Thread: No Change Rule Yields More Openness
View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-06-2002, 01:23
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
My heart is with Raul, but Bill's case is strong
Posted by Joe Johnson at 02/25/2001 9:46 PM EST


Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.


In Reply to: I read it that changes are OK
Posted by Gary Bonner on 02/25/2001 8:56 PM EST:



Since I was planning on having about 2 weeks of drive
time for our robot, I didn't plan to need to add
anything to the robot this year, so I was not paying
particularly close attention.

But, as things have turned out, we had almost no
practice time, so this rule has become much more
interesting.

My original reading of the rules had me solidly in
Raul's camp, but Bill has made a very strong case that
I was wrong.

I don't know how this is going to work in principle but
it seems on its face that what you shipped is what you
play with. Only improvements and repairs, no wholesale
additions.

While on some level I can get behind this rule, on
another it seems that it could be very hard on some
teams.

In addition to Raul's cases, there are a lot more.

If engineering is to cease (as Bill argues), what about
programming? Can new program features be added?
Strict judges may say no.

Even changes that seem on their face to be improvements
can add functionality that was lacking before. For
example, a robot arm may not be intended to reset the
bridge, but with a different ratio, may do it just
fine. Would the ratio change be allowed if the purpose
was to perform a new task? Again, a strict judge may
say no.

I know that Bill and Brian Beatty have long been
advocates of the no-changes rule. I am on the fence.
While my team has made changes in the past (when they
were clearly allowed), on balance, my team is helped by
a no change rule (though perhaps not this year... time
will tell). But, I think that this rule could also
lock a lot of teams into a design that may make the
entire FIRST experience a miserable one.

I suppose I should end with a call for someone to get a
clear ruling from FIRST on this one.

Any takers?

Joe J.

P.S. I am taking a well deserved vacation day with my
family on Monday, or I would call myself.



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.