"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[KenWittlief]

I agree with the last post.

If you see someone doing something you think is against the rules, you have two options:

1. get a judge and confront them - straighten it out right there- 99% of the time it will be a misunderstanding on someones part, corrective action will be taken, someone will learn the rules better, and that will be the end of it

or

2. if its not a big deal, then let it drop - and that means let it drop everywhere and forever.

Coming on this forum or anywhere else and making induendos, or accusing a team of cheating without backing it up with names, dates, team numbers, witnesses, does nothing but get people upset, and gets other people angry at teams who may or may not have been doing something wrong.

If you saw a team doing something and you want to know if its against the rules, you can simply ask: is it ok to bring a practice bot to the event and use it on thurday?

is it ok to use assemblys from a practice bot on your real machine?

there is no need to say that you saw someone doing this - because the event is over and you cant do anything about it now - but with the rules clarified you can do something about it WHILE its happenings at a future event.

[10intheCrunch]

Even if you do have names, team numbers, dates and witnesses, I'd say don't post unless you confronted the offending team, or asked a judge to, and they continued with whatever upset you. Misunderstandings should be off the table before the entire community is brought into it.

[Jessica Boucher]

I am really proud of you all for handling this thread so awesomely

Sometimes stuff happens at regionals that you need to question, but may not have time to do so during the competition. I understand that if you see something that may be a violation that you should talk to an official immediately, but sometimes things happen that won't allow you to take the time out. We all know how crazy regionals can be. But what happened happened, and we can't go back and change it. But we can set a precedent for the rest of the regionals, and we can only do that by talking about it.

Try as we might, CD is sometimes the only contact we have together concerning FIRST issues. I am personally frustrated with the lack of updating on the FIRST site, and I am really happy with how the CD community has pulled together to make sure that as much information as possible is distributed. I feel that if a question needs to be brought up, that it is done as respectfully as possible, and that we all work to come up with a solution and a way to deal with any other issues that will come up later at regionals. As long as it is done in a respectful manner, I see no problem with bringing up an issue that occurred at regionals.

I was talking to my class dean last week concerning an issue that happened with another group I'm involved with at Babson. We had a raffle drawing, and they all said that they would show up at the radio station for the drawing, but it ended up that none of them showed up and they didn't make any effort to contact me and explain their actions. It really hurt me because it turned out that the winner was a member of the committee, and said he would show; so when the radio hosts called him to tell him he won, he said he wasn't doing anything...even though he lives two floors above the station.
She knows of my invovlement in FIRST, and I told her that I would never expect that issue to come up if the students involved were FIRSTers, because FIRST teaches responsibility. If something sketchy happens, we're not afraid to bring it up - not because we like to witchhunt, but because it shows that we care about the community and believe that in making the competition fair for all, that we will make sure that every student is getting something positive out of the experience.

So, I hope you all don't think Im just blabbering on about something off-topic, but I am seriously proud of how this thread was handled and of the community as a whole for working out this issue...you guys rock!

[FadyS.]

I think this thread brings out a very important issue. What can you bring and what can you upgrade on that Thursday? Can we add additional sensors? Can we replace a sprocket? I assume we can drill holes. What are examples of things we can't bring or do?

[Gary Dillard]

Seems like I'm always playing devil's advocate on these threads.

Why is it a problem to bring a practice robot to drive on practice day?

What is the advantage this team gained? One day of driving a practice robot on a real field? If they had modifications to make to the competition robot that took all day thursday and made the decision to do that, that's all they would have sacrificed if they didn't have an extra robot.

I'm not aware of any requirements for the robot you field on practice day, other than they check to make sure it can't damage the field. You don't have to complete inspection prior to practice - how many teams put a robot on the practice field that was overweight, outside the size limit, didn't have 4 team numbers, etc.? Are they equally as guilty?

They had an extra TWO WEEKS since the robot shipped for driving practice and tweaking at home - is that fair to the teams who didn't have the resources to build 2 robots?

What about the teams who go to 2, 3, or 4 regionals - they get all those extra practice days, is that fair to the teams who only go to 1? (we've beat that question to death in other threads but it's a similar point).

At the Central Florida Regional they didn't have a practice field setup - just carpet - so we couldn't test modifications to our lift mechanism until we were on the field. If teams bring practice fields to other regionals to try things out, is that fair to us?

The intent of the rules is to try to level the playing field, but there is no way it will ever be fair. We all know that, Dean admits that, and we accept that. Somebody early in this thread said they should have known it wasn't right - I disagree. As they stated, they followed all the rules in regards to spare parts. Don't make up other rules just because someone else is taking advantage of their strengths, in this case the resources to build a second robot.

Team SPAM is probably a middle tier team as far as available financial, engineering and manufacturing resources - sufficient to be competitive but nowhere near enough to build 2 'bots. I don't begrudge anyone who can - I envy you and applaud you, because the bottom line is, it's not about the robots. It's about inspiring the students, and when my students say "WOW" about what your team has done, it's a good thing.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by dddriveman

I think that this was a very informative thread. I also think that there was a little too much finger pointing, name calling, and crying. WE are all on a F.I.R.S.T. team for a reason. Alot of people are getting blind sited by what our primary goal is. I think that in the future we should continue to disscuss these issues but should should be a more carefull woth the accusations that we throw around. Many people were blaming this whole situation on one or two teams when actually it was a simple miss-understanding. We have all done it cut them a break PLEASE. I'm sure that they feel bad enough.

There was no finger pointing. No one accused anyone. There was no mention of team numbers. 830 came forward and admitted wrong doing themselves. Kudos to them; however, this thread when originally started with other teams in mind. It was about swapping mechanisms from the pratice robots, which supposedly some other team have done.

[KenWittlief]

Why is it a problem to bring a practice robot to drive on practice day?

Its unfair because in engineering you always have to make tradeoffs

if your bot needs work then you cant pratice

if you decide to start making changes to your bot that will keep it from running on thursday then your team will get no practice

if you shipped a bot that still needed work then your team will get no practice

allow a team to build a second bot, and continue to work on it after the ship date, and bring it to the regional on the bus, and use it on the field to get practice

while the other teams have to decide which is more important, modifying the bot or meeting the practice schedule

Its clearly an unfair advantage to more heavily financed and supported teams - I know FIRST is unfair on some levels, but we dont have to make it worse by letting well funded teams do whatever they please, taking every possible advantage over the little guy.

besides, FIRST has a very clear definition of what you teams 'robot' is and what its not - your practice bot is NOT your teams robot

why would you think you can bring something else to drive around on the playfield? can we drive our bus on the field? why not? its not in the rules either?

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Its unfair because in engineering you always have to make tradeoffs

if your bot needs work then you cant pratice

if you decide to start making changes to your bot that will keep it from running on thursday then your team will get no practice

if you shipped a bot that still needed work then your team will get no practice

allow a team to build a second bot, and continue to work on it after the ship date, and bring it to the regional on the bus, and use it on the field to get practice

while the other teams have to decide which is more important, modifying the bot or meeting the practice schedule

Its clearly an unfair advantage to more heavily financed and supported teams - I know FIRST is unfair on some levels, but we dont have to make it worse by letting well funded teams do whatever they please, taking every possible advantage over the little guy.

That's all really nice Ken, but it has nothing to do with the rules - you can't make up your own just because you don't like it.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

why would you think you can bring something else to drive around on the playfield? can we drive our bus on the field? why not? its not in the rules either?

I would guess that your bus would damage the field, and as such the ref's wouldn't allow it on the field.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

besides, FIRST has a very clear definition of what you teams 'robot' is and what its not - your practice bot is NOT your teams robot

You did actually make one valid point in that post that caused me to look and answer my own question - from section 7.1 in the rules "The purpose of the Practice Rounds is to allow each Team a chance to run its Robot on the Playing Field prior to the start of the competition matches." That's the answer - I would agree that there is a clear definition on what your robot is, and the practice round is for that robot. Therefore, the rules state you must drive your competition robot "THE robot" in the practice rounds.

[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by R09

During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

As best as I can tell, it looks like any "spare part" should not have any fasteners, which includes bolts, pins, set screws, string or keys.

I'm glad that we've got this out in the open as a refresher for teams that may be planning on bringing practice robots to the competition - it's not allowed unless it's completely disassembled.

I have to say I disagree with this intrepretation. Yes, I am disagreeing with my own opinion after a night of sleep.

I guess it comes down to the definition of "component."

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

Below is a picture of our robot this year... I've highlighed the small ball roller that's used to pull the balls into the cage, our entire big ball arm, and the sprocket with a custom bolt on hub on the top of our big ball arm. One could possibly define either of these as "components" or "bolt on assemblies".


FIRST needs to clarify this formally before this weekend so everyone can play within the bounds of the intended rules.

Matt

[KenWittlief]

you might argue about the meaning of component

but "completely dissassembled state" is pretty clear

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

I'm going to go with Ken on this one...
1466 made a design decision to use treads. They knew rule R09 stated:

They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as
individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

If they wanted those treads to be avaliable as an assembly than they should have shipped them.

I do think FIRST should put out a team update and define a component and an assembly. Here's my take:

A component is a part not held together with fasteners (mechanical, chemical, spritual, whatever.) They are allowed.
An assembly is a collection of components put together using fasteners to serve a specific function. They are not allowed.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Cory

Everyone is looking at the rules like lawyers again, and that isnt the way it's supposed to be.

Thats my problem with looking at the rules with common sense and using gracious professionalism.

This thread has shown that the rules need to be defined further. You could even say more lawyer-like. Otherwise teams will just bend them... to the point where they are swapping upgraded mechanisms (the purpose of this thread).

I don't you about you guys, but I'm starting to feel like following gracious professionalism is like having walk all over me stamped on my chest. Since I follow the GP mind set, I'll just smile and wait for another team to do it.


BTW: Yes, we did bring our spare wheel to BAE dissasembled. Hub, tube, and wheel.


EDIT:

can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

No, I would tell them they can use their pre-assembled, non-component treads. I will know that they would like to violate the rules, and I will let them violate the rules because that's what GP is about... right?

[Andy Baker]

Disassembled means disassembled. Any spare assemblies we brought to competitions were packed in our crate at ship time and then shipped in the robot crate to the next regional. If we brought any other parts to the competition, they were all in disassembled state. Some parts were 2-3 pieces welded together, but that was as disassembled as we could get. I am hoping that all other teams did the same, or they will do the same next time.

As for purchased parts (wheels, etc.), I figure that you can bring them as an assembly, just like they were purchased.

GP means following the rules. Also, it means changing your ways if you did not know that you broke a rule.

Andy B.

[KenWittlief]

the spare parts rules only apply to custom fabricated components and assembiles - parts you FABRICATED yourself

we didnt fabricate the skyway pneumatic wheels, so we dont have to dissassemble them

we didnt fabricate the chain on our bot, so we dont have to take each link apart

the point of the rule is to discourage teams from making very complex assemblies that are prone to being broken - if they are going to break the spares are going to break - are you going to bring a spare for each match?

its simply good engineering practice - dont builld something custom if you can get the same function from a commercially available off the shelf product - dont build something that is unreliable (breaks) when being used - dont build something that is expensive or difficult to repair or replace

THATS what FIRST is trying to convey here - be in the robust machine business, not in the spare parts emporium business :^)

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

Guys, use some common sense... they took MASSIVE amounts of time to make those treads, can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

Yes, I would. In a heartbeat, and with no guilt. Look folks, we all know what the rules are. FIRST was even very specific about issues like this. Update #11 makes a point of stating:

"FIRST staff and volunterrs will vigorously support and envorce the 2004 rules as written. A team's excellent and creative work that may not align /be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed."

If the team mentioned above wants to have custom treads on their robot, and wants to have a spare set for the competitions, then they have a simple choice to make. Either make a spare set of the treads, fully assemble them, and throw them in the box with the robot to have as ready-to-go spares; or bring the individual components of the tread assemblies (note: individual components include unmodified off-the-shelf items such as wheels [with hubs] and umodified chains - Andy Baker has the right interpretation), and then assemble them on site. Under the rules, there is no other choice. If they show up at a competition with an assembled set of treads, that they did not ship with their robot, then those treads cannot be used in the competition.

If all the teams that manage to work within this set of rules can make it work, why in the world should we make an exception for those that cannot stay within the same constraints? A majority of teams have found a way to make their robot design and spares policy fit within the rules that we have all been given. I believe that they should be acklowledged and congratulated - and their efforts should not be tainted or trivialized by someone else's inability to play by the same rules. A small number of teams are trying to make the rules fit their own robot design and spares policies. FIRST has made it clear that this will not be accepted.

-dave