Update 6

[Jeremy_Mc]

[long post]

You don't need victors and motors to test...

Since you have THAT much time to spend on programming, you SHOULD be able to get a dynamic autonomous program (such as the beacon tracking or line tracking) code going that's pretty independent of things like motors in the long run. All you need for that are sensors (which might be included in the controls? That may be something that FIRST needs to clear up...) and the RC. We're doing our auto programming with just that right now.

I think the rule about building spare parts is perfectly fair. If you make something, make another one. It's that simple. The machine or whatever is already setup to make that part so it won't take nearly as long to do. If resources are a problem, then you probably shouldn't worry too much about doing it later either.

I also have to support the new mobile machine shop rule. I didn't know of any teams turning away a team from their mobile machine shop last year, but then again I never heard of anyone asking. Please...if you have a mobile machine shop, put big sign on the side that says "MACHINE SHOP HERE. COME ON IN" and let people use it. I know of a couple of teams (don't remember their number or name) that in recent years have "hidden" their shop in trucks and trailers in the parking lot giving no indication the facility was available unless you happen to catch them with the door open.

In any event, I must admit I support these new rules. Thumbs up to FIRST.

[/long post]

[Ben Mitchell]

How is FIRST going to enforce this?

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Ben Mitchell

How is FIRST going to enforce this?

They're not going to enforce it. You are.

[briholton]

Originally Posted by Jeremy_Mc

[long post]

You don't need victors and motors to test...

Since you have THAT much time to spend on programming, you SHOULD be able to get a dynamic autonomous program (such as the beacon tracking or line tracking) code going that's pretty independent of things like motors in the long run. All you need for that are sensors (which might be included in the controls? That may be something that FIRST needs to clear up...) ]

Sensors are not controls. How in the world can you be certain of how your program works without having motors attached? Particularly for rookie teams. How can you see how fast a line driver is going to work - how choppy it will be? anyone who writes a computer control program without testing it is doomed to failure - that is SOP for any app. If you don't believe me, try writing a C program that is over 100 lines and don't debug it. If you can get it to work first try - and it controls everything the way you expect, well, you are a DARN good programmer- better than anyone on a rookie team that we are trying to support.

[Jeremy_Mc]

Originally Posted by briholton

Sensors are not controls. How in the world can you be certain of how your program works without having motors attached? Particularly for rookie teams. How can you see how fast a line driver is going to work - how choppy it will be? anyone who writes a computer control program without testing it is doomed to failure - that is SOP for any app. If you don't believe me, try writing a C program that is over 100 lines and don't debug it. If you can get it to work first try - and it controls everything the way you expect, well, you are a DARN good programmer- better than anyone on a rookie team that we are trying to support.

They give you the code to track the beacon. All you have to do is use the dashboard to make sure your motors are turning at the right time. Move the beacon around to make sure the sensors are giving the right input and outputting the right PWM's.

I'm not saying don't debug it. I would be a fool to say that. I'm saying there are other ways of doing everything and there is another way of testing it other than using a victor/motor setup.

Of course, this is all relevant only if you don't have time to test it beforehand (which if you're REALLY on the ball about it and serious about getting a GOOD auto program done, you will be).

[Mike Martus]

A few years ago FIRST banned Mobile Machine shops in the parking lots due to insurance and safety reasons. Has the insurance industry changed? The same risks to lawsuits still exists if someone were to get hurt. Why now is this not important?

If FIRST is trying to narrow the gap between teams that have resources this rule is definatly not doing it. The "Sharing" aspect of the rule will not work. While most if not all FIRST teams are willing to share there are limits to sharing.

Who will staff the truck doing the work? Can teams use the machines themselves?
Who will pay for supplies?
What if there is a line up, and the team that owns the truck needs repairs, what order will they be done?

Having a mobile machine shop favors the teams with big $$$$ as they can manufacture parts on site while others cannot given the new rules.

[KenWittlief]

I think what FIRST is trying to convey is, if you want to win in this game

then win by being clever and innovative - with an eye towards the golden rules of engineering: ie simple is better than complex and why spend a million dollar to develop a pen that writes upside down, when you could use a pencil!

if your sponsor has > $50k to spend on a team, then instead of pouring all that money into one team, sponsor more teams, sponsor a new regional - put up money and mentors for teams that have no resources

instead of spending $200,000 on a mobile trailer machinshop, give that money to your students as scholarships, or loan a few of your mentors to another team for the 6 weeks - even if you have to put them up in temp quarters in another city.

FIRST started out giving teams a box of junk with the challenge to create a working machine - by being creative and innovative - not by dumping $100k into it.

I think these new rules are making the message coming from FIRST perfectly clear - engineering is about what happens between your ears, not what comes out of your deep pockets.