"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[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...

[Greg Perkins]

John, I think that I worded what i was trying to say wrong. All i meant was have more supervision so it doesnt happen, so rules are enforced. I dont want it to be percieved as being a babysitter, but someone who can keep tabs on what is happening.

and on the winning part, i was just agreeing with Mr. Dillard from the earlier post he did.

[Jessica Boucher]

Whether I agree with it or not (which I won't get into)....to be honest, I don't think its logistically possible to have that many extra volunteers.

Assuming a 40 team regional, you would need 7 extra volunteers for three days. Multiply that by 26 regionals, and you have 182 extra volunteers necessary.

Plus, at the Championship, with 281 teams, you would need 47 extra volunteers for three days (that's rather creepy, if you ask me ).

Look at it this way...at some regionals, this could be somewhat plausible (esp the ones that are funded by major companies)...but even at other regionals and especially at Nationals, those volunteers are really hard to find. I mean, if it takes Aidan to put a post on Delphi because FIRST can't find crowd control volunteers for Nationals, then we're already hurting for National volunteers.

My suggestion to fix this? FIRST should ally with an airline and/or hotel to provide discounts to these volunteers to get them to schlep all the way down there. If Nationals was in NH, we wouldn't have such a problem with this - because the large volunteer base is already established...and no offense to GA, but it's just not at the level to NH in concentrated FIRST non-team support (please correct me if I'm wrong in this statement, GA!). Thus, the majority of people that are traveling to GA are helping out their teams - not paying hundreds of dollars to work for free for a couple of days (though I have done that before - and it's fun! I'd recommend it to anyone).

But that last paragraph was rather OT. Anyway, whether it is right or not to watchdog teams, logistically it is a major challenge. Thus, the most efficient way to do this would be to trust your fellow FIRSTer.

[Greg Perkins]

Originally Posted by Jessica Boucher

Anyway, whether it is right or not to watchdog teams, logistically it is a major challenge. Thus, the most efficient way to do this would be to trust your fellow FIRSTer.

Jessica, i know what an undertaking that would be, but i do think FIRST-ers should be able to follow the rules...i hope

[Raul]

I would rather hope that FIRST continues to rely on GP (honesty and honor) to self regulate. The only sport this can be compared to is golf. Golf has even more rules than FIRST and the participants are expected to use an honor system to abide by them.

I just wish FIRST would learn from the golf ruling bodies about defining rules that cannot be misinterpreted - but that is for another thread.

[Matt Reiland]

It was actually kind of sad inspecting last weekend at one of the regionals. We stopped 6 different teams that were trying to bring in entire arm assemblies fully assembled (We are talking 3 axis of motion BIG assemblies here). AND, they were all totally upset with us for not letting them into the venue in that condition (They had to go to the parking lot and take them apart). These 6 were only the ones that were blatently obvious, we also saw other teams pulling out smaller assemblies out of book-bags and plastic crates that they had brought in. I really expected less teams to push the rules as hard as they did.

My own opinion is that the rule is not good for the competition, especially for teams that are in multiple events. There should be some way for you to repair parts that are damaged in the events legally. The onsite machine shops are great for certain parts of the robot, but a CNC's piece that is fairly complex like some of the arm pieces on the robots would be very difficult to make at an event with the current rules. I would hate for this type of ruling to limit the design and build such that they stick to off the shelf clone robots instead of creating and machining ingenious mechanisms that may get damaged and require repairs.

But that's just my opinion....

[CJO]

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.

Here's what I want to know, what about things that get damaged during a regional. I realize that we are supposed to design hardy robots, but there are somethings which occur which are un-avoidable (i.e. another robot breaking your lexan covering and ripping your control panal to shreads).

Say for instance, you have a hook which gets bent during the matches. dlavery would tend to say that you need to build a new one at the next regional, not in between, even if the second hook was identical (same design, same material, same construction method). Fair enough. So our team has figured out a way to make a new hook, which can be built in the pit, without a mill. However, this new hook (which we will make on thursday) would not be the same as the origional hook, because we will not have a mill. So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time. Finally, as the hook is a solid piece of metal, could we bring a new one in anyway.

Another example of what was mentioned earlier about rules which are "understood" by older teams, but are not necesserily widely known, was the time-out in the elimination matches. I was completely unawares of the fact that each alliance got a time out, and even older teams seemed unsure of the exact peramaters. Our alliance mates, Chief Delphi (47) thought that you could only use the time-out in the finals, while Cheesy Poofs called their's in the quarter-finals. I do appreciate FIRST trying to simplify the rules, nobody likes dictionary sized rule books. But there are some "legacy" rules which really ought to be included for newer teams.

On that note, if anyone can think of any other un-spoken rules which it might behove a team to know could you please post them.

~Christopher

[Grommit]

I think this example is how our team dealt with the "Spare Parts" rule.

Our robot was shipped with a 2x ball grabber. At Sacramento, we realized that it did not have enough torque to successfully lift the ball consistantly and that it was too difficult to operate. We took a hacksaw and removed the entire arm.

We put the remaining robot into the box for Silicon Valley.

At home, we worked on a design to modify the arm to be able to hang.
In order to comply with the rules, we avoided any part that required welding or complex machining/manufacturing. When we drove into Silicon Valley that morning, we brought a tiny portable drill press and a lot of raw material, almost straight out of the store, with only a couple aluminum plates actualy cut to size (since we couldn't do these with a chopsaw, too inaccurate). At the competition, on Thursday, we spent a whole 8 out of our 10 hours working on the arm, while others worked on the program and such, drilling parts with our drill, and cutting the aluminum tube extrusion down to size. We had to set up our pulleys and Fisher-Price motor-powered winch, all parts bought straight out of a store and unmodified.

Clearly, these raw materials were not spare parts, as they were unique and fully intended to create a new mechanism. However, they were store-bought and unmodified until Thursday. But I don't feel that bringing raw, store-bought materials is in conflict with the rule as stated, and that it seems most people on this thread would agree.

[CrazyCarl461]

Originally Posted by CJO

So, either we build a replacement at the regional which is different, or we build an identical hook in the intervening time.

I think that you could argue that either one of these scenarios, although not ideal, would be acceptable.

First of all, you can build whatever you want at a competition as long as it is from 100% raw material. You might catch some flack if it is an all-new system that you suddenly thought of (or worse, copied). But if you are trying your best to create a similar part with identical functionality, I don't think many people would be opposed to that.

As for the other situation, this one may be a little less accepted but I still don't think it would be an absolute problem. Most of the discussion about the bringing of identical, post-six week parts centers around the idea of teams bringing entire replacement systems in a box and merely turning a few wrenches to suddenly have entire spare robot chunks sitting around. You want to make one identical piece for a part that has already broken, which shouldn't be a major deal.

Anyway, just keep a team's honest intent in mind when making judgment of their actions. If you are going to bring parts in or build at the competition, all I ask is that you are prepared to explain yourself and defend your decision. Nobody wants to hound you as long as you are professional about it. In any case, people just need to make aware their specific situations and try and help others understand.

[Rob Colatutto]

Originally Posted by CJO

Another example of what was mentioned earlier about rules which are "understood" by older teams, but are not necesserily widely known, was the time-out in the elimination matches. I was completely unawares of the fact that each alliance got a time out, and even older teams seemed unsure of the exact peramaters. Our alliance mates, Chief Delphi (47) thought that you could only use the time-out in the finals, while Cheesy Poofs called their's in the quarter-finals. I do appreciate FIRST trying to simplify the rules, nobody likes dictionary sized rule books. But there are some "legacy" rules which really ought to be included for newer teams.

On that note, if anyone can think of any other un-spoken rules which it might behove a team to know could you please post them.

~Christopher

The time-out rule was not un-spoken. If you read the rulebook, in section 7-The Tournament, it is clearly explained in rule <T02>:

<T02> There are no time outs in the Qualifying Rounds; in the Elimination Rounds, each Alliance will be allotted
one time out of no more than 6 minutes. The matches must progress according to schedule. If a robot
cannot report for a match, the queueing manager shall be informed and at least one member of the team
should report to the field for the match.