Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Ummm, I was trying to be humorus........ Besides you could start off at 20" x 26" x 30" and then change it to "Door fitt'n", "Box fitt'n" dimensions in Team Update #XX.

(More stupid inspector humor) ;)

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Ed,
You warming up for next week?

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

The FRC rule book is pretty thick.

One thing that makes up for it is knowing that there is no such thing as a "Minor Technicality". I expect each and every rule, no matter how obscure, will be enforced to the best ability of the inspectors at an event. I hate to think how many hours I spent going through the rule book our first year to make sure that we would pass tech straight out of the box. We were through tech by about 1:00 pm at our first ever regional. I think we only had to do the obligatory and ceremonial filing of a few sharp corners in order to pass tech.

And that was with one adult, working with 12 students, and well before General Motors Canada became our sponsor. None of us had ever even seen an FRC robot in person before. We just read the rule book... painstakingly... and followed it.

It has become easier over the years, as many of the rules stay the same, but every year I go back to that rule book, and go through the team updates, and read the Q&A... and measure the robot (usually just 1/2" under... this year about 1/4"-1/8" under as it was very short and very square) and weigh the robot and double-check our wiring requirements and pneumatics (for leaks, as well as rules... we know it's our job to build a "tight" pneumatic system that doesn't leak... or suffer the consequences.)

It is one responsibility that I won't pass off to the kids. As the lead technical mentor, the buck stops with me when it comes to tech inspection. If we don't pass, even for a "minor technicality", then it is MY fault, and I don't whinge about it. Strangely, the kids seem to pick up on this and are pretty careful about following the rules, too, but it takes a lot of care and attention to detail to set that tone.... and if we're called on something that I don't think is right, I take the time to read the rule a second time, and take it with me when I go to have a quiet talk with the inspector. While I've seen an inspector miss something, I've NEVER seen an inspector enforce something that wasn't a rule. (Its probably happened, somewhere, to someone... but every inspector I've worked with has gone out of their way to help robots pass.)

A few years back I had the pleasure of doing tech inspection on Galileo, and working with some of FIRST's truly awesome LRI's. I loved seeing the robots up close. I felt bad for the teams that were non-compliant, especially when they were non-compliant with a few rules that I wasn't particularly fond of myself, but we did everything we could as inspectors to get them compliant ASAP. The vast majority of teams took time to say "thank you" for this level of care, support, and attention to detail.

So I know it's hard to do, but if a tech inspector catches something on your robot that you've missed, then don't blame them... THANK them. They caught your oversight. Chances are, they'll do what they can to help you fix it, too.

And if the inspection team missed something on another team's machine (quite possibly the inspection was done by a less experienced FRC hand) and you think it needs to be brought to their attention, then please do so at the earliest opportunity. The inspection team should thank YOU for helping them do their job more effectively.

But never blame it on a "minor technicality". It's either a rule or it isn't.

Jason

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Awsome, well said Jason ........

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

If the rules were clearly and easily readable in one location and unchanging I could nearly guarantee my team's robot would be compliant, the problem is FIRST tries to clarify one rule and makes other rules unclear. We read just that update and assumed we were legal, but the way that update combines with other rules messed with us. Yes it's a rule. Yes we missed it. What I meant by minor technicality is that it got by 2 inspectors and gave us no competitive advantage. Yes we were illegal and it IS a rule you are correct. but compared to being overweight or out of the box it is a minor infraction.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

But that just wouldn't be life. In the real world, the rules are always changing and never clear. Sometimes the location is almost impossible to find. I've seen production stopped over things that people out on the line consider "minor" or wasn't aware of the problem. Often the engineers think its minor too. Until one person sees it and notifies everyone. Then they have no choice but to fix it immediately. That is exactly what happened in your case. It got overlooked until it was made apparent. Then it needed fixed immediately. I guess that's just something we all have to learn to deal with.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I agree with you that the rules can be frustrating, and sometimes difficult to understand, but given the complexity of the task facing the GDC I have at least as much sympathy for the challenge to them in writing and interpreting the rules as I do for teams in our challenge to fully grasp all of them.

And I appreciate that sometimes the "little stuff" that gives no technical advantage is easy to overlook, and easy to miss, especially for rushed rookie tech inspectors who are trying to get a robot passed at seven o'clock on Thursday evening.

And I'm not trying to dump on teams who have missed something. I know what that feels like.

In "Rack'n'Roll", after passing tech in Portland, we were caught at GTR with a pneumatic cylinder (that we'd pulled off an old FRC bot and WAS legal the previous year) that was 8 1/2" long, rather than the 8" or 9" lengths allowed in the rules that year.

My first response was, "It's such a little thing... and our legal spare is 5,000km away... maybe it could slide." I don't think I really meant it, but was just facing a combination of dismay that I'd missed something, and concern that we might not be able to compete.

The LRI at the event (Tristan Lall) earned my enduring admiration by having none of that, apologizing that he didn't make the rule and that while the 1/2" length difference gave us no competitive advantage, that he did have to enforce the rules equally and for everyone. And then proceeding to help us find a legal replacement. Oddly enough... it actually made the robot work better and reinforced my dedication to making sure that we were compliant with ALL the rules.

I hold it up as an example of why FRC is the "gold standard" for robotics competitions, and an awesome example of how tech inspection SHOULD work.

So yeah... I appreciate that it takes a tonne of hard work to follow the rules, but I also recognize that it could be far, far worse if the GDC didn't really try hard to make them as clear as they do. And it would be absolutely disastrous if we didn't know which rules were going to be enforced, or how strictly they would be enforced. It actually makes life easier knowing that, as much as possible, every rule will be enforced 100%.

But yeah... it can be painful sometimes when you miss something.

Jason

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Normally I am all for the "In The Real World" comments. In this particular case I have to disagree. FRC should emulate the real world but not be exact. Remember, our job is to inspire. I know that one of the most frustrating things to me is when some minor technicality means that my hard work is null and void. The single most irritating thing ever to happen to me at work was when a customer said, "We decided we don't want this anymore" after the last 2 months of my life had been dedicated to it. Yeah we got paid for the work but it hurt me personally because of all the effort I had put into something that would never get used. (That was a year ago and it has never been used) Do we really want to show our students that side of engineering? IMHO that can't be too inspiring. Imagine if we couldn't have fixed these seemingly insignificant issues. How would our students have felt if their hard work had been sat on a shelf never to be used again?

Not saying the rules are wrong or that teams should be allowed to compete with illegal robots but merely remarking on something bouncing around inside my head.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

This is a BRILLIANT idea. We should pose it to FIRST and persuade them to go with it, as in practice it works extremely well.

It's not mentioned much around here, but a different robot competition, BEST, does rules like this. They have a packet of "Generic Rules" that is available year round and rarely changes from year to year. This includes many robot build and wiring rules. Since it's available all the time up to kickoff, it's a great resource to point teams to to get them ready for building a bot.

I think FIRST could greatly benefit from employing this kind of philosophy to the rules. Many (Most?) of the robot rules are identical from year to year or nearly so and have no connection whatsoever to the actual game. I think FIRST could release these generic robot rules well before the kickoff for teams to pick at, and declare a freeze a month or two before kickoff. This would let us hold workshops on robot building well before kickoff and give teams ample time to familiarize themselves with 75% of the robot rules in a non-pressure situation. The only difficulty would be making sure everyone is clear that the game specific robot rules entirely supercede any noted generic robot rules. Or just make the generic rules are generic enough by skipping specific sizing and weight requirements. Anyways, I think the benefits of this approach would far outweigh the minor difficulties.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I would think that if you had missed something that was bad enough it couldn't be fixed and your robot couldn't compete, then someone on your team should re-evaluate what they considered "insignificant" .........

I understand what you're saying about the seemingly insignificant details and unequal enforcement. All I can reply to that is to ASSume that nothing is insignicant and build your robot so that the best inspector can find nothing wrong with it. Maybe get with another local team and do an inspection before ship of each others robot so you get "fresh" eyes and the benefit of a second set of rule interpretations.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Given the chance, an inspector will go out of their way to make sure you compete. We will give you guidance, find you help and assist in design if needed. If you refuse or don't show up, then yes, you might not compete. If you meet us halfway we will get you running. If you leave the pits early, come in after opening ceremonies, or sit in the stands and want someone else to work, then you will have to live with the consequences. I will do everything I can to give your students a quality experience. Sometimes you don't even have to ask.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Quoted for truth.
I attended three events this year and the vast majority of inspectors would go out of their way to help every team. I know individuals who would spend all day helping teams (both inspectors and other teams).

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Yeah, it can be disappointing if somehow you can't compete. But let me give you a story of mine from FIRST. It was my rookie year. I was the rules "expert" for my team. In short, I was the only one on my team to read them because we thought that was enough. I knew everything about "the game" section. I basically ignored the rest because it was "minor details". Turns out that you can only use certain motors, who knew?(I fully took the blame that year and for good reason) We used some motors straight off a pitching machine and it worked great. We got to Boilermaker and it was shooting good for the most of Thursday. We got through some sort of inspection(I wasn't there) that day. Friday morning several veteran team leaders were coming over with the inspectors to point out or mistake. We were devastated. We couldn't switch motors because of the way it was set up. It just wasn't possible. However, one of the teachers had an idea and we switched from a shooter to a dumper. It took several matches. We had 10 kids in the pit working on the robot. Yes, it was crowded...but they were all working together. We knew what needed done and did it. The dumper worked lousy, but it worked. We scored maybe 2 points the entire season. Honestly, thats not really what mattered to me. Seeing the robot on the field isn't my fond memory. It is seeing a pit FULL of kids working together towards one goal. It was rather touching and immensely inspirational. We had a rather dysfunctional team that year and I honestly didn't like most of the other kids that well. But when the chips were down, we endured as mankind has endured. Just a moment that I'll always remember. My best memory from robotics possibly. And it wouldn't have happened if not for a particular mentor pointing out what the inspector missed. Thanks anonymous mentor.

I guess I'm just saying that overcoming hardship is the most inspirational thing I've seen. Yes, if you can't overcome it...that is disappointing. But with all the help available to the teams from the inspectors and other teams, I'm sure any team can overcome. Even if they have to start from scratch. Wasn't there a team that built one from scratch this year even?

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.