Re: Update #16
 

Let me say thank you to First for doing what they have done. Through promotion of First they've allowed many people to have opportunities to do things they have never thought of doing before.

Unfortunately, like many of you, I think First may be falling victim to their own success. The instruction books, rules, limitations, and general beauracracy have grown each year that I've been involved. I understand from conversations with other rookies teams that they spent a great majority of their time trying to learn all the various rules, regulations, etc.

Every minute spent reading rules, regulations, etc is time spent not driving a robot. Every minute spent waiting in long lines for a machine shop that may or may not do what you want them too results in frustration.

A "good" experience is generally one you can walk away from knowing that you did your best. When, however, there are so many impediments to doing your best that you walk away with a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach, that's when people begin to think about other options. Keep it simple. Simple to enter. Simple to organize. Simple, simple, simple. For instance: why are there limitations on the brands of cylinders when so many others would work just fine, and may be stock on your sponser's shelf? I can speak from experience on this one - we lost DAYS waiting for things to ship when we had parts on the shelf that would have worked just fine.

Now we don't know the "inside" story on these decisions, unfortunately. This may be an action that is being forced not by first - but by their venues. Much like the vendors who provide replacement electronics insist they be wired a very specific way, the venues may be forcing First's hand.

That said, I think there needs to be some push-back. I think everyone should understand the basic tenant of innovation - innovation is thought without limits. Innovation is freedom. Restriction or limitation of that freedom simply inhibits innovation. Being told "you can't" is a great way to kill innovation. As many people here pointed out - how many robots this year may be denied participation in matches, or even making it to Alanta, because something broke and they no longer have the ability to fix it? How do you promote innovation within a framework that limits it?

First needs to make a concentrated effort to remove the restrictions they've placed on innovation. They need to simplify the rules, requirements, regulations, and everything else that goes along with First - other than the game itself. That's something that won't happen over night. But I'm sure that if people let First know what they want, First will deliver.

Re: Update #16
 

This is actually a common fallacy: Appeal to emotion. You can make a similar argument about the robots themselves: What if a ramp deploys on someone's head? What if a robot runs in autonomous in the pits, runs someone over, and then drives over their head?
Or about cars: Do you want to be the guy calling someone after their 10-year-old got killed in the street by an improperly operated car? We should ban cars.

A better argument would be to find out how many people are seriously injured at regionals by team-run machine shops every year, and see if it is at all substantial.

Think of the thousands of broken bones that football churns out each year. That isn't to say that injuries are acceptable, it's just that having a zero-tolerance for injuries simply isn't doable. You end up having to restrict the sports so much (touch football) that they aren't the same anymore.

From personal experience (which is a fallacy itself), I've seen more people need serious medical attention at swim meets for heart, lung and shoulder (dislocated shoulder hitting the wall) problems than I've seen ANYONE needing medical attention at FIRST events.

It would be terrible for an injury to happen. But accidents happen. We can't let fear of what might happen or what could happen rule our lives.

Not picking on you specifically, but:
I'd rather make a rule saying that non-team or non-sponsors aren't allowed in the pit than the extreme safety nannyism this rule represents. Teams have been using these tools for at least 6 weeks before the competition.

My idea:
Just like robots, have inspections of team machines. If they are found to not be in good running condition or are ever seen being run improperly, put a "disapproved" sticker on them in such a way that the machine may not be run at the competition. I.e. for a drill press, put it over the drill hole. For a ban saw, put it over the saw. This would make it easy to detect people working around the system, and would provide an incentive for teams to make sure their machines are run properly.

Re: Update #16
 

I wonder how many times GM, Ford, or Chrysler screwed up...

FIRST is just like any other organization, the larger it grow the more complex everything little thing becomes. All of the previously mentioned organizations have people being paid to take care such issues. FIRST is made up of volunteers , who have dedicated their time and resources to bring us what we have now. Please DO NOT bash the volunteers( most here are doing it indirectly in some way).

People were making a big deal about the radios but IFI came through didn't it?

One of our GM engineers told me that walking in one of their Tech Centers without safety glasses is a couple days suspension without pay! (Yes, we all wear glasses in the pits, but this shows you how serious GM is with safety with smart adults!)

FIRST has just gotten big enough were it has take some serious stands on some issues. Just like all the auto companies they have to learn form their mistakes. Are you always happy with all the decisions your Boss/Leader/President makes?

Some are seriously expecting FIRST to be perfect. Maybe they saw something in the first 3 or 4 regionals that they didn't like...Please just wait for an explanation.

Re: Update #16
 

While some of these points are valid, never before have I paid for the privilege of being unhappy with the decisions people make.

Not only do we pay for the privilege of participating in these events, but we're also expected to volunteer our time to our teams, at the events and, with respect to FIRST-approved shops, carry our own liability insurance. There's some upper limit to how much we'll all give before we start demanding some visibility and input into the decision-making process.

Re: Update #16
 

you don't pay taxes? :)

(sorry, I couldn't resist....)

Re: Update #16
 

Actually, I can completely understand the shops needing to carry insurance, now that I think about it. If someone slices their arm off because of a poorly-maintained band saw in some team's trailer, someone is liable. Who is that someone? It's definetely not FIRST from FIRST's perspective, but since it occurred at a competition held by them through tool-sharing that they certainly encourage, a jury might find them liable.

Hopefully the steps required to become FIRST-approved are reasonable. Perhaps on practice day you'll just have to have it inspected, show your liability policy, and have your shop crew tested.

Re: Update #16
 

I agree with you on this one, but what if it where to be changed so that if you display safety with those tools to a safety judge, your team earns the right to use those tools. This would give FIRST the ability to regulate who uses their own tools based on how safe they can be with them. If you don't secure down the piece of sheet metal you are drilling, then your team shouldn't be able to use those tools. This would keep people and teams extra safe, and reduce the burden on FIRST as well. If you want to keep using that bandsaw, you had better use it carefully or we outlaw your team from using it. Plain and simple.


Brian Richards, 1983 Mechanic

Re: Update #16
 

We sign waivers before being allowed to compete at the venues that release FIRST from any liability for injuries and death short of gross negligience or willful misconduct. Something tells me that improper use of a tool does not qualify as either of those on their account.

The form also releases "FIRST's Cooperating Entities". I'm no lawyer, but I'm assuming this includes the competition venues.

I still think, regardless, that tool inspection is a great idea. The only major constraint I can see would be a lack of volunteer manpower to do the job.

Re: Update #16
 

I think everyone here needs to take a huge breath. Good air in, bad air out.

Now, do you feel the way you do because of the 100-some other replies here, or because of the actual rule? Are you ticked off because of what someone else implied here? Is this as big of a problem as we're making it?

FIRST recognized that their matches were not random. They also said that it would be fixed soon. Before they released this information, people were *freaking out* thinking that this was an intentional conspiracy to match "newbie" teams with other "newbies", to kill some teams, whatever. FIRST is fixing it. That sure seems a lot like what's going on here.

FIRST made a call. A whole lot of people don't like that call. Just give FIRST a little bit of time--they don't move as fast as our posts here.

Now, how many people here have actually contacted FIRST? Chances are, FIRST doesn't even know that teams are this flustered by the new ruling. Let them know! But please, please do so in a GP way!

I'm not going to interject my stance on this issue; it really doesn't belong here.

Just my 2 cents

JBot

Re: Update #16
 

To quote dlavery from the match schedules thread:
However, since FIRST itself just put this rule change out, maybe it is a good idea.

Contact info:
States A-L
States M-O
States P-Z
Outside the US

Re: Update #16
 

Insurance makes sense.

More than anything, people seem to be reacting to this awkward place FIRST has been in for a few years. In a lot of ways, the organization needs to grow up and start acting like an adult -- and I perceive some of these rules and regulations to be how they're showing their authority. At the same time, however, FIRST still relies almost entirely upon a group of volunteers to run its events and they need to involve those people in the organization more before they start to jump ship. Teams and individuals incur significant costs while volunteering as mentors or at events and FIRST can't pretend that we'll continue to absorb increased costs while, simultaneously, receiving less visibility into why we're being told to do some of these things.

If they don't yet have it, the additional cost of insurance to teams that have invested in mobile machine shops is probably inconsequential. I think the least that FIRST can do, however, is offer some explanation as to why we should bear the burden of this additional cost.

Re: Update #16
 

Hmm... This may be a little off topic, but for some reason FIRST's site is down. Not that I wanted to contact them, but here is the error:
Or, at least, an abbreviated version. All pages seem to be this way except on the www2 server. Anybody else getting this error?

Re: Update #16
 

It seems that there's another issue here, deeper than just this one update. FIRST has made a number of calls this season that have been perceived by some as questionable... changes to the pre-season design rules, dropping AVA, replacing the old KOP trannies with the Banebots, requiring the shipment of batteries, changing the match generation algorithm (and possibly not fixing it as soon as they were aware of the problem), and now this.

Some say that the problem is not that FIRST hasn't fixed this particular issue yet, but rather that they have made a number of changes, many of them midstream, and they have had unexpected consequences for teams. Each issue has been met with a great deal of whining, and most have been dealt with in due time. (The battery rule remains a mystery to most of us.) However, there is still a lot of heartache for teams in the mean time. The issue at hand (and I think what Paul is trying to get at) is not that there won't be any drill presses in the pits tomorrow. It's that FIRST has lost some sense of its responsibility to the community, and is making big decisions that affect a lot of teams without seeking community input, or at least providing some semblance of sensible justification to offset the unforeseen.

There are great ideas already in this thread. Stephen Rourke's suggestion of a reverse Q&A is excellent. I think it would be helpful to accept the ruling of Update 16, at least for the time being, and to focus on suggestions for solving the bigger issue. It's been said a lot, but don't forget the big goal of inspiration. Regardless of this ruling, we still have to be inspirational tomorrow and through the remainder of the season. It sure is harder to inspire when your robot is broken and in need of machining, but it's not impossible.

Gracious professionalism is important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't complain. FIRST hears us, they know they need to preserve their customer base, and consequently I'm expecting change. (And I'm not talking about drill presses.)

Re: Update #16
 

Sorry for the essay.

I too got that error too on the site...

Okay, I understand that what I say here probably will not amount to as much as these amazing mentors and engineers and followers have already said.

Okay, I am in no fashion tooting 1002's horn. At competitions, EVREYONE knows about 1002's trailer. One of these reasons is becuase QUITE A FEW TEAMS USE IT. Trust me, I believe all we used our own trailer for was to lose some weight by drilling a couple holes. The rest of the time it was being used to help fix parts of other teams. Why do we bring this trailer? It helps us extend a helping hand to ALL other teams.

Also, it is the CircuitRunners, who are insured on our trailer, that are doing the work, not other teams. Yes, we know we aren't machinists by any means, but we are pretty confident that we know machine shop safety pretty well. I would much rather pay for insurance and would be more than happy to pay for insurance of teams with financial difficulties than to outlaw machining.

And again, what is the point in having a pits if this is going to occur. I think we looked at all of our powred pit tools and all we have is two drills that will fit under these guielines if they are set to power level 1.

How is FIRST to inspire struggling rookies and other teams when they're robots aren't working becuase they couldn't work on it during competition. It is a little disheartening. I know it is all about the process, but trust me, it is a little disheartening.

I believe the role of the Safety Judges should be expanded into Safety controllers. Something along the lines where their jobs are to make sure everyone is using these power tools safely. Not to just award teams from being safe. Maybe 1002 is part of the new gaurd of teams that doesn't fully understand what older teams are talking about in the shift in FIRST.
Someone please explain by either posting emailing me or pming me. I am curious.

Also, if FIRST wants to make this competition more like a sport, it is going to have to have functioning robots. No functioning robots = no exciting competition. Extensions of the build season to eliminate the tools in the pits would not work for two reasons. A. Stuff breaks. B. For many teams including ours for sure, the work left to do expands to the time frame given.

I am not sure why this occured so recently. We were asked to bring our Machine Shop Trailer to VCU this year (we did) and we were asked about bringing it to Peachtree also by people FROM FIRST and have brought it to every event that we have ever been to in the past four years and have not had a single accident or injury.
This leaves me greatly confused.

Also Mr. Copioli you leaving would not just impact your team, but many others. Trust me, when our mentors talk about the great mentors of FIRST, your name is always up there. In fact, our main mentor pulled me out of class to read your post. That is how large of an influence that you and your team have had on teams as far away as us. I respect your decision and fully understand that I have had absolutely no say in your decision, but I thought I would just throw that out there.

THIS IS IN NO WAY BASHING FIRST. It has provided an outlet for thousands of students to embrace their hidden talents, learn about engineering, and has pointed many at risk students in the right direction.

Re: Update #16
 

Dear FIRST,
I hope you are listening (reading) this thread.
I know you are working hard, harder then most people even realize. Some very well respected and knowlegeable people have answered with their thoughts in the previous pages. I suggest that when a Woodie Flowers award person like a Paul Copioli or Andy Baker gives their perspective, it is both heartfelt and indicative of their feelings towards inspiring students. Not just those that handle the tools and work on the robot but those others that may be rookies looking for help or veterans stuck on a problem or the freshmen in the stands crying over a broken robot. When a Jim or Ron Schadelee or a Raul speaks out, know that these are individuals who can turn a chunk of aluminum into a functioning part in the blink of an eye. (If I was able, I would nominate these folks for a WFA for their impact on students.) I know for myself it is hard to watch this discussion in light of the 11 + seasons I have participated in FIRST. In those competitions, I have watched these talented individuals and many others perform miracles on broken and under designed robots. They did it because of the deep personal belief that their work was changing the world one student at a time. I have seen hundreds of teams inspired to do better and walk away better human beings because one of these people smiled and asked if someone needed help. I have watched alliance partners give thanks that a well tooled and knowledgable team had taken their one broken partner under their wing and made a part better, fixed a defect, corrected an error. These people, these thousands, have heard your message and believed that it is truly better to be gracious professionals than to be competitors.

Perhaps you made a decision in haste or perhaps you didn't weigh all of the data equally. I am sorry but I have to agree with Raul, Paul, Andy, Jim, Stu and all of the others who have not yet spoken. The small tools in the pits should be allowed to stay. If there are issues unspoken, I am sure they can be addressed, please ask.

A humble mentor,
Al

P.S. I understand the grinder rule and agree.