"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by Raul

That is a unique interpretation of the rules.

It's less of an interpretation than it's a rant on the way things ought to be. I realize that, as it stands now, it is legal to use practice robot parts as spares, I just think that it shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

In most cases, I agree with your post. However, with Ken's case in particular, you are assuming too much. You cannot just assume that a part on a practice robot was tweaked or modified since kickoff. If it was, then I would bet money that Ken would not bring that part into the arena.

And I wouldn't cover that bet. The larger issue here, however, is one of perception. As professionals, we must avoid the appearance of unethical behavior as vigorously as the behavior itself. How must it look to a rookie, or a even struggling veteran team, to see a mentor on a well respected, well staffed, well monied team leave the arena and come back with whatever part he needed? It looks like it could be a violation. It looks shadowy. Even if you stopped the person, and confronted him or her, and got a great explanation complete with footnotes pointing to specific rules, it looks wrong. That's what we need to avoid, and the only way to do that is to limit what we bring to the competition to raw materials and unmodified off-the-shelf hardware.

[Joe3]

No matter how many rules FIRST writes, a team that builds a practice robot will have an advantage over a team that doesnt every time. No matter what rules they write. Even if they get so picky as to search bags to make sure no spare parts make their way into the arena, these teams will have an advantage. They will have driven this robot, found out strengths, and weaknesses, and found many design flaws incorporated in the robot, and have plans to fix them. Their drivers will have weeks more training, knowing the capabilities of the robot, how in hangles in different situations, and how long it takes to do each task. Their programmers will have had weeks to refine the autonomous programs and create new ones. None of these are against the rules by ANY stretch of the imagination, but they all give considerable advantages to the teams who are able to build the practice robot. Their pit crew walks into the event knowing exactly what they have to do to improve the robot, the programmers simply have to download the new code and check to make sure that it works on the real robot, and the drivers have loads more experiance driving the robot.

As many people have said, the creation of autonomous mode have pushed the benefits of building this practice robot way higher than the cost. It is becoming a near necessity to do so.

Do I think that a team should have a practice robot sitting in the pit next to their real robot and take parts off of it and put it on the real robot when something breaks? Well, actually yes. If I can walk up and ask that team when they built it, and if they say the 6 week build period, thats good enough for me. I also think that FIRST made a mistake getting rid of the 3 day grace period after an event during which a team could make changes to their design. I think that this was a well needed time period for the constant evolution of a design, and the troubleshooting of problems that developed during a regional. If a few teams abused this and worked even after those 3 days, oh well, they can live with themselves. I dont think that more rules are the answer to this problem, as they will always be nearly unenforceable.

It seems like everyone is forgetting what this is supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be a cutthroat competition where everyone is constantly watching to make sure everyone is playing exactly within the rules. We're all supposed to trust each other, and use the honor system, and GP to ensure that everyone plays nice. Let's go back to the system of 2 years ago (teams have until wednesday after an event they participated in to alter designs and make spare parts.) I think it was better for the teams, the engineering process, and FIRST.

[KenWittlief]

actaully every single FIRST team already has a pratice robot

FIRST started GIVING them to us last year

remember?

the EDU bot?

it runs the same code - you can use victors and spikes with it

you can use the same input sensors

you can work out your auton code on it

its not a question of whether every team can afford to have a pratice bot - its only a matter of how close it is to their real one.

[Roland]

A second robot controller like the EDUrobot is a far cry from a second robot, even for autonomous programming. It may be better than nothing, but for learning how to drive a robot, you need something almost identical to the real thing. This is especially important on our team, where we let anyone who wants to drive drive the robot. The EDUrobot is better than nothing, but it's still not really a practice robot.

[KenWittlief]

I dont mean using the little toy motors and foam wheels - you can use the stock transmissions that FIRST gives you and at least make a frame with drill motor or chalupia motor drivetrain, put the EDU RC on it

it will be more or less the same size as your real bots base frame, it will run approx the same speed, have similar characteristics

and you can put gyros and IR sensors and play with auton mode - at least get it close - better that nothing

then tweak your code to match the motion characteristics of the real bot on pratice days at events.

[Ken Patton]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

And I wouldn't cover that bet. The larger issue here, however, is one of perception. As professionals, we must avoid the appearance of unethical behavior as vigorously as the behavior itself. How must it look to a rookie, or a even struggling veteran team, to see a mentor on a well respected, well staffed, well monied team leave the arena and come back with whatever part he needed? It looks like it could be a violation. It looks shadowy. Even if you stopped the person, and confronted him or her, and got a great explanation complete with footnotes pointing to specific rules, it looks wrong. That's what we need to avoid, and the only way to do that is to limit what we bring to the competition to raw materials and unmodified off-the-shelf hardware.

(sorry so long for me to respond - was at the Detroit regional watching some great matches)

Kris-

You are simply wrong whe you assume that our competition parts get modified after ship. They don't. If a part gets modified it is no longer a competition part and on our team it doesn't get used during any competition.

Simply having the part on the practice robot is totally within the letter and spirit of the rules.

At Ypsi we had a student totally rebuild a circuit board because the wires were not wrapped after ship - she never got to see one of our lame practices. We resoldered some PWM cables to a switch in a case where the ONLY thing that was not pre-ship was the SOLDER. We follow the rules and it seems our competitors think we follow the rules (thanks for the kind words Andy).

As to the "appearances" complaint, I respectfully disagree with you. I think you are letting the lawyers win when you start nitpicking about appearances in a case where someone has actually followed the rules. FIRST has so many instances where the thing that keeps us within the rules is our own conscience - my guess is they WANT to trust us and want us to trust each other. Its part of the FIRST culture isn't it?

Ken

[Jack Jones]

In my humble (rookie) opinion, the parts rules in conjunction with the six-week build; the autonomous mode; and raising the bar have put rookie and novice teams at a severe disadvantage. They put even the experienced teams in the uncomfortable position of looking for ways to skirt the rules as an alternative to failing to make the show. Worse yet, they turn crunch time into a gut wrenching experience. This was supposed to be fun; it could have been better.

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts. On the contrary, I think they should eliminate what they now have. Let us evolve and put the best we can muster on the field. Why make a team feel like criminals for not knowing that what they’ve seen was not what has been dictated? Why make them throw away many weeks of effort for the sake of some under observed, unenforceable, and unobtainable principle?

I can envision the parking lots across the street filling with trailers containing the practice robots, assemblies, and other items that we’re not allowed to “bring to the event.” Is that what we want?

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts.

They are not draconian they are suprsingly simple. It's only those looking to beat the rules that create an eviroment in their mind that they somehow don't understand them and can circumvent them.

The rules in a nut shell:
1. If you didn't ship it, you can't bring it. Unless you have the EXACT same part on your robot.
2. Any team manafactured part you do bring must be as dissasembled as possible.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

They are not draconian they are suprsingly simple. It's only those looking to beat the rules that create an eviroment in their mind that they somehow don't understand them and can circumvent them.

The rules in a nut shell:
1. If you didn't ship it, you can't bring it. Unless you have the EXACT same part on your robot.
2. Any team manafactured part you do bring must be as dissasembled as possible.

Not wanting to get into a debate - but I did not say what they have is Draconian - meant only that I fear they will become that way.

Another point: It is impossible to create "EXACT" same parts. Thus, if taken literally, no replacment parts can pass the test.

So, all of this has us playing lawyer, which is not my idea of a good time!

[Katie Reynolds]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Another point: It is impossible to create "EXACT" same parts. Thus, if taken literally, no replacment parts can pass the test.

Ok. This thread was started to discuss teams bringing practice bots to competitions and using them during their practice matches, and/or swapping out upgraded parts on the practice bot for those on their competing robot. The point of the thread was to figure out a way to better enforce, or make the rules about spare parts clearer.

And now it's turned into a debate not being able to fabricate "exact parts", cause the only "exact" part is the original? Wow.

There are plenty of other threads about wanting more time, changing/eliminating FIRST rules, etc etc. If you've got something to say that doesn't 'go' with this thread, find a better fit or start a new one. Please.

Oh, for those confused on the exact parts point, you can make a COPY of the part on the robot. Meaning all the dimensions, materials, etc. etc. are the same. The replacement parts don't have to be the EXACT SAME part, but a REPLICA of that part.

[Gary Dillard]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

In my humble (rookie) opinion, the parts rules in conjunction with the six-week build; the autonomous mode; and raising the bar have put rookie and novice teams at a severe disadvantage. They put even the experienced teams in the uncomfortable position of looking for ways to skirt the rules as an alternative to failing to make the show. Worse yet, they turn crunch time into a gut wrenching experience. This was supposed to be fun; it could have been better.

I see no way, nor need, for FIRST to draft a set of Draconian rules on the accounting of replacement parts. On the contrary, I think they should eliminate what they now have. Let us evolve and put the best we can muster on the field. Why make a team feel like criminals for not knowing that what they’ve seen was not what has been dictated? Why make them throw away many weeks of effort for the sake of some under observed, unenforceable, and unobtainable principle?

I can envision the parking lots across the street filling with trailers containing the practice robots, assemblies, and other items that we’re not allowed to “bring to the event.” Is that what we want?

I can say without reservation that we have never been uncomfortable in choosing between skirting the rules or shipping a robot that wasn't competitive. Our team has had up and down years, and more times than I like to admit we've fielded a robot that would move and do little else, because we didn't get it built, tested or debugged in time. Never did we consider starting fab early, using parts from previous robots, cointinuing after the build season - I'd quit the team if that happened. At that point it becomes about the robot and winning and not about promoting engineering as an honorable profession.

This thread has been a good discussion for the right reasons - what do other teams (the FIRST family, not just the FIRST organization) consider the interpretation of the spare parts rules, practice robot rules, etc. so we can all try to apply the same standard to our decisions. Not so we can manipulate them to get an unfair advantage, but rather so we DON'T get an unfair advantage over other teams. I think these forums are like going to mediation rather than to court - if we all come to agreement or at least consensus we don't need FIRST or the lawyers to rule. We police it ourselves.

For those who don't remember, the old rules allowed building functionally equivalent replacement parts to be built in the 4 days after each regional - the big debate then was "what is functionally equivalent?" One year we built a new lift out of a different material, and took it straight to the judges to see if we could use it; if they said no, we were prepared to accept that even though it would have had a major impact to us. I think everyone should weigh all the options available to them for building spares (it's too late to do anything about shipping them at this point), and be willing to accept the decision of the judges at each competition if confronted.

Jack, there is no doubt Rookies are at a disadvantage - that's true anywhere; I would hope my experience counts for something at work. But noone goes into this competition thinking "hey, I think I'll build a crappy robot" - it's usually just a matter of available resources to get things done. I try to encourage every team who shows up, find something positive to say, both new and old teams. Everyone should feel proud of participating.

[suneel112]

The bottom line is that FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism.

FIRST is about having fun, building robots, and pushing engineering into the mainstream community. Gracious Professionalism is about being fair to other teams, following the rules, and being helpful to the other teams who may be at a disadvantage.

If a team breaks the rules, they really don't deserve to be a part of FIRST, but with gracious professionalism, if someone slaps you, turn the other cheek.

FIRST could spend half of its money being a rules disciplinarian, but FIRST is about inspiring students, not building a police state.

But I do believe teams should get penalized if it is discovered they are in the practice of this. FIRST of all (heh heh), they should get no award, and the team leaders/sponsors should get a letter from FIRST telling them that their team cheated. In addition, they should be disqualified. In addition, other FIRST teams should be encouraged to report this action, because FIRST is about Gracious Professionalism, and breaking rules simply ISN'T Graciously Professional.

[Greg Perkins]

This rule seems to be on the edge of "grey area". I mean there is so much going on in the pits at one time, that there is no way to accuratly know what each and every team is doing during the day.
This is how rules get broken, by not enough supervision...It's the same as any other sport. In soccer, you could get tripped, and the ref's wouldnt spot it. in football, a guy could hold you and the ref's wouldnt be able to tell.
Now i know this is a hard rule to adhere to every minute by FIRST, BUT i think that they could do a better job in promoting it. If you have ever been to/watched a NASCAR race, and when the drivers bring their cars down pit road, they are under constant supervision. there is always a NASCAR offical within 10 feet of a car on pit road. even when the car goes behind the wall in the garage area, there is still a official within 10 feet of the car as it's being worked on.
now, my "idea" is that first should get volunteers to piggyback teams. have one representative per "block". a block would consist of six pit stalls. that way there is always someone keeping track as to what is going on, and so "name calling, finger pointing, and whatnot" keeps from happening.
I think the rule is great, however teams will do anything to win, and that's terrible. Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy.

so, lets try and take a step back, re-evaluate ourselves, and ask ourselves..."do we really want to promote a monopoly to our future buisness leaders?"


`Greg

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Greg Perkins

now, my "idea" is that first should get volunteers to piggyback teams. have one representative per "block". a block would consist of six pit stalls. that way there is always someone keeping track as to what is going on, and so "name calling, finger pointing, and whatnot" keeps from happening.
I think the rule is great, however teams will do anything to win, and that's terrible. Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy.

Greg,
I think you are misguided on several accounts.

Do you really believe we should put a "baby sitter" on every single team to make sure they follow the rules? FIRST has always been primarily on the "honor system". The volunteer requirements to "spy" on each team would be incredible. Besides, I'd like to believe that every team is profesional enough to follow the rules, and be positive role models for their students. Those that don't... probably aren't in this for the right reasons.

Do we really want a police-state?
Big Brother is watching 229?

Also, I don't understand your points about winning. What are you saying? Winning gets you nowhere in life?

I'm of the opinion that (while staying within the rules) one should try their hardest to win. The competition is what drives people to be better. What drives us to innovate, and to come back each year stronger than ever.

John

[Don Wright]

"Winning gets you knowhere in life, in your job you will always be looked down upon, never be the "big guy", and you will never win at being greedy."

I wish this were true...