2012 New York City Regional

[Marc P.]

Originally Posted by jblay

To be clear I am taking issue with the off-board compressor requiring you not to have an on-board compressor and the off-board compressor having to be powered by the robot battery. If the compressor are the same specs why does it matter? Maybe I have a misunderstanding of the rule or the scenario.

As I understand the rule in question, the idea isn't that the specs between an on or off-board compressor are the same, but that the off-board compressor is governed by the control system. Pressurizing via the control system gives the cRio the ability to shut off the compressor once the electronic pressure switch indicates appropriate pressure has been reached.

Pressurizing manually with a non-controlled compressor opens the possibility of exceeding the legal storage pressure (even if only by a slight amount before the emergency relief valve pops).

[NickTosta]

Without being able to view the deleted posts I'm not entirely sure what else is known or exactly what it is we are arguing about, but given that I was on the field the entire time I did see quite a few things.


1. The air compressor

At some point, possibly during the quarterfinals, I was standing behind one of the driver stations (I believe it was the alliance station below the scoreboard, I was waiting with our control board for the next match) when I saw a mentor or maybe a student from 522 (the RoboWizards) carrying an enormous air compressor around the field, presumably coming from the pits. At the time I knew that having an off-board air compressor was legal, so I didn't think much of it. I just kind of laughed to myself thinking "wow, they must have to keep A TON of air on-board to power that piston!"

At some point during the Semis I was standing right next to their robot, so I was able to get a good look at it. Most of the inside of their robot is dominated by an enormous air tank - this thing was like as wide as their robot and probably like 6 or 7 inches in diameter. Just an enormous black air tank. I remember asking them if that was really an air tank, and they said they needed that much air to power that huge piston on the front of their robot. I just remember shrugging it off thinking "wow, that's pretty neat, and that explains why they needed the huge air compressor."

So, basically, I can confirm that they did bring in some enormous 120v air compressor, but I am totally uncertain as to the extent that it was used.


2. The questionable balances

Once again, given that I was on the field the entire time I had an excellent view of everything that transpired.

The first balance in the quarterfinals the two long robots were on the bridge perfectly, but 522 was at that strange angle and appeared to be leaning on the side railing of the field. I was standing by the corner of the field near the robot entrance to the floor there, so I had a perfect view both of the balanced bridge, 522 leaning on the railing, and the refs inspecting the balance.

My opinion was that the bridge shouldn't have counted as balanced, as 522's bumper was up against the railing. However, I saw the refs touching 522s bumper and the railing and I think they may have thought that 522's robot wasn't actually being supported by the railing, merely that their robot had just come to rest near it. That is certainly a possibility and something I can't confirm or deny based only on that I saw it from a distance, but again, from my perspective on the floor there it looked like 522 was on the railing and the balance shouldn't have counted.

The other balance, where 522 fell off the bridge and 125 was on the railing, I don't think there is much confusion about that one. However, I can again confirm that I saw 125's bumper on top of the railing, and I would have been absolutely shocked if they counted that one.


3. GraciousPro posting from an anonymous account

Guys, sometimes (read: almost always) this community is unnecessarily hostile to an individual that wishes to express an unpopular opinion, or wants to raise a possibly valid point against a team that is generally held in high esteem. Now, because the posts have been deleted, I am unsure as to whether or not GraciousPro expressed his opinions in an unnecessarily angry or derogatory fashion. Obviously, if he did then I can understand the resistance against this anonymous account, and I would agree that the posts should be deleted depending on the severity. However, if he was merely bringing up the issue of the possibly illegal events that transpired at New York, and was doing so in a fair and level way, I don't see why it should matter that he chose to do so from an alternate account.

Again, because of the sometimes hostile response to any member "rocking the boat" so to speak, I can totally understand why he would choose to post from an alternate account. I don't think that posting from an anonymous account is a reason to discount what he is saying, though. In fact, I would argue that someone posting anonymously would be much, much more honest and open than someone posting with their real name and team name.

_______________________________________


Also, does anyone know what happened with that whole "technical timeout" called by the lead robot inspector? I am totally in the dark about what happened there.

[coldfusion1279]

Originally Posted by NickTosta

3. GraciousPro posting from an anonymous account

Guys, sometimes (read: almost always) this community is unnecessarily hostile to an individual that wishes to express an unpopular opinion, or wants to raise a possibly valid point against a team that is generally held in high esteem. Now, because the posts have been deleted, I am unsure as to whether or not GraciousPro expressed his opinions in an unnecessarily angry or derogatory fashion. Obviously, if he did then I can understand the resistance against this anonymous account, and I would agree that the posts should be deleted depending on the severity. However, if he was merely bringing up the issue of the possibly illegal events that transpired at New York, and was doing so in a fair and level way, I don't see why it should matter that he chose to do so from an alternate account.

Again, because of the sometimes hostile response to any member "rocking the boat" so to speak, I can totally understand why he would choose to post from an alternate account. I don't think that posting from an anonymous account is a reason to discount what he is saying, though. In fact, I would argue that someone posting anonymously would be much, much more honest and open than someone posting with their real name and team name.

_______________________________________


Also, does anyone know what happened with that whole "technical timeout" called by the lead robot inspector? I am totally in the dark about what happened there.

I have been following this thread since Sunday to see if these issues were brought up. I saw every one of GraciousPro's posts, and they were not hostile. Unfortunately, they made team 522 look bad, but the facts are the facts. This thread isn't an argument at all, it's a log of the unfortunate events from the regional, which nobody is arguing with. In fact, the only controversy here is caused by the deleted posts which now nobody can read. [FYI: most of the information provided by GraciousPro has now been reiterated by others in this thread, so you aren't missing anything. The reason they were deleted, as far as I can tell, is because the username is anonymous].

I was also on the field during the quarterfinal match with the questionable balance. I too saw the bumper leaning on the rail standing at the corner of the field in the RED 3 queue. Though, I was also excited that a triple balance happened. The atmosphere was electric, but IMHO, the call was incorrect and I think the atmosphere of the arena had something to do with it.

The technical time out was called so that the field admins could call FIRST to confer with them about the rules when our students brought up the question in an appropriate, polite manner.

The ungracious part was how our students were treated afterwards. They were ignored; their question never was answered, and matches resumed.

I would like to make it abundantly clear: The teams involved in the elimination matches aren't upset because we lost. The problem stems from the example that the volunteers set for our kids. It only takes one lack-luster attempt at conflict resolution like this one to poison the message that FIRST aims to send and curtail our students motivation before our next competition. The real tragedy in this whole debacle was that nobody attempted to explain the situation to our students, or even give an honest apology that the rules were not enforced as strictly as they should have been. The response we received from FIRST is quoted above in DAD1279's post.

[Madison]

To be clear, GraciousPro removed their remaining posts on their own. Given that their intention seems to be to remove everything they posted, the two posts that I hid will remain hidden.

[RoboTigers1796]

In the spirit of gracious professionalism and everything FIRST is supposed to stand for the number #3 alliance thought it was the right thing to do by bringing said situation to the attention of Head Referee,(who said he couldn’t do anything about it and we needed to find the Lead Robot Inspector on our own) Safety Advisor, and then Lead Robot Inspector. We feel it was unfair for 522, The Robowizards, to have an advantage over all the other robots in the building.
We became aware of the large compressor, who’s picture is attached below, when a member of our team accidently tripped over the extension cord running to the field while walking around the outskirts taking photos of the competition. Upon following the cords, we discovered it actually ran to the field directly connected to, and filling, 522’s robot. The compressor was set up just outside of the field divider curtain with power cords running along the floor plugged into a vacated Google Exhibitor Booth a few feet away from the arena.

Upon tripping, and bringing attention to the lines, a mentor from Team 1279 that was in the vicinity commented on the legality of the compressor to a 522 member on the field. He was greeted with harsh remarks including multiple expletives. The mentor then decided to digress from the escalation.
At that moment, we grabbed our rulebook, and brought the information to the attention of our drive coach as well as the alliance captain. What followed was a series of moral letdowns for the NYC regional, and FIRST as a whole. The Head Referee informed the alliance captain he couldn’t do anything about it, and we needed to find the Lead Robot Inspector on our own.

The lead Robot Inspector graciously rushed to the field with us to deal with the situation appropriately, but at that time the compressor was already removed from the side of the field. It is a shame that this same photographic evidence here, along with all the eyewitness accounts of the event, and a technical timeout to contact FIRST, resulted in no consequences, and the situation was almost brushed under the rug as matches carried on unaffected.
We also believe the students from the alliance handled the situation the best they could, but their professionalism went unanswered by those in a position of authority.

Considering we have to be so political on this site without the risk of being censored and frowned upon, this is Team 1796’s official account of the unfortunate series of events that unfolded at the NYC regional, written by the members directly involved.
Below is the picture of the compressor, presented to field officials, that was used to refill the tank on 522’s robot. There are more pictures but I feel only one is necessary. Above all else, the sheer size and power of this thing filling an FRC robot should have been a huge safety concern to everyone at the competition, and not brushed off as a silly rule.

It is a shame; this was the first regional for 25 of our 32 members on the team. And after speaking so highly of the respect, gracious professionalism, and honesty of the FIRST Robotics Competition, we were embarrassed to have to explain this situation as well as the lack of a resolution to all of our students.
Since FIRST’s stance on this is what’s done is done, Team 1796 will also move on; we can simply only hope similar situations will be handled more appropriately in the future. We are looking forward to SBPLI and seeing new friends, like 1279, there. With the hopes that you did not know what was happening on your alliance, huge congrats to 1635 and 125 for their win, the matches got pretty close and were very competitive. Best of luck in St. Louis.

[Will_C640]

Wow all this happened at NYC? so much for GP , how about we all start breaking the rules now!

-1796, 1279 great way of shining light on this injustice, hopefully in other regional or years to come FIRST puts things in order so something like this does not happen again!

[jblay]---> Really silly rules?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by RoboTigers1796

It is a shame that this same photographic evidence here, along with all the eyewitness accounts of the event, and a technical timeout to contact FIRST, resulted in no consequences, and the situation was almost brushed under the rug as matches carried on unaffected.

Assuming that at least one official observed the offending compressor feeding the robot, there should have been plenty of grounds to act.

[R73] is abundantly clear: "Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot." Even though the rule is largely useless (if the pressure and composition of what's in the tanks is appropriate, all this rule does is impose a limitation and additional complexity regarding the way it's delivered), in this rare instance, with a huge tank, the ability of the off-robot compressor to operate continuously might have been meaningful as a design constraint. In that sense, this is the case where it's most important to enforce that rule strictly.

The head referee undoubtedly has the authority to enforce the rules during gameplay. Even if they didn't feel it appropriate to make the call before the match, if 522 placed their robot on the field containing air supplied by that compressor, the team was in violation of [R73]. The referee could then invoke [G01] at the start of the match, and disable 522. Having to sit quietly in the key during the finals ought to be punishment enough.

Indeed, the lead inspector might have had a more lenient option: to have the team dump the offending air and proceed to the match. But failure to comply with that would have been a more serious violation (of [T03], which would exclude 522 from the match entirely). And flouting of the inspector's ruling and playing anyway would have been a red card for the entire alliance.

So there were definitely a lot of ways to deal with the situation.

Originally Posted by RoboTigers1796

Above all else, the sheer size and power of this thing filling an FRC robot should have been a huge safety concern to everyone at the competition, and not brushed off as a silly rule.

The rule actually is a little bit silly. As for safety (not a silly issue), it can be dealt with ordinary precautions like FRC-compliant relief valves.

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

......
The rule actually is a little bit silly. As for safety (not a silly issue), it can be dealt with ordinary precautions like FRC-compliant relief valves.

I'm truly concerned with this attitude in the FIRST community. Some rules are there for safety, others are design constraints. Without climbing into the minds of the GDC, the reason behind an individual rule is unknown. However, teams are given the rulebook as a design constraint. This competition is often compared to a real-live engineering project. Don't design to the specifications, you won't get the job.

The second line of the FRC Inspection Checklist in the Pneumatics section: Compressor - Only one KOP compressor (or equivalent, max 1.05 CFM flow rate) may be used (on or off robot). <R73>

The bottom text of the FRC Inspection Checklist:
We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built after the 2012 Kickoff on January7, 2012 and in accordance with all of the 2012 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. We have conducted our own inspection and determined that our robot satisfies all of the 2012 FRC rules for robot design.


FIRST relies heavily on each team's own honor and moral compass to do what is right. It is up to a team's leaders (student or adult) to take a notification that they have broken a rule and turn it into a moment to demonstrate the principles of sportsmanship and fair play.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

I'm truly concerned with this attitude in the FIRST community. Some rules are there for safety, others are design constraints. Without climbing into the minds of the GDC, the reason behind an individual rule is unknown. However, teams are given the rulebook as a design constraint. This competition is often compared to a real-live engineering project. Don't design to the specifications, you won't get the job.

The second line of the FRC Inspection Checklist in the Pneumatics section: Compressor - Only one KOP compressor (or equivalent, max 1.05 CFM flow rate) may be used (on or off robot). <R73>

The bottom text of the FRC Inspection Checklist:
We, the Team Mentor and Team Captain, attest by our signing below, that our team’s robot was built after the 2012 Kickoff on January7, 2012 and in accordance with all of the 2012 FRC rules, including all Fabrication Schedule rules. We have conducted our own inspection and determined that our robot satisfies all of the 2012 FRC rules for robot design.


FIRST relies heavily on each team's own honor and moral compass to do what is right. It is up to a team's leaders (student or adult) to take a notification that they have broken a rule and turn it into a moment to demonstrate the principles of sportsmanship and fair play.

I wouldn't be so fast to throw Tristan under the bus. He made absolutely no mention of breaking the rule, but rather just of his opinion (that agrees with that of many) on this seemingly needless rule.

[Bill Tompkins]

This will be my only post, and I am only going to comment on the rules and the need to comply with them.

[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot.

• Whether or not anyone feels these are valid or needed rules they are in fact, the rules. Rules are put in place by FIRST for the safety of everyone and to keep the matches competitive. In NASCAR you could go faster and further with a bigger engine and fuel tank but it is against the rules. You are given a bunch of parts and set of restrains (rules). You are then asked to build a robot and compete in adherence of these rules. This is the game.

• Relief Valves (16-004-011) help prevent over-charging but too often these do not work probably and can be tampered with. As part of the robot’s inspection the safety Relief Valve is checked. However, it can be changed easily with a wrench. In addition, the Relief Valve does have limitations in its ability to release pressure. If you are adding pressure faster than the Relief Valve can release it then you have an explosion. A FIRST specification for on-board and off-board compressors is 1.05cfm. The picture of the compressor shown in this thread has 4 to 5 times that flow rate. The Relief Valve and pneumatics systems used in FRC are designed to safely operate at the 1.05 flow rate. Exceeding this could be dangerous.

• A feedback path to the robot is required in order to shut the compressor down when the pressure gets too high. The Pressure Switch (SM-2B-115R/443) is designed to electrically open at 115psi and close at 95psi. This is also checked at the robot inspection. However, without feedback to the off-board compressor the entire volume of the compressor could be dump into the robot at high pressure and rate.

• Pressure gages have been known to stick. They are mechanical in nature and sometimes malfunction. This is the reason for the secondary protection of the Pressure Switch and the Relief Valve and the need to have feedback to any off-board sources. Just visually watching an air gage and assuming the pressure reading is correct is inherently dangerous.

• Items not part of the KOP are required to be inspected for compliance to the rules and safety. If an off-board compressor not part of the KOP were to be used it should have been inspected, its operation demonstrated, noted on the inspection sheet and would become part of the BOM. It also becomes part of the maximum unit cost restriction.

Sorry, the second sentence should have read, "If a compressor not part of the KOP were to be used it should be inspected, its operation demonstrated, noted on the inspection sheet and would become part of the BOM. "

• When charging the air tanks the battery is drained. The larger the on-board air storage capacity the larger the drain on the battery and the longer it takes to charge the tank. This is a design consideration trade-off. You choose to have the added air capacity knowing your battery and air charge time will be inhibited. This is the reason why off-board compressors need to run of the robot’s battery. Not doing so gives a team an unfair advantage.

Answering a question in one of the responses, Yes, you do have the option of changing batteries between matches (assuming you have them available).

• The time periods between finals matches are timed. You have the option of using timeouts if additional time is required. If your robot cannot be serviced in this allowed time period then you just have to do the best you can. This goes for everything from broken wheels and chains to battery changes and air charging. The design trade-off mentioned above gives you more air to work with on the field but lengthens your air charging time. Given the short time period between finals matches you may not have the time to fully charge you tanks. However, supplementing this with an additional air source is a violation of the [R73].

• "Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor". This part of the rule is pretty clear.

In closing, this “seemingly needless rule” is designed to keep things safe and competitive. We can debate (which I am not) whether breaking this and other rules gave a team an unfair advantage or whether they could have won without it. The fact is, having a secondary compressor on the field does violate the rules for all the reason mentioned above.

‘On the field’, the LRI reports to the FTA and the Head Referee about safety concerns and rules violations. If in question, the LRI could request a re-inspection of the Robot, gather materials needed to support a claim, request documentation of parts used, review the team’s BOM and check the team’s initial inspection report. When findings are complete the LRI then reports back to the FTA and Head Referee. In situations where a team has violated a rule or ruling multiple times the problem would probably be elevated to FIRST HQ. However in the end, the Head Referee has the last word on the field.

[Ninja_Bait]

But look, what if I am a particularly eco-friendly team? I want to use a hand pump to fill my tanks pre-match, though I have a KOP compressor onboard. I never fill my tanks above 120 psi, the system is completely legal otherwise (it has the release valve, is not above the max capacity of the compressor, etc.). In short, I have followed the spirit of the rules in staying equal to all other teams, but I have not followed the letter of the rules. Why should something like this be illegal?

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Bait

But look, what if I am a particularly eco-friendly team? I want to use a hand pump to fill my tanks pre-match, though I have a KOP compressor onboard. I never fill my tanks above 120 psi, the system is completely legal otherwise (it has the release valve, is not above the max capacity of the compressor, etc.). In short, I have followed the spirit of the rules in staying equal to all other teams, but I have not followed the letter of the rules. Why should something like this be illegal?

Your eco-friendly team would ask for a clarification through the Q&A system: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...c/game-q-and-a

[Bill Tompkins]

The full [R73] text:

[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot.

If an alternative compressor is used, the team may be required to provide documentation to show compliance with the performance specifications.

The only difference between an on- and off-board compressor is that the off-board compressor is physically removed from the Robot. The intent of this rule is to permit teams to take advantage of the weight savings associated with keeping the compressor off-board. However, using the compressor off-board of the Robot does NOT permit non-compliance with any other applicable rules.

The compressor may be mounted on the Robot, or it may be left off the Robot and used to pre-charge compressed air in the storage tanks prior to bringing the Robot onto the Court.

[RoboTigers1796]

Bill brings up some very eye-opening points.
I am highly disappointed to see some of the comments here. Although you may not be intentionally giving this opinion, those who are brushing it off as a silly rule, or looking for ways to justify it with ridiculous examples of manual air pumps- you are defending a robot that won while breaking clearly written rules, and then condoning them after the fact.
We need to remove our personal opinions on these rules, that haven't changed much in FRC for at least 4 years, and simply accept them as rules.
By saying this rule isn't a big deal, you are condoning illegal actions, that gave a team (that competed against most of you here!), an unfair advantage over your own robots.

If you really have an issue with a rule, write a carefully worded letter to FIRST after the season and argue your point for a change in rules the following year. NOT decide to take things into your own hands and decide the rule is dumb so carry on doing whatever you want to do anyway during an already announced FRC season.

Exactly as Dad has said, whether we like them or not, and if we stop trying to pretend we know the intention behind the GDC's decision for the rules they make, we are left with the clear cut realization that in order to fairly compete in FRC, we need to follow all of the restraints they lay out. Despite how much we may disagree with them.
For example, our team didn't LIKE the 8" bumper rule this year, but rules are rules and we complied.
I personally don't LIKE the rule that emphasizes that bumper numbers cant be broken up across an intake opening (how silly is that) but we complied to satisfy the restraints set forth by the GDC for the 2012 game.

What we want and what we like has nothing to do with this situation. The rules that are presented to you in life are just that, rules, and whether we like them or not we follow them or face the consequences. Regrettably in this situation, 522 chose to break the rules even after being informed, just in the rare case they didn't know, and were not faced with any consequences. In fact they were instead awarded for it, with a regional banner.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Bill Tompkins

This will be my only post, and I am only going to comment on the rules and the need to comply with them.

[R73] Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor. Compressor specifications may not exceed nominal 12V, 1.05 cfm flow rate, 120 psi maximum working pressure. Off-board compressors must be controlled and powered by the Robot.

• Whether or not anyone feels these are valid or needed rules they are in fact, the rules. Rules are put in place by FIRST for the safety of everyone and to keep the matches competitive. In NASCAR you could go faster and further with a bigger engine and fuel tank but it is against the rules. You are given a bunch of parts and set of restrains (rules). You are then asked to build a robot and compete in adherence of these rules. This is the game.

• Relief Valves (16-004-011) help prevent over-charging but too often these do not work probably and can be tampered with. As part of the robot’s inspection the safety Relief Valve is checked. However, it can be changed easily with a wrench. In addition, the Relief Valve does have limitations in its ability to release pressure. If you are adding pressure faster than the Relief Valve can release it then you have an explosion. A FIRST specification for on-board and off-board compressors is 1.05cfm. The picture of the compressor shown in this thread has 4 to 5 times that flow rate. The Relief Valve and pneumatics systems used in FRC are designed to safely operate at the 1.05 flow rate. Exceeding this could be dangerous.

• A feedback path to the robot is required in order to shut the compressor down when the pressure gets too high. The Pressure Switch (SM-2B-115R/443) is designed to electrically open at 115psi and close at 95psi. This is also checked at the robot inspection. However, without feedback to the off-board compressor the entire volume of the compressor could be dump into the robot at high pressure and rate.

• Pressure gages have been known to stick. They are mechanical in nature and sometimes malfunction. This is the reason for the secondary protection of the Pressure Switch and the Relief Valve and the need to have feedback to any off-board sources. Just visually watching an air gage and assuming the pressure reading is correct is inherently dangerous.

• Items not part of the KOP are required to be inspected for compliance to the rules and safety. If an off-board compressor not part of the KOP were to be used it should have been inspected, its operation demonstrated, noted on the inspection sheet and would become part of the BOM. It also becomes part of the maximum unit cost restriction.

• When charging the air tanks the battery is drained. The larger the on-board air storage capacity the larger the drain on the battery and the longer it takes to charge the tank. This is a design consideration trade-off. You choose to have the added air capacity knowing your battery and air charge time will be inhibited. This is the reason why off-board compressors need to run of the robot’s battery. Not doing so gives a team an unfair advantage.

• The time periods between finals matches are timed. You have the option of using timeouts if additional time is required. If your robot cannot be serviced in this allowed time period then you just have to do the best you can. This goes for everything from broken wheels and chains to battery changes and air charging. The design trade-off mentioned above gives you more air to work with on the field but lengthens your air charging time. Given the short time period between finals matches you may not have the time to fully charge you tanks. However, supplementing this with an additional air source is a violation of the [R73].

• "Compressed air on the Robot must be provided by one and only one compressor". This part of the rule is pretty clear.

In closing, this “seemingly needless rule” is designed to keep things safe and competitive. We can debate (which I am not) whether breaking this and other rules gave a team an unfair advantage or whether they could have won without it. The fact is, having a secondary compressor on the field does violate the rules for all the reason mentioned above.

While many of these things are substantially accurate, I think there is some question about the degree to which this is intended as a design constraint, the degree to which it merely functions as one, and the degree to which it is actually useful. Also, it isn't clear when FIRST is demanding something for safety reasons, and when they're doing it for competitive reasons (or the degree to which both considerations are represented).

As a design constraint, this is of limited effectiveness. After all, if you really wanted to, you could swap out spare tanks already pre-charged with the requisite quantity of pressurized air (from the KOP compressor) and overcome the delay. (If they're true spares, they don't violate the module rule. This assumes that stored air is not a robot part for the purposes of the rules.)

And to come to think of it, if you wanted to run a legal off-board compressor at a higher flow rate or pressure, the rules don't actually prohibit it. (Assume the robot on the field and at inspection is otherwise legal. If the air was provided by a device with the proper nominal specifications, it is legal—the restriction is not on the actual performance of the device at the time of filling.) So you could theoretically immerse the compressor in a bath of cold distilled water (properly protecting the intake, of course), operate it at 24 V (under robot control), and see what happens. Note also that during filling, the robot is neither competing nor being inspected, so it would be tough to argue that it must meet the robot rules at that moment.

In terms of battery capacity, an untold number of teams trivially overcome that by installing a fresh battery prior to every match, but after filling their tanks.

As for safety, that's a matter of pressure and flow. The flow is principally determined by the geometry of various components. While the compressor might be able to supply that much, what's the actual flow given the orifice sizes provided by a legal FRC on-board pneumatic system? Does that exceed what's safely releasable by the relief valve? (I realize that the inspectors are rarely in a position to determine these things exactly—and the rule effectively avoids dealing with that uncertainty. But that's different from a particular robot actually being unsafe.)

The valve we use (Norgren 16-004-011) can release up to 5 scfm when set in the range dictated by FRC. That's in the ballpark of what that compressor is likely capable of (indeed it's probably less for continuous duty at high pressure like that). And even if the relief valve is misconfigured, the highest it can be set is 150 lb/in²—it will pop at that point.

In terms of pressure, with a typical industrial compressor, there's an adjustable relieving regulator built in (or at least a relief valve set for a high pressure). If present, this must fail or be set incorrectly for a safety issue to arise. Lacking the regulator, the system indeed depends on the robot's relief valve.

Lacking the relief valve (which should have been noticed at inspection), we're now depending on the strength of the components. As far as I know, all of the mandatory components on the high pressure side of the FRC pneumatic system are rated to around 250 lb/in² to 300 lb/in² working pressure at room temperature, and are designed with additional margin. And when they do fail, a true explosion is unlikely—more often a seam or tube will burst, venting the pressure. (And what's the likelihood that that compressor can hit 250 lb/in², at any reasonable flow rate, and for a sustained period?) Team-supplied tanks, especially the PVC ones, may not have quite this margin of error—so in that case, maybe the issue of safety has more traction. (But let's not forget that this rule predates the introduction of PVC tanks into FRC, so probably wasn't intended to address them.)

As for the pressure gauges, they depend on having an operator to monitor them, and do (occasionally) fail in a way that is non-obvious to the operator. You wouldn't want to rely on a pressure gauge if it was the only thing keeping the system from going out of its safe limits.

Putting that all together, what's the most likely failure mode for truly unsafe operation using an illegal off-board compressor? A poorly equipped compressor (no regulator or built-in relief valve), an operator not paying attention or ignoring warning signs (or gauges missing entirely, and no clue about aural cues from compressor), a missing relief valve (or a very slow fill with the valve venting the whole way), and non-KOP components that fail unsafely at unusually low pressures. And then they have to do this without being noticed.

To me, that's too implausible to presume that the off-robot compressor rule exists as a meaningful safety measure.

Also, I would definitely call into question the idea that an industrial compressor (not present during matches) is a robot part subject to cost accounting restrictions. Is a battery charger subject to those same restrictions?

In summary, I think this rule is enforceable and valid, but doesn't do anything appreciable as a safety feature or as a limit on robot performance. That's why it's silly.