Bag and Tag issues?

[Tristan Lall]

Unfortunately, I think I see where this bumper confusion is coming from. The rules don't actually say that the bumpers are part of the robot, nor the hostbot in particular.* (It's not in the definitions of robot, hostbot or bumper, nor is it explicit in "The Robot".) They do make repeated references to the bumpers being attached to the robot, and even distinguish between parts of the robot and parts of the bumper. This could easily be interpreted as meaning the bumpers are a separate system, distinct from the robot.

And the <R11> exclusion is no help, because there's no explicit inclusive component to that rule—it says what bumpers aren't (part of the weight limit), but doesn't say what they are. (Similarly, it says that the operator console is not part of the weight limit, but doesn't say whether or not it's part of the robot. Same reasoning applies.)

We all (FIRST included, presumably) assume that they are part of the robot, because that's the way it worked before, but if FIRST didn't actually say so in the rulebook, why should we assume any given team will comply with our expectations, rather than use their own good-faith, logically-consistent reading of the rules?

Now, there was that Q&A that said bumpers count toward the withholding allowance—but if you're operating under the assumption that the bumpers aren't part of the robot (for the reasons described previously), then the Q&A is obviously erroneous: fabricated items are components, which are robot parts, and therefore bumpers couldn't be part of the withholding allowance, because they aren't robot parts at all. (And if the Q&A contradicts the rules, we have to go with the rules.)

So, let's make an effort to quote the relevant rule (to put this matter to rest).

*Feel free to correct me if I missed something. I didn't do as thorough a re-reading of the rules as I might have, because I really ought to be doing something else at the moment....

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

So, let's make an effort to quote the relevant rule (to put this matter to rest).

Yeah, sure. You go ahead and don't count your bumpers in your WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, and show up with 30 lbs of stuff plus bumpers, and see if you're deemed legal to compete...

From <R33> "All other FABRICATED ITEMS to be used on the ROBOT during the competition..."

Are bumpers used on the robot?

Did the actual rules, plus the Q&A clarification, somehow make this unclear?

Bumpers count toward your WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, plain as day. No amount of rules lawyering or pleading will make it otherwise.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Yeah, sure. You go ahead and don't count your bumpers in your WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, and show up with 30 lbs of stuff plus bumpers, and see if you're deemed legal to compete...

From <R33> "All other FABRICATED ITEMS to be used on the ROBOT during the competition..."

Are bumpers used on the robot?

Did the actual rules, plus the Q&A clarification, somehow make this unclear?

Bumpers count toward your WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE, plain as day. No amount of rules lawyering or pleading will make it otherwise.

Circular logic: fabricated items are by definition robot parts, so you can't apply <R33> unless you presuppose that bumpers are robot parts. (Which is what we want to demonstrate.)

Anyway, the central point isn't what I think the rule should be, or how I think it will be enforced; rather, it's a matter of what FIRST wrote and didn't write, and whether teams are entitled to take FIRST at its word when it comes to interpreting the rulebook.

[Tristan Lall]

Maybe I should explain further, lest anyone get the wrong impression.

First of all, most of the time, if I describe some sort of inconsistency in the rules, it's not even about any particular team's robot. And that's probably a good thing—after all, it's much more difficult to manage rules controversies at an event with a robot in front of you, than it is in the realm of online discussion.

While these sorts of criticisms may come off as curmudgeonly, I'd really prefer not to let deference to FIRST's authority and competence get in the way of frank debate about potential areas for confusion.

In abstract terms, I think there's an exceedingly strong case that FIRST has a responsibility to act in an equitable manner toward teams that are operating in good faith and who follow a logical chain of reasoning that is consistent with the text of the current rules, but which is not consistent with the unspoken intent, spirit or historical interpretation. The rules are a common set of specifications that all the teams agree to follow, and when teams follow the rules differently, they're still following the rules. If that weren't the case, FIRST could tell them "you did what we said, not what we meant, so go rebuild your robot"; that's not equity, that's caprice. When that happens, FIRST looks dumb, the inspectors look dumb, and the teams get angry.

From another perspective, the inspectors are there to make sure that all the robots compete, and do so in full compliance with the rules. Since these aren't exactly parallel objectives, there are occasionally special cases where FIRST implicitly or explicitly approves of deviations from the stated rules—but I view that as the province of extreme last resort, where either the transgression is so minor and the corrective action so onerous that it is nearly impossible to comply, or where no other solution is equitable (with regard to the team in question, as well as all the other teams at the event, and all of the other teams in FIRST who may be impacted by the fallout of the decision).

In practice, that means that making up a new constraint to solve an omission in the rules just doesn't work (even if everyone else thought that constraint was already applicable). The team that interpreted the rules correctly but differently does not deserve to suffer because FIRST failed to anticipate an edge case. Just as the team covenants to follow the rules, FIRST covenants to apply the rules fairly. I'll temper this by noting that fairness is also relative to the impact on the competition. If the results of the ruling would tend to make a mockery of the event, then perhaps strict adherence to that covenant is not appropriate. But bumpers? I don't think this is such a situation.

Now is this the most efficient way to solve rules problems? Maybe not. But teams and officials have to work within the framework of the rulebook in order to have a successful and respectable competition. And as long as we're operating within the framework of the rules as they exist today, I'd have to say that teams in the "bumpers don't count" camp have a legitimate case. Will the inspectors at their events see it the same way? Maybe, maybe not. So as a result, I can hardly advise someone to take that risk deliberately. But if they were already under that impression, I hope that this discussion enables them to more clearly articulate their reasoning.

Finally, as far as FIRST goes, there's a bit of a problem with just changing the rule now: the robots have shipped! If they close the loophole now, they disadvantage a few teams severely. If they leave the loophole open, whoever can take advantage will, though some will complain that they didn't know and can no longer take full advantage. (And if FIRST denies the loophole exists, then they just set the inspectors up for a lot of argumentation. Don't do that unless there's a clear rule that I'm overlooking.) Given that choice, and those outcomes, and presupposing that those who stand to lose the most are innocent of failing to read the rules, I think that explicitly opening the loophole is the best course of action.

[dag0620]

Robot went right in the bag, we sealed the tag and called it a day.

We kept our bumpers out of the bag with our withholding allowance. We do it every year, and it just makes handling the robot easier.

[Jimmy Nichols]

I thought I read somewhere that the Rules, Q&A and Bills's Blog are all official and what is said in these are considered "The Rules" I can't seem to locate this statement anywhere.

[jason701802]

Whether or not the bumpers count against the 30lbs this year, FIRST really should excluded them in future years. First of all, a robot built close to the max dimensions cannot fit through a standard doorway with bumpers installed. Second, with the requirements to have two colors of bumpers, many teams build two sets of bumpers, which would be impossible to mount to to robot at the same time and having unattached objects in the bag is incredibly annoying and risks ripping the bag. Third, on a non-logistical note, there is no good reason to require the bumpers to ship with the robot. The bumpers have to be built to very specific specs, leaving little room for innovation, and for the small portion that allows innovation (the mounts), half of it has to be on the robot (and thus shipped with it). It is not like a teams bumpers are going to look any different whether or not they built them during the build season.

[Bob Steele]

Communicating correctly is always difficult.
Case in point...

The poll above... what does it mean... and how do you answer it?

Bumpers one in bag

Does this mean "none" in bag...or "on" in bag?

If I interpret it bumpers on in bag then I say yes
and the "uh,oh, I am scared now, Help" statement does not make sense...

and the "all set to go" is ambigious...all set to include them as half of my 30 lbs with holding allowance.. or actually more like ALL of the withholding allowance. (2 pairs at 15 lbs + each..)

If I interpret it as NONE in bag.... then it makes sense...

The omission or addition of one little letter leads to ambiguous interpretation...

I have to agree that bumpers should have been excluded from the withholding allowance...and allowed to be unbagged...

This is the first time for many of us to experience the bag procedure... putting them in the bag loose (so that the robot can easily fit through a 30" door...) can lead to them bumping around and breaking something else...especially with 2 sets of them...it also makes the already difficult job of carrying the robot...(with slippery plastic on it) even more difficult and unsafe.

For so many of us that have always crated before it had never been an issue. You could put bumpers in the crate with little thought to the safety issues of trying to carry the robot about with an enormous plastic bag on it.

This is a situation where the GDC or Bill should come down and say it was ok to not have the bumpers on the robot. AND that they don't count towards the withholding allowance.

I know that the question was asked in Q and A but I am not sure if anyone was thinking about the safety issues.

I would hope that they re-examine this issue and clarify it before the first competition...

Let's be safe... let's recognize that the rules may have not stated things explicitly... and let's play robots...

(By the way, our team recognized this in advance and our bumpers are in our bag...on the robot...and we are all set to go...... and I voted yes above...)

[Alex Cormier]

It's susposed to say:

*on the robot.

As in attached and can't be removed.

[TNT280Staff]

According to the forums the bumpers ARE counted in the withholding allowance if not in the bag.

GDC
Game Design Committee Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,729

Re: Withholding allowance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correct, the weight of the OPERATOR CONSOLE and the MINIBOT do not count towards the weight of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE.

BUMPERS do count towards the weight of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. How the TEAM bring them to the event is up to the TEAM.

[eedoga]

Ok, so My team was all sorts of in a panic over this one and then we really read and parsed the rules. The withholding allowance is tricky, especially if you are trying to "ride" the line. Now I feel like we didn't withhold enough.

Rule R32 says we can bring an unlimited amount of COTS items. So, basically anything in the kit of parts that is unaltered counts as a COTS item and falls under this rule, as does anything that is commercially available to all teams.

Rule R33 says 30 pounds of custom fabricated items. So we could have withheld the arm of our robot weighing 24 pounds and probably gotten away with our electronics as well. Of the 24 pounds that make up the arm, a bit of that is the 2 motors which are both COTS items and therefore don't count, as well as the linear sliders, pneumatic valves, nuts and bolts, and so on. Really with the exception of some wire, hose and the aluminum frame of the arm, not much counts against withholding.

Further this rule is incredibly difficult to enforce. Sure you could weigh the robot in its bag and subtract the weight of the bag. In our case the robot weighs just over 91 pounds out of the bag. Then you would have to weigh the custom fabricated parts we plan to put back on our robot at the event. You couldn't count any COTS items. so really that would be some wire, chain, and our bumpers. (If you really wanted to get technical you would have to not count the 8 bolts and woodnuts on the bumpers.) Can't imagine that adds up to 30 pounds given that the heaviest items withheld are all COTS items.

So lets say it does and our bumpers put us over the limit. We then have a few choices. We could bring unaltered bumper materials (COTS) and make new bumpers on site at a cost of $135 or so which is really more of a hassle than anything else, or we could set our maximum weight lower by the weight of the bumpers and lose some aspect of the robot (probably the arm or babybot deployment system) or, rebuild some part of the robot weighing the same as the bumpers from COTS parts at the venue. (Again more of a hassle and waste of money rather than anything else.) I suggest teams in this predicament just spent the money at Andy Mark and make bumpers on site...

Further what is the advantage of keeping your bumpers separate from your robot? As I see it, $135 or so dollars and 2 hours of time for a couple kids on your team. I guess that could make the difference in how many practice rounds you get...

I guess my point is this, My team is constantly striving to be as gracious and professional as we can. We work hard to give to other teams. We work hard to play fair, and we expect that other teams are doing the same. While we don't make the rules, any team that accidentally broke this rule by withholding their bumpers did not due so with the intention of getting some advantage over other teams.

Then again, if it wasn't for this thread I never would have thought about it.

Edoga

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by eedoga

Rule R33 says 30 pounds of custom fabricated items. So we could have withheld the arm of our robot weighing 24 pounds and probably gotten away with our electronics as well. Of the 24 pounds that make up the arm, a bit of that is the 2 motors which are both COTS items and therefore don't count, as well as the linear sliders, pneumatic valves, nuts and bolts, and so on. Really with the exception of some wire, hose and the aluminum frame of the arm, not much counts against withholding.

Do you really want to bring your arm into the venue as a pile of individual parts in order to get the few unmodified COTS items in without counting their weight? As soon as you connect two parts together, or cut off a bit of a part, or add a hole, it's a FABRICATED ITEM.

[wilsonmw04]

This reminds of the hullabaloo a few years ago when someone came up with the bright idea that batteries with the anderson leads attached to the batteries were "fabricated" parts.

In the 5 years my team has participated in FIRST, we have always carried our bumpers into our regional. There is nothing in this thread that would change what we have done year after year.

We are also planning on bringing enough pre-cut plywood to make 2-3 sets of bumpers (along with noodles and fabric) for those teams that might have forgotten something. Are the inspectors going to bar those from the pits? I don't think so.

[Nemo]

I find it puzzling that bumpers aren't excluded. They don't seem like the type of item the withholding allowance was designed for. The fact that bumpers are exempted from the robot's weight leads to a common sense assumption that they would be exempted from the withholding allowance weight, does it not? I can't really blame anybody for making that assumption and missing the Q&A that addresses the issue directly.

[Migriemsl]

From what we have learne the bumpers ARE included in the witholding allowance wait. We currently were having weight issues with our witholding allowance, but recently discovered they only include the weight of items that you build and have put together. For example; our mini bot when put together is about one pound but when you take the bot apart the bot's one pound doesn't count toward your witholding alliance.