Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
In my humble (rookie) opinion, the parts rules in conjunction with the six-week build; the autonomous mode; and raising the bar have put rookie and novice teams at a severe disadvantage. They put even the experienced teams in the uncomfortable position of looking for ways to skirt the rules as an alternative to failing to make the show. Worse yet, they turn crunch time into a gut wrenching experience. This was supposed to be fun; it could have been better.
I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts. On the contrary, I think they should eliminate what they now have. Let us evolve and put the best we can muster on the field. Why make a team feel like criminals for not knowing that what they’ve seen was not what has been dictated? Why make them throw away many weeks of effort for the sake of some under observed, unenforceable, and unobtainable principle?
I can envision the parking lots across the street filling with trailers containing the practice robots, assemblies, and other items that we’re not allowed to “bring to the event.” Is that what we want?
|
I can say without reservation that we have never been uncomfortable in choosing between skirting the rules or shipping a robot that wasn't competitive. Our team has had up and down years, and more times than I like to admit we've fielded a robot that would move and do little else, because we didn't get it built, tested or debugged in time. Never did we consider starting fab early, using parts from previous robots, cointinuing after the build season - I'd quit the team if that happened. At that point it becomes about the robot and winning and not about promoting engineering as an honorable profession.
This thread has been a good discussion for the right reasons - what do other teams (the FIRST family, not just the FIRST organization) consider the interpretation of the spare parts rules, practice robot rules, etc. so we can all try to apply the same standard to our decisions. Not so we can manipulate them to get an unfair advantage, but rather so we DON'T get an unfair advantage over other teams. I think these forums are like going to mediation rather than to court - if we all come to agreement or at least consensus we don't need FIRST or the lawyers to rule. We police it ourselves.
For those who don't remember, the old rules allowed building functionally equivalent replacement parts to be built in the 4 days after each regional - the big debate then was "what is functionally equivalent?" One year we built a new lift out of a different material, and took it straight to the judges to see if we could use it; if they said no, we were prepared to accept that even though it would have had a major impact to us. I think everyone should weigh all the options available to them for building spares (it's too late to do anything about shipping them at this point), and be willing to accept the decision of the judges at each competition if confronted.
Jack, there is no doubt Rookies are at a disadvantage - that's true anywhere; I would hope my experience counts for something at work. But noone goes into this competition thinking "hey, I think I'll build a crappy robot" - it's usually just a matter of available resources to get things done. I try to encourage every team who shows up, find something positive to say, both new and old teams. Everyone should feel proud of participating.