"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[Don Wright]

While I believe that we violated the intention of the rules by putting our practice robot on the field for practice, it was because of a misunderstanding and it will never happen again.

I hope most of the teams that are violating the rules are doing it because they misunderstand them and not because they are trying to bend them. Even the fact that this discussion has gone on so long back and forth between respected members clearly shows that this is a gray area that probably needs to be clarified.

I assume that anything that is added to a shipped robot must be fabricated at the competition, from purchased parts shipped with the robot, or brought to the competition.

For example...we changed a gear in our arm. We made a brake bracket out of aluminum in the PICO trailer and added a purchased cylinder to it and screwed it to our winch. We made little aluminum covers out of painted sheet aluminum that we cut, bent, drilled, and screwed to our robot at the Regional. We bought new nylon strap Friday night at REI and Saturday morning, cut it to length, added the eyelets, and attached it to our robot after our original strap that shipped with it slipped off the pulley one round and got caught in some gears.

Since all of the changes we made were fabricated at the competition from common purchased parts, I assume this would all be legal.

We spent a lot of time making all the parts on our robot so that we coule easily make and replace them at the competition. We think that is one of our strong points. Although it was a good thing our mast screw mechanism broke because that was a weak link that needed to be found out because it would be hard to repair.

So, that brings me to my next question. Ironically, the screw drive nut on our practice bot broke right before we took it out of the arena. The screw drive nut on our real robot broke in quarter finals. So, we now have to fix both.

So, I am keeping in mind that however we repair our practice robot, we have to be able to make the same repair at Grand Rapids on Thursday. This means any fabrication too. So, I will be bringing bare material (sheet aluminum, tube, nuts, bolts, etc.) and even though the design was done here in the time between regionals, and we can try the design on our practice bot, it will be entirely fixed at the competition on Thursday. I will not be bringing the "fix" completed in with me. It will be made at the regional.

I assume I would not be in any violation of any rules. Am I correct?

Thank you.

[dlavery]

In the example you give above, I would say that you are acting both within the spirit, letter and intent of the rules. All your fabrication, both in the case of the changed gear and the screw drive nut repair, is being done on site or at facilities open and available to all the competition participants. All the fabrication is being done within the time frame of the competition. All repairs/spares are made from component materials, and not built-up assemblies that have been built off-site. So, it looks like you are OK.

Which is exactly my point. You guys had to figure out a way to repair your machine, and you managed to find a way to do it within the rules. The fact that you did DESIGN work off-site is fine. Even using your practice robot to work through the design is OK, as long as you don't use any of those parts on your competition machine (and you have clearly indicated that you won't be doing that). The fact that you were able to find a way to do this, within the rules, is to your credit.

And the fact that you were able to do this provides an existance proof that it can be done - within the rules. If these teams can do it, why shouldn't we expect ALL teams to stay within the rules regarding spare parts?

If they are violating a rule because they do not understand or misinterpreted the rule, then then can be gently informed of the problem, and will probably respond as gracefully and honestly as Team 830. If they are knowlingly violating a rule (hopefully a VERY rare occurance) then they should be called on it.

-dave

[Richard Wallace]

Quote:
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?

<dlavery in response>:
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:
Quote:
"FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce 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."


Well said, Dave.

I'd like to add one thing, though. Responsibility for complying with FIRST rules belongs to the teams. I think of it as similar the tradition in the game of golf, where players (at least the gracious professional ones) call penalties on themselves when they break a rule. FIRST staff and volunteers must rely on the gracious professionalism of the teams to determine if all components comply with R09.

[rees2001]

I think that there are a few different points of view being discussed here. some people are talking about bringing spare "parts" (the letter of the law) and some people are talking about spare components (individual reading of the rules). The main point of this discussion started when someone witnessed a team putting upgraded mechanisims onto thier robot from a practice robot. There is a difference between bringing and making BACKUP parts, going to 2 or 3 regionals and improving a system at the regional and keeping a robot back at your shop to make changes to while other teams robots sit crated and still.

This reminds me of another experience I had with teams bending the rules. A few years back I watched a team take their robot out of the competition facility on Friday night. I had watched this team during practice and saw the trouble they were having with their ball pick-up mechanism. The next morning the robot had all new components and even new signs. When I asked one of the students what they had done he told me, "we took it back to our school and worked on it all night long." The new system worked excellently, this team went on to do well at the regional and very well Nats.

This situation was not and is not fair. Part of me looks at the rules and thinks "they are breaking the rules, I should do something about it." The other part of me looks and sees kids working very hard to perfect something they are proud of. It's not a tough decision to make. I just wish these team's mentors could see the lesson we all want them to see. Do your very best, just do it fairly.

[Gabriel]

So how does software fit into all of this? IIRC FIRST specifically allows us to keep our controllers so we can work on software, but that seems to violate the principle behind the spare parts decision.

Yes, all teams have the same physical resources WRT software, (a laptop and a compiler), but because the regionals are spread out we all have different amounts of time. So it doesn't seem entirely consistent for FIRST to encourage us to work on software after the ship date but not to build spare parts.

[KenWittlief]

because you can put a piece of metal on a machine and fabricate it into a part, and you can tell when its done

but FIRST knows that SW is never done, the rev number just increments forever

[Natchez]

I am now in favor of a future rule that states, "Only off-the-shelf and raw materials may be brought to the pits."

The rules currently allow teams to

1. Manufacture a gravelator in the 6 week period
2. Not ship the gravelator
3. Use the gravelator to practice
4. Disassemble the gravelator
5. Bring the gravelator parts to the competition
6. Reassemble the gravelator on Thursday and put it on their 'bot

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

Basically, if the "don't bring any modified parts to the pits" rule was enacted, this would eliminate any questions about when parts were manufactured. Yes, this means that any parts that were manufactured/modified in the six week period would need to be stuffed in the crate with the robot if a team thought they may use them at the competition. For those who are going to argue that their crate will weigh more than 400 lbs. if they have to stuff it full of spare parts, just consider it another engineering challenge ... or fundraising challenge.

Now in favor of the anti-gravelator rule,
Lucien

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Natchez

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

I would check out Rule R09 in the robot section.
During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spareparts 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).

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Natchez]

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.

Duly noted & I was mistaken. I still don't like the idea of shipping one 'bot while walking in with a practice 'bot disassembled and having the opportunity to "selectively" assemble it on Thursday.

Lucien

[Gary Dillard]

Let me propose a rules change for next year that addresses the issue of cost of shipping only, for those who want to stay within the intent; it would be impossible to enforce and relies on GP, but so do many other rules:

Spare subassemblies fabricated during the 6 week build period may be crated/boxed and sealed prior to the ship date and carried to the competition in lieu of shipping in the robot crate.

This would allow teams to build complex robots and spare parts but not have to foot the cost of shipping the spares.

Noone currently watches us uncrate our robot; noone would know if our spares were in the crate or in a box next to it that we brought with us - it's enforced by GP. This change would only help those who stay within the rules anyway by cutting a shipping cost.

[Chris Hibner]

How about we just get rid of the 6-week rule and allow teams to keep their robots? All of these problems would go away.

[Jessica Boucher]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

How about we just get rid of the 6-week rule and allow teams to keep their robots? All of these problems would go away.

Because then Dean couldnt say "And they all had only 6 weeks to do it..."

Seriously, though...that is an idea. But how do you handle people complaining about teams whose first regional is later in the regional schedule? And how would that affect membership into the earlier regionals?

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Because then Dean couldnt say "And they all had only 6 weeks to do it..."

Dean wants to see this is as a challenge. More time and you would have too much time to test, all the bugs would be worked out. On a more serious note, not everyone likes to spend every day of the year doing this. The 6 week schedule keeps everyone on the same playing field. How many mentors or students would you have if they had to devote more than 6 weeks doing this?

[Don Wright]

I have a hard enough time getting people to show up one night a week for 6 weeks...let alone 4 months.

I also think that getting rid of the six week limit would just but a bigger divide between the upper tier and lower tier teams.

[Aidan F. Browne]

Please don't dilute this thread with a discussion of 6 weeks or no 6 weeks -- there are other threads that address that.

The focus of this thread is the 2004 Spare Parts rules as they are written.

Thanks,

Aidan