Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Cory

I hope you're not planning on building a can grabber then...prepare to be disappointed if you think you can win that arms race with a mechanism that takes more than .25s to secure the can.

Did you ever consider colliding with the cans just enough to make a precision grabber fail?

[Cash4587]

Originally Posted by magnets

.2 seconds to engage the hook, sure, but the containers will likely still be on the step, unmoved, for some time after that.

.2 seconds is less than the amount of time it takes for an object to fall 8 inches in free fall. Pick up a pencil, and drop it from the height of a foot. That's not much time to move your hook 6+ feet, wait for the hook to engage/settle, and begin backing up the robot.

http://www.dallasfrc.org/videos (match 49 is a good angle)

I think it would be in your best interest to watch video of 3310 please.

[Hallry]

Looks like we can all enjoy our Cheesecake once again:

Originally Posted by FRC Game Manual Update, 3/17/15

Team Update 2015-03-17

General Updates

This note is from Frank Merrick, Director of FRC.

Hello teams. Yesterday we answered a question on the Q&A, Q461, related to sharing parts and mechanisms between teams, that has created a great deal of controversy. Seeing your concerns, and after significant additional discussion, we are reversing ourselves on our original answer, and making updates to the manual to support that reversal, bringing greater alignment between the manual and common practices at events. We want teams to provide very strong support to each other at events, and while reasonable, knowledgeable, caring people may disagree with ‘how much is too much’, and it’s hard to define a bright line, we don’t want to chill the tremendous spirit of mutual support that is an essential part of FIRST culture. We’re sorry for the issues our original answer caused, it was a mistake.

Originally Posted by FRC Game Manual Update, 3/17/15

Game Manual

Section 4.2 - General ROBOT Design

R14 R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn’t intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.).


Section 4.6 - Material Utilization

R17 With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT.

In addition, here is the updated Q&A 461:

Originally Posted by Q&A 461

Q. Are any of the following situations legal: A team gives/loans a Component or Mechanism, to a team, that was: 1. Brought in to the event in the giving team's robot bag? 2. Brought in to the event as part of the giving team's Withholding Allowance? (Does the ruling change if the receiving team has unallocated weight remaining in their own withholding allowance?) 3. Built at the event by the giving team?

A. Revised answer follows (for added information, please see Team Update 2015-03-17): R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn't intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.). Please remember that the addition of any item to any ROBOT requires re-Inspection prior to any MATCH in which that ROBOT competes per T10. That re-Inspection also requires an update to the Team's BOM reflecting the change in ROBOT parts. Given the feedback received since the first version of this response, internal discussion, and Game Manual changes described in Team Update 2015-03-17, the answers to your questions by number are as follows: 1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes.

[Dunngeon]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Did you ever consider colliding with the cans just enough to make a precision grabber fail?

I would also invite you to watch Match 49 of the Dallas Regional that Cooper linked...

Your robot wouldn't move fast enough to "collide with it"

Edit:

It's been reversed!

[Evan W]

For anyone wondering, this seems to be the key phrase in the updated R17 rule.

With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT.

Edit: oops, just realized this has already been posted above

[T^2]

Thanks for the change, Frank. Now I can build a complete robot out of the withholding allowances of 4 other teams.

[Cory]

Good guy Frank at it again. So refreshing to see FIRST actually listen to feedback from the community and take action on it!

As Paul Copioli pointed out in another thread, this would have been unheard of a few years ago. The change is night and day and very welcome.

[IronicDeadBird]

Next topic: Cannolis and water games...

[Joe Johnson]

Hats off to FIRST for listening to the community's concerns and for having the courage to reverse themselves.

There are troubling issues and situations no matter which way FIRST ruled here. I like that Frank acknowledged that in his message.

I respect this. Thanks Frank.

Dr. Joe J.

[Michael Corsetto]

This is a big win for #teamcheesecake

And when cheesecake wins, everybody wins.

Thanks Frank!

-Mike

[AllenGregoryIV]

Only issue I have is it specifically says withholding allowance and not all legal parts. If I made something during build season and bagged it, within the current rules I can't give it away. That's probably just an oversight but an annoying one.

Thanks Frank, and everyone else at FIRST that was involved in this decision. I'm sure there was a lot of debate and I feel like this is the right response.

[Siri]

I know we can each agree to disagree with either the original answer or the update or both if you so choose. But I'd wager that it's hard to argue against the process the GDC went through for this situation: listening (well, presumably mostly reading) the arguments in this controversy and discussing it with the humility to reverse themselves and the respectfulness to explain it. Whether or not you regard the reversal as an improvement, kudos to everyone in this thread and any other channels for the patience and passion you put towards this community's continuous improvement effort. I say we've got another excellence precedent.

#FrankforPresident #FrankAnswers

[Tom Bottiglieri]

1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) Yes.

[PayneTrain]

No! I demand peak absurdity!

[philso]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

When there is a chokehold strategy that relies on getting game pieces and our mechanism is faster than your already completed and difficult to modify mechanism, the incentive would be to take the "blank slate".

It always harder to work around existing mechanisms than to start with a blank slate. Our first FRC experience was as an FLL team working with a "rudimentary" FRC team in Rebound Rumble. After the end of the build season and the robot was in it's crate, we managed to build a minibot that was much faster than the one the teams' original one (2.5 seconds). It took all the time between matches on Thursday and part of Friday to fabricate the parts needed to install our launching mechanism because the dimensions of the robot we were given were wildly inaccurate and we were not told about certain support structures. Their manipulator was ineffective and the installation would have been far easier if the team had totally removed it. The team probably would have scored more points by discarding their manipulator, playing defense and then launching our minibot. At an offseason event, we installed the same launcher on another robot with a clear top in about an hour.