![]() |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
I seen some very weird/strange things happen this year with robots. One team never opened up their "kit" this year and tried to use last year's robot. Now they are far from being rookies and should know better. They hadn't read a single rule for the year either. The mentor went to the store and came back with black and green fabric for the bumpers. While their team sat in the stands watching the game, students from other teams built them a working robot. They of course were DQ'd from the event. BTW they did the same last year as well. :eek: I also seen a team using 6 CIM's this year. I don't understand why it seems this year teams aren't following the rules. Though in 397's defense this seems pretty minor, but rules are rules.
Mike is probably one of the best if not the best inspector out there. Having worked with him for a couple years now in the pits, he is such a fair and hard working man. |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
<R75> Compressed air for the pneumatic system on the ROBOT must be provided by one and only one compressor. Sorry if you were mislead. In one form or another this rule has been present for many years. One and only one compressor. |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
As was noted earlier, R75 has been around for a long time. Just because you and others got away with something for several years doesn't make it legal. I expect our team to be thoroughly aware of all the rules. We have 6 weeks to make sure our robot is legal, the inspectors only have a few minutes. |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Maybe we shouldn't spend our time criticizing teams for not knowing minute details, but instead make a point that things do change, and that teams should always have a fallback plan when they do. Teams that push the limits of rules without fallbacks are playing with fire (I admire 469 for that. They would have had a very effective robot, even if the original intent of their robot was disallowed in competition). Being able to evolve as the season wears on, I think, is a skill many times more useful than being able to read the rules. |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Now, the complete rudeness to my parents, one of whom is over 75 years old and does not get around very well is something I was unaware of and to whatever team this was SHAME on you. They weren't wearing any team shirts so for all you know they were just people who had heard of the competition... or potential sponsors. What the heck is wrong with you? (No, I don't know the number, no I don't WANT to know the number) Quote:
We admitted we missed it. We admitted it was our fault. I will personally admit that I dropped the ball by missing those rules. Not my team, not the inspectors, ME. Now that assigning blame is done (as it was 2 days ago) can we accept that and move on to help us find solutions to these problems? Ours was NOT a localized situation. Many teams in Michigan had major problems. Many inspectors also were unclear on rules and interpretations varied from inspector to inspector. There IS a problem. People are confused on the rules. Bumpers seem to be particularly confusing for everyone. (No, I don't want to hear about how your team got it right and then another attack on my team questioning how stupid we are to not get them right) There is a problem. I don't know if it is localized to Michigan but it exists. Is it lack of training? Lack of inspectors? Unclear wording? Too many updates? We are not complaining, we are not criticizing inspectors (if I were to do that it would be in person) We showing that there is something wrong somewhere along the line. We are holding our own team up as an example because bringing up another team as an example would be RUDE to them. I have a list of teams who had major violations (significantly more major than 1/4" bolt protruding outside the frame perimeter) giving them a competitive advantage. I have one example of a team that was given and award for it. How can we make sure inspections are consistent and complete across the world? |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Quote:
If you feel it's necessary and it bothers you, then you have the option of bringing any discrepancies to the offending team or the inspectors attention. My team would thank you for pointing out anywhere we've inadvertently broken a rule. However, my experience has been that anything that gets by the inspectors is not worth worrying about. The competition itself is not the point of FIRST. Your best bet is to know the rules yourself and be able to document anything on your robot to the lead inspector if necessary. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
If something I did wrong was overlooked on Thursday, then pointed out to me on Friday, I would do my best to bring it into compliance. Been there, done that! But it's not worth getting upset over it, nothing anyone can do about human inspectors not being perfect. Obviously in your example I was even less perfect than they were, since I (and my entire team!) most likely had at least several weeks to find the problem and didn't find it. I personally have a hard time blaming an inspector for not finding something in a 30 minute inspection on Thursday that I couldn't find in over 6 weeks and several hundred hours during build season. Do your best to fix whatever you can, try to analyze how you can do better next time (better understanding of the rules), and carry on! |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Everyone,
Inspections are one of the things that make you less afraid of other teams having an unfair advantage. Inspectors will make mistakes, myself included. If you have an issue that you notice on another robot, just ask the LRI at your event. It could be that an inspector missed it in his eagerness to get the robot out for their first match. It could be that the team is correcting the issue or making a change that hasn't been reinspected yet. It could be an inspector misinterpreting the rules. It could be an inspector was convinced by the team mentor that "It passed at xyz regional and they said it was OK". It could be that the rule you have issues with, may be a misinterpretation by you. Or one of those involved (team or inspector) simply forgot to look at a particular TU. I was called on a robot issue last year at Champs and told by the team that they had faithfully checked through all the team updates and showed me that they filed them in a notebook and couldn't find the rule. As I looked through their notebook, I noticed they had in fact collected all the Team Updates through TU15. The change was in TU16 and they had not read it or filed it yet. Lead Robot Inspectors are subject to constant discussion and reporting throughout the season, and have access to both officials in Manchester (Frank and Russ and Bill Miller if needed) and myself. They cannot be everywhere at once. Understanding is greatly appreciated. |
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Remember, I ain't new to this, I remember when the rulebooks were much thinner and simpler to read. How can we get back to rules that are simple and clear? Quote:
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi