|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
I've had my fair share... But one of the best was the rookie team with a Victor 883 on their robot a couple years back. I told 'em it wasn't legal, but they should be asking around certain places for a Victor 884 which was legal. Came back an hour later and there was an 884 in that location.
And... bumpers should be a 4-letter word. There was a time not long ago when I was coming off of dinner break on practice day and another inspector asked for help on where numbers should go on a 6-sided robot (open front side). To which I responded with something like "The numbers are the least of your concerns, that's not a legal configuration!" (Something like below.) Confused team when we checked on it: "But an inspector told us this was how to fix our illegal bumpers and still use our intake!" Cue LRI call, and discussion on how to fix it (raise and take the angles off). __ | \ | |__/ This is going to be an interesting inspection year coming up... |
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
I fear you are right. Those of us who've lived the 10+ year evolution of FRC bumper rules can be expected to read R1, R2, R3 and see the idea. I expect many rookies will see gobbledegook. Andy Baker has done a good thing, offering an incentive for veterans to help clarify this year's requirements.
LRIs will have their hands full at the inspection stations this year, between weighing robots with bumpers off, and checking their inspection envelopes with bumpers on. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
In 2012 we used some 5/32 pneumatic tubing to snake through the arm of our pickup. The inspectors at MSC told us it wasn't legal because it counted as a flow restrictor and gave us an advantage other teams wouldn't have. They had us rebuild the whole thing with 1/4 inch tube which took about three hours to do. Once we finished the inspector stopped by to let us know that the 5/32 tube was okayed by the LRI and that we didn't need to change anything. At least we got some good practice in taking things apart and forcing tube through openings they were never meant for...
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
This coming from a student:
I only have memories of inspections from 2016 (2015 was just a blur for me as a new freshman), and they all went well. We made sure everyone knew the rules going into build, and kept checking them throughout build season, and one final time during bag. The inspections at both regionals were relatively quick and easy. However I keep getting told stories about our rookie year though (back in 2012). Bit of back story: Apparently when the head mentor got the team involved in FRC in 2012, he really didn't know what he was getting himself into. He was told that everything you would need would come in the KOP and you would be good to go. Imagine his surprise when the team opened up the KOP and realized they had next to nothing to build an actual bot. Anyway, so obviously they were very inexperienced going into that season. The team only went to one regional that year, and apparently the inspection experience there was a nightmare. There were obviously several issues with the robot (due to the inexperience) and the apparently the inspector the team got wasn't the "most helpful". He would only check one thing at a time and tell the team to fix it before checking the rest. For example, there was a problem with the frame, and he told the team to fix it. The team had to spend all of thursday ripping down the frame and fixing the issue. They attempted to get reinspected that friday morning, and the inspector found an issue with a motor. Due to the team's design, they had to rip apart the frame again and fix that issue and rebuild. Had the inspector realized this during the initial inspection, it would have been a breeze to fix that issue thursday itself when the frame was already ripped apart. So apparently that took all of friday, and the team attempted to get reinspected again saturday morning. This time the inspector found a problem with the team's wiring. Again, due to the team's design the frame had to be compltley taken apart to access some of the wiring. Had this issue also been noticed at initial inspection, the problem could have been fixed on thursday itself. But instead it took all of saturday. By the time the frame was put back together, and the team received an allclear, the qualification matches were over. And obviously the team wasn't picked because they never even set foot on the field once. The team's rookie year was spent not touching the field even once. (Again due to inexperience) our head mentor and team knew nothing about LRIs etc. At the end of the event apparently the head mentor just compltley "exploded" and started ranting about the entire process to a neighboring veteran team. They were apparently immediately sympathetic and called over the LRI to talk. When the head mentor explained what happened and that they never touched the field because of it, apparently the inspector that inspected us was given a major talking to, and has also never been seen as an inspector at that regional again. The LRI apparently gave a huge apology to the team. (Side note: The LRI and our head mentor are still friends to this day). Last edited by dirtbikerxz : 24-01-2017 at 20:54. |
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
|
#38
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
The entire fabrication schedule. Which you need to address if someone mentions "This is last year's frame" etc. R17 - Lubrication is for robots, not fields. R37(!!) - Circuits must be wired to the PDP wagos, NOT the M6 terminals. R42 - RoboRIO only must be wired to the dedicated roboRIO supply terminals. R50 - connectors must have appropriate current ratings R83 - pneumatic components allowed on the high pressure side. R96 - operator consoles should not be unsafe. And boy was that a popular one last year. I would fail teams for violating several of those items, personally. No maybe talk to the LRI about it. So yeah. The inspection checklist is guideline of the most common items, but it's not comprehensive, or we'd just hand inspectors a mildly condensed version of the robot rules as a checklist instead. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
|
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
Quote:
I do worry about the lack of best practices communication throughout the RI community. I find that inspections with my team in MAR can be better even than our inspections at Worlds (which is my only team-side inspection experience outside of MAR in the last half-decade). |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
I use it as an opportunity to gather intel. See if they inadvertently talk about something that makes me think I should pay more attention to that.
|
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
One of my jaw dropping "oh no" experiences as an inspector was with a rookie team who had started with the kit base (good) but every mechanism used Tetrix motors and gears (presumably they had previously done FTC?).
To top it off, they proudly showed me a Home Depot winch (also with an illegal motor) they were planning on adding to the robot at the competition. The winch never made it on, but other teams helped get at least a couple of their mechanisms working by putting in BAG motors and VersaPlanetaries and they made their first match.Last edited by Peter Johnson : 25-01-2017 at 03:02. |
|
#43
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
This has already been said in a few places in this thread but just to reiterate. We need more experience mentors and volunteers to come be inspectors. Experience can dramatically speed up inspections. There isn't a lot I haven't seen so I can go through a robot and find any trouble areas a lot quicker than someone I had to train Thursday morning who is at their 1st FRC event. We'd love to never have to use completely new people but if we don't get enough volunteers that's what happens.
Another note, a lot of these stories could have had a happier ending if teams went and talked to the LRI earlier. If an inspector is taking 45 mins to an hour and hasn't told you anything is wrong, send someone to find the LRI and at least let them know it's going slowly. None of the events I have ever worked could afford to have inspectors taking that long on a single robot. Inspection Stories - Illegal motors every years - FTC, Globe, linear actuators, different window motors than what used to be allowed. - All green wire on the robot, like not green and black just all green wire, almost everywhere on the robot. - Modified pneumatics parts, including paint and stickers on air tanks and cylinders. - modified electronics - a team modified the PDP to use larger ATC fuses where the small 10A and 20A fuses go by cutting away parts of the plastic housing. Have also seen a couple cRIOs that had holes drilled in them. - Crazy bumper builds - weirdly heavy bumpers that ended up having steel plates between the plywood and noodles. Also have seen really light bumpers that were made with 1/4" wood before. Last year I saw 8" tall bumpers that used closed cell foam instead of pool noodles. - Team using previous year's welded frame as part of their robot. - Team trying to swap entire robots on their alliance with a practice chassis they built previously - 150+lb robot without bumpers or battery. They had just a massive amount of solid aluminum on their robot like 2in x 2in cubes of it. - A robot that was 20+ inches outside of the sizing constraint. It looked more like a go cart than an FRC robot. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inspection Stories
I've had more than my share of helpful inspectors, who understand that FRC is a learning and inspiring experience for the students, and have done their best to help out our team, whilst ensuring we met the high bar to pass inspection.
That being said, last year, while working with a rookie team, we passed everything for inspection, except our inspector wouldn't pass us because our "Zip-ties were too sharp." Apparently, some of the zip-ties we used to mount our electronics to our boards were "cut improperly" and needed to be filed down. We said, "sure thing, boss!", never filed them down, and we passed again with the same inspector. Sometimes, I feel like inspectors want to bully the newer teams, like inspection is some "hazing ritual" to go through if you REALLY want to be an FRC team. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|