Team Update 14 (2016)

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Karthik

I do agree that there are many people who are sick of bag day along with the rules and restrictions that come with it. However, there are many teams and people out there who are in full support of bag day, many of which claim that they will no longer be involved in FRC if these restrictions are lifted. Frankly, I don't know which camp I'm a part of. However, I do know that there are enough people on both sides of this argument that we can't just assume that everyone wants to end the "6 week build".

I, personally, would like to see bag day rigidly enforced and no withholding allowance. This would eliminate a lot of loopholes.

[ChuckDickerson]

First let me say that I consider my team to be a typical “mid-resource” team. We are more fortunate than some but far from an “elite” or “powerhouse” level team. We have never won a regional competition but are usually competitive and at least play in eliminations. We do this by building as simple and robust of a machine as we can that achieves our game strategy and objectives. We pride ourselves on the quality of our robots even if they aren’t CNC’d and powder coated. Our robots are 100% student designed, fabricated, and built using a miter saw, band saw, drill press, and small benchtop manual milling machine and lathe.

FIRST is not fair. It never has been and never will be. That’s not the point and I don’t think we should be trying to write rules that try to limit the “haves” just to try to artificially “level the playing field” for the “have nots”. Every team is different and every team has their strengths and weaknesses. It should be up to each team to be able to maximize their strengths where they can.

In my own team’s situation, one of the ways we “level the playing field” against the more “elite” teams with lots of high end in house fabrication capabilities and mentors that are way smarter than me is we use a lot of 80/20 T-Slot extrusion. Another way is we design for modularity, reliability, redundancy, and maintainability. We may not be able to design and fabricate the fanciest robot parts but we can design simple reliable parts that are easy to manufacture given a simple machine shop and a bunch of kids learning as they go along. We also rely heavily on COTS items from AndyMark and VexPro, etc.

With that said it has also become the norm in this modern era of FRC that more and more teams are building 2 machines during their build season. Most would call these two machines a practice robot and a competition ROBOT. In the old days this was less common but so was going to more than one regional competition in a season. Now a days it is almost a given that to be competitive you have to build a practice robot to continue driver practice after bag & tag and go to more than one competition. It’s not an absolute rule but it sure helps if you have the resources to make it happen. In my opinion it is the biggest reason that bag & tag simply hurts teams with fewer resources than those that can afford to build a practice robot.

For a couple years now, my team has strived to raise ourselves to the level of that later group. We have built a second practice robot and gone to 2 competitions now since 2012. Over these last few years we have also increased the amount of spare parts we fabricate during build season and bag on bag and tag night. We essentially build as many spare MECHANISMs as we can afford and think we might need as replacements. In 2013 we built an entire spare Frisbee shooter and bagged it on bag & tag night. In 2014 we built an entire spare catapult and bagged it on bag and tag night. Last year we had spare mecanum drive modules and lift parts and a spare mechanism we called the P.O.T. (Pusher Outer Thingy) that was designed solely for doing coopertition and bagged all of it on bag and tag night.

This year we took it to the next level. We built 3 complete machines. We started with a prototype robot as we always do and were satisfied enough with it by about the end of week 4 of the build season to start duplicating pieces and parts for the competition robot and spare parts. Again, our robot is really simple this year. It’s a “rebuilding” year for our team and we knew going in that our collective student “experience level” was lower this year. We lost some top notch seniors last year. So we didn’t even try to design for the high goal or hanging. We bought Rhino tracks from AndyMark and built a simple but hopefully reliable drivetrain around them and added a simple ball collector/arm/low goal scoring mechanism. The entire robot is 80/20 t-slot, lexan cut on a bandsaw, and some plates and brackets here and there made from aluminum flat bar, angle, channel, etc. We have 8 motors total. 4 CIMS, 2 Mini-CIMS, and 2 BAG motors. All the gearboxes are COTS (2xAM ToughBox Minis, 2x AM RAW Boxes, and a half dozen VEX Pro VersaPlanetaries. No custom gearboxes for us. Throw in the RoboRIO, PDP, VRM, 8 X Talon SRXs, the main breaker and RSL and that’s about it. 85 lbs total inspection weight (no battery, no bumpers). We think it works well but I guess we will find out when we get to our first competition in a couple of weeks.

Knowing the reduced level of student experience on the team this year we made a conscious decision right up front after kickoff not to shoot for the moon this year but instead build our robot to be easily maintainable and repairable and have plenty of simple “spares” that we can quickly replace on the robot if needed in the hopes of being able to “win the war of attrition”. It was obvious to us that this game is going to be brutal on the robots. We hope one of our strengths this year is to follow the K.I.S.S. principle and be the “last man standing” when others have built over complicated machines that are prone to failure under the stress of this game. We may have missed the mark completely but that was our strategic decision.

Thus the decision to build the 3 identical machines. One “practice robot”, one “competition ROBOT”, and a complete set of spare parts. In addition, we built additional spare parts of things we are particularly worried about including the gearboxes and our ball collector/arm. We are potentially most vulnerable when our ball collector/arm is outside the FRAME PERIMETER due to impacts with other robots. The only difference in our practice robot and our spare and competition robots is the wiring on the practice robot isn’t quite as neat and tidy and it doesn’t have the orange RSL. The competition ROBOT and its twin spare parts robot are as identical as we could possibly make them given the limits of our manual machine shop capabilities and students fabrications skills. The only significant difference may literally be the length of wire stripping. The robots weigh exactly the same.

Here is a photo of the 3 robots lined up side by side:



In the photo the “practice” robot is on the left, the “spare parts” robot is in the middle, and the “competition ROBOT” is on the right. The kids literally had to put a little piece of blue painters tape on the back of the “competition ROBOT” that said “comp bot” to keep the 3 straight when they were fabricating and installing pieces and parts. I made them pick one.

Here is a photo of just the “competition ROBOT”. Note the piece of blue painters tape on the back bar of 80/20 t-slot:



As I have stated above, the entire machine is modular. It essentially can be broken down into 5 major “modules”. The core “chassis”, the left and right Rhino track modules, the ball collector/arm, and the electronics module. The Rhino track drive modules can be removed via 3 X ¼-20 SHCS each and unplug the 2 CIM motor Anderson connectors. The ball collector/arm removes from the “shoulder” motors via 4 screws and unplugging of 2 more Anderson connectors for the BAG intake motors. The entire electronics “module” can be removed via 6 wing nuts.

Here is a photo of the “competition ROBOT” disassembled into its major “modules”:



We have run drills on how long it takes to disassemble and reassemble the entire robot. It takes under 10 minutes for only two of my students (that know what they are doing) to completely disassemble the robot using only a handful of hand tools. Re-assembly takes slightly less time. I am confident that even under “competition stress” two of my students could completely disassemble and reassemble our entire “competition ROBOT” in under 30 minute, probably closer to 20 minutes, while replacing any faulty “module” from our spare parts supply.

This photo was taken just after a “re-assembly” drill:



It represents our fully functional “competition ROBOT”.

Our desire is not to gain any sort of “competitive advantage” by entering more than one ROBOT into any FRC competition where we compete. Or intention is to simply enter our one “competition ROBOT” and have a complete set of spare MECHANISMs available in our pit for repair and replacement if needed.

Here are our “spare parts”:



To a “reasonably astute observer” it may look like a robot but as far as me as an LRI and me as a team mentor can tell it doesn’t meet the FIRST definition of a ROBOT because we pulled the RoboRIO off for safe travels reasons. The RoboRIO can be mounted back in seconds. It Velcros down and just plug in the power (Anderson), the CAN bus (2 pin connector), the RSL, and a USB camera. The RoboRIO will count against our 30 lb withholding allowance because we have “assembled” it by adding the Velcro and wires and connectors. The yellow tote in the above photo contains additional spare parts that we didn’t want to count against our withholding allowance including more spare COTS but assembled Toughbox-Mini gear boxes and VersaPlanetaries, and additional spare set of assembled Rev4 pulleys for our Rhino track modules, and some misc. fabricated structural plates and pieces. Strapped to each side of the yellow tote are two spare ball collectors/arms (one on each side of tote so one isn’t really visible as it is on the far side of the yellow tote).

To be continued in the next post due to image count limitations...

[ChuckDickerson]

... continued:

It is my understanding of the rules and definition in the 2016 manual that what is under the yellow tote in the above is a spare MECHANISM because it doesn’t meet the FIRST game manual definition of a ROBOT (doesn’t have the control system (RoboRIO)) but is “a COTS or custom assembly of COMPONENTS that provide specific functionality on the ROBOT. A MECHANISM can be disassembled (and then reassembled) into individual COMPONENTS without damage to the parts”.

Thus this is our “competition MECHANISM” just prior to sealing the bag:



Note also that the RoboRIO has been removed thus it does not have a “control system” so it doesn’t qualify as a ROBOT.

Finally here are our two bags as they were bagged on bag and tag night and as they still sit right now:



Obviously the “Competitition MECHANISM” (which we intend to add a RoboRIO from our 30 lb withholding allowance to upon unbagging and then get inspected) is on the left. A complete set of spare parts (both COMPONENTS (in the yellow tote) and whole MECHANISMs) is in the bag on the right.

Our intention is to immediately disassemble our “spare parts MECHANISM” into separate “modules” (or sub-MECHANISMs) once we are allowed to unbag, have our pit setup, and can access the appropriate tools. It is not in any way our intention to “compete” with two ROBOTS. We simply desire to make transportation easier and more manageable by having all our separate spare MECHANISMs assembled into one larger MECHANISM so all those parts aren’t loose in the bag. I believe this is entirely within the spirit of the competition and in no way un-GP.

I fully agree that it would be against the spirit of the rules if a team brings two robots and attempts to gain a competitive advantage by say:

1) Building two differently designed robots. For example a low bar, low goal, breacher robot and a wholly different high goal, hanging robot and attempts to compete with both by starting with one and tries to “upgrade” to the second at some point in the course of competition play.
2) Build two identical robots (as in my team’s case) but choose to use a legally inspected one on the competition field while the second un-inspected one was used on the practice field for testing, etc.
3) Building additional robots to hand out to their alliance partners to use during eliminations.

The question I do have is what then actually constitutes a team’s competition ROBOT? It is fairly clear in my mind that “something” becomes a team’s competition ROBOT when we stick the inspection sticker on it. However, WHAT is that “something” that constitutes the ROBOT? Every single piece and part can be removed, replaced, repaired, “upgraded”, etc. throughout the competition as long as the team follows the re-inspection requirements in T15. What rule(s) would actually restrict us from replacing every single piece and part of our legally inspected “competition ROBOT” with an identical spare replacement “module” from our pile of spare parts we bagged on bag and tag night and brought in legally at load in? Nothing as far as I can tell. It would be entirely legal and within the spirit of the rules and completely GP. Teams routinely build and bag all manner of “spare parts”. However, taken to the next level, what would restrict us from keeping our “spare MECHANISM” that looks identical to our “competition ROBOT” except for a missing RoboRIO and if needed due to a catastrophic failure, replace ALL of our MECHANISMs we have preassembled into one giant MECHANISM as a complete spare “robot” at one time and go to the inspection station and asking for a re-inspection and thus creating a whole new ROBOT nearly instantaneously? Again, just for clarification I/my team have no intentions of doing anything like this and absolutely will not because I believe as a team mentor that this is against the spirit of the rules.

My questions to all are:

1) Was anything we chose to do during build season or up until bag and tag night against the letter, intent, or spirt of the rules as you read, interpret, or understand them?

2) Would anyone interpret anything we chose to do during build season, what we bagged on bag and tag night, or what we intend to do at competition to be un-GP?

3) Given our team’s “resource level”, which I imagine to be fairly typical of the average team, is our conscious decision to play to our strengths by hoping to “win the war of attrition” giving our team an unfair competitive advantage in any way by bringing a complete set of “spare parts” that are currently bagged in an assembled spare MECHANISM that to “a reasonably astute observer” might appear to be a ROBOT?

4) Prior to last night’s update I firmly believe we followed the rules as they were written at the time up until bag and tag night. As an LRI, I can assure you that it is not the GDC’s intent to dis-allow teams bagging spare parts. Does the new wording added to the blue box in last night’s update clarify or muddy the intent of the rules regarding spare parts and what constitutes a ROBOT and/or what can and can’t be brought to an event in a bag?

[ChuckDickerson]

Well, all those image came through much larger than I intended. Sorry about that.

[Kevin Kolodziej]

If a team bagged a ROBOT and an assembly of spare parts, but the assembly of spare parts was lacking wheels, would a "reasonably astute observer" think that an assembly of spare parts without wheels could play this game?

*Note that this is not possible to do at this point in time, so this is a hypothetical argument...for this season...under the current rules and updates.

It has ALWAYS been legal to bag as many spare fabricated parts as you want. I don't understand AT ALL the point of this discussion of it being assembled to resemble a robot or not. Even if Team 900 used their spare parts on the practice field (not the competition field during practice? I'm a little unclear on this), I see no problem whatsoever. Teams test half built, uninspected robots on the practice field all the time.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Kolodziej

Even if Team 900 used their spare parts on the practice field (not the competition field during practice? I'm a little unclear on this)

Our spare parts were only ever used in our pits or the practice field (though some were modified and put on our competition bot which we got fully re-inspected). It was also NEVER used on the practice field when we were queuing or on the competition field, at the request of the LRI which we happily complied with.

[meg]

Originally Posted by mathking

I agree with this. Some of the most important tasks my team and my classes undertake are the ones for clients. Learning to make something that the client or customer wants is important. And yes, sometimes a really novel approach is awesome. But if you submit a bid, get a contract and produce a final product that technically satisfies the the terms in the bid but is not what the client really needs or wants you are not going to keep getting clients.

Breaking the game, to my reasoning, isn't finding a loophole in the rules about spare parts. It is great to think about the rules of the game and come up with an off the wall strategy that may never have been considered by the GDC. Such as figuring out you can redirect soccer balls right back into a goal with the right bot in a fixed position. And when that is a strategy goal you should always prepare for the possibility that someone clarifies or changes the rule and takes that strategy off the table.

All that said, I see what teams likely want this year. If you can bag two complete robots, you can effectively absorb twice as much damage. It makes practice field work less risky, since you aren't worried about breaking the competition robot. And I do think that teams that bagged two robots shouldn't be penalized and should be allowed to use one as spare parts for the other. Teams that bagged just spare parts of every component can do the same thing.

I think it depends on what you want to teach the students. What if the engineers at Google had decided that because cars are vehicles driven by people, they couldn't start to automate that process.

What if the Wright brothers had listened to the whole world telling them that it was impossible to fly? Where would this world be if all the engineers and inventors just accepted what is and what has been assumed? Cars? Space exploration? Computers?

[galewind]

Originally Posted by thatnameistaken

This was in update 7; they forgot to alter the text until now. The diagram has showed the proper height for a month.

Yeah my programmers corrected me -- they knew about it already

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Can we just get rid of bag day and withholding allowances already? Who does it really stop anyway?

The team that holds off building anything significant, goes to week 1/2 competion, copies 1114/118/2056/179/33/67's robot. and competes week 5/6

Or even team xxxx competes with weak robot week 1, copies and builds a completely new robot copying zzzz team that won their event for their week5/6 DCHMP/CHMP event.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by BrennanB

The team that holds off building anything significant, goes to week 1/2 competion, copies 1114/118/2056/179/33/67's robot. and competes week 5/6

It's really entertaining to me that people actually think this would happen.

[AGPapa]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

It's really entertaining to me that people actually think this would happen.

It happens in VEX.

I'd instead prefer a 4-6 hour unbag window every week. Maybe ban teams from adding non-COTS parts during those hours. That'll eliminate the need for a practice bot and stop copying.

[BrennanB]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

It's really entertaining to me that people actually think this would happen.

Happens in VEX and FLL. Not like people can't build a robot that is already preconcieved in 3-4 weeks. People do a decent job of doing it in 3 days. Will it be as good as the original? No. But it will still be decent.

I mean the elite teams just wouldn't reveal their robot/compete at early events. Nobody would be allowed to take pictures of their robot or film it without them getting annoyed.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

It's really entertaining to me that people actually think this would happen.

We actually held off on designing one of the components of our robot this year until we could see how all of the other teams did it, that way we could choose the best approach without dedicating all the hours to prototyping. This is mostly because we're sinking all of our time into other parts of the robot, but still... It seems to be an effective approach for some things.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by AGPapa

It happens in VEX.

I'd instead prefer a 4-6 hour unbag window every week. Maybe ban teams from adding non-COTS parts during those hours. That'll eliminate the need for a practice bot and stop copying.

But it'd be feasible to re-design and then iterate on that robot in the course of a few weeks... it's much, much less so in FRC.

[dodar]

Phoning in an event in FRC to try and copy something that may or may not effect how you do at another event is just stupid; at any level of robotics competition.