Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

[martin417]

After reading this thread, I began to ponder the greater implications of this ruling. By saying that tape is illegal in bumper construction because it is not specifically allowed as a construction material, does that apply to the rest of the robot as well?

In the pneumatic rules, R74 states:

R74
To satisfy multiple constraints associated with safety, consistency, Inspection, and constructive innovation, no pneumatic parts other than those explicitly permitted in Section 4.10: Pneumatic System may be used on the ROBOT.

I don't see a similar rule pertaining to bumpers. If the GDC is going to apply this interpretation to bumpers, then what about the rest of the robot? I don't think it would be possible to build a robot under that interpretation. Is aluminum, plastic, plywood, or fiberglass explicitly allowed as a fabrication material? I don't think so.

Sometimes the law of un-intended consequences gets even the best of us. I thing the GDC needs to clarify their intent. Making tape illegal in bumper construction might be an inconvenience to some teams, but by extension of the ruling, staples are also illegal, and that might end up creating a situation where bumpers are less robust and not as effective.

[Jon Stratis]

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Did you miss R21? It states "BUMPERS must be constructed as follows (see Figure 4-8)" and then goes on to explicitly list the materials allowed in bumpers, even providing a picture of the required cross section.

Do you use staples in the construction of your bumpers? We always have (we have never used tape). If so, that is not legal (staples are not mentioned in the list of materials or the cross section, only wood screws). What about the system by which you attach the bumpers? the cross section shows a tee-nut and bolt, is that the only legal method? I have seen many other methods for attaching bumpers that are not pictured, are they not legal?

If the GDC does not provide a basis for this ruling, then the ruling can be extended to every other part of the robot, or at least at a minimum (if you only apply it to the bumpers), makes staples illegal.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
To be fair the question was...
"Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood?" The simple response was "No". That is all.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Martin,
To be fair the question was...
"Is it legal for teams to use tape, shrink wrap, or other soft material to secure the pool noodles to the wood underneath the bumper fabric? In previous years teams have had issues with pool noodles that would sag below the wood?" The simple response was "No". That is all.

I agree that was the question, and the answer. But every answer must have a basis in the rules. They cannot make rule through Q&A. So if there is a rule that prohibits the use of tape what must it be? This is important because it has other implications. The only basis I can see for ruling against tape is that it is not explicitly allowed. If we take that as the basis, then by extension, nothing can be used that is not explicitly allowed.

If my logic is flawed, perhaps you can show another basis for disallowing tape? One that does allow staples?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

You could read the answer as "Is it legal...to secure the pool noodles to the wood" is not allowed.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

You could read the answer as "Is it legal...to secure the pool noodles to the wood" is not allowed.

So, we can interpret the answer as not disallowing tape, but disallowing any means of attaching the noodles to the wood?

I might buy that. I still wish the GDC would be more clear in their answers. Sometimes they give the basis for a ruling:

Q128 Q. The rules state that solenoid values must be no larger than 1/8" npt. Does the same apply to air pilot values?
FRC2665 on 2014-01-15 | 4 Followers
A. No. However, air piloted valves which are not Solenoid valves are not listed in R77 and therefore not a legal pneumatic component.

In this example, the question was answered, and a basis was given. It is very clear why a piloted valve is not legal.

but often they just give a one-word answer with no explanation, as they did in the bumper/tape case. Without a basis, we are left to determine what the basis is, and how that affects our interpretation of the rules.

[pfreivald]

I think you're making well more of this than there is to make.

The bumper rules specify how bumpers are to be constructed. The question was whether or not those rules could be deviated from; the answer was "no". It doesn't apply to general materials usage, or non-bumpers, or anything else--just bumper construction.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I think you're making well more of this than there is to make.

The bumper rules specify how bumpers are to be constructed. The question was whether or not those rules could be deviated from; the answer was "no". It doesn't apply to general materials usage, or non-bumpers, or anything else--just bumper construction.

I respectfully disagree. FIRST wants all teams to conform to the rules, even the rules that aren't readily inspect-able. I believe that most teams want to comply with all the rules. To do that, teams have to be able to understand what those rules are. When they answer a question without giving a basis for the answer, and that basis is not obvious, they are leaving it up to teams to interpret what they mean. If some teams interpret things differently than other teams, or differently than inspectors, it can lead to trouble.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by martin417

I respectfully disagree. FIRST wants all teams to conform to the rules, even the rules that aren't readily inspect-able. I believe that most teams want to comply with all the rules. To do that, teams have to be able to understand what those rules are. When they answer a question without giving a basis for the answer, and that basis is not obvious, they are leaving it up to teams to interpret what they mean. If some teams interpret things differently than other teams, or differently than inspectors, it can lead to trouble.

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Multiple people here have pointed you to R21 as the likely basis for the ruling. the GDC doesn't need to qualify or explain every single answer. They include additional explanation when they feel the question requires it. In this case, they didn't feel the question required additional explanation. Their answer is in accordance with the rules as they are written. If you're getting so worked up about this, why aren't you also getting worked up about all of the responses disallowing specific items from use with the pneumatic system? It's the same thing... the GDC listed exactly how you need to set up your system and what you're allowed to use (just like they did with the bumpers in R21), and teams ask if they can use something that's not on the list.

Yes multiple people have pointed out R21. That is exactly my point. If R21 is the basis for the ruling, then anything not listed in R21 (like staples) are illegal, and any method of attaching the bumpers to the robot other than a tee-nut and bolt are also illegal. I do not believe that this is the intent of the GDC, but it is the result of their answer if you take R21 as the basis.

I am not "getting worked up", I am simply pointing out that when the GDC interprets a rule, that interpretation has broader implications, and has to be applied to all aspects of that rule. If R21 makes tape illegal because tape is not listed, it makes staples illegal because staples are not listed.

Al Skierkiewicz posited that perhaps the basis is that noodles may not be attached to the plywood by any means, but I can't find that rule anywhere, so it would be a new rule not an interpretation.

[magnets]

Originally Posted by martin417

Do you use staples in the construction of your bumpers? We always have (we have never used tape). If so, that is not legal (staples are not mentioned in the list of materials or the cross section, only wood screws). What about the system by which you attach the bumpers? the cross section shows a tee-nut and bolt, is that the only legal method? I have seen many other methods for attaching bumpers that are not pictured, are they not legal?

If the GDC does not provide a basis for this ruling, then the ruling can be extended to every other part of the robot, or at least at a minimum (if you only apply it to the bumpers), makes staples illegal.

The problem is that the guy who is answering the questions isn't trying to help teams figure out their solutions. Teams asking questions want to understand what they're trying to do. The GDC answers with a totally ambiguous answer. I really hoped that after the robonauts in 2012, with IMO was one of the worst decisions they've ever made, that the question and answer would be a little better. Building robots isn't easy for a bunch of high schoolers on a rookie team. They don't need to get garbage as a response. This rule really doesn't make any sense at all, and can't really be enforced.

These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word, otherwise some interesting possibilities come up. I struggle to see how much the GDC really reads over the rules before the game. They're historically missed some big stuff. For instance, this year, they didn't think what would happen if a ball got stuck in a robot. It took about an hour for multiple people on our team to point this out as being possibly problematic. In 2013, they obviously never tested the throw all the white discs in the last 30 seconds part of the game, and in 2011, they didn't get the stored energy minibot. I keep hoping that there will be improvements, but it isn't happening.

There is a huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules. I disagree completely. The responsibility of FIRST is to give us a set of rules that don't have any loopholes they don't want. A good engineer will analyze the game and figure out a way to get the most points while preventing the other team from getting as many points. If you're making something in the real world, and you come up with a clever solution (like 469 did in 2010) that solves the problem given to you, then your company will win the bid, and you'll get paid to make the part. FRC does a great job mimicking a real world customer in terms of ambiguity. The rules are the specification given to us. If there is a "shortcut", then it is part of the specification, and the solution is ok. If your robot meets the rules, but doesn't follow the intention of the rules (118's definition of grasp, vs. the GDC's undefined definition of grasp), and this is illegal, then you get into a very subjective grey area.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by magnets

These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word

The former has been complained about since I got involved in FIRST (2001). The latter is intentional--you're not supposed to try to lawyer the rules, you're supposed to read them for intent.

This is, IMO, the only way to keep this competition and those involved with it sane.

[ebarker]

This thread is starting to remind me of the bumper nightmare of 2010 when everyone was having to do a lot of rework to put continuous solid backing behind the bumpers.

We carried bundles of thing wood trim and double sided tape so teams at 2 regional's could get past inspection.

I think the GDC is creating a situation here that is going to backfire at inspection unless things get clarified.

So what holds the fabric on the bumper ? magic ?

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by magnets

The problem is that the guy who is answering the questions isn't trying to help teams figure out their solutions. Teams asking questions want to understand what they're trying to do. The GDC answers with a totally ambiguous answer. I really hoped that after the robonauts in 2012, with IMO was one of the worst decisions they've ever made, that the question and answer would be a little better. Building robots isn't easy for a bunch of high schoolers on a rookie team. They don't need to get garbage as a response. This rule really doesn't make any sense at all, and can't really be enforced.

These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word, otherwise some interesting possibilities come up. I struggle to see how much the GDC really reads over the rules before the game. They're historically missed some big stuff. For instance, this year, they didn't think what would happen if a ball got stuck in a robot. It took about an hour for multiple people on our team to point this out as being possibly problematic. In 2013, they obviously never tested the throw all the white discs in the last 30 seconds part of the game, and in 2011, they didn't get the stored energy minibot. I keep hoping that there will be improvements, but it isn't happening.

There is a huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules. I disagree completely. The responsibility of FIRST is to give us a set of rules that don't have any loopholes they don't want. A good engineer will analyze the game and figure out a way to get the most points while preventing the other team from getting as many points. If you're making something in the real world, and you come up with a clever solution (like 469 did in 2010) that solves the problem given to you, then your company will win the bid, and you'll get paid to make the part. FRC does a great job mimicking a real world customer in terms of ambiguity. The rules are the specification given to us. If there is a "shortcut", then it is part of the specification, and the solution is ok. If your robot meets the rules, but doesn't follow the intention of the rules (118's definition of grasp, vs. the GDC's undefined definition of grasp), and this is illegal, then you get into a very subjective grey area.

Q&A responses aren't totally garbage. The problem is, you're statement here implies that you are expecting responses from them that "give the answers" to problems teams are having. That's not the purpose of the Q&A. There are other avenues (yes, other than CD) for that. Sure, they could be a little better, but to say they are "absolute garbage" is unnecessarily offensive and critical.

The quality of the manual this year is, in my opinion, no different than any other year. You can't expect them to expect those certain holes in the game that you listed. Also, you're viewing the manual for a different lens than the GDC. When they read it, they know their intent for everything, and will interpret things how they interpret, knowing how they "want the game" to play out. And in regards to the 118 2012 situation, I'd like to believe that 118 knew they were taking a risk with that strategy, but the exact specifics of what the GDC told 118 are not public knowledge (to my opinion). In my opinion, it was a risk because I highly doubt the GDC designed the game with the intent for a 118-type balance to be doable.


And the reason there's a "huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules" because of this statement at the beginning of Section 4 of the manual:

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. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.

emphasis mine.