If you could change one rule

[Rickertsen2]

If you could change one FIRST rule what would it be and why?

I know i would eleminate the "custom cylinder order form". I feel that it is overly restrictive and hampers the developement of some really cool mechanisms. It prohibits all sorts of parts that pose no safety hazard, are available to all teams, and would allow for a great deal of novel mechanisms. I believe the intent was either to restrict teams to Bimba or to limit the bore and therefore force of actuators. If they want to make sure teams buy Bimba products, they should simply have a rule such as

"Any off the shelf actuator made by Bimba is legal so long as it does not violate any other rules"

If they want to make sure we don't use something capable of outputting excessive force then they should make a rule such as:

"any off the shelf actuator is legal so long as it does not have an effective piston surface exceeding XXX and does not violate any other rules"

[Billfred]

Here's one I've pondered since mid-build our rookie year--why keep teams from using the packaging of the kit? Back in 2004 when we had the four LED lights, I made a holder out of some small box in the kit that would've held up fine (especially given the amount of protection it would be surrounded by), yet it would've been illegal.

[Cory]

I'll go back and look at the game rules and such, to determine my final answer.

But in the meantime, my interim answer would be to eliminate those darn SLU lugs and let teams use the old connectors.

[phrontist]

I think you should be allowed to control your robot with whatever you want. Get rid of the rules that prohibit external power and added logic. What saftey/fair-competition/fun-competition purpose do these rules serve?

I've heard many great ideas on these forums for control mechanisms, the majority of which are illegal due to these rules.

You know you want to see the muscle tension actuated robots next year

[Collmandoman]

I see how some would like the whole don't crush your opponent ranking point score algorithm, but I believe it's not indicative of how the real world is. I believe ranking points should instead by the point differential instead of the losers score.
This would create more offensive scoring robots, and sort of break down the push/shove robots from outerspace.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

I'd say the rule about actually touching the loading zone triangle was pointless. It made so many nice robots look very cheap with zip ties and junk hanging off the front. If a robot is clearly over it, then it would be touching it if something was hanging down, regardless of that something existing or not. Plus, what is easier for a referee to look at? A whole frame rail or bumper of a robot being over it? Or the tip of a minuscule thread or zip tie touching it?

And also I would never design a game where a single penalty due to an action committed by one robot can easily change the outcome of what would have been a very strong win for the alliance.

yeah that single rule brought us from 8th place to 30 something.
I want the transmissions of radio signals from custom circuits to become legal. I really wan't to put a camera on our robot and be able to pick it up at the player station.

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

yeah that single rule brought us from 8th place to 30 something.
I want the transmissions of radio signals from custom circuits to become legal. I really wan't to put a camera on our robot and be able to pick it up at the player station.

Okay, that is a terrible idea for reasons that should be obvious if you have the technical expertise to realistically try such a thing. Imagine the sheer chaos that would develop if you were allowed to transmit all willy-nilly. Never mind the FCC, I'm sure you would find reason enough to regret this rule change when your robot became unresponsive due to my "creative" spark-gap generator.

[Collmandoman]

well then... I would get rid of the fixit window between regionals, and in turn allow more lbs of spare parts to be brought with teams. These teams know what they have to do, and part of the challenge can be preparing a set of routines to replace and fix parts once the next regional comes around. I would leave a fixit window for the champ though.

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by phrontist

Okay, that is a terrible idea for reasons that should be obvious if you have the technical expertise to realistically try such a thing. Imagine the sheer chaos that would develop if you were allowed to transmit all willy-nilly. Never mind the FCC, I'm sure you would find reason enough to regret this rule change when your robot became unresponsive due to my "creative" spark-gap generator.

OK, let me explain myself on that one. Like obviously it would have to be on an unlicensed frequency (and some regulations as to the voltage of the transmission) that does not touch the 900 MHz that the robot runs on I'm thinking 2.4 gigahertz (which in fact is most common for camera transmissions). In fact the rules do allow for cameras and even for those cameras to transmit, its just that if you transmit to the control station the camera is no longer a non functional decoration and illegal.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by mechanicalbrain

OK, let me explain myself on that one. Like obviously it would have to be on an unlicensed frequency (and some regulations as to the voltage of the transmission) that does not touch the 900 MHz that the robot runs on I'm thinking 2.4 gigahertz (which in fact is most common for camera transmissions). In fact the rules do allow for cameras and even for those cameras to transmit, its just that if you transmit to the control station the camera is no longer a non functional decoration and illegal.

Two clarifications here:

• It's the power ("wattage"), not the electric potential difference ("voltage") that is of concern when dealing with a transmitter (though powerful transmitters often have high-voltage components).
• On-board cameras which transmit independently of the radio modems (using frequency bands other than 900 MHz) are allowed, provided that approval is granted by a FIRST Engineering representative.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Two clarifications here:

• On-board cameras which transmit independently of the radio modems (using frequency bands other than 900 MHz) are allowed, provided that approval is granted by a FIRST Engineering representative.

His issue was he wanted to see teams be able to pipe the feed onto a monitor in the driver's station, which was discussed ad nauseam elsewhere.

[Tristan Lall]

Having dealt with the chaos the pneumatics cause at inspection time, I think there's a need for some simplification of the rules.

If it's decided (by the ones making the rules) that for 2006, pneumatics will still be substantially the same in terms of the types of devices allowed, then I think the rules should be broad enough to allow all sorts of variations on a well-defined theme. The rule might allow, for example, "any unmodified pneumatic cylinder rated by its manufacturer for operation at 120 psi, with the following characteristics...", followed by a chart or detailed description of exactly what's allowed and what's not. A good start might be "non-repairable, single-ended, non-rodless, with optional magnetic piston, with optional piston seals and/or rod seals, with nominal diameter of ≤2 in, and with stroke ≤24 in"; note the absence of things like the material of the cylinder, the mounting method, the types of ports, the types of seals, the manufacturer or the source.

By not specifying a Bimba part number, it avoids the difficulty of cross-referencing an identical cylinder from Parker (because of small differences in design), and it potentially opens the door to the many other manufacturers who also produce similar apparatus. I hasten to add, of course, that if the intent is to generate business for Bimba, a sponsor, then it is reasonable to restrict teams to using their products. If it's the capability, not the brand that's important, then we should broaden the rules.

This also has the advantage of eliminating inspection decisions based on the letter of the law, rather than the function of the cylinder in question. By careful examination of the rules, updates and Q&As from last year, inspectors at Waterloo and Toronto had access to a reference of the exact model numbers from Bimba and Parker that met all conditions. Even so, there was interpretation involved, when really, there was no need for it. For example, is a Bimba cylinder with suffix DXP equivalent to a DP? It was decided that (for Waterloo and Toronto) they would be treated as being DPs, because mechanically, a DXP is a DP, with dowel and clevis brackets deleted and nuts substituted. The cylinder itself is the same, incorporating provisions for both mounting styles, and the hardware is COTS (for both types). But since the DP was on the official form and the DXP wasn't, by some fractured logic, if the sticker on the side said DXP, it was to be rejected, even if it were being used as a DP. (We chose to set aside the actual letter of the law, and substituted a reasonable, ad hoc modification of that rule. So sue us, or rant about the inconsistent officiating.... Even though the inspectors would have been within their rights to reject a DXP, it serves nobody's interests to appear as heartless bastards who would take pleasure in watching a team pull their cylinder off, because of exactly one extra letter on a sticker.)

Rickertsen2 pointed out that there are a lot of other pneumatic devices that are safe, cost-effective, widely available and useful. As simple a measure as permitting anything from within the Bimba general catalogue would allow for a substantial variety of new capabilities for the robots. On the other hand, if FIRST tends toward Dave's opinion that sometimes there is too much variety in the types of off-the-shelf mechanisms permitted, it would be a simple matter to scale down the rule to permit "anything from pages [some range] of the 2005 Bimba catalogue". In either event, the arcane, arbitrary pneumatics rules need some readjustment in order to ease the burden on teams and officials alike.

[Steve W]

Ah, the old pneumatics problem. I guess that the easiest way to answer Rickertsen2's question is : It is a rule. That's it. There doesn't always have to be a reason for it. We don't always know the reason for it. We don't always agree with it.

That being said I will agree that something should be done to open up a few questionable rules with pneumatics. The problem may be that FIRST doesn't have the resources at this time to tackle this type of rule change and it is better to err on the safety side (Don't jump on this safety comment) than to have a perceived accident.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

For my two cents, the rule about SLU 70 connectors is just wrong. SUA is a family that is the same but a better fit for rookies to use, wire, solder. Veteran teams should be ble to use a better crimp or solder connector as they see fit. The SLU is used for specific purposes and is not designed for shipboard use. Translated that means it doesn't work in environments that move. Teams that have trouble soldering the SLU would have a better chance with the smaller terminal.
Another rule that drives me crazy is wiring to valves should be allowed to be the smae size wire as the valve is supplied with. In most cases that is #22.

BTW for rookies reading this thread, the Guidlines and Tips document should be required reading for all rookies before touching a tool.

[Bill Beatty]

Remove all restrictions on the manufacture of spare and replacement parts. I mean true spares that do not change the form or function of the robot. It would help hold down costs and be more like the "real world experience" in sparing up for the next scheduled campaign.

"Mr. Bill" Beatty