Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

We have no details as of yet but it appears that in order to attempt to get more qualifications matches for everyone..(ie 10 qual matches in regionals)..
qualification matches may be starting on Thursdays for the standard regionals.

This is not a thread to discuss this proposal....

This thread is a discussion of possible inspection changes that may make this work.

As an aside.... I have decided to stop complaining and start producing positive ways to make these things work....positive changes that we can propose here now to make these new potential rules changes work more smoothly at events and for the teams...

If we start quals at noon on Thursday it will present problems for many teams, especially rookie teams.... to get finished, inspected and out on the field. This could result in many of these Thursday matches not having 6 robots on the field because they have not passed inspection (assuming past rules). Those of us that have been to a few regionals all recognize that inspections can last all the way until Friday morning for many teams...so this could be a very big problem.

I propose the following changes to the inspection rules to help make Thursday run more smoothly:

1. Two kinds of inspections: 1. The MINI inspection

The Mini Inspection or PRE-Inspection is primarily a size and weight inspection with a cursory look at a robot safety only....

2. A FULL inspection : complete compliance inspection...
to determine with full compliance with the rules....

On Thursday afternoon, any robot that completes the MINI inspection would be able to compete with the caveat that they MUST complete the FULL inspection to be eligible for FRIDAY Qualifications.

2. At a team's 2nd regional... they would only be required to do the MINI inspection....unless, of course they had substantially altered their robot in their opinion.

At the Championships, the standard inspection process would still take place.


By utilizing this process I think that regionals would have more time to work with the teams who are attending thier initial regionals and things could run smoother.

I know that there are differences in inspections from Regional to Regional...
but we are facing a real bottle neck on Thursday morning and something is necessary to deal with the time dilemma....

Nothing would stop inspectors from making spot checks at any time...

In a regional like our Microsoft Seattle Regional was last year...
The teams that had already competed could have moved through inspections quicker this way and given the inspectors more time to work with the new teams.

Thank you for your considerations and your thoughts in this matter.

Good luck to EVERYONE!! GO FIRST!!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I would also propose that team mentors volunteer to be inspectors, if possible. More inspectors=more inspections at the same time=less time to get everyone through (theoretically).

OR:

Every team brings a pre-filled inspection form, indicating that they have self-inspected. The inspector checks through it, catching any lies. The official form is then signed by the inspection team when complete. (Hmm... this might also help the less work time on Thursday problem, as teams will need to have something close to running...)

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Having served as an inspector, I have proposed just that in the past. Either a team mentor, or a mentor from a nearby team could perform the preliminary inspection. Questions of interpretation could be raised, to be settled by the Inspection Team at the competition. This would be particularly important for rookie teams, where despite all the best intentions, rules were not followed or mis-interpreted. If we could implement this system, we could get all teams competing earlier, and for more matches.

Great ideas, Bob & Eric!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

A big problem last season was verifying multiple software versions and proper setups. We ran a full software inspection on Thursday to alleviate later issues on the field that would be much harder to troubleshoot.
It worked great for avoiding field problems, but backed up the inspection process.

Some things, such as the Driver Station version could be told at a glance, and by Championship the WPA settings were much more timely, however, it was not terribly easy to check the cRIO, LabVIEW, WindRiver versions that could cause hard to diagnose issues later on. I'd like to see at least the cRIO version displayed on the Driver Station along with the DS version, so we can tell at a glance, instead of requiring setting up a special laptop connection. It'd be nice too, to embed an easily accessable development environment version ID in code downloaded to the cRIO that can be automatically displayed on the Driver Station as well.

Your suggestion of a mini vs full inspection worked pretty well last season to get teams onto the playing field on Thursday. I like the idea of validating a robot for multiple Regionals, with the caveat that I did see many questionable passes I would attribute to inspectors just getting their feet wet on Thursday morning. The mini-inspection should also spot the need for re-doing full-inspections.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

A tiered or assembly line approach to inspection in general may help train new inspectors and help move towards complete nation-wide consistency while also reducing inspection time. That way people could become experts in (e.g.) pneumatics or electronics and can easily inspect a given area.

How many inspectors are typically a part of a regional competition?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I like the idea of another team's mentor doing the inspection.

I propose, Each team provide 1 mentor who will get trained prior to the event and take an online test, which certifies them to give a "first pass" inspection. When the team checks in there is also a badge in the packet for that mentor/inspector. During the day when a team is ready to start the inspection process they find one of these people form another team and they can do it. This could take care of about 90% of the inspection. Then you could have a small number of inspectors/lead inspectors do a 2nd pass or follow up to finish the process. They could also spot check any of the previous work at that time and if wrong do a full inspection.


I mean with every team bringing someone you could even have 2 people do each inspection.

The major requirement for this system is to have a set of rules which are clear and easy to understand, which might be a stretch, although those more complex rulings (bumpers) could be held till the lead inspectors take a look


I have experienced a few inspectors at events including the championship who do not know the rules, or what elements of the inspection mean. At one point I even had to explain what different wire gauges were. While most are good there are some that are not and I would argue that there is atleast 1 person on each team which would be qualified enough to inspect at a regional and their intimate knowledge of the game and current rules might make the inspections MORE consistent then in the past.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I feel like the problem is rarely that there are not enough inspectors. Normally there's a whole bunch sitting around with their hands in their pockets because teams refuse to start inspection until 5 or 6 PM Thursday night.

From my experience inspecting it takes the head inspector being very insistent with teams that they NEED to start the process early, even if they aren't even close to being done. There's always some things that can be checked off while assembly/repairs/changes are being done.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Cory,

I totally agree with your point. I have been lead inspector for a few years now and this issue is very real. I could site specifics but that path would lead this thread in a non-productive direction.

Suffice it to say that most teams could start the inspection process much earlier than they usually do.

And before I get flamed, I should note that, last year, a few teams were prevented from starting an early inspection because my inspectors were tied up with the software verification process on Thursday AM. There can be no doubt that streamlining improvements will need to be made this year.

Regards,

Mike

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

for our team, the problem has been weight in the past. We have had trouble getting an accurate scale at our build location, and thus have had to do a lot of drilling at regionals to meet the weight limit. as far as the inspection goes, we have not have many problems other than the weight

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Like others, I think it's definitely a good idea to separate out the WPA configuration and troubleshooting. (Last year, it fell to inspectors to handle this when there weren't enough other knowledgeable staff available to assist.) For 2010, inspectors will need to be devoted to passing robots in time for the start of qualifications, so superimposing these responsibilities won't be ideal.

The cRIO firmware check was a bit annoying, because it requires console or network access to a cRIO, and a computer (not always together in the same place). There's no good reason why that Classmate PC can't do that, so we should probably have a simple set of rules for the operator console that can be checked by someone with computer networking experience, rather than direct mechanical/electrical knowledge. Put that on a seperate checklist, and send that operator console inspector out to teams' pits to check those items in parallel. (This might be facilitated by organizing robot rules, operator console rules and inspection rules as separate parts of Section 8.)

But the elephant in the room is really the issue of certain rules that take far too much effort to comply with and enforce, proportional to their actual value. These often greatly lengthen the inspection process, and are directly responsible for the occasional acrimonious discussion that takes place between inspectors and team members (usually mentors).

Since the pneumatics were vastly improved for 2009 (no brand and quantity limits), bumpers are the biggest sticking point. In retrospect, the bumper rule did improve from 2008 to 2009, but suffered during the season from a series of interpretations in the Q&A and updates that introduced new issues and didn't quite account for some difficult cases in a clear and uncontradictory way.

The simplest and most productive way to fix this is to specify a reference bumper configuration that is by definition legal, and ask inspectors to qualitatively evaluate teams' actual configurations in comparison to this standard. As long as the bumper meets some very basic dimensional and functional criteria (e.g. bounding size, weight and tactile qualities), there's little value in making a regulatory distinction between things like Ø2.5 in pool noodles and Ø2.0 in pool noodles—because realistically, they both do almost the same thing. Now of course, this makes the rule subjective rather than objective, and will mean that we'll be depending on the inspectors to say "close enough", rather than follow precise criteria. In this case, I think that's fine, because bumpers have one fundamental purpose: to reduce damage to robots. If we see a mix of robots that are each—according to the inspectors best guesses—between 75% and 200% effective, relative to the reference design, that's not a problem. And if so, who really cares whether they used foam rubber bricks, pool noodles or hippopotamus tenderloins? Also, teams can't complain much about subjectivity if they're offered a perfectly good reference design to emulate, and choose not to—the reference design should be teams' first choice, unless they have a good reason to deviate.

If the bumper rule is too well-entrenched to rewrite, then FIRST should consider taking some preventative action to cut down on other time-consuming things like illegal motors. I saw between 25 and 30 illegal motors last year, at 5 events—each of those necessitated a discussion between one or more inspectors and the teams involved, explaining why they couldn't use 2006's Fisher-Price motor, or why one BaneBots motor was different from another (and hence illegal). (Not to mention the time it takes to actually switch a motor out—from a few minutes to hours, depending on the design.) FIRST can error-proof this with a chart in "The Robot" containing pictures of every legal motor, the maximum quantity and model number, and a rule "If you don't see it in the chart, it's illegal." (I know, that information is already in the manual, but many team members don't read "The Kit of Parts" closely enough to realize this, and the photos there are too small to identify fine details in some motors. And many, many teams don't realize that there are about a dozen RS-540/RS-545/RS-550/Fisher-Price/BaneBots/Mabuchi/Johnson/off-brand motors that look very similar, and have at one time been legal in FIRST, but are not equivalent.)

Another way to mitigate the issues with teams who need more time before their first match is to formally sanction the idea of letting a team temporarily disable an illegal component, rather than totally removing it. (This sometimes comes up as a solution for teams that have illegal motors installed, but can't get them off without missing a match; strictly speaking, it's still illegal, but there's not too much harm in letting them disable it and fix it properly during the first evening in the pits.) By giving formal guidance on the degree of leeway permitted here, it will encourage that as an option for inspectors, because they can be sure that everyone is aware that this is a FIRST-sanctioned resolution, rather than an ad hoc decision (that might not have been permitted at another event).

If my memory serves me correctly, Waterloo (being at the small end with as few as 24 teams) has had as few as 7, while Toronto (at the large end with up to 74 teams) has had up to 12. These figures do vary a bit, from year to year, depending on the difficulty of the rulebook and the experience of the volunteers.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Jesse,

Typically, only lead inspectors receive any training. In fact, last year, I met with my inspectors for the first time at breakfast on Thursday morning.

An integrated training program for all inspectors would be most welcome.

Regards,

Mike

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

As a corollary to this, the inspector test was far too basic. I'm not sure how it was created, but it really needed to be more detailed. If it wasn't creating too much work for people who already giving up their time, maybe the head inspectors could come together and create a test that focuses on areas they have noticed newbie inspectors to not be very strong at.

[edit] Really the best answer to this is to somehow find more experienced team mentors to volunteer to be inspectors.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Bob,

Most regionals already do this. Last year, our MINI inspection consisted of the software verification followed by a quick safety inspection (battery secure, 120A CB and PRV (if necessary)).

This invites abuse. Some teams could have (intentionally or not) a competitive advantage in their Thursday matches.

More importantly, many teams would intentionally delay starting their inspections until Thursday matches have concluded. Why? Because they would run the risk of being prevented from competing if a problem is found.

At issue here is that "most" rules have a basis in safety or in competitive advantage. We inspectors would now have a greater chance of being the "bad guys". Do we allow a known non-complying team to compete while their fellow teams continue just because they have not started inspection?

I hope you see the potential problems...

I really think that all teams must pass inspection before starting qualifying rounds if the field is to be level.

I like this suggestion...

I see no difference between this and the "honor" system we have now that any changes made after inspection is completed (Friday and Saturday) is brought to the inspector's attention and the change is re-inspected.

Like the Saturday re-inspection, I would add size, weight and a spot check or two to the MINI (for these teams) and let 'em go...

Regards,

Mike

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Cory,

I see your point but more severe testing without training would likely result in fewer inspectors.

I would rather see mandatory training and no test.

JMHO,

Mike

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

If you wanted to merely ensure that there is enough time for people to get their inspections done why not simply have a list of teams (ordered based on their match timing) requiring say all teams in match one to report for inspection by X o clock. Likely issues would be falling behind, stress on rookie teams, and enormous reliance on nothing odd happening. On the other hand the further into the process you proceed the fewer teams that will require inspection (as teams start getting put into their next matches), and ideally it would mean that all teams would be fully inspected in time for their matches...
Just my $0.01 idea.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Totally agreed. With all 3 of the contests that I inspected last year, we took the pro-active approach and went to the teams to at least start the inspection process. If we had waited for them to come to us, there was a good chance that we wouldn't have finished them by Thursday.

I do like the idea of having the inspection form somewhat filled out before they arrive on Thursday. At least that would give them a good start to the inspection process.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I like this idea--I've seen multiple teams over the years who've had one problem that held them back (even inspected a couple). Let's try to see if it could work...

Redateam has an illegal pneumatics system powering their arm, but otherwise makes weight, size, and all of the other rules. (I do believe that weight and size must be absolute.) Redateam's inspector can issue a decision I'll dub a Pass-But. The Pass-But entails one or more stipulations on items that must be disabled on the robot, either by disconnected wires or tubing, a physical lockout, or some other method satisfactory to the inspector. These teams, what must be disabled, and how they must be disabled (to enable easy checking) would be noted at the inspection desk alongside the current inspection board.

Once qualification rounds begin, one (or two, if you want to divide by alliances) inspector is posted fieldside with a list of teams operating under a Pass-But. This inspector's job is to ensure that teams in the queue are satisfying the conditions of their Pass-But. For Redateam, that's ensuring they have disconnected power to their pneumatics system before they take the field, both to ensure Redateam is playing by the rules and to make sure they didn't just forget while working on their robot. (We do, after all, want Redateam working on the system between matches to clear the Pass-But.)

Now, the question of enforcement on the field is a trickier one. Clearly, a team that uses a feature that is supposed to be disabled under a Pass-But would be out of compliance with the rules. G16 seems to have the closest parallel this year:

If the violation resulted in a material change in the match's outcome (e.g. going from having the arm spontaneously operate out in the middle of the field to having it miraculously operate to block an opposing arm from scoring its doohickey), I'd have no qualms upping the penalty to a plain red card.

I do believe it's doable and could get a lot of teams out of a bind until they can sort out their (relatively) smaller issues. Thoughts?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I've inspected in many regional events (especially in week 1 or 2) where virtually no robots were ready for inspection after un-crating, maybe a handful were inspected by noon, and late Thurs afternoon/evening became a panic for many teams. Inspectors would practically beg teams to undergo partial inspection (especially size and weight) as early as possible. Last year, early surveys of bumpers by inspectors frequently caught problems in time for teams to make fixes before Friday. On Thursday afternoon, inspectors are somtimes provided a list of teams in the first 5-6 matches, just to make sure these teams will be ready to play on Friday morning.

My point is that changing how inspection rules or how they are done won't "wave a magic wand" to correct the real problem: many teams just aren't ready for inspection on Thursday. If qual matches are going to start on Thursday, then unless some paradigm shift occurs, there will be some non-compliant robots scheduled for matches. If teams put robots on the field that have not been fully inspected and are later found to be non-compliant, should they be DQ'd for those matches?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

As an inspector for several years, I can say problem is rarely ever the inspectors, the process, or the rules. The issue can be solved by the teams in the following four ways.

1. - FOLLOW THE RULES! ALL OF THEM! And DO NOT build it exactly to (or over) the size dimensions.

2. - FINISH THE ROBOT IN BUILD SEASON. This includes bumpers, wiring, and team numbers.

3. - CHECK YOUR OWN ROBOT FOR COMPLIANCE. Anything the inspectors point out, your team should already know about and be working on fixing. I should not have to say "where are your team numbers, or where is your BOM?" and have you reply "Oh we need those?"

4. - Make passing inspection an early-Thursday priority.

The problem is though, as long as the teams are allowed to work on their robots on Thursday, they will, and they'll never learn to finish it before the event.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Easier said than done. Especially for rookie teams. That is also why veteran teams are encouraged to seek rookie teams nearby them (and vice versa, the rookies looking for the veterans) and to support them, even by helping their designs in making sure they don't go oversize in their dimensions.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Here's an idea...

Each team must assign a team mentor as the official inspector for that team.

The inspection sheet will have three columns after each checklist item...
Column 1 - For that team's inspector initials
Column 2 - For the team inspector of the team to the right of them in the pit
Column 3 - For the team inspector of the team to the left of them in the pit

(Obviously end of pit lane teams have to go to the next lane over to get their inspectors, but I hope the idea is obvious).

Other than size and weight, you now have three independent inspectors inspecting each robot. In order to compete, you have to have the checklist checked and signed by each inspector plus the weight and height checked.

I.e. pit lanes are like this:
Lane 1: 217, 67, 469, 1114, 830
Lane 2: 330, 27, 222, 1625, 111
...
Last Lane: 65, 71, 171

67's robot is inspected by the inspector from 217, 67, 469
830's robot is inspected by the inspector from 1114, 830, 330
171's robot is inspected by the inspector from 71, 171, 217
217's robot is inspected by the inspector from 171, 217, 67

Lead inspection teams are there to rule over disputes (i.e. the inspectors from the three teams can't agree on whether an item meets the inspection criteria)... Or if something really happens to another team's inspector and they can't inspect another teams robot in time (emergency situation)...

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I am glad many of you are recognizing the problems faced by inspectors each year. Before any decisions are made in this area, we need to address several items of prime importance.
Each student should have the best experience they can have for that weekend. To accomplish that goal from the standpoint of the robot and inspectors the following needs to take place.
1. Regardless of the number of matches played, every match should contain a full complement of robots.
2. Every robot that plays needs to have no doubt as to it's compliance with the rules for every match, else wise doubt and conjecture creep into the minds of the participants.
3. Inspectors need to be known as fair and above reproach in order to accomplish #2.
It is for these reasons that robot inspections have been done all these years, by volunteers who are supervised by a trained lead. Sometimes those are team mentors like myself and sometime they are professionals who do not have a team but want to volunteer. But we do not inspect our own team's robot and I recommend to those other inspectors, we do not inspect close friends either in order to accomplish #2 above. (unfortunately for me that list grow larger every year.)
What makes it difficult for inspectors, even experienced ones, are the variations in robot design and implementation. Additionally, team dynamics and mentor participation play into this process as well.
Although many of the ideas presented are worthy of investigation, readers need to realize that there is a vast difference in the culture of our teams based on regions. Some regions are proud to be inspected by noon and others are just as proud to be inspected last thing on Thursday or early Friday. Some teams have one mentor and five students and others have 30 mentors and 60 students. One team may have several teams to turn to for help while others know very few. Some regionals contain highly motivated and supplied teams while others have what they can pack in the car or pick up locally and that usually means no power tools, no spares and no hardware. Ask your friendly neighborhood inspector how many times they have inspected a team that was too big for the box by more than a 1/4 inch. Those teams have a lot of work to do in order to become compliant. I hear some snickers out there, but all of us have stories like this one. I had a team last year that was two inches over size in each direction. They were a poor team with no engineering mentors, just involved parents. They had been using a borrowed tape measure with two inches cut off without knowing it. Even experienced teams fall into a year where the entire mentor staff changes. When that occurs, the team is like a rookie. I wish I had a nickel for every team that thought the chassis was precut to the right size.
Until we address these types of issues to make every team confidant that we have a level playing field, until we insure every student, and especially rookies, have a quality experience, we are merely making our own lives easier and not improving anything.
Please continue to make suggestions, inspectors are reading your posts.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

One of the issues that I have noticed that slows the inspection process is uninformed inspectors. Our team always carefully combs through the rules and makes every effort to understand the letter and intent of each rule. If we have any question as to the legality of a feature or design, we always ask on the Q&A. Yet, the inspectors often find something that they don't like. This requires that the process come to a complete halt while the head inspector is summoned to make a ruling (the ruling has always been in our favor). A prime example this year was follower wheels for traction control. Our robot used Vex omni wheels in contact with the floor to drive encoders to get true velocity information. This configuration was thoroughly hashed out in the Q&A and the exact configuration we used was described as being legal. The inspector interpreted the rules as saying nothing could touch the floor except the rover wheels (this happened at more than one event). So, at one event, even though we were first in line for inspection Thursday morning, we couldn't get signed off until late Thursday evening because the head inpector was busy.

I realize that the Q&A are not rules, and do not make or change rules, but the inspectors should be familiar with all of the Q&A so that everyone is on the same page about rule interpretation.

(Edit) I want to be sure to say that this post is not an indictment of inspectors! These volunteers do a difficult job in a tough environment, and, in general, do it well. I am just suggesting that they could do a little reading prior to the event to become familiar with rule discussions and interpretations that have already taken place.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

The one problem with all suggestions for a volunteer from each team is for the teams that have few mentors.

I actively recruit mentors but at this time I have only two plus me. I am the only one that could act as the Volunteer Inspector and perform the job such that the complaints that many have about inspectors will not reflect on my team.

But how do I do this and run my team. My students expect that we compete. I would love to help with inspections, I have helped several rookie and veteran teams both before ship and at Regionals, but time is short on Thursdays.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I know Michigan had this http://www.firstinmichigan.org/filem...%20Rev%20D.pdf but i don't know what happened once the teams got to the districts. Perhaps someone could expand on this?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Exactly, at my team's regional on Thursday, we had two mentors. One of the mentors would not have had enough technical experience to be able to help inspect. So, I was the only one regularly in the pits. It would seem rather difficult for a team to lose 100% of their technical mentors for the day.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

i think that something our team will initiate this year is a complete pre-inspection at our pre-ship event. We will build a sizing box and we already have a scale. We tried to do this last year and caught several problems from many of the rookie and veteran teams.... and helped them correct them. It was actually a lot of fun working with them...
Some teams (veteran ones..) balked at the inspection findings... so we just let them find out for themselves... the service was totally voluntary...

Some type of pre-ship inspection service should be offered by veteran teams in their areas. We plan on taking ours "on the road" and using inspectors from our team and other teams that these same teams will be seeing at our local regional. Besides being good for teams.... this could also enhance the ability for an inspection team to come together before Thursday at the event.

I think the "burden" in helping these rookie teams should be shouldered by the veteran teams...it is imperative this year that teams get to the events pretty much "ready to play".

We can help this by being in more contact with rookie and teams with less resources than we have.

I hope many veteran teams will take up this challenge....


Good luck to everyone and thank everyone for their comments regarding my initial comments and proposals....
keep them coming...

GO FIRST

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Excellent idea......if Mike Betts is reading this, maybe we could do this in CT? The Ticks would be glad to help!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

It might not hurt to require teams to post submit photos of their robots in advance of the event. Close ups of the motor, control board, bumpers, wheels, etc.

They could be submitted directly to FIRST, and kept confidential amongst event inspectors, or they could be posted publicly. I know that several teams who posted photos or plans on CD last year got a lot of helpful advice on issues that might present tech inspection problems and were able to make changes.

In any case, this way inspectors could figure out which teams are going to need the most attention and support in advance of the event. They could even e-mail the team for clarification and the team... if needed... could manufacture up to 40 lbs of replacements (if the witholding limit is still in place this year.)

In fact the photos could be required by the Friday before ship... putting a deadline in place that might help teams plan to finish up before ship date.

But probably the #1 way to speed things up would be to include a spring scale in the KoP, so that teams can hang their robot from the rafters and get a pretty good idea of what it weighs before it is boxed or bagged.

But the number one, most important, thing to make this work is to try to integrate teams into the FIRST community so that they can get help with ideas and issues early in the build period. I know we've been trying to do that for years, and it's really hard with remote teams, but we might just have to try even harder this year.


Jason

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

As the Lead Inspector for Michigan I found the training in Manchester very needed. Contained within this thread are many very good Ideas. What is of supreme importance is this:

.... Well trained set of inspectors
.... appropriate tools to do the job (we had many templates to measure bumpers)
.... a REQUIREMENT for all teams to do a PRE_Inspection prior to shipping the robot... teams that did not have pre-inspection done were delayed in the inspection process
.... A strong emphasis upon meeting the set time constraints of inspections

Whatever changes come about, the main objective(s) of the inspection MUST be kept to the highest standards......
SAFETY is always highest
Meeting standards set by FIRST
Insuring that all teams can compete in a fair event following ALL rules as applied by the GDC

Typically in a 3 day event teams waste the morning and few inspections get done. In a shortened event (Like MI Events) the sense of urgency sparks the teams to get it done... like NOW!

Our inspectors were busy but in most cases were able to meet the objective of ALL Robots ready and inspected prior to the first match. Thanks to great teams and great inspectors we in Michigan were able to rise to the task and get the job done with a strong level of quality.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Jon,

I have attended the Suffield Shakedown (Connecticut's pre-ship scrimmage hosted by Team 176) every year and, in my capacity as Lead Inspector, always do my best to visit each and every team to offer my services.

The two big issues are that (1) most rookie teams do not fully realize the importance of attending the scrimmage and (2) only about 50% of the CT Regional's teams are in attendance.

I rather doubt that either of these issues will change much in the future but keep them ideas a-comin'.

Regards,

Mike

Postscript:

I had even planned to expand my efforts last year and had reserved a classroom for training of robot inspectors on the new control system. This initiative was canceled when it became evident that only 5 of 12 robot inspectors had signed up in VIMS at the time of the scrimmage. - M.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I have found that if the first event is not the next week, most rookies will forget the changes we tell them need to be made. One of our biggest problems is remembering that rookies do not know what we are talking about most of the time. It takes a while for them to pick up the experience. We must remember our audience when speaking about technical issues and rules.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

You may have something like this already but I thought I would suggest something like a check-off list only more.

List the sections:
bumpers
electrical
etc.

with maybe a sample explanation, sketch, or photo of what is acceptable/preferred/outstanding

and then leave room in each section for the rookies to take notes while you talk with them.

Inspectors provide the info sheet but the teams takes the notes.

Apologies if this is nothing new and already in process.
Jane

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

To Al & Mike,

I value your input. When would be the best time? At a local kickoff? One week into build?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I agree that part of the problem is the rules. In my 9 years as a mentor, I have seen many robots that I thought would not pass inspection, only to find out later that my interpretation of the rules was not entirely correct. How can I act as an unofficial inspector for the team next to me in the pits if I am unsure of the rules myself?

On another note, at the regional we attended last year, there just was not enough room set aside for the inspectors. The scale and sizing box were too close together making it difficult to move from the scale to the box without getting in the way of each other. The robots lined up at the scale and the size box often stretched down the aisle making it almost impossible to get to the nearby pits.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Jon,
This is an issue we are struggling with. The answer may be all of the above. Some rookies will need the reminder several times while some may not need it all. I experimented with a rookie only meeting each day during the rookie Minnesota Regional for mentors only. I did this because that event had 38 rookie teams. It might be a good idea to initiate that at each event. I believe that the inspection staff has the best ability to be a first contact for teams and are the only volunteers actively in the pits all weekend. We see problems before the team even knows in some cases. We can see issues with team members, mentors and/or robots early and should have the knowledge of how to help, how to get other teams involved and how to get answers. There is a few documents for inspectors that give them a "to do list" for each day that makes it easier for an inspector or lead.
I feel very strongly that we need to concentrate on rookies and any struggling teams and insure they have a great experience. After continuing sponsorship, that may be the next item to sustaining teams.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

maybe we should start to use the time during field set up on Wednesday, say after 5 or 6PM for team load in and inspection, for those teams that are ready for inspection. The time saved from uncrateing, pit set up, then inspection on Thursday, would allow teams to go and seek out the teams that need help on Thursday morning.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Having a team load in on Wednesday night would really help the Thursday bottle neck (We do it in Atlanta..) BUT I don't think that this may be possible given contractual obligations with the various venues......

This is definitely worth pursuing though.... a load in like we have in Atlanta...
Robot uncrate... batteries charging... one load of tools... two students and one adult only...... would really help on Thursday morning...


great idea!!!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

If the volunteers are for it, that could work. The folks setting up the field are often fairly well versed in the robots' more technical aspects and could give a size/weight/safety check before the inspectors get to do the full inspection. And the teams could help test the field electronics, should they be ready.

The disadvantage? The field may or may not be up by 5-6 PM Wednesday, depending on manpower and complexity, tying up the setup crew there, so inspection isn't set up. Counteract that by snagging one or two people per team to help the setup crew.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

There are more activities that would have to be worked around the Wednesday before. There's an order to things, and every step needs time to complete, e.g., rigging goes up first, field goes up after the riggers are out of the way, inspection stations get setup when the inspectors get off work for the day.

After field setup and checkout we usually do a volunteer dinner, followed by final training and setup of the inspection areas. We're still getting our act together the night before.
The roadies are usually still setting up the things that come last, like running power cables for the pits. Having teams milling around would make their jobs miserable.

Not to say it isn't doable, just don't imagine it's as easy as pie...

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Sorry, I am a bit late to this conversation. I think we are arriving at some potential ways to implement the 10 qualification matches.

As a preface, I think most teams would like the ability to compete more. So I am approaching this issue as a good thing. It does, however, mean changes to a sacred schedule that has been part of the FRC community for a long time. If we accept that the change is a positive step, then we just need to work on details of implementation.

For the larger events, like Seattle with 64 teams, going from 7 matches to 10 matches requires 3 additional rounds. That is going to work out to be about 4 hours of additional play time. How this gets allocated is undecided at the moment, but the cold hard truth is that is requires moving some play into Thursday. Noon on Thursday just isn't possible no matter how many ways I have attempted to schedule it. However, I think 4:30 on Thursday is very possible, allowing us to pickup 2 rounds on Thursday.

Traditionally, many teams have viewed Thursday as the last day of the build season. Their robots come in incomplete and in need of substaintial work before they can actually run on the field. As everyone has thoughtfully stated already, we need to change that expectation this year.

I would love some feedback on the following proposal. What if we required all teams to have an inspection on Saturday, Feb 20th by a certified robot inspector? This pre-ship inspection means that the build season needs to be respected this year, rather than shipping an incomplete project. The goal here is to reduce the amount of onsite inspection repairs so that teams are ready to compete on Thursday afternoon. Here is a snippet from a proposal I have been discussing:

"One item that we can require pre-ship is for a preliminary inspection to be done by a qualified robot inspector. In the populated areas around Seattle, we can arrange to have a group of trained inspectors available for on-site inspections the Saturday before shipping. All teams are required to have this pre-ship inspection two days before shipping. The goal here is for the teams to catch the low hanging fruit (bad wiring, wrong materials, size issues, etc) BEFORE the ship to an event. They can then have time to correct these issues in their own shop, rather than doing it at the event. For teams in rural areas, all teams will be required to designate one third party to act as a certified inspector. We will give this person basic robot inspection materials and training at least a week in advance. This does not take the place of the full inspection on Thursday, but it will hopefully allow the teams to shave 4 hours off their day on Thursday.

We may also implement an 'express line' for teams who have competed before. Ironically, the 'express line' inspections won't happen until later in the day (around noon), so we can get the rookie and uninspected robots done first. That gives them time to get changes implemented."

To summarize:
1) Require an inspection 2 days before shipping
2) Thursday, all inspections MUST be completed by 4pm
3) Play starts on Thursday evening.
4) The 'build season' really does end on ship day. This is the change in thinking.

I welcome your comments!

Kevin Ross
FIRSTWA Chairman

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Kevin,
Your proposal will work in some areas and not in others. Many teams are struggling to get moving on that Saturday before ship. I know our team is working feverishly to get things complete on the robot, software issues fixed and prep work for our Sunday pre-ship party. In other areas, teams are so spread out, that visits are near impossible. We can figure that at midwest regionals, (Minnesota, Milwaukee, Midwest, BMR and St. Louis) teams will travel up to three hours on average, for teams outside the regional city. In rare cases we may have teams who travel up to six or more hours. i.e. from Arkansas or Ohio to Chicago. What may be more important is to inspect rookies prior to ship. Pre-ship parties should be made mandatory for rookies where travel does not prevent it.
As far as build, I can't tell you how many teams ship the robot and then analyze what they have done. Realizing their idea is flawed they plan on rebuild on Thursday at a regional. To not allow this, IMHO, would weaken the competition and hurt the students. It has always been my stance to tender all decisions based on the student impact. If the decision we make in any way wrongly impacts the students we need to rethink that decision. Experienced mentors know that the game changes throughout the season and to not allow design change to compensate weakens the competition.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Based on Kevin's proposal, it does not completely take away from allowing teams to rebuild on Thursday. Teams have until 4 PM to complete inspection, teams would have a few hours to work on a rebuild.

However, the bigger issue is that Thursday being considered part of build season has to stop in order for this system to work. We have 6 weeks of build season, which FIRST has said is enough time for build season. 7 weeks they consider to much time and 5 weeks is not enough time. I know that my team blows our schedule on when stuff can get done in time during build. Teams need to keep in mind when they need to be finished with certain items on the robot during the build season. If you don't have a schedule in place get on or else you might not have a working robot at competition.

my $0.02

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Brendan,
I ask you to consider the team that has followed the prescribed build schedule, shipped a robot on time and gets to their first and only competition to find that they are either severely overweight or have left out a critical robot function. How does a decision to prevent build or modification at this event affect the team, the students? How does this decision hamper every team who finds them as an alliance partner and essentially prevents any team from rendering assistance as required by GP?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Al, I understand your point. You are hitting exactly my point with this reply. Yes, please consider this team. They show up at an event with an overweight or otherwise flawed design. This would have been caught on the Saturday pre-ship inspection rather than Thursday at noon when they finally get into inspections at the event.

I am attempting to solve two issues with this proposal. The desire for teams to play more rounds plus the ongoing issue of teams having a complete panic day on Thursday trying to accomplish what should have been accomplished at home on a reasonable schedule.

Nothing in this proposal excludes teams from working on their robot Thursday. However, they are required to finish their robot work at home 2 days early. That gives them a full two days to repair their issues, rather than doing it in panic mode.

This is just a change in thinking. We have all become too used to the previous schedule. Teams will make this work.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

In 2008 our team shipped our hurdling robot, we needed to add a few stickers, and trim off part of our tusks on our robot, which we knew would have to be trimmed to pass inspection, but we wanted to know exactly what needed to come off as we wanted to keep as much of it on. And we were 35lbs under weight. Yes, our robot wasn't perfect and we worked like crazy to get it done for ship but it didn't need much on Thursday

I'm not saying that everyone needs to have stay on perfect schedule(we certainly didn't) or have a perfect robot un-crated Thursday. Everyone, including my team, will have to say in week 5, "what will have to go in order to have a working robot by 4PM on Thursday to be ready for our first qualification matches". That is what FIRST is asking for. If you ship your robot and say, "it will need only a few adjustments thursday." Your fine. But if you need to do a total rebuild, then you're going to have problems with making inspection.

Veteran teams for 5+ years will be expected to be ready to go on Thursday early afternoon, and yes there will be teams especially rookies that will need to do a lot on thursday. But if this is what FIRST is going to do to get the 10 matches in then that's what happens.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Kevin,
In a perfect world, this team would have been able to attend a good and representative pre-ship party on Saturday, and had the resources to design and finish the work on Sunday and Monday to make ship.
In our world, teams can't make a pre-ship, or it is held on Sunday, or schools are closed on Mondays, or there is no machine shop facilities available and no mentorship on the final two days. We cannot force teams, especially rookies, to live without the ability to modify designs and get help making changes or repairs. A rule change of this caliber makes things easy for event staff at the expense of the students.
Every event I have ever attended or volunteered at has had these teams. Last year this easily exceeded five teams at each of the regionals I attended and several at the Champs.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I certainly agree that organizing pre-ship inspections would be worthwhile.
Catching major wiring issues, mechanical problems, size/weight overages, bumper illegalities, are all solveable at home.

However, I must say I like the work on Thursday's and think of it as an integral part of the engineering process. It's a final review and rework by peer engineers. We get 11 matches for a field of 47 teams at SBPLI, but we only deal with 3 or 4 rookies each year. You have a much larger problem to overcome in Seattle.

I inspected a half dozen robots before shipping last season and caught quite a few issues that were easy to fix and work around at home. All the local rookies and rookie-veterans get visits and several others request inspections. It's on a volunteer basis though, and it's a lot easier for one inspector to travel between teams, than for all teams to bring a robot and pit crew to give up hours organizing a road trip to a central location.

I do think "required" is too strong a stance, and having a fixed date is not workable. Possibly, calling it a deadline date would make it doable.
I think the date must be flexible, because:

• Many of our teams, here at least, are forced by a school break to usually ship the Friday before that final Saturday. The one year out of 4 that they aren't forced to ship early, they lose 9 days of build time instead (except for the ones who come live with us for a week).
• Limited number of inspectors, large number of teams, team meeting times, distance to cover - all would force inspections to be carried out over the whole last week I think.

Other issues to resolve:
-- Teams that need help the most never think they have an issue ahead of time. I find it easier to just show up.
-- Pre-ship party won't pull in all the teams that need to be inspected, especially, the under-mentored ones who won't easily be able to transport their robot. Remote teams probably need to be visited.
-- A traveling scale will catch gross over weight problems, but could still be 5 lbs off from the official Regional scale.
-- Drastic size problems could be identified, but without a sizing box many teams will resort to a wait and see attitude if it's close.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Like Al said at every regional we attend there is at least one team that we have to spend all day with Thursday just to get them a robot they can compete with. In one case last year a team didn't even have a mentor to sign off for the team, one of our mentors did it for them. Expand that by several other veteran teams doing the same thing at the same regional and you can see how big a problem it can be.

Many teams (through no fault of there own) just don't have the experience mentor resources needed to get a robot built and ready. Many will not have a pre-ship event to go too.

I like the idea of an early Thursday rookie meeting. Also a quick morning trip through the pits by the inspectors can help identify teams in need of help from veteran teams.

I know that we always watch the inspection board and make an effort to seek out teams that need help. We also always plan to have a crew in the pits until closing time, even if our robot needs no work.

For a fun exercise we try and identify what will be the thing that teams forget and need help with every year. The two previous years we brought extra flag holders, last year we brought extra materials to make bumpers.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

We had one of those completely mentor-less teams at NYC last season.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Coming from a team that is notorious for finishing our robots on Thursday (sometimes Friday, sometimes the Thursday after winning a regional when we completely change our robot) I can tell you that we NEVER plan to do this.

We always plan to have the robot done in plenty of time to practice at our scrimmage, take nice pre-ship pics of the robot, etc... But, we also always push our limit every year. That's just the way we are. The format in Michigan helped us somewhat this year with the "Thursday"...but we still had lots of work to do at Cass Tech.

I think the idea of a "pre-inspection" the Saturday before "ship date" is a nice one, but as some have noted, this could be a problem for some teams due to logistics. But, here is the question: what happens if teams "fail" this pre-inspection? Do they get kicked out of their upcoming competition? Or is it more of just an informative inspection?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Just a quick reminder: This is a proposal at this point, I am gathering feedback. No decisions have been made on any of this, nor are they mine to make. That will be up to Bill Miller and gang.

This pre-ship inspection could be mandatory. Your pre-ship inspection is informative only. You can't fail it, but you have to have one. We are making an effort to provide teams with better timed feedback on what might be an issue on their robot so they can use the final couple of days to fix things that they might otherwise miss until Thursday. You still must pass the Thursday inspection. The pre-ship inspection is intended to help teams not get surprised at the contest.

As an aside, we always have a number of veteran teams who don't pass inspection on Thursday. This isn't just a rookie issue. Far from it. We have had several sub 1000 team numbers in huge trouble trying to pass inspection. Usually because they missed something in the rules or Q&A

Another option is to not have mandatory inspections on or before pre-ship Saturday, and just tell teams they have from 9 AM to 4 PM on Thursday to pass inspection. Not done at 4PM? Tough luck, you will miss the first round or two. That is unfair to your alliance partners, who will really start wishing someone had done pre-ship inspections!

The bottom line is to provide 10 rounds, we need to add about 4 hours (3 rounds) to the current schedule for large regionals. I am proposing adding 2 rounds of contest to Thursday evening, and 1 round to Fridays schedule.

Regardless of the time that inspections must be passed, teams are going to adapt and get the job done. The fact that you had all day on Thursday is actually fairly arbitrary. It is what teams have learned to expect, but it is only expectation. If we change the expectation, everyone will do just fine.

Kevin

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

What about having a BOM due before the event? That was the sticking point for probably half the teams that didn't pass Thursday at L.A. last year. To make it easier, you could have it online, then check at the event. Additions may also be made at the event.

And, it's about the only part that can be done outside the event if need be.

Just a crazy idea that might not work...

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Kevin,
Forgive me for being redundant as I have said this before on many occasions...
I was just wondering, to whom are we giving the hard lesson?
The two alliance partners that now will almost certainly lose the match even though they came to play.
OR
The three opposing alliance partners that know they are winning because the other alliance can only field two or maybe even one robot instead of showing they are the better alliance?
OR
The sponsors (who want to see how their thousand(s) of dollars have been spent), parents, mentors, school administrators (who are faced with cutbacks and budget concerns), school board and families of the losing alliance?

Given a choice between everyone competing and having a few teams get an extra match or two, I know which one I would pick.

Lead Inspector

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

How about next year all rookie teams need to have a sponsoring 3 year veteran team before they can register. Atleast we will know someone is helping them, even if it is just by phone for those teams that are really out in the sticks. I never thought our team would have the time or manpower to help another team, but what a great feeling seeing that team out on the field.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I think in many cases that it is mind over matter. It goes back to the 'if you think you can't, you're right' attitude. Many teams, especially teams that are less than five years old, are still dealing with aspects that are overwhelming and don't think they have the ability or manpower to help other teams or to look at the bigger picture. The truth is that if they want to badly enough, they will find a way - even if it involves a shift in thinking and attitude.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

But the problem is, what can you do. Inspectors are going around reminding teams that you need to get inspected, if you don't get done in time, you aren't done. My team spent much of our time replacing our shooter and belting, several inspectors came to our pit to remind us of the time. Is it really fair to hold off on qualification matches because one team didn't finish inspection. Then you are punishing all of the other teams whom worked hard to get done and inspected so they could get their matches.

If any team needs help to finish in time for inspection at GSR, find me or my team. I'll gladly help you out along with anyone on my team. If my team is all ready to go earlier in the day, I'll go around to the rookies and inquire if they are in need of assistance to be ready for inspection.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

There's a difference IMO between holding off matches to let teams finish inspection and not scheduling matches on Thursday. How often has everyone passed inspection by Thursday at 2 or 3 PM or so?

I'd rather reward teams that screwed up and "punish" those that didn't (with more practice time) than have any teams not able to compete who worked hard to come and do so. The teams that came ready should be content knowing that they were prepared, then help out everyone else.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

But what FIRST is dealing with is, we all would like more qualification matches. They are increasing it by having 2 rounds on Thursday. They are trying to get teams to finish/ just need a few fine tuning/adjustments to do on Thursday. It isn't the end of the world to work harder and longer(even though most of us including myself don't want to) during build season, check carefully over our robots to make sure we aren't using anything illegal, and if we do have something that could possibly be an issue to contact FIRST about it.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I don't think this is a valid point since you didn't have to be inspected by 2 or 3pm, so there was no drive for everyone to do so.

I would love to see some statistics on how many teams weren't inspected by their first match Friday in both the traditional Regionals and at Michigan districts last year. We are already almost there in MI with only Friday morning for practice and start Quals right after. What was the failure to pass inspection rate in MI compared to the rest of the regions last year? Do we even have this info?

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Well, if you wanted extra practice you had to be inspected by noon...

At L.A., I can only think of 2-3 teams that didn't make their first match, not including one that was initially turned back by queuing because they didn't have the sticker saying they had a full inspection, which was on its way. Those teams were either doing a full rebuild or were having trouble building. Only one of those missed more than one, IIRC.

Now, if we're talking didn't pass by about 4 PM on Thursday, then you're talking about half of the regional; about third of the teams had BOM issues that had them waiting until Friday to finish. A number of other teams had relatively minor issues that took them 15 minutes to fix.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Maybe my experience is unusual, but with the handful of Regionals I've assisted with, on Thursday there is a whole lot of helping going on in the pits illustrating Woodie's mantra of “the robot is the campfire we all sit around.”

And it's not just the rookie teams. There are numerous teams who are "reinvented" each year. New mentors. New students. New learning curve.

I think the goal should always be to have a working robot go in the crate. But the reality is stuff happens. Sometimes big stuff happens. Getting good mentors is still a goal, but not a reality for some teams. With a Regional of 50+ teams (Boston, Chesapeake, DC) my experience has been there will be at least 10 teams with big challenges. And these challenges will usually take up a big part of Thursday to fix, even with the help of many teams.

There is an entire PR campaign that needs to take place to convince the teams to start with inspections, and they are “out of time,” and they will penalize their alliance partners if they don’t accept help from others and pass inspection. Soon.

But this aspect of the competition is also what "sells" FIRST. In fact, this part of the competition sold FIRST to the Dept. of Educ. in Maryland. Sure those spiffy robots looked great and passed inspection earlier, but honestly, the superintendent was most interested in the stories of all the help the brave little toasters got from the teams around them. It was about the teamwork and problem-solving, not the robots. I escorted a big VIP in Boston in the pits a few years ago-same thing. And how many times have we told the story of the teams who built a robot for a team at Championship when their crate didn’t arrive. Good stuff.

I've also experienced trying to recruit enough qualified inspectors year after year. It's hard work. And last year was even more challenging as the volunteer dinner and training was eliminated on Wed. as a cost cutting move, leaving Thursday morning breakfast as the training.

I can’t quite get my head wrapped around what a compacted “Thursday” would look like, but am open to seeing how this could work.

One suggestion is better communication to the teams about how the process works on Thursday at your venue. I have tried to do a quick “greet/assess what help is needed/what help is available” with each team first thing on Thursday at the Regionals I’ve helped with. In the medical world where I’m from it’s called “triage.” With the rookies, there are an extra couple of minutes explaining how the day will unfold and how much time they have. This can be a joint effort between the inspectors & pit admin, but best if there is someone coordinating. I know this is done at most of the Regionals, but maybe the lessons learned could be more formalized across the board.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I would like to re-direct this thread. Especially since I started it.

Remember this was not intended to be a thread that was discussing the merits of having more qualification matches.... it was a thread on developing a plan to achieve that eventuality.

If someone wants to start the other thread ...feel free.

I see that several members have proposed ideas.... Kevin's idea is a pretty good one IF we have to do this....

There are going to be issues with ANY idea...

Let's just keep working on solutions.... perhaps we won't find one.
Perhaps we won't need one.... we don't really know how this will flesh out.

I personally thought that Kevin's idea about extending the time on Thursday and Friday by 2 and 1 hours respectively was excellent.
This would allow for work to be done on Thursday...without a HUGE change in starting times for qualifications... it would allow for MOST of Thursday to get inspected and fixed...

Remember there has never been a rule that states a team cannot work on their robot after inspection. Most of us do work on them.... you just have to get reinspected if you made changes that might effect your weight or size or other rules...

I think if we encourage more teams to pass inspection with whatever robot they have done.... instead of waiting to finish them .... might also be something to think about.

I do like the pre-ship inspection idea but realistically it will be difficult for some teams to achieve this.... We have that issue in the Pac NW with our Idaho teams... growing but with few veteran teams... and many hours away from Seattle...

I think that it is imperative for veteran teams this year to develop an even more gracious mindset that allows more time for rookie and other teams that need help...

I never have liked the words "mandatory" or "required" These words tend to stifle creativity....but I think working together we can achieve a workable solution to this issue.

GO FIRST

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I have seen no documentation that First is making this ruling. Are you aware of something? Rules are not available for the upcoming season.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2009...days-post.html

I believe that this is what Brendan was referring to. From the wording of Bill's post, however, it sounds like this is far from being set in stone.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Keeping on thread here, I think Jenny has a terrific idea with the concept of 'triage'. In handling MCI's, or Multiple-Casualty Incidents (which is a fair description of many Regionals), triage is used to provide the most efficient use of medical care to ensure that those with the best chance of survival will survive. Red tags indicate need for immediate care; yellow- urgent, green - basically ok, black - expectant (death imminent).

In the case of FIRST Competitions, triage can be applied to assure rapid completions of inspections with the most efficient use of resources (inspectors and inspection stations).

During un-crating, inspectors will give a brief assessment of a team's robot and assign it to a category (please note, in robot, as in human triage, that triage classes are never static and can and do change through time).

Those given Green stickers are ready to be inspected and are encouraged to do so right away, even though the team wants to do some minor tweaking. If the 'tweaking' adds weight, a later re-weigh is not a time consuming event. That way, the Green teams can get onto the practice field right away, or tweak as their hearts desire.

Yellow stickers go to the robots with possible issues which will require an inspector's review to resolve. On giving the Yellow sticker, the inspector should point out to the team the problem(s) which need to be addressed. She (he) should note the problems and return to the team to see how they are progressing.

Red stickers go to robots with obvious problems, or are uncompleted. This is an indication for immediate application of GP by surrounding teams. Robots (and their teams) in this condition are often unable to appreciate the severity of their condition, let alone know who to call for help. The Red sticker should serve as a magnet for helpful FIRSTers.

We won't use Black stickers....because we never give up in FIRST!

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I was thinking that a lot of teams like to weigh in early Thursday, just to see where they are at with weight. What if...

...There was an inspector there so that they could immediately get a "partial"? Show up, weigh in, and anything you're ready to have inspected is inspected on the spot. Then, when you get towards noon, you have a stack of partials (and a completion or three), and have a pretty good idea of which teams need help. A list can be maintained at inspection so that teams know who needs the help the most.

If you're feeling bold, have a flag that is given out to teams. If they need help, they put the flag up in their pit. Any team with people to spare that is feeling helpful then knows who needs the help. If you're really bold, have another for inspectors--put it up if you would like an inspector to call.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

This was mentioned by others earlier in the thread, but my experience has been that the teams often don't recognize they need help.

At Chesapeake, DC and Boston over the years there were usually more teams offering to help than teams asking for help.

Having someone coordinate can work. Sometimes the offers of help aren't quite the right kind at the right time (I'm remembering a certain well- intentioned building a bumper effort last year that actually took way too long of trial and error. And I had to step in and gently ask the helpers to please include the team, rather than pushing them out. Again, well intentioned, but needed a little tweaking.)

But often there are teams and mentors willing and able early on to help. It's the team that needs convincing. Last year I remember saying to quite a few teams, "you're out of time. We shut the pits at 8pm. The wait time to get inspected is at least 20 minutes. You need to get in line right now, for a partial inspection."

Partial is a magical word. It took the pressure off a bit, and still left open that chance that they could really finish that idea about some thingy they had their heart set on. (can you tell I'm not the engineering brains in the room?)

To me, the key is to get all this moving earlier, in a coordinated fashion, and is communicated to all the teams.
Triage.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

And Jenny sometimes teams won't take your help.

Last year I saw a team who's bumper setup was illegal. I told them it wouldn't pass inspection and the mentor told me I was wrong. Normally I would leave it at that but when the match list came out they were our partner in the first match. Once again I approached them and once again I was rebuked.

Long story short, Friday morning we were making bumpers for them and shepherding them through inspection. They got their sticker 5 minuets before the match with members from several teams helping them make it.

Never did get a thank you.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Regarding MI district experience, I don't have facts but do have anecdotes. There were several matches on Friday morning that were missing more than 1 robot. The official scorers had to decide amongst themselves which empty trailer was assigned to Missing Team X and which to Missing Team Y (both on the same alliance). As I recall, most teams that did miss matches only missed one or two. And not all teams took advantage of Thursday load-in and early inspection, which could have added to the problems with late inspections on Friday.

However I can only remember a few catastrophic problems. One team had misread the bumper rules, and the only way to fix it was to redesign and rebuild their basic frame shape. Another team chose to not come to the field all day in order to rebuild their primary cell-handling mechanism in anticipation of competing at their next event.

Remember, an unaccompanied trailer was a huge detriment in this year's game. Other games were much more forgiving when your alliance was down a robot. Not that we shouldn't strive for playing every game with every robot.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

The biggest problem that Washington in particular has is that they have a 3:1 rookie to veteran ratio. There are some places that don't have a big enough group of veterans to support some of these ideas. At the Seattle Regional last year 1/8 of the teams were sub-1000.

For the last two years in Washington and this past year in Oregon we have had something called SWAT. It's alumni who are volunteering at the regionals helping teams fix problems and pass inspection. We have also been filling in around the event as needed (i.e. crowed control is needed for a few hours here or spare parts is swamped and needs help). Having people who know robots and how regionals operate available at a moments notice to fill in and make things go smoother really has helped up here in the PNW.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

At 10,000 Lakes in MN last year, there were 51 teams.

There was one team with a number below 1000.

There were a total of 3 teams with numbers below 2000. None of these three teams were from Minnesota.

There were 19 rookies.

There were another 22 teams that were second year teams.

The list of teams is available here if you want to check my math.

There was another regional literally across the street the same weekend. The numbers there were similar.

------------

I have taken a deep breath several times and resisted replying to this thread until I could get my thoughts in order. They may still not be in order, and this may get somewhat long-winded and rambling. Please forgive me in advance.

I am deeply concerned about any significant compression of the schedule on Thursday. With the tremendous growth that we have had in MN in the last 3 years, going from < 10 teams to > 80 teams, we have a significant lack of experience. These 80+ teams are spread over a large geographical area (there are only 7 teams within an hour drive of my house, there are teams that are at least 6 hours away). The great majority of these teams do not have any mentors that are qualified to be doing inspections of other teams robots, as has been suggested by others. In fact, most of my inspectors either come from out of state or are local but are not actively associated with a team. With the number of young teams that we have here in MN, it is a challenge to get everyone's problems resolved and thru inspection by the end of the day on Thursday as it is. To compound matters, our volunteer pool is spread across both events, and at the moment it looks like we will have a rookie Lead Inspector at one of the regionals this year. Inspector training takes place on Thursday morning due to the distance that most of the inspectors and myself travel to get to the event. This takes a couple of hours, so we really can't start inspecting until 10:00-10:30. To try and inpect 50+ robots between then and 3 PM would be "Lunacy".

Due to the sheer number of teams and the wide geographic distribution, there is not a "pre-ship" event here in MN that everyone attends, as there is in a lot of other places. Therefore, trying to impose some sort of "pre-inspection" at that event is not an option for us.

I'm also concerned about requiring teams to be "done" at a pre-ship event. Teams that do attend pre-ship events often learn that they have major issues to be addressed before Tuesday. A big one, especially for young teams, is finding out that the robot does not drive the same on the field carpet as it did on whatever floor they used at the shop for testing. I think every year I was involved with a team in GA we rushed back home from the pre-ship event with a list of necessary design changes, some of which were significant. We always thought we were "done", but always learned otherwise. My feeling is that a lot of other teams are in the same category, especially ones that do not have the resources to have their own practice field.

I am all in favor of more rounds for each team. However, I am not in favor of forcing more rounds into the match schedule at the expense of being able to have every team thru inspection with a robot that is capable of competing. If teams, especially rookies, miss their first match or two because they didn't understand something in the rules and they only have half a day on Thursday to make a major correction, they are not going to be inspired by FIRST. They are more likely to give up, and to become yet another team that goes and finds some other (cheaper) activity to participate in next year.

Last year at 10,000 Lakes, with the 51 teams, we ran 9 matches per team without any major time overrun. By shortening up the opening ceremonies each day, taking some time out of lunch, and maybe going a little later on Friday, we should be able to go to 10 matches per team without having to start on Thursday. To make this happen, it is critical that the FTA, the Field Supervisor, and the Field Reset Crew do an outstanding job, but it is not impossible (as long as the field control system cooperates). If we go much above 50 teams this year, then it gets harder. I feel for the 60 team regionals, who will have some problems, but the smaller events should be able to pull this off without having to give up half of Thursday.

That's my opinion. It's probably not worth $0.02.

-Jeff Pahl
Lead Inspector, Minnesota 10000 Lakes Regional
Lead Inspector, Newton Division, 2009 World Championship

.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I don't know if anyone ever compiled it from the after-event reports that the Lead Inspectors sent to Russ Beavis. It was discussed every week in the LRI conference call. My recollection is that several regionals had a handful.

I do know that at Wisconsin and at both MN regionals (North Star and 10,000 Lakes), every team had a sticker before their first match.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Jeff,

I was also very concerned with the implications of this potential move to 10 matches for the MN Regionals and the difficulty of implementing many or all of the suggestions here.

The idea of a mandatory pre-ship inspection seems like it would be extremely difficult to implement here. As you mentioned some of the out-state teams that cannot attend a pre-ship event are the very same teams that do not have mentors that would be qualified to perform an inspection.

Attempting to get all teams inspected by 2pm, 3pm, or even 5pm on Thursday will likely be extremely difficult without some type of major effort to address the large number of younger teams who will show up with robots in need of significant work.

10,000 Lakes may have completed 9 matches per team, but across the street Northstar only scheduled 7 (although if I remember right we did end significantly ahead of schedule on Friday). Also with the scheduling of the Midwest area regionals and the continued increase of MN teams I would not be surprised if both MN events reached 60 teams.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Here are a few 'statistics' that seem to be normal for all regionals and even the Champs...
If you see a team before 10 o'clock in the inspection area, they have never weighed or sized the robot or they don't know where the practice cue is.
Some teams will start to inspect after their second practice and either just before or just after lunch, starting about 11.
Business picks up by 3PM and hits a peak by 4-5 o'clock.
LRIs start visiting teams in the pit by 4 if they are following the recommended practice.
By 6 o'clock, LRIs are instructed to start visiting the teams with a "mad mom face" and most of the stragglers will start to come in.
It is way out of the ordinary for a team to not inspect on Thursday except for those that choose to go home early or come in late.
By Friday morning, the majority of teams without a sticker are bringing in the BOM or signing the inspection sheet.
An LRI takes it personally if all teams do not have a sticker by opening ceremonies.
There is always at least one veteran team who waits until the last minute to inspect.
There is always several teams who will completely tear down their robot on Thursday for any of a variety of reasons especially if it is their first regional.
Rookies are not the only late comers nor are they always the greater number of the problem teams.
There are some regionals each year that will report that a number of teams are not inspected or even started by Friday morning. (Not always the same regional)
Inspections are complicated by changes in the KOP particularly the control system, issues arising from field control, and volunteers doing double duty, i.e. judges and refs inspecting on Thursday.
Average inspection times run 20 minutes or less. Consistent 45 minute or longer inspections indicate an issue with the inspection team.
Partial inspections take longer overall than a full, one visit, inspection. A request for a partial indicates the team is not ready to be inspected.
The rule that allowed more practice matches for teams already inspected brought experienced teams in earlier for inspection, at some regionals.
There are some teams that refuse help no matter how much you try. It takes a strong and forceful LRI to take matters in hand and layout a step by step approach to compliance.
Teams will continue to modify and build throughout the weekend and won't think about reinspection. Inspection areas near the cue make things easier to see by those manning the inspection area on Friday and Saturday.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

This is a huge issue. This year at one of our regionals, there was a team whose drivebase was powered by 5 window motors. They were continuously offered help by our team as well as many other successful veteran teams. They continuously refused help, even yelling at us once for bothering them, saying that "They had worked so hard on their design that they didn't want to change it", even if it meant not competing. They were blaming FIRST for the rules they neglected to read.

Later we found out that we were allied with them in one of our first matches. They must have had good luck, for they were ranked #1 at the end of friday without ever going on the field...

If i remember correctly, they were not rookies.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Nick,
Did you inform the LRI? They are the ones who can point out flaws and suggest ways/teams to modify. LRIs do not want any team to sit on the sidelines for any reason that can be helped.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I defer to your wisdom and experience on this.

Partial inspections have been done at every regional I've been to (especially with sizing and weight), but perhaps this needs to be clarified and changed this year.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I would really like to hear more about this event. If this team choose to not change anything shouldn't they have been removed from the competition?:confused:

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

If they don't pass inspection, their robot will not be allowed onto the field. There isn't really a way to remove the team from the competition, barring an extraordinary lack of GP on their part, at least according to the rules.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Nick is referring to a team (who I won't identify) participating in the Las Vegas Regional. The inspectors (including the LRI) all tried to convince the team to change the drive system in order to come into compliance. Several teams (including ours) offered suggestions, spare parts, or whatever to try to help them. Even with the knowledge that their illegal robot would not be allowed on the field (and it wasn't), this team had voted to not change their "very cool" design and the mentor was not going to override their vote. This was very frustrating to inspectors and other teams alike, but it was their choice.

In spite of their robot not being on the field for their matches (i.e. human player only), they remained in first place until Sat morning. An inexperienced team actually picked them during alliance selections (because they were on top of the "available" list on the audience screen). As I recall, they were ultimately replaced by a back-up robot in the quarterfinal matches.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I suppose an obvious change to make inspections more managable is to place a cap on the number of teams at an event.

Like what Michigan has done with limiting district events to 40 teams. If a region has to accommodate more teams due to team density, then split them over a double weekend, or do a split event like Minnesota (although the latter doubles the volunteers and space necessary).

Traditionally, Regional Planning Committees look at how to pack more teams into a venue as the number of local teams gradually increases. A venue that eventually allows 60+ teams though without doubling the fields and volunteers, such as inspectors, both overloads the inspectors and decreases the number of matches possible under a traditional schedule.

It's cheaper of course for a committee to pack more teams in through creative rearrangement of existing space then to rent a venue twice or find a larger more expensive place. But sooner or later a practical limit is reached and that's when we get teams finishing inspection on Friday morning and 7 matches per event.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I think this is how the problem will be resolved, eventually.

When FIRST has completed its transition to a three-tier (District >> Regional >> Super-Regional >> Championship) qualifying model, we will probably have about ten thousand teams competing in 500 districts, each with a field of about 40 teams -- this assumes each team competes at its own 'home' district event and travels to another. At events for which teams must qualify based on performance at the district level, the number of teams will be larger, and the inspection process should be less time-consuming.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

Expanding on Greg's idea, I'd like to see FIRST require each team to have at least one student member pass an on-line robot rules test by ship date. This student could be interviewed by the inspector at the event. This practice could help avoid extensive rework of robots at events due to lack of the teams' familiarity with the rules.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

That's definitely something I'd be all for. Putting some more responsibility on the students is a great idea, you definitely learn a lot more through this method as well.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I like this a lot, but I would move it up a few weeks. Require a student to pass a test on the rules by week 3 or 4. This gives the team plenty of time to recognize and correct aspects of their design that may go against the rules.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

It would also probably avoid a lot of those "obvious" errors made by many teams *such as the bumper rules from 09* Sooo, where do we suggest such things?:D

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

You could always try the GDC members on CD, or Bill's Blog, or just contacting FRC directly.

One thing on the test, though... it needs to include the Q&A up to that point. Not the minor, "Read the manual" type of Q&A, but the major ones (bumpers again...). That way, they know how a given rule is supposed to be interpreted.

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

I have to disagree on this.

It is not FIRSTs job to ensure that all teams understand the rules.

It is each teams job to comply with all of FIRSTs rules.

Thus the responsibility is on the teams to comply. Teaching responsibility is something that every team should be doing.

I can hear it now, "But that wasn't on the test!".

Re: Need for Inspections Rules Changes
 

[i]But something similar to this would transition that should to a must. At least for some things I think a requirement on knowledge must be met. Such as bumper rules, placement of lights, wire gauges, placement of main breakers, etc..

Its not FIRST's job to do this, but if certain things are made a requirement to know, then the teams would take more responsibility for it. With the requirement of passing a test they would also have the incentive of actually using BB, Q&A, and any other documentation available.

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.