Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I have a feeling this thread is going to go downhill soon...

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Has anyone else seen that the 2012 NYC Regional is on the front page of Popular Mechanics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...m_news#slide-1

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I have to disagree sir. This thread just stated that the rules may have been bent. There was report that 522 and their alliance were on the side rail as well but that was by someone in the crowd and i didn't see it for my self. Weather it is true or not is now behind us and i congratulate 522,125, and 1635 for their amazing win and their brilliant triple balance. If the rules were broken then I hope 522, us 369, 694 or any team that broke said rule would come forward in the views of gracious professionalism after all that is the whole view of first after all. So please don't insult any teams or posts on ChiefDelphi cause it is a forum and is ment to have people state their views.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

As a mentor for team 1635 I would like to clear the air (no pun intended).
Team 522 had a legal on board compressor powered by the legal on board battery as per the rules, as I eyewitnessed it. After the first match in the quarter finals, they did use an external compressor to pressurize their on board storage tank in an innocent attempt to speed the process. They were duly warned by the judge that this procedure was not according to the rules and so the external compressor was removed from the building. Air pressure was provided for the matches by the on board compressor.

As for balancing on the bridge, the Arena Manual 2.2.5 The Bridges states "A Bridge will count as Balanced if it is within 5° of horizontal and all Robots touching it are fully supported by it." In addition, in the Game Manual 3.1 Rule (G11) states "Robots may not grab, grasp, grapple, or attach to any Arena structure. (Robots may push or react against any
elements of the Arena that is not protected by another rule.)"
The Robowizards bot was touching the side of the rail and thus was fully supported by the bridge and not in violation of any rules, so after careful review, the judges counted it as a balance. In contrast, in the very next match, part of 522's bumper was on top of the rail and the bridge was not deemed balanced, subsequently allowing the red alliance to win the match.

I just want to add my congratulations to the red alliance in the finals for providing a formidable opponent and great competition worthy of the mission of FIRST! Well done!

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I think that there was nothing that alliance did which was not in the spirit of the rules and I am of the opinion that we shouldn't "lawyer the rules" in order to take credit away from that awesome alliance.

Also is there anyone here who doesn't think the off-board compressor rule is silly and really should not be enforced?
^
I disagree with my above statement now but feel like I should leave it or this thread becomes very confusing.

Just thought I would stir the pot a bit in the other direction.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I noticed the extension cord/2HP Ingersall -Rand compressor in use during the quarterfinals. I tried to point out the legality to the mentor on the field, but was dismissed. I then brought the situation to the attention of the Lead Robot Inspector, who tried to terminate it's use. I believe he was the first to bring it to the attention of the FTA and Head Referee, which also did not terminate the use of the compressor. It's use continued through the semi & quarterfinals.

This situation was questioned by the three student captains after a semifinal match (as per [T14]), and while the officials never returned a ruling to the students, the matches continued.

I have been in email contact with officials at FIRST, and received this reply: Per [G01], while a robot must be in compliance with all robot rules before being placed on the Court, there are no retroactive penalties assigned to matches already played if a robot is later found not to be in compliance with the rules.

While obviously not satisfied with that ruling, I would like to commend the students on teams 3017, 1796, and my team, 1279, for how well they handled the situation.

@ Madison - I'm sorry to see you deleted the posts. I was going to remain quiet on this subject, but can confirm the above posts, as simply as you as a moderator can confirm that I am not GraciousPro

@GraciousPro: Thank you for mustering enough bravery to say something about one of the two injustices at the NYC regional even if it was from a new ID.

@jblay: Silly rules? Really? What's the silly rule to break next, bag & tag?

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

My tolerance for those who won't stand behind their accusations with the full force of their reputation is stretched very thin. I'm tired of people going after the good teams and people we have in FIRST while hiding behind an anonymous message board account.

I wasn't in NYC, so I can't speak to what happened there, but I appreciate that you are willing to talk about the subject without obscuring your identity.

I've asked other moderators to review my action and to research whether the GraciousPro account is in violation of forum rules -- the latter is not something I have the ability to do. They will act as they see fit.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

To be clear I am taking issue with the off-board compressor requiring you not to have an on-board compressor and the off-board compressor having to be powered by the robot battery. If the compressor are the same specs why does it matter? Maybe I have a misunderstanding of the rule or the scenario.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

As I understand the rule in question, the idea isn't that the specs between an on or off-board compressor are the same, but that the off-board compressor is governed by the control system. Pressurizing via the control system gives the cRio the ability to shut off the compressor once the electronic pressure switch indicates appropriate pressure has been reached.

Pressurizing manually with a non-controlled compressor opens the possibility of exceeding the legal storage pressure (even if only by a slight amount before the emergency relief valve pops).

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Well, now all of the GP posts are gone, with it some of the facts. The compressor was a 120v commercial model, like the type used for nail & impact guns, certainly more powerful by orders of magnitude than the one in the KOP. I believe it was an Ingersol-Rand. No regulator, over-pressure safety, etc. I do not know if there was an additional compressor on board the robot.

Still a silly rule?

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

The advantage this provides is that, if you have a Rookie compressor, you can burn it up running all match. Using another offboard one can alleviate this, if you pre-charge it from that one, so you aren't putting any more strain on it. Then it becomes a design choice: A 5 lb compressor that has a better duty cycle, or a 2.5 lb one that doesn't.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I believe you are misunderstanding the situation their off board compressor had to be plugged into a wall outlet and did not need the same specs as the first approved compressor.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

As the Captain of team 369 we do know that things where done incorrectly during the finals matches but it does not matter. I find no reason for this excessive arguing over this rule it is already done and the competition is already over but I believe all of our alliance members enjoyed the matches and it wouldn't of been the same if the alliances where not whole.::rtm::

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Ah it seems that I have indeed misunderstood the situation. I believe this is a result of not being able to read the deleted posts. I retract my statement entirely.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Without being able to view the deleted posts I'm not entirely sure what else is known or exactly what it is we are arguing about, but given that I was on the field the entire time I did see quite a few things.


1. The air compressor

At some point, possibly during the quarterfinals, I was standing behind one of the driver stations (I believe it was the alliance station below the scoreboard, I was waiting with our control board for the next match) when I saw a mentor or maybe a student from 522 (the RoboWizards) carrying an enormous air compressor around the field, presumably coming from the pits. At the time I knew that having an off-board air compressor was legal, so I didn't think much of it. I just kind of laughed to myself thinking "wow, they must have to keep A TON of air on-board to power that piston!"

At some point during the Semis I was standing right next to their robot, so I was able to get a good look at it. Most of the inside of their robot is dominated by an enormous air tank - this thing was like as wide as their robot and probably like 6 or 7 inches in diameter. Just an enormous black air tank. I remember asking them if that was really an air tank, and they said they needed that much air to power that huge piston on the front of their robot. I just remember shrugging it off thinking "wow, that's pretty neat, and that explains why they needed the huge air compressor."

So, basically, I can confirm that they did bring in some enormous 120v air compressor, but I am totally uncertain as to the extent that it was used.


2. The questionable balances

Once again, given that I was on the field the entire time I had an excellent view of everything that transpired.

The first balance in the quarterfinals the two long robots were on the bridge perfectly, but 522 was at that strange angle and appeared to be leaning on the side railing of the field. I was standing by the corner of the field near the robot entrance to the floor there, so I had a perfect view both of the balanced bridge, 522 leaning on the railing, and the refs inspecting the balance.

My opinion was that the bridge shouldn't have counted as balanced, as 522's bumper was up against the railing. However, I saw the refs touching 522s bumper and the railing and I think they may have thought that 522's robot wasn't actually being supported by the railing, merely that their robot had just come to rest near it. That is certainly a possibility and something I can't confirm or deny based only on that I saw it from a distance, but again, from my perspective on the floor there it looked like 522 was on the railing and the balance shouldn't have counted.

The other balance, where 522 fell off the bridge and 125 was on the railing, I don't think there is much confusion about that one. However, I can again confirm that I saw 125's bumper on top of the railing, and I would have been absolutely shocked if they counted that one.


3. GraciousPro posting from an anonymous account

Guys, sometimes (read: almost always) this community is unnecessarily hostile to an individual that wishes to express an unpopular opinion, or wants to raise a possibly valid point against a team that is generally held in high esteem. Now, because the posts have been deleted, I am unsure as to whether or not GraciousPro expressed his opinions in an unnecessarily angry or derogatory fashion. Obviously, if he did then I can understand the resistance against this anonymous account, and I would agree that the posts should be deleted depending on the severity. However, if he was merely bringing up the issue of the possibly illegal events that transpired at New York, and was doing so in a fair and level way, I don't see why it should matter that he chose to do so from an alternate account.

Again, because of the sometimes hostile response to any member "rocking the boat" so to speak, I can totally understand why he would choose to post from an alternate account. I don't think that posting from an anonymous account is a reason to discount what he is saying, though. In fact, I would argue that someone posting anonymously would be much, much more honest and open than someone posting with their real name and team name.

_______________________________________


Also, does anyone know what happened with that whole "technical timeout" called by the lead robot inspector? I am totally in the dark about what happened there.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

My goal was to remind people that the typical result of an inflammatory post like GP's is poo-flinging and ALL CAPS POSTS. I'm glad to see that the situation was quelled by both Madison's moderating and everyone's acceptance of the situation as already past.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I have been following this thread since Sunday to see if these issues were brought up. I saw every one of GraciousPro's posts, and they were not hostile. Unfortunately, they made team 522 look bad, but the facts are the facts. This thread isn't an argument at all, it's a log of the unfortunate events from the regional, which nobody is arguing with. In fact, the only controversy here is caused by the deleted posts which now nobody can read. [FYI: most of the information provided by GraciousPro has now been reiterated by others in this thread, so you aren't missing anything. The reason they were deleted, as far as I can tell, is because the username is anonymous].

I was also on the field during the quarterfinal match with the questionable balance. I too saw the bumper leaning on the rail standing at the corner of the field in the RED 3 queue. Though, I was also excited that a triple balance happened. The atmosphere was electric, but IMHO, the call was incorrect and I think the atmosphere of the arena had something to do with it.

The technical time out was called so that the field admins could call FIRST to confer with them about the rules when our students brought up the question in an appropriate, polite manner.

The ungracious part was how our students were treated afterwards. They were ignored; their question never was answered, and matches resumed.

I would like to make it abundantly clear: The teams involved in the elimination matches aren't upset because we lost. The problem stems from the example that the volunteers set for our kids. It only takes one lack-luster attempt at conflict resolution like this one to poison the message that FIRST aims to send and curtail our students motivation before our next competition. The real tragedy in this whole debacle was that nobody attempted to explain the situation to our students, or even give an honest apology that the rules were not enforced as strictly as they should have been. The response we received from FIRST is quoted above in DAD1279's post.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

To be clear, GraciousPro removed their remaining posts on their own. Given that their intention seems to be to remove everything they posted, the two posts that I hid will remain hidden.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

In the spirit of gracious professionalism and everything FIRST is supposed to stand for the number #3 alliance thought it was the right thing to do by bringing said situation to the attention of Head Referee,(who said he couldn’t do anything about it and we needed to find the Lead Robot Inspector on our own) Safety Advisor, and then Lead Robot Inspector. We feel it was unfair for 522, The Robowizards, to have an advantage over all the other robots in the building.
We became aware of the large compressor, who’s picture is attached below, when a member of our team accidently tripped over the extension cord running to the field while walking around the outskirts taking photos of the competition. Upon following the cords, we discovered it actually ran to the field directly connected to, and filling, 522’s robot. The compressor was set up just outside of the field divider curtain with power cords running along the floor plugged into a vacated Google Exhibitor Booth a few feet away from the arena.

Upon tripping, and bringing attention to the lines, a mentor from Team 1279 that was in the vicinity commented on the legality of the compressor to a 522 member on the field. He was greeted with harsh remarks including multiple expletives. The mentor then decided to digress from the escalation.
At that moment, we grabbed our rulebook, and brought the information to the attention of our drive coach as well as the alliance captain. What followed was a series of moral letdowns for the NYC regional, and FIRST as a whole. The Head Referee informed the alliance captain he couldn’t do anything about it, and we needed to find the Lead Robot Inspector on our own.

The lead Robot Inspector graciously rushed to the field with us to deal with the situation appropriately, but at that time the compressor was already removed from the side of the field. It is a shame that this same photographic evidence here, along with all the eyewitness accounts of the event, and a technical timeout to contact FIRST, resulted in no consequences, and the situation was almost brushed under the rug as matches carried on unaffected.
We also believe the students from the alliance handled the situation the best they could, but their professionalism went unanswered by those in a position of authority.

Considering we have to be so political on this site without the risk of being censored and frowned upon, this is Team 1796’s official account of the unfortunate series of events that unfolded at the NYC regional, written by the members directly involved.
Below is the picture of the compressor, presented to field officials, that was used to refill the tank on 522’s robot. There are more pictures but I feel only one is necessary. Above all else, the sheer size and power of this thing filling an FRC robot should have been a huge safety concern to everyone at the competition, and not brushed off as a silly rule.

It is a shame; this was the first regional for 25 of our 32 members on the team. And after speaking so highly of the respect, gracious professionalism, and honesty of the FIRST Robotics Competition, we were embarrassed to have to explain this situation as well as the lack of a resolution to all of our students.
Since FIRST’s stance on this is what’s done is done, Team 1796 will also move on; we can simply only hope similar situations will be handled more appropriately in the future. We are looking forward to SBPLI and seeing new friends, like 1279, there. With the hopes that you did not know what was happening on your alliance, huge congrats to 1635 and 125 for their win, the matches got pretty close and were very competitive. Best of luck in St. Louis.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Wow all this happened at NYC? so much for GP , how about we all start breaking the rules now!:eek:

-1796, 1279 great way of shining light on this injustice, hopefully in other regional or years to come FIRST puts things in order so something like this does not happen again!:D

[jblay]---> Really silly rules? :mad:

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Assuming that at least one official observed the offending compressor feeding the robot, there should have been plenty of grounds to act.

[R73] is abundantly clear: "Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot." Even though the rule is largely useless (if the pressure and composition of what's in the tanks is appropriate, all this rule does is impose a limitation and additional complexity regarding the way it's delivered), in this rare instance, with a huge tank, the ability of the off-robot compressor to operate continuously might have been meaningful as a design constraint. In that sense, this is the case where it's most important to enforce that rule strictly.

The head referee undoubtedly has the authority to enforce the rules during gameplay. Even if they didn't feel it appropriate to make the call before the match, if 522 placed their robot on the field containing air supplied by that compressor, the team was in violation of [R73]. The referee could then invoke [G01] at the start of the match, and disable 522. Having to sit quietly in the key during the finals ought to be punishment enough.

Indeed, the lead inspector might have had a more lenient option: to have the team dump the offending air and proceed to the match. But failure to comply with that would have been a more serious violation (of [T03], which would exclude 522 from the match entirely). And flouting of the inspector's ruling and playing anyway would have been a red card for the entire alliance.

So there were definitely a lot of ways to deal with the situation.

The rule actually is a little bit silly. As for safety (not a silly issue), it can be dealt with ordinary precautions like FRC-compliant relief valves.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I'm truly concerned with this attitude in the FIRST community. Some rules are there for safety, others are design constraints. Without climbing into the minds of the GDC, the reason behind an individual rule is unknown. However, teams are given the rulebook as a design constraint. This competition is often compared to a real-live engineering project. Don't design to the specifications, you won't get the job.

The second line of the FRC Inspection Checklist in the Pneumatics section: Compressor - Only one KOP compressor (or equivalent, max 1.05 CFM flow rate) may be used (on or off robot). <R73>

The bottom text of the FRC Inspection Checklist:
We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built after the 2012 Kickoff on January7, 2012 and in accordance with all of the 2012 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. We have conducted our own inspection and determined that our robot satisfies all of the 2012 FRC rules for robot design.


FIRST relies heavily on each team's own honor and moral compass to do what is right. It is up to a team's leaders (student or adult) to take a notification that they have broken a rule and turn it into a moment to demonstrate the principles of sportsmanship and fair play.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I wouldn't be so fast to throw Tristan under the bus. He made absolutely no mention of breaking the rule, but rather just of his opinion (that agrees with that of many) on this seemingly needless rule.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

This will be my only post, and I am only going to comment on the rules and the need to comply with them.

[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot.

• Whether or not anyone feels these are valid or needed rules they are in fact, the rules. Rules are put in place by FIRST for the safety of everyone and to keep the matches competitive. In NASCAR you could go faster and further with a bigger engine and fuel tank but it is against the rules. You are given a bunch of parts and set of restrains (rules). You are then asked to build a robot and compete in adherence of these rules. This is the game.

• Relief Valves (16-004-011) help prevent over-charging but too often these do not work probably and can be tampered with. As part of the robot’s inspection the safety Relief Valve is checked. However, it can be changed easily with a wrench. In addition, the Relief Valve does have limitations in its ability to release pressure. If you are adding pressure faster than the Relief Valve can release it then you have an explosion. A FIRST specification for on-board and off-board compressors is 1.05cfm. The picture of the compressor shown in this thread has 4 to 5 times that flow rate. The Relief Valve and pneumatics systems used in FRC are designed to safely operate at the 1.05 flow rate. Exceeding this could be dangerous.

• A feedback path to the robot is required in order to shut the compressor down when the pressure gets too high. The Pressure Switch (SM-2B-115R/443) is designed to electrically open at 115psi and close at 95psi. This is also checked at the robot inspection. However, without feedback to the off-board compressor the entire volume of the compressor could be dump into the robot at high pressure and rate.

• Pressure gages have been known to stick. They are mechanical in nature and sometimes malfunction. This is the reason for the secondary protection of the Pressure Switch and the Relief Valve and the need to have feedback to any off-board sources. Just visually watching an air gage and assuming the pressure reading is correct is inherently dangerous.

• Items not part of the KOP are required to be inspected for compliance to the rules and safety. If an off-board compressor not part of the KOP were to be used it should have been inspected, its operation demonstrated, noted on the inspection sheet and would become part of the BOM. It also becomes part of the maximum unit cost restriction.

Sorry, the second sentence should have read, "If a compressor not part of the KOP were to be used it should be inspected, its operation demonstrated, noted on the inspection sheet and would become part of the BOM. "

• When charging the air tanks the battery is drained. The larger the on-board air storage capacity the larger the drain on the battery and the longer it takes to charge the tank. This is a design consideration trade-off. You choose to have the added air capacity knowing your battery and air charge time will be inhibited. This is the reason why off-board compressors need to run of the robot’s battery. Not doing so gives a team an unfair advantage.

Answering a question in one of the responses, Yes, you do have the option of changing batteries between matches (assuming you have them available).

• The time periods between finals matches are timed. You have the option of using timeouts if additional time is required. If your robot cannot be serviced in this allowed time period then you just have to do the best you can. This goes for everything from broken wheels and chains to battery changes and air charging. The design trade-off mentioned above gives you more air to work with on the field but lengthens your air charging time. Given the short time period between finals matches you may not have the time to fully charge you tanks. However, supplementing this with an additional air source is a violation of the [R73].

• "Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor". This part of the rule is pretty clear.

In closing, this “seemingly needless rule” is designed to keep things safe and competitive. We can debate (which I am not) whether breaking this and other rules gave a team an unfair advantage or whether they could have won without it. The fact is, having a secondary compressor on the field does violate the rules for all the reason mentioned above.

‘On the field’, the LRI reports to the FTA and the Head Referee about safety concerns and rules violations. If in question, the LRI could request a re-inspection of the Robot, gather materials needed to support a claim, request documentation of parts used, review the team’s BOM and check the team’s initial inspection report. When findings are complete the LRI then reports back to the FTA and Head Referee. In situations where a team has violated a rule or ruling multiple times the problem would probably be elevated to FIRST HQ. However in the end, the Head Referee has the last word on the field.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

But look, what if I am a particularly eco-friendly team? I want to use a hand pump to fill my tanks pre-match, though I have a KOP compressor onboard. I never fill my tanks above 120 psi, the system is completely legal otherwise (it has the release valve, is not above the max capacity of the compressor, etc.). In short, I have followed the spirit of the rules in staying equal to all other teams, but I have not followed the letter of the rules. Why should something like this be illegal?

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Your eco-friendly team would ask for a clarification through the Q&A system: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...c/game-q-and-a ;)

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

The full [R73] text:

[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot.

If an alternative compressor is used, the team may be required to provide documentation to show compliance with the performance specifications.

The only difference between an on- and off-board compressor is that the off-board compressor is physically removed from the Robot. The intent of this rule is to permit teams to take advantage of the weight savings associated with keeping the compressor off-board. However, using the compressor off-board of the Robot does NOT permit non-compliance with any other applicable rules.

The compressor may be mounted on the Robot, or it may be left off the Robot and used to pre-charge compressed air in the storage tanks prior to bringing the Robot onto the Court.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Bill brings up some very eye-opening points.
I am highly disappointed to see some of the comments here. Although you may not be intentionally giving this opinion, those who are brushing it off as a silly rule, or looking for ways to justify it with ridiculous examples of manual air pumps- you are defending a robot that won while breaking clearly written rules, and then condoning them after the fact.
We need to remove our personal opinions on these rules, that haven't changed much in FRC for at least 4 years, and simply accept them as rules.
By saying this rule isn't a big deal, you are condoning illegal actions, that gave a team (that competed against most of you here!), an unfair advantage over your own robots.

If you really have an issue with a rule, write a carefully worded letter to FIRST after the season and argue your point for a change in rules the following year. NOT decide to take things into your own hands and decide the rule is dumb so carry on doing whatever you want to do anyway during an already announced FRC season.

Exactly as Dad has said, whether we like them or not, and if we stop trying to pretend we know the intention behind the GDC's decision for the rules they make, we are left with the clear cut realization that in order to fairly compete in FRC, we need to follow all of the restraints they lay out. Despite how much we may disagree with them.
For example, our team didn't LIKE the 8" bumper rule this year, but rules are rules and we complied.
I personally don't LIKE the rule that emphasizes that bumper numbers cant be broken up across an intake opening (how silly is that) but we complied to satisfy the restraints set forth by the GDC for the 2012 game.

What we want and what we like has nothing to do with this situation. The rules that are presented to you in life are just that, rules, and whether we like them or not we follow them or face the consequences. Regrettably in this situation, 522 chose to break the rules even after being informed, just in the rare case they didn't know, and were not faced with any consequences. In fact they were instead awarded for it, with a regional banner.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I've gotten a few PMs questioning my integrity and the integrity of my team. Seriously? I was ready to let this thread go but now I think I'll chip in a bit more.

Here's the bottom line. Don't cheat. My team doesn't, nor should yours.

However, I believe we should encourage open discussion about the merit of these rules and whether they are actually helping to improve safety and experience for teams. There are obviously opinions on both sides, but a valid defense for the upkeep of a rule is NOT "this is the way it is, deal with it". This viewpoint is incredibly unscientific and hinders forward progress.

Questioning merit behind a rule does not condone breaking it. I don't know how people are confusing this.

Wow, I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to do come up with this statement. This is completely illogical. You can ABSOLUTELY question a rule, and still follow it. How can you expect things to get better if people don't do this?

Once again, I don't think anyone who has expressed that they think the rule is silly has broken it. Don't accuse people of things.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

While many of these things are substantially accurate, I think there is some question about the degree to which this is intended as a design constraint, the degree to which it merely functions as one, and the degree to which it is actually useful. Also, it isn't clear when FIRST is demanding something for safety reasons, and when they're doing it for competitive reasons (or the degree to which both considerations are represented).

As a design constraint, this is of limited effectiveness. After all, if you really wanted to, you could swap out spare tanks already pre-charged with the requisite quantity of pressurized air (from the KOP compressor) and overcome the delay. (If they're true spares, they don't violate the module rule. This assumes that stored air is not a robot part for the purposes of the rules.)

And to come to think of it, if you wanted to run a legal off-board compressor at a higher flow rate or pressure, the rules don't actually prohibit it. (Assume the robot on the field and at inspection is otherwise legal. If the air was provided by a device with the proper nominal specifications, it is legal—the restriction is not on the actual performance of the device at the time of filling.) So you could theoretically immerse the compressor in a bath of cold distilled water (properly protecting the intake, of course), operate it at 24 V (under robot control), and see what happens. Note also that during filling, the robot is neither competing nor being inspected, so it would be tough to argue that it must meet the robot rules at that moment.

In terms of battery capacity, an untold number of teams trivially overcome that by installing a fresh battery prior to every match, but after filling their tanks.

As for safety, that's a matter of pressure and flow. The flow is principally determined by the geometry of various components. While the compressor might be able to supply that much, what's the actual flow given the orifice sizes provided by a legal FRC on-board pneumatic system? Does that exceed what's safely releasable by the relief valve? (I realize that the inspectors are rarely in a position to determine these things exactly—and the rule effectively avoids dealing with that uncertainty. But that's different from a particular robot actually being unsafe.)

The valve we use (Norgren 16-004-011) can release up to 5 scfm when set in the range dictated by FRC. That's in the ballpark of what that compressor is likely capable of (indeed it's probably less for continuous duty at high pressure like that). And even if the relief valve is misconfigured, the highest it can be set is 150 lb/in²—it will pop at that point.

In terms of pressure, with a typical industrial compressor, there's an adjustable relieving regulator built in (or at least a relief valve set for a high pressure). If present, this must fail or be set incorrectly for a safety issue to arise. Lacking the regulator, the system indeed depends on the robot's relief valve.

Lacking the relief valve (which should have been noticed at inspection), we're now depending on the strength of the components. As far as I know, all of the mandatory components on the high pressure side of the FRC pneumatic system are rated to around 250 lb/in² to 300 lb/in² working pressure at room temperature, and are designed with additional margin. And when they do fail, a true explosion is unlikely—more often a seam or tube will burst, venting the pressure. (And what's the likelihood that that compressor can hit 250 lb/in², at any reasonable flow rate, and for a sustained period?) Team-supplied tanks, especially the PVC ones, may not have quite this margin of error—so in that case, maybe the issue of safety has more traction. (But let's not forget that this rule predates the introduction of PVC tanks into FRC, so probably wasn't intended to address them.)

As for the pressure gauges, they depend on having an operator to monitor them, and do (occasionally) fail in a way that is non-obvious to the operator. You wouldn't want to rely on a pressure gauge if it was the only thing keeping the system from going out of its safe limits.

Putting that all together, what's the most likely failure mode for truly unsafe operation using an illegal off-board compressor? A poorly equipped compressor (no regulator or built-in relief valve), an operator not paying attention or ignoring warning signs (or gauges missing entirely, and no clue about aural cues from compressor), a missing relief valve (or a very slow fill with the valve venting the whole way), and non-KOP components that fail unsafely at unusually low pressures. And then they have to do this without being noticed.

To me, that's too implausible to presume that the off-robot compressor rule exists as a meaningful safety measure.

Also, I would definitely call into question the idea that an industrial compressor (not present during matches) is a robot part subject to cost accounting restrictions. Is a battery charger subject to those same restrictions?

In summary, I think this rule is enforceable and valid, but doesn't do anything appreciable as a safety feature or as a limit on robot performance. That's why it's silly.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Seriously?

Just like Tom said, I've got no special love for cheating. Quite the opposite, in fact, though I absolutely like creative solutions that go right to the edge of what's legal. But I think I was pretty clear: if these accounts of 522's actions are correct, they had no justification within the rules.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Interesting analysis, but I contend the rules actually would prohibit 24 volt operation:
[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot. If an alternative compressor is used, the team may be required to provide documentation to show compliance with the performance specifications. The only difference between an on- and off-board compressor is that the off-board compressor is physically removed from the Robot.
[R36]The only legal source of electrical energy for the Robot during the competition is one MK ES17-12 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery, or one EnerSys NP 18-12 battery, as provided in the 2012 KOP. This is the only battery allowed on the Robot.


ie; Compressor must be powered by robot, 12V battery. I will, however, keep the water-cooling in mind if there ever is a water game....;)

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

All I'm saying is that the rules can't reasonably be enforced against robots that are neither playing nor being inspected—otherwise all sorts of robots undergoing maintenance would be illegal. (That was sort of a crazy example of the implications of that stance—but even if a team was crazy enough to try it, it would make essentially no difference to the competition.)

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Again I believe the rules do prohibit it.

As long as we agree while rules can't be enforced, they can't be broken. It's a fine line....

Swapping pre-charged tanks.....now that's a creative, and probably legal solution.....;)

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

Tristan and Tom,
I apologize for your integrity being questioned. I assure you questioning either of yours integrity , 254 is an elite team and one I would never question.
My post was not directed at anyone in particular,in fact I intentionally attempted to generalize it as much as possible and speak hypothetically as to not implicate anyone while trying to make my point. Clearly, it was taken as the opposite; for that I apologize. My entire post was hypothetical, only questioning the ethics of the one team that I named, and anyone who stood to support their actions.


I completely agree that anything in life you have the ability to change, and should change, if there is a better way to do it.
It was just this discussion was taking place in a thread where facts were being shared about a team that broke the rule and were not reprimanded for it.
From an outside perspective, the argument for the use of an over-powered off board compressors in this thread, seemed to be supporting the actions of 522 at the NYC regional, who chose to use one even though it was not legal this year. The transitory relationship was made by the huge situation that unfolded in NYC with the use of an off-board compressor, and this being the 2012 NYC regional thread discussing the events of that day.

That was the perspective I was seeing it from, and it was inappropriate in my eyes to be attempting to stand behind a team that cheated. You were simply taking advantage of the events to discuss the need for a specific rule, which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. I now see that was not your specific intention, as for the other poster's comments, I do not know.


The only reason it was confused was for the reason stated above. That was the connection I was making to it, and not to speak for others, but possibly the way they were seeing it also.

The discussion of the importance of the rule in this specific thread could easily be mistaken as an attempt to defend the rule breaking.

For example, if a separate thread was created, "need for restrictions of off-board compressors" I would have viewed the discussion completely differently, and as you said, be open to discussing if it is really necessary to have so many restrictions on the refilling of storage tanks on the robot before a match. I admit, it is tedious in eliminations to rush off the field, tether, refill the tanks, and then get ready for the upcoming match. Admittedly, i probably would have partook in the discussion openly.


Once again, only directed towards anyone that was posting here in an attempt to brush off the actions taken at the NYC regional.
I should have clarified more clearly so that you wouldn't get offended so quickly.

To conclude, I apologize to anyone who felt my post was directed at those who were simply trying to discuss the need for a specific rule; but I do not retract my statements for anyone attempting to defend 522's actions.
The discussion of the meaning and need for a rule should always be allowed and encouraged to continuously better the FIRST Robotics Competition.

In all honesty, I, and my entire team, has moved past the situation. We are not upset, or anything close to it. We simply wanted to support what others were saying as to the event actually happening, and we happened to have a first hand interaction with what occurred. Like I said in my original post, I fully congratulate the winning alliance and move forward with no bad taste in my mouth for anyone involved. We very much enjoyed our entire time at the NYC Regional, all the way up to cheering for the alliance that eliminated us throughout their finals matches.
I simply wanted to back-up my statements and partake in a casual conversation on what occurred.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

To all involved. Thus far, I have remained silent, sitting on the sidelines, watching this saga unfold. Sadly, this has turned into a true quagmire. They say, to every story there are two sides. Following the preceding postings, one would believe there are about 10 sides here. In any case, my purpose with this posting is to simply state facts, in the order in which the events unfolded. The team had made a conscious decision, to use an outboard air compressor, prior to each match to pre-pressurize the large air tank on the robot. Following PRESCEDENT, this procedure, has been very common in past competitions. As we are a small team with limited resources, we were unaware of the rules regarding outboard air compressors. Precedent was our guide. The robot was constructed, and a male “Lincoln” air fitting was installed, to allow quick and easy connection to the outboard air compressor. The decision to use an outboard unit, was made not to give the team an advantage on the field, but rather to preserve the small viair compressor. Going into competition, we were not aware that we were breaking any rules. As for safety, we did not see any trouble, as the large compressor has a regulator, as well as the prescribed 120PSI pop off valve on the robot. The pop off valve on the robot makes it virtually impossible to pressurize the primary side of the pneumatic system beyond the legal 120PSI. Furthering our belief that our system was legal, our robot passed inspection prior to competing. During the course of inspection, the robot inspector noticed the male “Lincoln” quick connect, and asked why we had it on the machine. I showed him the coil air line, and the large outboard compressor, and explained why we chose to use it. The response was positive, “ahh now I understand” “good idea” he said. At this point, it is understandable, why we had no inkling that we were breaking any rules. All was fine, until the quarter-finals, and this is where things went awry.
Initially, we brought several hand tools and the outboard compressor to the arena area, in preparation for the matches. After the first or second quarter-final match (I am not certain which), one of my adult team members, was approached by a very hostile sounding lead robot inspector Bill Tompkins. We were instructed to remove the compressor from the arena, and that it was illegal, to purge the system and that we must use the onboard compressor, to fill our tank. We immediately did ALL of the above, in the presence of Mr. Tompkins. Still, unaware of the actual rules, we were eager to comply, rather than jeopardize our stake in the finals. At that point, we followed what we considered to be “due diligence”, and removed the now disconnected external compressor to the pit area. (One must bear in mind, that this regional was taking place in the heart of New York City. There is no parking area nearby, our vehicles were a great distance away, and would have entailed a high monetary cost, to access the vehicles to load the compressor. By virtue of its location, the convenience factor in NYC, is low).
Lead robot inspector Tompkins, continued to harass the team, even though the offending compressor, was no longer anywhere near the robot, or playing field, where the robot had to remain for the duration of the final matches. When he got no satisfaction from the head referee, he continued on to the FTA, and beyond. It was evident at that point, that there was some determination here beyond the responsible discharge of his inspection duties. When he was unable to have the team disqualified for the air compressor, he directed his efforts toward our air tank. He demanded to see our BOM and the specifications on the COTS air tank we had chosen. We provided him, with the requested material, and showed that this was a standard tank, available from McMaster Carr.
Consequently, it was at that time, that I became aware of Mr. Tompkins affiliation with Cold Fusion, team #1279. As an aside, I cannot fathom, how a member of a team, may serve as a lead inspector at a regional, where his team is is a party with interest. This would appear as a potential “conflict of interest”. It was also evident by his actions that Mr. Tompkins was acting as an instigator, going from one official to another, looking for an audience.
Perhaps the most disturbing action, occurred after the matches concluded. Upon returning to our pit, to put away several tools, I found Mr. Tompkins with his cell phone camera, photographing the stored compressor. When my presence became known, he wheeled around; half surprised stating “I have photographic proof now ““You were told to remove this compressor from the arena”. When I attempted to explain that the pit was not the arena, and that we did “due diligence” to remove the offending compressor from the arena, He began to accuse me of lying to him twice, and that he did not like to be lied to. He also stated “ I just want you to know that your team CHEATED” “Now enjoy your win” This was unsettling, and egregious, as it is not only a question of my personal integrity, but of the integrity of the team as a whole.
Needless to say, the following five matches were played without use of the external compressor. All system air was supplied by F.I.R.S.T.’s specifications for onboard air. Not surprisingly, it had no effect on the performance of the robot, and therefore was proven NOT to have been a factor in the success of the robot.
I hope the preceding information, should give a clearer picture of what actually transpired, and possibly raise some very good questions, as to the driving force, behind the “smear” tactics that have been used against team 522.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

So, because you're a "small team with limited resources" you don't read the rules?

Preservation of vital robot components doesn't give you an advantage on the field?

And how is this any better than the "smear" tactics being used against your team?
Additionally, many key volunteers (including lead robot inspector, head ref, and FTA) often have affiliations with teams competing at events. I have yet to encounter any perceivable bias from them in my vantage point over the ten years I have been competing in FRC.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

You know, there is one problem with using precedent as your guide in any FRC competition.

Every single rule may be rewritten either completely or partially every single year. Just because it was legal last year does not mean that it is legal this year. (And if something is illegal and slips through the cracks at one event, you can't assume it'll fly at another event where the inspectors may have sharper eyes or a better understanding of the rules or an update addressing some interpretations of rules.)

The moment that you assume something is legal because it was legal in a past year is the moment that you need to look very carefully at the current rules that could govern that particular item's legality.



Could the situation have been handled better? Yep. I can tell that just by the amount of barbed comments in this thread. Is all this complaining/personal attacks/outcry going to do anything? Uh, I don't think so! Particularly not this year; maybe for next year. (I don't count making unfriends as doing anything.)

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I personally didn't want to get involved in the negativity of this thread. While not trying to accuse anyone of cheating or unlawfully winning I just have to say the only thing i'm displeased with is the lack of knowledge of the rule.

Many teams in this competition are in fact fairly small with limited resources. However the rule book was given freely to everyone and accessing it was as simple as being able to go on their site.

Although the addition of the air compressor proved to have no effect on the outcome of the matches, to blame it on ones magnitude of resources seems highly irrelevant seeing how everybody had access to the rule book. To that degree at least everyone had the same resources.

I completely understand that you didn't mean to violate any league rules, yet I can't say I understand how a team was so unprepared in not being able to catch up on the simplest aspect of the game.

With all that being said i truly apologize on all this going on yet at the same time respect everyone's opinion, and will continue to have an open mind as I read on.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I think it's fair to say that your team erred in doing this. You're responsible for being aware of the current rules.

Your system doesn't sound unsafe per se.

And that was an inspector making a mistake.

Purging and only using the robot's own compressor for the remainder of the event was the right thing to do. As far as I read above, this solved your robot's legality problem, without forcing the officials to penalize you.

As for the compressor, it's not a benchtop tool, but I don't know that I'd call it a "[f]loor standing power tool" either. The latter are prohibited by FIRST and must be removed, but only as a venue rule—noncompliance does not directly jeopardize your participation in matches.

I hope we can hear his perspective on whether this account is accurate. And despite his alleged motivations, the verification of the air tank is within his authority—and you seem to have handled it gracefully by providing documentation upon request.

It happens all the time. In fact, I've done it many times, as have many other inspectors at many events.

There are a few protocols in place. Firstly, key volunteers disclose their team affiliations and conflicts of interest to FIRST. They are required to commit to impartiality. Then, among inspectors, it is common (but not specifically mandated, last I checked) for a lead inspector with a conflict to designate an alternate inspector to handle matters relating to that team. That alternate is typically another well-qualified inspector, who would be comfortable making tough rulings against the LRI's own team, if necessary.¹

In this case, apparently the LRI was involved with an opposing team. I wouldn't generally consider that a conflict of interest, because there's a degree of separation between his ruling about your robot, and whatever effect it might have on his team.

¹ In fact, my designated alternate has made tough calls against my own team before, and I'm at peace with those rulings. That's the system working, because to any observer, there's no question that I stayed out of it, and thus did not manipulate the proceedings to my team's advantage.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

That is no excuse. In fact, it paints your team in a negative light.
We, the volunteers who keep competitions viable, graciously invite you to volunteer as a robot inspector (or in another capacity) at any event where your team is not competing. By doing this, you will help eliminate the need for any "conflict of interest". At the moment, there are simply not enough of us to go around.

Listen, what is done is done. The team made an honest mistake, I truly believe that there was no intentional breaking of any rules.

Please use this as a teachable moment for the team, students and mentors alike. Next time, make sure the rules are known and understood. The team might have a cloud over it for the moment, but a team as experienced and professional as yours will take this opportunity to grow into an even more awesome team, dissipating that cloud quickly.

Nobody likes their mistakes being thrown in their face. It is painful, I know from experience. Although my intent is to avoid any pain and any further pain, on behalf of everyone who may have caused offense I apologize for all excessive aggression towards anyone on the team.

While following the rules is very GP, so is the conscious avoidance of roasting someone who makes a mistake (other posters take note)

Don

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I am closing this thread for now and will re-open it tomorrow. Let's take some time to cool off.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

I am opening this thread with the hope that everyone involved has had some time to reflect and speak constructively.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

My belief is that it should remain closed forever, since personal attacks and accusations of collusion with FIRST volunteers have been brought into the thread.

Thanks for monitoring, Bharat.

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

ASME article on the NYC Regional is posted at:
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articl...ss-to-robotics

Re: 2012 New York City Regional
 

No need to dwell on the past when we can learn from our mistakes and move on. What's done is done.
That being said, team 1230 and I had an amazing time at the NYC Regional and we wish the teams competing at other regionals the best of luck! We look forward to seeing teams competing at the Long Island Regional!