&A question about old CH joysticks and other analog joysticks from eBay and the like, just for clarifications.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Link?

I'll tell ya though, FIRST has really done a number on poor teams this time around.

What I don't like about this is some guy called "GDC" has just with one line of text, potentially cost the FIRST program over $100,000

EDIT: Please read the posts below. It appears CH Flightsticks may not be outlawed afterall.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

A quick search turned This up, but I don't know if it is a gameport model... because one of the pictures if you follow the "view picture" link has a USB attached.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

See R28 as updated in Team Update 2.
It would appear that COTS items that are no longer commercially
available can be used, as long they are in vendor delivered condition.

Eugene

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Here's the ruling that he's talking about:

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Hooray Eugene Brooks and Karthik! Team Update 2 to the rescue? Seems like it eh?

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I wonder if FIRST is going to emphasize inspection of the operator controls this year? I think last year we just looked at the size, OI vintage and whether the right team number and firmware came up.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

All,

I missed that one... As amended, <G28> does allow for the CH Flightsticks.

Regards,

Mike

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I missed it, too. Thanks to Eugene and Karthik... it sounds like the OI will be okay after all.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Here's one that's going to get a lot of people, if it's not publicized...

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I agree - this is a VERY important Q&A that will be missed.

Even though the rule makes a lot of sense in the theory of "all power from the robot," logistically, it's a disaster. Hypothetically this means that you cannot use an offboard battery to power the compressor, even if you're using it at the competition. Why? Because the battery to power the compressor would count as a SECOND battery, and you're only allowed one battery to power your robot per match. Teams will HAVE to find a way to "port in" to their robot to power the compressor (like an electrical outlet). This is easily accomplished by having a couple of unused Anderson Connectors attached to the outside frame of your robot, connected to the rest of your wiring harness. Just plug, pressurize, and go!

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Please remember that at the base of this issue with off board compressors is the need to demonstrate that the compressor will shut down under RC control which precludes the need for the compressor to be powered through a spike from the same battery used to power the RC.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

I'm pretty sure an offboard compressor has always needed to be powered by an onboard robot battery. Atleast thats how I've always read the rule.

I'm much more concerned about the fact that ALL robot prep must happen with the competition battery. I understand the logic there, but keeping track of whether you're testing and debugging or actually resetting devices on your robot for a match will be a real nightmare. What if you've been debugging over lunch with a non-comp battery and parts of your robot end up in reset position and then you forget that you did so over lunch and don't re-reset them with a comp battery? I'm thinking that they'll almost have to be a bit lenient with this one and only come down on blatant repeat offenders. It's not as if you can scan the robot with a tricorder and find out if the quantum wave stat of the last electrons to course through it match a competition battery...

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

(Begin Sarcasm) Does this mean we have to use the battery to reset all stored power too, sine power is work over time and work is a change in energy. I mean so many teams are using gas springs, springs, latex tubing, gravity, etc. to activate mechanisms on their robot that they must clearly follow this poorly worded explanation by creating a Rube Goldberg powered off their battery to reset any and all mechanisms just to follow the rule because you know power is power and since it has to come from the battery all power on the robot must come from the battery. (End sarcasm)

The wording in that was poorly thought out but the intent is clear. They don't want you to use the old batteries in a way that may allow for them to get in the robot for competition. Don't lawyer like I did above and don't do something stupid like showing up to the field with an old battery on your robot or cart, and you'll probably be fine.

Pete

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Thanks for cutting to the chase, Pete. As you point out, the intent is clear. And competition officials will be looking for incorrect batteries in and around robots that are near the field. Inspectors will be looking at teams' pneumatics charging procedures in the pits.

Re: Important Q/A forum responses
 

Here's where this rule gets hairy, in my opinion. Its good practice to come back from a match and run through all your functions to make sure everything is in working order. In doing so, positions will be reset to competition ready. Are they saying that this post-match assessment needs to be done with the competition battery? These actions are not the same as debugging.

While we won't be charging the pneumatic system at that time, its likely that the "pit" battery will remain in the robot during pit maintenance and it just makes sense to charge the system, using that battery, while still in the pit, then swapping in the new battery, then heading to the match. Not all teams can charge their system in the pit for a variety of reasons, and I realize it would be rediculous to say if you charge in the pit, you can use a different battery...but this rule just doesn't seem add any fairness or take away any advantage or anything like that. The two things it does is limit the number of non-competition batteries that make it to the field (a very good thing) and suggest that teams purchase more and more new batteries (not such a good thing for all teams).

Kev