Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I agree with Akash here. It'd be nice if every team did this already, but they don't, so why not have a little reminder / incentive to do so? You get what you celebrate, you know. :)

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

You're right. It is the team's responsibility. Unfortunately, as seen above, some teams fail miserably in that responsibility. Teams show up with XYZ innovative feature that is illegal, and they would have seen that if they'd skimmed the rules, let alone reading them. So what do you do? All you can do is point out what needs fixing and why. You can't force a team to do anything (other than stay off the field due to inspection issues).

So you put a test out there. Maybe not require it, but highly recommend it. Disclaimer on the test: "This test will not cover all the sections of the manual/Q&A. However, teams are highly encouraged to study the entire manual before taking this test. Should you discover issues or possible issues, we suggest fixing them before you ship your robot."

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

True, but it is the inspector's job to insure all the robots comply with all of the rules. As an inspector, I find it painful to find flaws in robots requiring extensive rework that would have been avoided by having someone on the team knowledgeable about the rules. Rules testing won't solve all of the inspection problems, but it might eliminate a lot of issues that slow the process at the events.

As we all know, the rules get updated during the build season and official rule interpretations are published in Q&A even after ship date. So there will be items that weren't on the test. The same student that takes the test should be tasked with following updates and checking FIRST Q&A to stay on top of the rules. I know of a few teams with a student assuming the role of "compliance officer", whose job is to make sure the team follows the rules. Those teams do very well in inspection, on the field and in many other aspects of FIRST. Perhaps a rules test will encourage teams to create a similar position. That, I think, would be a good thing for FIRST.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Our lead teacher, in his wisdom, every year appoints a student to be the 'Rules and Q&A Expert'. His job is to keep up with all the Q&A and be the go-to person if any of the teams have a question. But we have only instituted this practice for the last 2 years.

Speaking now as an inspector, it would be great if all teams did this; while it is the Team's obligation to read and follow the rules, suggestions (albeit strong ones) should be made in the game manual about best practices. We do have a useful document every year 'FRC Suggestions'. This suggestion should be the first one in the guide!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

931 has done this for a few years now. I agree with David and Jon.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I've been the designated student for all compliance updates for the past 3 years. Guess I should appoint someone new this year?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Yes, but mentor him or her so that by mid-build she or he is confident in their new job!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Reading this, I have noticed a few things. First, Al from team 111 has been ignored in all attempts at reasoning, which is unfortunate because he obviously speaks from years of experience, and has consequently stopped replying. Second, there has been no rookie point of views posted. As a rookie team last year, we were smart enough to comply with weight, size, and bumpers. Pre-inspection would have been impossible. We were lucky enough to get some time on a practice field to realize our chassis sat too low, and we spent hours fixing it two days before ship and we barely made it in time. Our mentor almost had to drive our bot to Rochester. As for Thursday inspections, no-matter what system is developed teams are always going to have to work on their bots on the Thursday before matches. And this method is found in all levels of first, including my experience in FLL. Thus, setting a time for inspection is implausible and impractical.

I know that everyone wants more matches, and something that could be suggested would be limiting the time that occurs between the end of one match and the beginning of the next. By clearing the field quicker and requesting teams to remove robot and set-up robot faster, the qualifying matches could really be moved along. With 8 hours on Friday and 3 hours on Saturday there is no reason why each team shouldn't have 10 qualifying matches, without messing with Thursday's format. This would theoretically require more volunteers (depends on the game reset) to clear field in sufficient time and to keep teams moving in and out of competition areas, but if 4 minutes passed between the start of match 60 and the start of match 61 then you should get 160 or so qualifying matches in, with smaller regional just continuing on the old format or just gaining more qualifying matches. Finger Lakes was an hour behind at one point, which is crazy. I know some FLL competitions that run a tight ship. You are late, then you miss out. If grade school kids can get it right, so can high school kids. On FLL regional hadn’t run overtime in 8 years. That is the efficiency that should be implemented.

I am just throwing ideas around right now, but I don’t see a problem with this, granted you probably are going to get behind, but I think that this would be helpful.

I also like the idea of mentors acting as inspectors. And even a portable scales to get weight done, that way the only line is size, and you could get two or three of them to reduce the lines at the inspection area. The more done in the pits the better.


Jack Sneeringer
Team 2791 Terminal Velocity
Strategist/Head Scout

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

4 minute cycle time? That's just a dream. The best I've ever heard anyone doing is 5.5 minute cycles, and that only for an hour or so. Anything more is just plain exhausting. Most places can't handle 6 minute cycles consistently.

It's not the field reset that is generally the problem. It's getting teams and robots on and off the field, and then getting the field system to communicate with the robots.

The only way you could run sub-6 minute cycles for a whole day would be to bar delays because of any issues with the robots. Can't get your robot on the field because someone else is blocking the gate? Too bad, you can't play. Now cut that reset time in half again to get 4 minute cycles? Teams will rebel, tempers will fray, and all your volunteers will walk out within two hours.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

We do listen to Al. We just haven't been commenting on his posts. I also think the rookies haven't been posting because a) they haven't competed yet or b) they haven't gotten on yet. This isn't exactly something we can control.

I'm going to disagree on a portable scale, though. It's an extra item to move around in a crowded pit area. Then you have to calibrate it every time (a bit of a process, involving 4 25-pound weights). I don't think that's practical. More than one scale, yes. Portable scale, probably not.

Now, the area you probably haven't been involved in yet: the volunteers on the field, the scheduling, and the turnaround time.

There are two factors affecting number of matches: number of teams (which you can't do much about) and speed of turnaround (which you can, but only to a point).

Each match has a turnaround time. This is usually 6 minutes allowed, unless you've got a small event when it can go to 7-9 minutes. In that 6 minutes, you have to do 4 things:

1. Get the teams onto the field.
2. Run the match. (2 1/4 minutes)
3. Verify score.
4. Get the teams off the field.

1 and 4 are usually done at the same time. Let's say that the match running and score verifying take a total of 3 minutes (no flags). Then, while the robots are removed, the scores are input and the next match is set up. That's about 3 minutes.

It is possible to get a 5-minute turnaround time, if you're hustling. But remember, the volunteers need to eat and get the occasional break. You kind of don't want to run that fast the whole time. You start running a 4-minute turnaround, you won't be able to maintain it.

But, how much do you gain? Call it 75 rounds, and you gain a minute each round each time by running 1 minute faster. 75 minutes, that's 15 extra rounds. That's 90 team slots, which is 2-3 matches per team. Then you do it Saturday, too, with another 30 matches--6 extra matches, 36 extra slots, 1 per team. This is in a typical 30-40 team regional. But there are 60 teams in some regionals. That's only about 8-9 matches to a team anyway. It's not exactly worth it for the extra volunteer drain. 4 minutes is not possible to maintain just due to logistics. You're putting 6 robots through the same gate (the other gate is usually closed due to lots of cords) and 3 through each of two other gates. That takes more than one minute.

To recap: It's doable, but you're putting a lot of stress on the volunteers.

One other point: X event getting an hour behind isn't exactly a good reason to go faster. Lots of events got behind and caught up. The most common reason is field failure or something going too long (speakers, for example). Now, you're running a 6-minute schedule. You need to make up an hour. Go to a 5-minute schedule and clear the time you need to make up. (Or take it out of lunch hour.) But if you're running a 5 minute schedule already and you lose an hour due to a field failure, and then you take half the lunch time away, you're still half an hour behind, and you can't catch up because you can't get 6 robots off of the field and 6 more on in 1 minute, which is the approximate time you'd have.

In short, your comment about events getting behind illustrates why we really can't go to a shorter turnaround time between matches.

FRC also runs "You're late, you don't play". If you miss the three queuing calls, and don't show up, you won't be on the field. I'm guessing that you haven't been on the late side of one of those, which is good.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I wanted to do something that we did in Philly and NJ this year that we borrowed from FiM. (And this is just to add onto what Eric said about stress on volunteers)

A lot of large teams have about 3-5 students and extra adults volunteer when they get to the event. It would increase the number of volunteers by a lot if all teams could do this at their competition.

This year we aim to have about 6-10 student volunteering at our regionals.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

A couple of things would like to say in reply to this is that:

1. FLL robots just turn it on and ready to go. No connecting with the field or boot up time required.

2. FLL events have run overtime. Every event I attended or have volunteered at which comes to around 8 or 10 have all run overtime. One had a power outage for 10 minutes but everything went on. Lights were out for light sensors too bad. And the other had a fire alarm go off. But all have gone over at least 45 minutes ranging to 1:45 minutes.

3. Also, due to FLL tables being so small, they can run a match and set up for another. FIRST cannot unless they decrease the field size.

I really don't predict seeing anything quicker than 5.0 minutes for a turnover for a while.

Also, our team had a rules expert in 2008 and possibly in 2007. This past year we didn't as there weren't a ton of rules. It worked well, all they did was read over the rules and look at the changes FIRST made. But all of our team every year goes over the rules and creates a list of rules that are unclear which need to be discussed more.

And FRC does have the your too late, you don't play rule.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Well, that or have two fields...GTR did this for a few years. In 2006, the matches alternated every 3.5 min, with at least 7 matches for 74 teams. The schedule was so fast that match results for each round had to be announced after the next match (on the opposite field).

This is an option at some venues—Greater Toronto, New York, Connecticut and Houston spring to mind.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

No offense, but the posters in this thread are a veritable Who's Who of FRC. Al is only one of the serious multi-year heavyweights who have chimed in here. Any thread (and I am just skimming here) that attracts Robert Steele, Al Skierkiewicz, Kevin Ross, Mike Martus, Mark McLeod, Paul Johnson, Jane Young, Greg Needel, Mike Betts, Cory McBride, &c, &c, is one that is both being taken seriously, and is a serious topic. The fact that the Godfather of Washington State FRC (Kevin Ross, the face that launched 50 teams) has violated his nearly-perfect record of not posting on CD is a sign of what is up.

I'm not surprised that rookies aren't posting. They are probably afraid of being crushed by giants.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I'm hoping Los Angeles (Long Beach Arena) will host a double-field regional soon. The energy of an event with 70+ teams on two fields is amazing.

Some of my best experiences in FIRST occurred at the GTR in 2006. Nearly constant game action played in the hockey area was so intense. The twelve-alliance elimination round kept action going on both fields until the finals.

A two-field "Super-Regional" event is a great way to allow a large number of teams to play a lot of matches in two days. The hard part is getting the right venue and volunteers needed to pull it off.