2012 New York City Regional

[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.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I've gotten a few PMs questioning my integrity and the integrity of my team. Seriously? I was ready to let this thread go but now I think I'll chip in a bit more.

Here's the bottom line. Don't cheat. My team doesn't, nor should yours.

However, I believe we should encourage open discussion about the merit of these rules and whether they are actually helping to improve safety and experience for teams. There are obviously opinions on both sides, but a valid defense for the upkeep of a rule is NOT "this is the way it is, deal with it". This viewpoint is incredibly unscientific and hinders forward progress.

Questioning merit behind a rule does not condone breaking it. I don't know how people are confusing this.

Originally Posted by RoboTigers1796

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.

Wow, I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to do come up with this statement. This is completely illogical. You can ABSOLUTELY question a rule, and still follow it. How can you expect things to get better if people don't do this?

Originally Posted by RoboTigers1796

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.

Once again, I don't think anyone who has expressed that they think the rule is silly has broken it. Don't accuse people of things.

[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.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

I've gotten a few PMs questioning my integrity and the integrity of my team. Seriously?

Seriously?

Originally Posted by 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.

Just like Tom said, I've got no special love for cheating. Quite the opposite, in fact, though I absolutely like creative solutions that go right to the edge of what's legal. But I think I was pretty clear: if these accounts of 522's actions are correct, they had no justification within the rules.

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

......
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.
.......

Interesting analysis, but I contend the rules actually would prohibit 24 volt operation:
[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.
[R36]The only legal source of electrical energy for the Robot during the competition is one MK ES17-12 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery, or one EnerSys NP 18-12 battery, as provided in the 2012 KOP. This is the only battery allowed on the Robot.


ie; Compressor must be powered by robot, 12V battery. I will, however, keep the water-cooling in mind if there ever is a water game....

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

Interesting analysis, but I contend the rules actually would prohibit 24 volt operation:
[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.
[R36]The only legal source of electrical energy for the Robot during the competition is one MK ES17-12 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery, or one EnerSys NP 18-12 battery, as provided in the 2012 KOP. This is the only battery allowed on the Robot.


ie; Compressor must be powered by robot, 12V battery. I will, however, keep the water-cooling in mind if there ever is a water game....

All I'm saying is that the rules can't reasonably be enforced against robots that are neither playing nor being inspected—otherwise all sorts of robots undergoing maintenance would be illegal. (That was sort of a crazy example of the implications of that stance—but even if a team was crazy enough to try it, it would make essentially no difference to the competition.)

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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............

Again I believe the rules do prohibit it.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

All I'm saying is that the rules can't reasonably be enforced against robots that are neither playing nor being inspected......

As long as we agree while rules can't be enforced, they can't be broken. It's a fine line....

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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.......................

...........Just like Tom said, I've got no special love for cheating. Quite the opposite, in fact, though I absolutely like creative solutions that go right to the edge of what's legal.

Swapping pre-charged tanks.....now that's a creative, and probably legal solution.....

[RoboTigers1796]

Tristan and Tom,
I apologize for your integrity being questioned. I assure you questioning either of yours integrity , 254 is an elite team and one I would never question.
My post was not directed at anyone in particular,in fact I intentionally attempted to generalize it as much as possible and speak hypothetically as to not implicate anyone while trying to make my point. Clearly, it was taken as the opposite; for that I apologize. My entire post was hypothetical, only questioning the ethics of the one team that I named, and anyone who stood to support their actions.

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

However, I believe we should encourage open discussion about the merit of these rules... "this is the way it is, deal with it". This viewpoint is incredibly unscientific and hinders forward progress.

I completely agree that anything in life you have the ability to change, and should change, if there is a better way to do it.
It was just this discussion was taking place in a thread where facts were being shared about a team that broke the rule and were not reprimanded for it.
From an outside perspective, the argument for the use of an over-powered off board compressors in this thread, seemed to be supporting the actions of 522 at the NYC regional, who chose to use one even though it was not legal this year. The transitory relationship was made by the huge situation that unfolded in NYC with the use of an off-board compressor, and this being the 2012 NYC regional thread discussing the events of that day.

That was the perspective I was seeing it from, and it was inappropriate in my eyes to be attempting to stand behind a team that cheated. You were simply taking advantage of the events to discuss the need for a specific rule, which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. I now see that was not your specific intention, as for the other poster's comments, I do not know.

Questioning merit behind a rule does not condone breaking it. I don't know how people are confusing this.

The only reason it was confused was for the reason stated above. That was the connection I was making to it, and not to speak for others, but possibly the way they were seeing it also.

Wow, I don't know what kind of mental gymnastics you had to do come up with this statement. This is completely illogical. You can ABSOLUTELY question a rule, and still follow it. How can you expect things to get better if people don't do this?

The discussion of the importance of the rule in this specific thread could easily be mistaken as an attempt to defend the rule breaking.

For example, if a separate thread was created, "need for restrictions of off-board compressors" I would have viewed the discussion completely differently, and as you said, be open to discussing if it is really necessary to have so many restrictions on the refilling of storage tanks on the robot before a match. I admit, it is tedious in eliminations to rush off the field, tether, refill the tanks, and then get ready for the upcoming match. Admittedly, i probably would have partook in the discussion openly.

Once again, I don't think anyone who has expressed that they think the rule is silly has broken it. Don't accuse people of things.

Once again, only directed towards anyone that was posting here in an attempt to brush off the actions taken at the NYC regional.
I should have clarified more clearly so that you wouldn't get offended so quickly.

To conclude, I apologize to anyone who felt my post was directed at those who were simply trying to discuss the need for a specific rule; but I do not retract my statements for anyone attempting to defend 522's actions.
The discussion of the meaning and need for a rule should always be allowed and encouraged to continuously better the FIRST Robotics Competition.

In all honesty, I, and my entire team, has moved past the situation. We are not upset, or anything close to it. We simply wanted to support what others were saying as to the event actually happening, and we happened to have a first hand interaction with what occurred. Like I said in my original post, I fully congratulate the winning alliance and move forward with no bad taste in my mouth for anyone involved. We very much enjoyed our entire time at the NYC Regional, all the way up to cheering for the alliance that eliminated us throughout their finals matches.
I simply wanted to back-up my statements and partake in a casual conversation on what occurred.