Al's Annual Inspection Thread 2013

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Wayne Doenges

At BMR, we had to tell quite few teams that they needed to put a guard over their shooting wheels.

GTREast didn't ask 4343 to cover their shooter wheel either. 4343's shooter uses an AM Pneumatic wheel, the exterior side of which is completely unprotected by any guards.

I would also hazard a guess that either inspectors have been doing a bang-up job catching unsafe shooters before they hit the field, or the fear-mongering from earlier in the season is largely unfounded. I haven't heard of a single incident of a shooter wheel(s) coming apart/ejecting balancing material on the field.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Racer26

GTREast didn't ask 4343 to cover their shooter wheel either. 4343's shooter uses an AM Pneumatic wheel, the exterior side of which is completely unprotected by any guards.

I would also hazard a guess that either inspectors have been doing a bang-up job catching unsafe shooters before they hit the field, or the fear-mongering from earlier in the season is largely unfounded. I haven't heard of a single incident of a shooter wheel(s) coming apart/ejecting balancing material on the field.

All it takes is one instance for someone to get seriously hurt. I certainly HOPE we don't hear of any instances! Plus, we're more likely to see issues as these wheels get more wear and tear on them. Teams are starting to enter into their second or third event (for those teams that do more than 1 event) now, and combine champs (and District champs) into the runtime on these shooters... it could get very interesting near the end of the season, or in the offseason.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

I will try to poke a 3/4 inch dowel (or something similar to the diameter of a finger) into the wheel(s). If I can contact any portion of the wheel other than the actual diameter that comes in contact with the "flying disk", I will ask for a modification to enclose the wheels.

Where did this test originate? I'm honestly not sure if I agree with it or not. As I've said, 4343's shooter you would certainly have been able to touch the wheel. It runs 1:1 on a fullsize CIM, at about 35% power.

I feel like this test is probably a little excessive in terms of its reach, and I dislike the inconsistency with which the provisions of G03/R08 are being enforced with regards to shooter wheels. If FIRST and the GDC had laid out a test like this in the manual, I would have no problem with forcing teams to comply, but they did not, and inconsistency leads to teams who've passed inspection at earlier events not being passed at later events. This type of inconsistency has caused problems at Championship before where teams passed inspection at their regionals, but then failed at Championship because of inconsistently applied rules.

In my opinion, the larger concern is not to keep fingers OUT of a shooter, but keep a disintegrating shooter IN. I wouldn't say an unguarded shooter is any more or less dangerous than the unguarded drivetrains and other mechanisms that are commonplace on FRC robots.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Racer26

Where did this test originate? I'm honestly not sure if I agree with it or not. As I've said, 4343's shooter you would certainly have been able to touch the wheel. It runs 1:1 on a fullsize CIM, at about 35% power.

2006's competitions, as I recall. Back then, it was in the Manual, or at least somewhere where it could be seen by teams with minimal effort. Lots of robots had to add guards that year...

[Brandon_L]

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss

I will try to poke a 3/4 inch dowel (or something similar to the diameter of a finger) into the wheel(s). If I can contact any portion of the wheel other than the actual diameter that comes in contact with the "flying disk", I will ask for a modification to enclose the wheels.

I feel like a rule like this, upfront in the beginning of the season and in the manual, would clear up 99% of problems teams are having.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by EricH

2006's competitions, as I recall. Back then, it was in the Manual, or at least somewhere where it could be seen by teams with minimal effort. Lots of robots had to add guards that year...

My recollection was that it was largely based on a suggestion implemented uniformly through the lead robot inspectors. The concern had been expressed that 2006's shooters could cause all sorts of injury, and the LRIs discussed this at length. OSHA standards were discussed, because they establish human-machine safety practices used in United States industry. (Personally, I think it was the wrong decision to conflate the human-machine contact standards used in industry with FRC robots, mainly because of the limited circumstances under which such contact can take place. It was also wrong to conflate the exploding-shooter case with the human-machine contact case. Even though the solution to both is often to install guards, it does not follow that you must install guards to protect against one when the other is present.)

Based on LRI feedback and discussions at FIRST, the standard provided by the then-Chief-Inspector was:

Originally Posted by Russ Beavis

Shooter Shield metric - an easy metric to employ - poke around with a 3/4" dowel. You should not be able to contact any rotating or thrusting mechanisms (except when entering from the shooter "outlet").

The authority for this standard was based on those designs being deemed unsafe per <S01>:

Originally Posted by 2006's <S01>

<S01> If at any time a ROBOT’s operation or design is deemed unsafe by the head referee, it will receive a 10- point penalty and be disabled for the remainder of the match. If the safety violation is due to the ROBOT design, the head referee has the option to not allow the ROBOT back onto the field unless the design has been corrected. An example of unsafe operation is repeatedly throwing balls off the field at audience members, media personnel, judges, referees, etc. An example of an unsafe design is a shooter mechanism that has a large mass that is stopped abruptly at the end of travel and is at risk of breaking off the ROBOT and becoming a projectile.

That's an example of a good process for establishing consistency between events through rule-compliant consensus standards—even if perversely, that standard had flaws and was not always enforced consistently.

Originally Posted by Brandon_L

I feel like a rule like this, upfront in the beginning of the season and in the manual, would clear up 99% of problems teams are having.

The 2006 standard was a bit deficient in this respect, because the inspectors' teleconferences took place late in the build season and during the competition season. Teams were not initially advised that the LRIs were planning to use this interpretation across the board, and when confronted with it at events, teams did not always react well (understandably). This led to problems of equity, which events ended up resolving differently.

Also, there were some possible issues with the way FIRST delegated the authority to deem a robot unsafe—was that a head referee responsibility that should have been outside the purview of LRIs, or did the references to safety in the robot rules provide them sufficient authority? (FIRST also has internal procedures for delegating authority among competition officials, entirely apart from the rules. For unfathomable reasons, they don't publish these openly most years.)

[DRH2o]

As we can all see in this thread there are some serious problems with the way inspections throughout all divisions of FIRST are done. We have been to two regionals and have been 1st through inspection at a week 1 event and in the first 10 at a week 3 event. During week 1 the inspection was very quick and not very thorough -- did not measure the perimeter at all (we are 1 inch small) and looked at the floor pick-up and said it was well within the 54" ( we are about 1/4" small corner to corner ). Other components were looked at and questions were asked to the students that they answered well. At the week 3 event the perimeter was measured with a 1/4" rope with knots tied at each end -- there were several of these ropes with inspectors. 54" was not measured at all. We were weighed at 9:00am and had to wait until noon for the inspector. We were the 3rd on their list. Other teams that were passed at the same week 1 event we were at had to make major changes week 3. They agreed the changes should be made, but were confused why they were not noticed week 1. Every year I see robots on the field with bumper covers dragging the carpet and other obvious violations while other well built robots are picked over as if to try to find something wrong. I am not complaining about the inspectors, rather the process. All of the inspectors are volunteers and are doing the best they can to help everyone get on the field. There needs to be clear guidelines that are available to everyone involved.

I was talking to a frustrated inspector this past week about the way they did inspections -- 65 teams were put into blocks of ~12 teams and 2 inspectors had a block. He suggested an "express line" for teams that had passed at a previous regional. There could be a central database that includes weight, size and photo. If these all match between events and inspection is done early ( indicating no time for changes ) then a quick recheck is done to allow inspectors to be free for more involved situations. This is not my idea, but I like it. What do other inspectors think?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Dan,
Every robot will get an full inspection at every event for several very important reasons. The first is many teams make changes that don't show up until the next event. Not all inspectors are created equal (as hard as we try to train them) and somethings get missed. There are changes to the interpretation of certain rules and there is always confusion between event staff and teams and the way the understand the rules. I can guarantee that every week some team will think outside the box and come up with a solution that does not fit the strict interpretation of the rules.

Dana is referencing the UL Standard Finger test. This was first employed in the regolith year where many teams decided to use fans and props for propulsion. what inspectors and all staff are concerned about is simply safety. We don't want anyone to lose a finger because they could stick it into a rotating device. We certainly don't want any injury due to flying debris. If in the opinion of the staff, your robot poses a threat for either of these, you may/should be asked to correct the problem. As a conscientious robot builder, you should have come up with the solution prior to your event. You don't want to injure any of your students or mentors, do you?

[Gregor]

Is this test being instructed to be conducted at all events, at some events, or only to certain robots that are suspected of being an injury risk?

[Racer26]

Like Gregor, I don't think the issue anyone is taking is with the need to be safe
The issue is the lack of a standard test decreed by HQ and laid out in the manual.

[Phyrxes]

To the best of my knowledge all teams using wheeled shooters at Virginia last weekend were asked to cover their wheels. This caused parts requests for plastic/cardboard to create covers for teams to be the most common request on Thursday. Fortunately most (55/65) robots had passed inspection by Thursday evening so this wasn't a huge issue.

[akoscielski3]

First off, has anyone posted this question in Q&A yet? If no it should be done because we NEED to know, the teams need to know if we need to add a gaurd ans the inspectors need to know if they have to have s gaurd or dont need one.

In my opinion, since it doesnt say anything anout it specifically then we dont need it to be legal. Teams didn't need them last year did they? Why do we need them this year then?

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

In my opinion, since it doesnt say anything anout it specifically then we dont need it to be legal. Teams didn't need them last year did they? Why do we need them this year then?

It comes down to the interpretation of G03/R08 by different inspectors. Unless HQ is going to decree a test in a team update, it won't be consistent.

[pyroslev]

I imagined any team that went to a previous week regional would have been able to shortcut things a bit but seeing the explanation that makes sense. Could a remedy to that be that when teams going to further events the Robot Inspectors sign the bag form with a copy of the inspection sheet? If not this season, then next season. I imagined the teams that went to previous events could inspected by noon at least if this were implemented.

Two points of concern from what I saw of the inspectors/teams at the
Virginia Regional.

1. Bumpers: The inspector stated one team need vertical supports added to the frame on the grounds that they could not been unsupported vertically more than 8" from the corner. A quick skim of the rules and nothing mentioning vertical supports in this fashion was in the rules. I found the same on the inspection checklist. Supports were added horizontally at their insistence and to prevent bumpers breaking again.

2. Wiring: I had a large number of teams come to the Tech Support table with symptoms of radio drop outs well into Saturday. Their radios were not wired into the regulated 12v port on the Power distribution board. They were either into the non-regulated section of the board or the regulated 5v port. This concerns me as these teams had either passed inspection or had been partially completed. I estimate I diagnosed 6 teams for wiring that shouldn't have passed inspection otherwise. Others diagnosed teams as well. As many as a quarter of the teams at the Virginia Regional had miswired radios.

In the coming weeks of regional and championships, please make sure you check the wiring on your radio. I hate that we're in the 4th week and radio wiring persists like this.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

First off, has anyone posted this question in Q&A yet? If no it should be done because we NEED to know, the teams need to know if we need to add a gaurd ans the inspectors need to know if they have to have s gaurd or dont need one. In my opinion, since it doesnt say anything anout it specifically then we dont need it to be legal. Teams didn't need them last year did they? Why do we need them this year then?

I did so several weeks ago, but the answer was (surprise), 'we're not telling'.

A:564 Due to the large number of design parameters which affect the safety of a particular ROBOT MECHANISM it is not possible to provide absolute guidelines regarding compliance with [R08]. When considering MECHANISM safety, teams are advised to consider factors such as velocity, exposure, and material ratings. The Lead Robot Inspector at each event has final authority on any ROBOT'S compliance with [R08].

This answer seems odd, given that some events are making everyone cover their wheels and others are making no one. If inspectors are getting specific guidance, could it be shared publicly? If not, has anyone noticed the patterns in design parameters, as the GDC indicates?

In the end, what you need to be legal is what the inspector requires to be legal, so you'll need them this year if the inspector/LRI. Regardless, 'it doesn't say anything specifically' probably won't fly. Remember that the nature of the average shooter is very different between 2013 and 2012: more wheels-through-boards and fewer wheels-in-boxes. Even if the actual level of danger isn't so different as that, attention to it is up this year.

Originally Posted by pyroslev

Could a remedy to that be that when teams going to further events the Robot Inspectors sign the bag form with a copy of the inspection sheet? If not this season, then next season. I imagined the teams that went to previous events could inspected by noon at least if this were implemented.

This is an interesting idea. But if inspectors are understandably missing issues--there's so much to check I don't know how it ever gets done--how would relying on previous checks affect the integrity of inspections? (Robots can change, and you bring up issues that have slipped through.) I think I see two basic potential results here. One, negatively because more issues slip through, particularly in the burden of early events. Two, positively, because efforts are better focused, assuming potential issues are identified in another way (without creating resentment). Interesting idea.