Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Today I wasted two hours duct taping polycarb to our frame rails to expand our frame perimeter (which looks like garbage) and then using the "fine adjustment tool" on our bumpers because, although we had already competed twice, apparently our robot's frame perimeter was not within the rules.

Update 6 States:

FRAME PERIMETER – the polygon defined by the outer-most set of exterior vertices on the ROBOT (without the BUMPERS attached) that are within the BUMPER ZONE. To determine the FRAME PERIMETER, wrap a piece of string around the ROBOT at the level of the BUMPER ZONE - the string describes this polygon. Note: to permit a simplified definition of the FRAME PERIMETER and encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER, minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER.

To me the intent of this rule is to encourage bumpers to be tight to the frame rails and robust so the teams can take the abuse necessary to play Breakaway. We had 1/4" bolt heads for our axles sticking out the bottom rail of our robot. We assumed after reading this update we were fine. We passed inspection on two separate occasions with our robot in this condition.

When I asked to see the rule book and stated this update as my defense the inspector read the rule aloud. "minor protrusions such as bolt heads, fastener ends, rivets, etc are excluded from the determination of the FRAME PERIMETER within the bumper perimeter." That is not how the rule reads and the way that paragraph is worded leads one to believe that we were actually legal. The only statement of defense the inspector had was precedence from other districts and a supposed statement from Bill's Blog that I cannot find. I was told this was Bill Miller's ruling in the past and if we did not change our frame perimeter we would not be competing. PLEASE be my guest go to Bill's Blog and search every posting this year for the word "Bumper" you will find only one instance and it is regarding changing your bumper colors. If I did miss something please point it out to me.

I completely understand that if that's the way the inspector was told to call it that's how he has to call it, and I have no problem with that, it's out of his hands. He was very friendly and my complaints are not with him.

This rules intent was to keep bumpers attached rigidly to the frame. Our bumpers WERE. They are now held on rubbing up on a polycarb spacer that is held on by duct tape and are basically tie strapped down. The rule, in our case certainly did not "encourage a tight, robust connection between the BUMPERS and the FRAME PERIMETER."

We gain no competitive advantage from our 1/4" axle bolt heads. We competed with them before. Why do we have to change? To fit some ridiculous ambiguity of an odd unclear interpretation of the rules that is stated nowhere in text for me to read?

I'm sorry to complain so much about this, but if FIRST is this knit-picky about a very unclear update and cannot even clarify the rule enough to the inspectors so that we "slipped by" two different inspectors at two different district events then how are we supposed to interpret the rules perfectly?

The rules contain 3 or 4 pages of bumper this bumper that...Are we building bumpers or robots here? How would our students have felt if we missed a match because of this? I encourage you to find one team to complain about a 1/4" bolt head sticking out. I can't imagine that this didn't happen to more teams.

It's the little things like this that make me so frustrated with all of the minor technicalities within the rules and the time I waste trying to correct them. Penalties such as the line crossing in '08 the G14's last year that decide matches, and some of the horrible and unjustified calls that were made during first week events this year are starting to really get to me. I sight the example of yellow card going on our partner in the quarter finals who drove over the ball and E-stopped once they realized they couldn't get the ball out. We argued that they did not continue playing with the ball and were told they did not E-stop quick enough.

It makes me really consider if this is something I want to continue with as I grow older or if I should move on to other programs. FIRST is great but lately there have been so many things I've seen that I really haven't liked.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I know you're frustrated. However, if you're going to Championships, you'd get the same response.

This rule has been discussed here before. I'm not going to get into that, except to say the following:

The bolts are not counted in the determination of the frame perimeter if they're in the bumper zone, to facilitate the tight and robust connection.

However, the inspector made a mistake. He should have referred to <R16>, which bars anything from extending beyond the frame perimeter. The frame perimeter is defined by the frame--no longer by the bolts.

For reference, the rules in this case were contained in Team Update #6 and Team Update #7, and then clarified in response to a direct question--nothing outside the bumper zone is exempt.

I agree--you gain little to no advantage. But the rule is the rule. I have a decided opinion on the--err--nuisance factor of enforcing the rule the way it's being enforced that I think matches yours.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Just as an addendum, the inspector was the same as at the first event we attended 4 weeks ago. Well after Update 6 and 7 came out. Mike's complaint isn't with the ruling, it isn't even with the fact that the inspector didn't call us in the first event. It is with the fact that the interpretation changed sometime since then and no one informed us. (To the best of our knowledge, and yes, I do read all Emails and Updates) Had we been informed that there may be problems with our bumpers and the updated interpretation been explained we would have had a plan in place (or already completed) to fix the issue. As it is they now look like utter crap and time was wasted trying to figure out how to do it. Time we could have been practicing or adding new features.

The issue is not with the rule, the change of interpretation, the inspector, or FIRST. Just with the lack of warning. FIRST has been very good this year about letting us know things are changing. I'd love to see this continue and improve.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

You are aware that we're up to Update 19, I hope.

The rule you quoted from Update 6 was revised in Update 7, dated 2/2/2010, 3 weeks before ship date. It hasn't been changed since then:

Notice how it permits bolt head protrusion, etc ONLY WITHIN THE BUMPER ZONE?

I thought this was pretty clear, just like the maximum dimension rules. Should we be allowed to compete if our robot is only 1/4" too big and won't quite fit within the sizing box? How about if it's only 1/2 a pound overweight? Is that okay?

Just because you got away with it at 2 other events doesn't make it OK at the next one.

The rules are the same for everyone. In the real world, if I ignored a requirement like you did the consequences would most likely be immensely higher than having to tape a couple of pieces of plastic to whatever I designed.

Sorry, I have a hard time feeling much sympathy when you're complaining about something that has been published, questioned, and discussed for 3 weeks before ship date. It appears that as a Michigan team you would also have been able to take advantage of the 6 hour "windows" to bring your robot into compliance with the rules.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

This is an interesting topic of conversation, I'm not going to get into the rule as it has been discussed in many past threads, but I have a comment about the inspection process.

I want to begin by saying that inspectors have quite possibly the toughest job at a competition. They have to inspect every part of every robot, and they have only a finite amount of time to do so. They also have to deal with teams that have many problems and make sure they get on on the field to compete. I have a lot of respect for our inspectors.

That being said, I do have a question regarding inspection. I was a scout on my team 2007, 2008, 2009 and I spent a lot of time in the pit in 2010 looking at other robots. Every year I have read the rules, and pretty much known what's legal and what isn't. In 2007, 2008 and 2009 I had never seen what appeared to me as an illegal robot take the field. This year changed a little bit. My team attended WPI and Boston this year. I saw 2 teams at WPI with obvious bolt protrusions that were on the field playing and had passed inspection, they were not rookies. I saw 2 more teams with these bolt protrusion protrusion in Boston that passed inspection. I'm not going to mention any names, but in Boston I saw a team that passed inspection with a globe motor on there robot; globe motors aren't legal this year.

I'm curious under what circumstances do inspectors let teams go with such seemingly obvious illegalities? Has anyone else noticed things like this at their regionals, or in past years?

Honestly it doesn't really phase me much, but I figured I would share this with the CD community. Although it doesn't make a big difference, I saw teams in Boston and WPI work very hard all day Thursday to pass inspection and I can see how it how it may be frustrating to have worked so hard only to see a team with the same problem that didn't have to fix it.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Sgreco, I'm like you, every year I see obviously illegal robots. It's always been small, unintentional things like you mentioned - bolt protrusions and Globe motors this year, the wrong Mabuchi motor last year. Nothing to be worth worrying about, and to tell the truth, none of those robots have been competitive, top-rank robots. It seems that the teams that field the robots I'm worried about make SURE that they are compliant with anything the inspectors can throw at them.

I think that the fact that the inspectors are volunteers and not necessarily familiar with the rules leads to lots of robots "getting by" with things that are not quite legal. Some inspectors are VERY familiar with the rules, some have never seen a robot in their life and have read the rules maybe once. They don't have a technical background and are not familiar with many of the things on the checklist.

We've always breezed through inspection. We always build our robots 1" inside the sizing limits (1/2" per side) and make sure we READ all the rules and updates and comply with them. Doesn't mean we necessarily like them. Last year we had an inspector we could have got an M1 Abrams tank by, this year we had one that has been a mentor for 10 years and knew EVERYTHING about the rules. Doesn't really matter if you comply with all the rules anyway.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

When do you make your chassis? While I would love to have the ability to crank out a chassis after doing prototypes but when your team consists of 5 students and a handful of mentors who are all taking too many classes at college it takes all 6 weeks to field something that runs. The chassis was built during week 1. We missed it the bolts. Our bad.

But that is neither here nor there. It happened, we are solely to blame but now the question becomes, what can we do to make sure it doesn't happen. Does anyone have any solution that could help alleviate the combination of the inspectors not knowing all the rules (or just missing things) and of teams just missing things.

Perhaps the simple solution, before you bag/crate print out the inspection form and inspect yourself. I think from this point on I will be doing that. It is no promise you will catch everything but it should help. Is this a viable option for most teams?

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

As long as the inspection checklist is made available before ship, it is a viable option.

Also, if you go to a pre-ship event that offers inspection, ask someone there to do it.

Note: Any inspections you do in this manner will not be official. However, they should highlight issues that the inspectors will catch you on.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I have been reading FIRST rules for 10 years and I know them inside and out but I can still miss things. The best solution is have more than one person read and know the rules. Have everybody go over the robot looking for violations way before ship date. The best policy is have the students go over the robot with the inspector to be sure that they know the rules and that they will be expected to know the rules. Nothing like pop quizes to help them learn. Going through the inspection check off list with a fine toothed comb does not hurt (assuming it is released sooner than it was this year).

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

A hard lesson learned a long time ago is to build 1" under-size to prevent problems like this. Do you ever really need 100% of the allowed dimensions?

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

John,

Great point, ever since 2007 1323 has designed their robots to be 27x37 which helps us in the long run. This year is a prime example, we had our wheels stick out an 1/8" but the inspector at SVR didn't catch it. So we didn't have to expand our frame perimeter, but in Davis they caught it. We had to expand it up to .5 inches but designing one inch under helped us make the adjustment easily.

Lesson Learned, just design one inch under.

-RC

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

This suggestion would be even better if you had someone who knew last year's rules thoroughly read this year's rules and look for differences.
That's another great idea - do an inspection within your own team. Or maybe get an "inspector" from a nearby team to go over the list with your students, while your "inspector" does the same with the other team.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

While it is unfortunate that some of you have seen robots that have illegal parts, it is something I (we) strive to prevent every year. Some events simply cannot find enough experienced inspectors. Those inspectors who have not worked on a robot receive training via web and working with experienced inspectors at their first event of the season to try and come up to speed. Those people do catch most every part of the robot but still sometimes miss something. You do have the right to approach your LRI and question something on another robot. A Globe motor is a great example. You could be helping that team by getting a LRI to suggest ways to replace the motor, get the team compliant for their next event and prevent less stress for the team in the future.
The FRAME PERIMETER has been an issue all season and has been discussed at length. Most of us don't really understand it but we have attempted to make the info available to all through Team Updates, the Q&A and here on Chief Delphi.
Outside of the obvious (i.e. Globe motor this year) items you think are non-compliant may in fact be perfectly within the rules. Protrusions of the FRAME PERIMETER cannot be determined from the stands or from the sidelines with the bumpers on. You would be surprised how many legal solutions there are to this rule.
If you are going to Championship, know that the maximum number of experienced inspectors will be present on site. Your chances of having something overlooked are small. Be aware that we will be inspecting using the latest versions of the manual, the inspection checklist and any team updates that happen to affect your robot that are issued between now and then.

For all teams: Many of the rules are not written as a response to competitive advantage. They are included as a means of getting you to think about real world problems and solutions. The FRAME PERIMETER rule is one of these. It is similar to the allowed motor list, weight, height, battery and pneumatics restrictions.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

We did, but that wasn't the problem...because we did build 1" under it was a simple(r) fix.


I would like to point out to point out that I actually had to apologize to Mr. Martus today because of this thread because people misconstrued what I was aiming to point out. I in no way meant any offense to him or any other inspectors and I did say that in my original post. I just wanted to point out the fact that the rules/updates system is difficult and minor technicalities are really getting to us.

Other examples of frustration from little things that happened this weekend at MSC:

1) We were informed Friday (along with half a dozen other teams) that we are not allowed to use an off-board compressor when we have an on-board one because of power distribution rules that state our air needs to come from that battery. While this literally makes no difference other than the pain in the neck that is connecting with the robot. Our team has been doing this for 3 years and no one has ever said anything and that rule has apparently always been in place. We assumed we were fine because there is nothing in the pneumatics rules regarding this and we see other teams do it. We DO read all the rules, but we aren't perfect we occasionally miss things. It isn't that we're an irresponsible team who isn't paying attention. 397 has been around for 10 years. Why is something like this just now being pointed out to us.

2) During QF 3 Match 1, Dave introduced 217,67, 2612 in his usual elaborate manner. We have a slight problem with losing pressure over time in our pneumatics and we NEED pressure to kick in auton. I asked during the introduction if we could just re-tether while he was introducing us and add more air so we wouldn't have the problem and I was told no. The long introduction caused our auton to fail. 67 stole those two balls from us right away in tele-op. While yes this is a problem with OUR robot our solution was to just charge it right before the match but between wait time for teams to get off the field, and set up, and the 5 minute introduction it was just too much time wasted before the match. It wasn't anyone's fault it's just another frustration.

3) I am shocked at actions I've seen teams do and things I've heard teams say. I also am very frustrated with the way people have been treated lately in FIRST. 469 has been bashed to a point that sickens me, and the little Update #20 stunt was, in my opinion, offensive, but I will not go into that because there are other threads for it.

4) My parents were sitting (taking up two seats) in the stands in a somewhat unoccupied area. An adult from another team approached them and told them "You have to move this is where our team is sitting, we've been here for the past two days." My mom, in shock that someone just said that to her, stood her ground and stated the venue rule: you can't save seats. If they has asked politely it wouldn't have been a problem, but...REALLY? How would your grandma react to that. That team sat watched the quarterfinals and then half of them got up and left leaving a large amount of empty seats.


I understand not every team gets the GP concept and that no program is perfect but I would like to say that my experience this weekend was certainly less than ideal that has nothing to do with my teams performance, but it was just all the little things adding up.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I do understand some of the frustrations with the minor technecalities and acording to 8.3 ROBOT RULES "When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes." we should not "lawyer" the rules. It dose seem that a small number of inspectors are lawyering the rules against us (along with CD fans durring build). Regardles, no matter how diffacult it is we must follow the rules as close as we can and be ready for quick changes at the event. Sounds like a real life situation that happens to me every other day at work.

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
 

The rule is this...

<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
 

Actually this is an <S03> violation and your partner, per the rule, could have received a RED CARD for using the E-stop for a non-safety reason. So they got off easy. This is in Team Update 5, btw.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

He can count to 19, you know....

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Safety can involve various things. In this case it was a combination of not causing damage to their robot and the field. When a 150lb machine is balanced on top of a soccer ball bad things can happen. I have seen teams try to get off balls and fall and damage themselves. It is also possible that they could have destroyed the ball in their efforts to get off. In the past there have also been teams that have, in their attempts to get off field elements, fallen and had appendages break the field boundary. The team decided it was unsafe to continue playing.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Because that's the first time you've had inspectors that noticed it and were aware of the rule. Why complain when someone points out to you that you're breaking a rule? The inspectors are volunteers and only human, they're under lots of pressure to get a bunch of robots through inspection as fast as possible. A lot of them are not intimately familiar with FIRST, robots, or all of the rules.

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
 

Teams WILL overlook some rules, most of them minor technicalities, as the OP said. Teams who do not read the rules are at fault, but there is no point attacking posters when they clearly were responsible and generally were knowledgeable of the rules, their original intent, and their updates. I'm amazed when people are still surprised that robots can possess balls 5 weeks into the build season (half my team was unsure whether our ball roller was legal a couple weeks before the Boston Regional, a testament to the fact that few care about rules as much as they should), but this I can understand.

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
 

Quoted for truth. Our complaints are not with Mr Martus or the rules. They are merely things we have found irritating and would like to seek community support on how to minimize these sort of issues in the future.

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)


Did you read what he said? He is saying that he is not blaming anyone. He is merely remarking on some issues he had. Now, if you are one of those people that refuse to admit that FIRST can do any wrong and claims that it is perfect I can accept that but otherwise I would appreciate if provide constructive posts that consist of more than, "I don't care because you broke a rule now shut up." You have insulted my team with your comments but more importantly you have insulted my brother. You have disregarded what we have posted and merely made cheap cracks at our expense with your comments about how "teams worth worrying about never have problems".

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
 

Sorry, I read exactly what he said. Looked like to me he was asking a question. The last sentence in his paragraph 1), Post#14:

My point was that it WAS pointed out to him as soon as anyone noticed it. Just because the volunteer inspectors didn't notice it earlier is no reason to get upset when it's found. Anything you can do to make the inspections more complete and uniform would be great. Unfortunately, you're dealing with volunteers who may be inexperienced and have limited time to devote to studying and analyzing the rules. In the real world, some things ARE going to get by the inspectors no matter what you do. The inspections are NOT going to be perfectly consistent from one inspector to the next around the world.

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.

LMAO! You obviously don't know me!

What other solution can you imagine other than "read the rules", as has been pointed out many times on this thread? There is NEVER going to be perfect inspections for every team. Have more than one person read them and check the robot against them as often as possible. It's much easier to change something to comply while you're at home in your shop, rather than the day of inspection at the competition.

Sorry if you took anything as an insult. It wasn't meant to be.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I'm not naming any particular team when I say this, but I'm sure some do have a reason for getting upset. If something was overlooked Thursday, and on Friday right before a match we're told something needs to be fixed, that might upset me. Fixing things takes time, time we could have had Thursday without much consequence, not the day of competition. It's not the inspectors fault, but it definitely is something worth getting upset about.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Apparently we just have different outlooks on life. No big deal.

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
 

We did have a small leak like this and decided to find it. We took soapy water and searched it down, it took awhile but we found many leaks. After finding all of the leaks we found it held pressure overnight. We were in line at kettering for an hour and did not loose any air pressure.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

I agree completely, the only REAL solution is the read the rules but clearly many groups are having these problems. I am curious if anyone in the community has any bright ideas on how to make it easier for us to be 100% sure we are in compliance. My brother and I are not dumb, and we are certainly not new to FRC. Not to sound too arrogant but if the two of us missed some rules I would be willing to bet you that a lot of other people did too. The issues we had were incredibly minor things that gave us no competitive advantage whatsoever, we had no problem adjusting them, they were just irritants. Irritants that we would like to avoid the future, as a result we would like to see if there is a way to make it easier for ALL teams to avoid these irritants too.

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?


It was Friday, right before a match. Hence why we were so irritated, it meant we had to power the robot on, wait for it to regain comms and then charge the tanks. Wouldn't be a huge issue except for the amount of time it takes to connect the two. (Which is another irritation that is beyond the scope of this thread.)

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Remove bumpers. :rolleyes:

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

100% agree...although it'll never happen. In total there are about 38292 rules in the robot section and half of those are on bumpers.

And just a guess: I'd say there's a 90% chance they are going to make us have two separate sets of bumpers next year because the slip covers looked terrible.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Slip covers did indeed look terrible. Maybe instead of two bumpers, 1323 used one bumper with flips. The idea was originally suggested on CD and we went with the idea. It allowed easy to changed bumpers.

-RC

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

The only way to make this better is to improve the front end or the back end


Front end: Apply occam's razor to the rules. They seem to be getting more complicated every year, maybe certain areas can be simplified. Maybe the bumper rules need the first review to see if they can be simplified. Perhaps a panel of interested parties can be created to review and simplify rules.

Back end: try to catch as many problems as possible before the competitions. Maybe official inspections at pre-ship events. Teams get a token of some sort that shows they have been inspected pre-ship and this is given to inspectors at competition so they can go through a simplified inspection. Certified robots; once a robot is certified by an inspector it remains certified and only receives cursory or random checks. Teams that repeatedly fail random checks would lose ability to be certified. Peer reviews; teams step up to help do some of the basic inspection duties leaving the more complex processes to the Inspectors. Release the inspectors checklist to the teams so they can self inspect either pre-ship or at the competition.

So why are rules growing so complex? Is it because the size of FIRST is growing? Are the games/robots becoming more complex? Is it a natural progression? IDK, I haven't been around long enough to see the less complex rules, so I really don't have a way to tell. I suspect it is a bit of all three.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

The reason the rules keep getting progressively more complicated should be fairly evident by the amount of lawyering that is evidenced here and in the Q and A. I believe that GDC would be thrilled beyond belief if people would just try and meet the spirit of rules as written rather than try to exploit every loophole and imprecisely worded phrase that they can find. Well that doesn't happen so now the GDC has to try and craft bulletproof rulebooks. Unfortunately the GDC doesn't yet have a lawyer on the team, so the rules aren't yet up to Supreme Court standards. Maybe next year.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

A few years ago, FIRST realized that the rules had grown very complex and simplified the rules significantly. I think it was prior to the 2004 season. Things like the allowable materials that used to be very complex were simplified and teams were given more freedom.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Andrew,
I don't know how to make this easier for you. I know it won't help to tell you that your team is not the only one that has missed some of these things. I have seen teams this year with bumpers at last year's height. I have seen Globe motors, van door motors, mechanisms outside of the bumper zone, active ball returns and metal on the carpet. I tried to list everything I knew that would get teams in trouble and issues that I and others were seeing from week one during inspections. (See Al's Annual Inspection List) I know I will see more of these issues in Atlanta.
For inspectors it matters not if the infraction is game related or a competitive advantage. Rules is rules and that's what we check for. For me inspections level the playing field (relative term), keep you from damaging the field, your team, or other teams, and prevents your robot from self immolation. Inspections are what we need for everyone to have a quality experience, every weekend, every event. I will not deny that some rules cause us headaches in inspections (frame perimeter cough cough) but we inspect them just the same and suggest to teams how they can easily fix them when they occur.
How do teams prevent these issues? They assign a student to check the rules and self inspect the robot before ship. They make it a requirement that every student on the mechanical and electrical sub teams read the rules, know them and are tested on them throughout the season. They regularly check the Team Updates and the Q&A every few days. I can tell you that we have made design changes and strategy changes based on answers in the Q&A and have asked our fair number of Q&A questions. If you want to be competitive, that is what is required. Sometimes we take some heat from other teams for this but we are following the rules that are available to all and what our research has shown us. Then we attend events and watch the forums and webcasts to see what is going on in other regions to see if will be necessary to make changes to strategy or design. Then we check each other constantly. We never stop talking, checking, designing, strategizing or questioning ourselves or our robot until August. We don't beat ourselves up for mistakes, we learn from them and move on.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

The inspectors get the least respect at all events. What if they gave an inspectors award? What if the inspectors recognized at each regional and champs with either a shout-out, award, or a web-badge for robots that pass with little or no trouble?

It may give teams incentive not to wire the entire robot in 16 gauge green wire. (NU 2010)

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Great ideas John....the Safety guys get to give an award, why not have an Inspectors Award?

Of course, we also need to give an award to the team that was able to lose the most weight! :rolleyes:

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

The Biggest Loser Award? NU 2010 winner to 236. They gained 18 lbs from ship to uncrate. You guys took the jaws of life to it to get underweight.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

A random thought I had to make the rules more clear - keep the numbering consistent on common rules from year to year.

This might require a little creativity on the rule number scheme, but some rules might be easier to remember if they are in the same place all the time.

Unfortunately, this would probably add confusion when a rule is deleted for a particular year.

The main reason I thought of this is because I was thinking about how teams keep the same number each year. When I started, there were no numbers. When we were put into the pits at Epcot, we were arranged alphabetically. Then they started alphabetizing the team list and assigning a number. My team was a B, so we got 17 for the first numbered year, and 23 for the second. Then they decided to not change the numbers for teams that already had them. It greatly reduced confusion.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

According to physics, the standard bullet stopping ability of a rule book is the number of pages.:rolleyes:

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Ya know, I've been around a long time and this general issue of fitting into a sizing box just keeps comming back and giving us inspector types heartburn. I suggest that starting next year, after ship date, the GDC issue an update that increases the max sizes by 1" in all directions. :rolleyes:

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

Robots are made to this size so that with bumpers they fit through a door... an extra inch will not go through a standard door.

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

If this is true...how come these dimensions were the same pre-bumper requirements?

Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
 

So that if you find a standard door (30") you can go through it with no bumpers. Such doors were once standard for schools with a center post on double doors. Following some changes in building codes, i.e. ADA in larger cities, doors were modified to allow wheel chairs and other vehicles. Some older venues that do not fall under such codes are still around.

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.