Go to Post Why is it considered shameful to do the smart thing? As the saying goes, "I don't make the rules, I just live by them." - Chris Hibner [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > Rumor Mill
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-01-2013, 20:00
Alan2338's Avatar
Alan2338 Alan2338 is offline
Former Team Leader/Driver - Alumni
AKA: Alan Cabiness
FRC #2338 (Gear it Forward)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 48
Alan2338 will become famous soon enough
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

I know our team would rather have the larger size, and we are running into a lot of space problems this year. I think the large size should be ok to use, but maybe suggest that new teams don't build big unless they can handle it. Whether constraint be time, money, resources, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-01-2013, 20:35
PayneTrain's Avatar
PayneTrain PayneTrain is offline
Trickle-Down CMP Allocation
AKA: Lizard King
FRC #0422 (The Meme Tech Pneumatic Devices)
Team Role: Mascot
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: RVA
Posts: 2,237
PayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond reputePayneTrain has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

A tangible benefit to the smaller robot sizes is not having to shove a bumper-mounted, bagged and tagged, 28"x38" robot through a standard door.

In the competition, this will cause much larger variety in design and strategy, something one could say was sorely needed after the last 3 or 4 years.
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-01-2013, 22:04
Unsung FIRST Hero
Al Skierkiewicz Al Skierkiewicz is offline
Broadcast Eng/Chief Robot Inspector
AKA: Big Al WFFA 2005
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 10,766
Al Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Please note that bumpers are no longer required to be bagged. However, as pointed out above, 28" dimensions have ruled in the past to allow robots to move through standard 32" doors. If the GDC had wanted to make smaller robots, reducing the weight would have helped achieve that in many teams. Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.

Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not build to 28 x 28 and expect the frame perimeter to end up less than or equal to 112". Experienced teams will be building at least 1/4" less in every dimension to insure no problems during inspection.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-01-2013, 22:38
Bill_B Bill_B is offline
You cannot not make a difference
FRC #2170
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,099
Bill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond reputeBill_B has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

I think the size reduction this year has more to do with reducing the possibility of robots being able to legally impede the passage of the other alliance's robots as they seek to get past the pyramids. Couple the perimeter limit with the 54" cylinder to see why I think so. Also the creation of the update which shows the pyramids surrounded by a graphic boundary gives more support for my flow restriction theory.
__________________
Nature's Fury FLL team 830 - F L eLements
FRC team 2170 - Titanium Tomahawks
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 12:42
Andy A. Andy A. is offline
Getting old
FRC #0095
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,013
Andy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
Not thinking about the 28" max dimension but concentrating on the 112" perimeter might give you a hint.
My impression was that the new perimeter rule was at least partially driven by a desire to eliminate the sizing box as a choke point in the inspection process. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The cynical part of me thinks the 'string around the 'bot' method has some room for error and ambiguity the sizing box did not. You're advice about designing well under the spec is hopefully heeded.

As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 12:54
MrForbes's Avatar
MrForbes MrForbes is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jim
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 5,952
MrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy A. View Post
As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.
Sounds good, until you are inspecting rookie robots Thursday morning that weigh 30 pounds too much, instead of just ten pounds too much
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 15:14
Calvin Hartley's Avatar
Calvin Hartley Calvin Hartley is offline
Registered User
FRC #4967 (That ONE Team)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 513
Calvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud ofCalvin Hartley has much to be proud of
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy A. View Post
As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.
I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.
__________________

FRC 4967 That ONE Team 2013-Present, Founder, CAD/Everything Mentor
FRC 2771 Code Red Robotics 2012 and 2013 Drive Team, 2014 Drive Coach, Executive Leadership
FLL Team member 2005-2010, LEGO In Paradise,
FLL Mentor 2009-Present Paradise Teams (nine teams)
FLL Coach 2014-Present - The Lightning Bugs



Gracious Professionalism isn't a set of rules to follow, it's an attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 15:42
waialua359's Avatar
waialua359 waialua359 is offline
Mentor
AKA: Glenn
FRC #0359 (Hawaiian Kids)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Waialua, HI
Posts: 3,295
waialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond reputewaialua359 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy A. View Post
As long as we're sort of talking about it, am I the only one who would appreciate a weight reduction (of the robot)? 150lbs is quite a bit to expect teenagers to safely move around, frequently in a hurry. 100lbs would be a nice round number for the dry 'bot weight, which puts the wet weight at around 130lbs assuming the same battery and bumper rules. Sounds a bit more reasonable.
I'm not sure I would like such a rule change.
Given that the field size is still the same, robot parts in general aren't going to be lighter, and the already smaller footprint.....its tough enough as it is trying to make weight.
__________________

2016 Hawaii Regional #1 seed, IDesign, Safety Award
2016 NY Tech Valley Regional Champions, #1 seed, Innovation in Controls Award
2016 Lake Superior Regional Champions, #1 seed, Quality Award, Dean's List
2015 FRC Worlds-Carver Division Champions
2015 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed.
2015 Australia Regional Champions, #2 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2015 Inland Empire Regional Champions, #1 seed, Industrial Design Award
2014 OZARK Mountain Brawl Champions, #1 seed.
2014 Hawaii Regional Champions, #1 seed, UL Safety Award
2014 Dallas Regional Champions, #1 seed, Engineering Excellence Award
2014 Northern Lights Regional Champions, #1 seed, Entrepreneurship Award
2013 Championship Dean's List Winner
2013 Utah Regional Champion, #1 seed, KP&B Award, Deans List
2013 Boilermaker Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Lone Star Regional Champion, #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
2012 Hawaii Regional Champions #1 seed, Motorola Quality Award
Reply With Quote
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 15:45
TD78 TD78 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Tom Dolan
FRC #0078 (AIR Strike)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Middletown, RI
Posts: 361
TD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant futureTD78 has a brilliant future
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Smaller robots might mean more robots on the field at the same time. Something for the future?
__________________


FRC78: 2010-Present
FRC121: 2002-2009
Reply With Quote
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 16:00
billbo911's Avatar
billbo911 billbo911 is offline
I prefer you give a perfect effort.
AKA: That's "Mr. Bill"
FRC #2073 (EagleForce)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Elk Grove, Ca.
Posts: 2,348
billbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond reputebillbo911 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

I think the smaller size is directly related to this year's challenge.

Think about it, if we had a 28" X 38" limit this year, 180 deg shooters would be easy to design and mount. Disk pickup and manipulation through the robot would not be nearly as challenging. Lifting systems would be just as much of a challenge, but still would have more room to work within.

The GDC did an amazing job with this year's challenge.
Honestly, I see no reason to keep a 112" perimeter limit in the future.... unless it makes the game a real challenge.
__________________
CalGames 2009 Autonomous Champion Award winner
Sacramento 2010 Creativity in Design winner, Sacramento 2010 Quarter finalist
2011 Sacramento Finalist, 2011 Madtown Engineering Inspiration Award.
2012 Sacramento Semi-Finals, 2012 Sacramento Innovation in Control Award, 2012 SVR Judges Award.
2012 CalGames Autonomous Challenge Award winner ($$$).
2014 2X Rockwell Automation: Innovation in Control Award (CVR and SAC). Curie Division Gracious Professionalism Award.
2014 Capital City Classic Winner AND Runner Up. Madtown Throwdown: Runner up.
2015 Innovation in Control Award, Sacramento.
2016 Chezy Champs Finalist, 2016 MTTD Finalist
Reply With Quote
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 16:06
Unsung FIRST Hero
Al Skierkiewicz Al Skierkiewicz is offline
Broadcast Eng/Chief Robot Inspector
AKA: Big Al WFFA 2005
FRC #0111 (WildStang)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Wheeling, IL
Posts: 10,766
Al Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond reputeAl Skierkiewicz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Andy,
The sizing box was no more of a choke point than weighing. It also was a rather visual declaration to other teams that your robot made size. It either fits or it doesn't just like it is either 120 lbs or it is too heavy.

Cal,
While it may work for your team now, a smaller drive person may really struggle in the future. Realistically, we are asking students to lift 75 lbs. about 26 times minimum over a three day period. Pulled muscles and back pain is a real result. I have been concerned about the weight for a while and I only lift it a few times during build.
__________________
Good Luck All. Learn something new, everyday!
Al
WB9UVJ
www.wildstang.org
________________________
Storming the Tower since 1996.
Reply With Quote
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 16:26
Gary Dillard's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Gary Dillard Gary Dillard is offline
Generator of Entropy
AKA: you know, the old bald guy
FRC #2973 (The Mad Rockers)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 1,581
Gary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond reputeGary Dillard has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Gary Dillard
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz View Post
Oh, while we are on the subject, please do not build to 28 x 28 and expect the frame perimeter to end up less than or equal to 112". Experienced teams will be building at least 1/4" less in every dimension to insure no problems during inspection.
Yes, but this year if you're 1/4" over you only need to take 1/4" off of a corner (actually only .707*1/4"), not an entire side of a robot. It's much easier to run up to the limit.

(As long as you can make the 1" bumper support at each end somehow - still haven't figured out how that works for sides that are <8", a chamfered corner, for example)
__________________
Close enough to taste it, too far to reach it
Reply With Quote
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 21:10
MrForbes's Avatar
MrForbes MrForbes is offline
Registered User
AKA: Jim
FRC #1726 (N.E.R.D.S.)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 5,952
MrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond reputeMrForbes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Dillard View Post
Yes, but this year if you're 1/4" over you only need to take 1/4" off of a corner (actually only .707*1/4"), not an entire side of a robot.
I'm glad someone else noticed that
Reply With Quote
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 21:56
Andy A. Andy A. is offline
Getting old
FRC #0095
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,013
Andy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond reputeAndy A. has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin Hartley View Post
I'm happy with the current weight restrictions,* and moving it hasn't been a problem for me/my team, provided we do it safely. If a team is conceerned about not being able to lift a 150 pound robot safely, then they should design their robot to be lighter. The end result of a self-imposed weight limit would be exactly the same as a FIRST-imposed weight ruling.

*Granted, I wouldn't mind a higher weight restriction, but I certainly don't have a problem with it being too high.
As Al already pointed out the robot weight is nothing to sneeze at. A self imposed weight limit would simply put you at a disadvantage in the game, so it really isn't at all the same as a game rule.

I've worked in a warehouse setting and 80lbs was the most you were ever expected to lift on your own. That was, effectively, for grown men accustomed to lifting heavy loads. That's a pretty typical number from what I've seen, and workplace injuries from lifting heavy loads are still common (why OSHA hasn't set some regulations on this is beyond me).

150lbs has got to be the upper limit. Any higher and a robot simply can not be safely borne by two highschool students, and I suspect FIRST already recognizes this. A return to the ~130lb loaded weight would be a big step in the right direction. Since FIRST won't go back to no bumpers, and realistically the battery isn't going to change, that weight would have to come out of the robot. Oh well. Teams are always going to be busting the weight cap no matter where you set it, and will always complain that if only they had X more lbs to play with they could have done Y.

I'd just be happier if the dressed robot didn't weigh more then 90% of my teenage students, is all.

Last edited by Andy A. : 25-01-2013 at 00:31.
Reply With Quote
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2013, 22:21
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Thoughts on whether the size change will be permanent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy A. View Post
My impression was that the new perimeter rule was at least partially driven by a desire to eliminate the sizing box as a choke point in the inspection process. It will be interesting to see how it goes. The cynical part of me thinks the 'string around the 'bot' method has some room for error and ambiguity the sizing box did not.
Getting rid of the inspection box may well free up a bit of extra pit space in the more tightly-packed venues (the Waterloos of the world), and simplifies inspectors' logistics. But I suspect that the decision was also driven by the design of the boxes themselves.

The tolerancing on the sizing boxes was done incorrectly from the outset. They should have been designed and constructed with a geometric tolerance that inherently passes all legal robots, even given the degree of dimensional uncertainty in manufacturing the box.

Instead, the sizing boxes as delivered to events were occasionally undersized in places. Although FIRST's eventual change from the ratcheting strap on the shipping cart (which caused the front frame of the sizing box to bend like an hourglass), to a locking hard case saved them from wear and tear, in the first few years of those sizing boxes, on more than one occasion, the inspectors had to use brute force and/or fabricate gussets to expand the sizing box to an acceptable plus tolerance. (I believe the worst one I ever dealt with was about 0.15 in undersized in one corner, and 0.20 in undersized right down the middle.) All so that teams that built their robot with an ill-advisedly fine minus tolerance could (correctly) pass inspection with a minimum of delay.

All things being equal, it's better to risk passing a slightly oversized (illegal) robot than to risk failing a slightly undersized (legal) one. After all, the inspection apparatus are the embodiment of FIRST's rules; if the boxes are not designed to ensure that every legal robot will pass, teams will lose confidence in the apparently lackadaisical attention to specifications, and believe that the size restrictions are suggestions rather than hard limits. That makes the job harder for the inspectors, and in the long run, harder for FIRST as well. Next time they need a sizing box (or similar), they should consult with an engineer who works in gauge design for manufacturing.

The point of that anecdote is to illustrate why I suspect that FIRST decided that the sizing boxes were an unsustainable investment. They're probably worth well over $1 000 each, and you need one in good repair for every field set (of which there are probably 15 by now). Even if you realize that some of them are out of spec, it's hard to justify the cost of replacing them all. If you only fix the dimensions on the new ones, then some regionals get differently-enforced rules. This decision saves FIRST money in the long run, and saves them the headache of treating the sizing boxes like precision gauges.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:41.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi