"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[Kris Verdeyen]

After some consideration, a ski trip, and the Lone Star Regional, I think I'm ready to dive back in....

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

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.

I apologize for impugning you and your team, Ken. That was not what I was trying to do. I realize that you do follow the letter and spirit of the rules as they are now written.

The point I was trying to make is not that teams are breaking the rules (which we can't do much about), but that the rules are structured so as to be meaningless (they are, as the title of the thread says, broken). What is the difference between having a spare robot in the arena and having it in the back of a truck in a parking lot? How does it make sense that one would be legal and the other illegal?

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

We resoldered some PWM cables to a switch in a case where the ONLY thing that was not pre-ship was the SOLDER.

This follows both the letter and the spirit of the law. But it also proves that the letter of the law is really stupid. What sense does it make to have a component that was built legally, then modified after ship, to have to be de-modified and then re-modified at the competition? It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

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.

I think that the reason "the lawyers" have gotten such a bad image (apart from Dave Lavery's famous post) is because (of the unfair stereotype that) they don't care about appearances of wrongdoing, and therefore don't appear to care about right and wrong, and focus entirely on the written law and its many unpluggable loopholes.

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

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?

I'm not sure about the other regionals, but at the Lone Star regional last weekend, all robots in the elimination rounds were weighed before every elim match. This was, according to our head inspector, because during some random re-inspections, robots at other regionals had been found to have gained as much as 4-5 pounds since their initial inspection. The reason I bring it up is not to say that we're all crooks and need constant supervision to be kept in line, but to show that the culture of trust and sportsmanship is slipping. There are hundreds of new FIRST teams every year, and it will be a battle to make sure that every participant on every one of them knows that the rules are something we take seriously. We don't look the other way when a rule is bent or broken, even for established teams.

In order to accomplish that, we need to limit (in the rules) what can be brought to the competition to raw materials and OTS parts. Everything else either comes in the crate or stays at home.

/An edit - excerpts from codes of ethics
The IEEE code of ethics includes:
[We agree] to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible...

The NSPE code of ethics includes:
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

[steven114]

Originally Posted by Katie Reynolds

But what's to stop a team with two identical robots (one working perfectly, one having a lot of mechanical issues) from placing the "perfect" one in a match rather than the broken one?.

What stops them? The little 'Inspected' sticker that you get exactly ONE of Brilliant idea, assuming that it's sticky enough that you can't remove it without the tearing being obvious.

[CJO]

Thank you, Rob, I stand corrected.
~Christopher

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

I'm not sure about the other regionals, but at the Lone Star regional last weekend, all robots in the elimination rounds were weighed before every elim match. This was, according to our head inspector, because during some random re-inspections, robots at other regionals had been found to have gained as much as 4-5 pounds since their initial inspection. The reason I bring it up is not to say that we're all crooks and need constant supervision to be kept in line, but to show that the culture of trust and sportsmanship is slipping. There are hundreds of new FIRST teams every year, and it will be a battle to make sure that every participant on every one of them knows that the rules are something we take seriously. We don't look the other way when a rule is bent or broken, even for established teams.

Don't even get me started on that.
At Buckeye, our team had a chain-driven drive train consisting of 45 tooth plastic sprockets. We couldn't use the steel ones we had because they were about 8 pounds heavier. But the plastic sprockets kept braking. we ran out, and ended up using the steel ones. We had 1 match before the inspectors weighed us. 5 pounds over weight. We ended up taking of the compressor to make weight. This about crippled our arm, the height/angle was powered by pnuematics!

[Kris Verdeyen]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

...But the plastic sprockets kept braking. we ran out, and ended up using the steel ones. We had 1 match before the inspectors weighed us. 5 pounds over weight. We ended up taking of the compressor to make weight. This about crippled our arm, the height/angle was powered by pnuematics!

So you actually ran one match with a 135 pound robot? And you still think that it's no big deal? The weight limit, more than anything else, defines the robots that we build. It is a very important rule. Some might say it's the most important robot rule.

If you didn't have the weight to put the steel sprockets on, you should have taken something else off. Weight is the ultimate bogey.

It really sucks that you had to use plastic sprockets, but there is no way I'm going to feel sorry that you had to dump your compressor.

[steven114]

Speed holes, man

[Biff]

Originally Posted by steven114

Speed holes, man

The Machine Shop was able to get the steel 45 sprockets down to 16oz from almost 30 The Plastic sprockets were 6.4 oz And later when I did the Density calculation (with the help of a web caculator) I found that 16 oz of steel volume wise is the same as 5.5 oz of Aluminum. Sooo, next time any sprocket over about 20 teeth in #35 chain will be Aluminum. Am working with inventor and the Autodesk mechinical now. Just need to get started sooner next year. BTW it was all my fualt for the over wight, The bot strated with steel sprockets and pillow blocks and had to loose them as things got added. With Steel spockets on we never had any issues with chain. I know better now and won't put the team or First in that situation again.

[Astronouth7303]

You haven't seen the bot.
The frame is fiberglass (we work in a wood shop). And we barely had time to change the sprockets, much less swiss-cheese them. but just about everything else was. We fixed that at West MI.

By the way: the arm was it. No bin, no opening side flaps, nothing. We just put a valve on the tank and plugged it in until the match. I'm not saying that we have a disregard for the rules. Our original bot was in weight, but we ran out of sprockets. We made every effort to remain in the rules, however the circumstances were out of our control at that point. Maybe unfairly, you'll say not. We tried our best, but aparently that was not enough.
Maybe you have no heart, maybe you're arrogant, and maybe your right. Maybe some of all 3. In any case, I'm not caring what you say. Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them. I DON'T CARE AT THIS POINT! So what if our bot was crippled? Maybe you were the guy across the field. I'm not caring about you at this point. Any response you make at this point I WILL IGNORE.

[CrazyCarl461]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

Maybe we should have forfeited the next match and swiss-cheesed them.

That is exactly what you should have done. No question. You gotta do what you gotta do to play by the rules. Playing overweight is flat-out unacceptable.
By the way, we had to remove our compressor, too. It sure is harder, but we get by.

Originally Posted by Biff

Sooo, next time any sprocket over about 20 teeth in #35 chain will be Aluminum.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with using aluminum sprockets as long as there are enough teeth engaged (i.e. big enough and enough chain wrap). Our arm has a 60 tooth hubless aluminum sprocket that we got from a snowmobile parts distributor out in California. We even drilled holes in that! If has got to be the coolest thing on our robot.

[Biff]

Originally Posted by CrazyCarl461

That is exactly what you should have done. No question. You gotta do what you gotta do to play by the rules. Playing overweight is flat-out unacceptable.
By the way, we had to remove our compressor, too. It sure is harder, but we get by.



I agree, there is nothing wrong with using aluminum sprockets as long as there are enough teeth engaged (i.e. big enough and enough chain wrap). Our arm has a 60 tooth hubless aluminum sprocket that we got from a snowmobile parts distributor out in California. We even drilled holes in that! If has got to be the coolest thing on our robot.

Swiss cheeze it is, BTW all of our sprockes have a 180 deg wrap, Was trying to not have one wheel chain fail kill the whole side of the bot. Hope to get the aluminum done and make the Kettering event in the fall, use this as a recrutment tool to get more students on the team and give them a pre main event experiance.

[Natchez]

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.

Response by CrazyCarl461
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.

Isn't making identical, post-six week parts a blatant violation of the rules(<R09>)? Isn't the ONLY legal way to repair this robot is to build the replacement at the competition. I'm very confused ... and probably wrong too.

(Please allow me to get on my soap box ... thank you)
As for a major deal, please just swing by team 118's pit on Thursday as six students try to rebuild an arm because ours was destroyed at the LSR. It would have been nice to go home and build a couple of identical parts but, as we interpret them, it is a violation of the rules. Honestly, 118 is about 6 hours in a machine shop away from having an awesome 'bot but we will be scrambling to make the elimination rounds because we refuse to skirt ANY rules. Finally, it has been very disheartening to learn this year that mentors are putting winning over teaching students good ethics.
(OUCH ... I twisted my ankle getting off my soap box ... I deserved it )

[CrazyCarl461]

Originally Posted by Natchez

Isn't making identical, post-six week parts a blatant violation of the rules(<R09>)?

Yeah, you could be right. <R09> is worded in a misleading manner. It says "During the six week period following kickoff you may fabricate spare parts..." I guess they are saying you have to make everything before the ship date (identical or not) but you don't have to ship everything, as long as the parts you do bring are duplicates. In that sense, <R09> is kind of a weird rule. You would think that because they mentioned "exact replacements" and "no assemblies", that they would be talking about the period all the way up to competition. But apparently they are not, so I wouldn't assume that. It is a little vague, so my advice to every team would be just don't do it. When it comes to interpreting the rules, I would just play it safe and don't do anything suspicious.

Thanks for pointing that out, Natchez.

[Rob]

I think there are three main problems that lead to teams breaking these rules:

1) Teams do not understand the rules.
2) Inspectors do not understand the rules.
3) Teams understand, yet bend the rules because they know #2 is true.

I think #1 is a valid excuse for teams in their rookie year, or teams in their second year who are not as established as others. For these teams the six weeks build schedule is very stressful, and they may not even think about checking the rules on certain things. THIS IS WHY MENTORING TEAMS IS SO IMPORTANT! I personally don't care if we play against a rookie team who is 2 pounds overweight because they had to add a bracket or something to their machine to get it to work. FIRST is meant to inspire and teach. If the members of that team have a working machine that year and learn from their mistakes the next time around, FIRST has had a positive impact on them.

In the case of #2, there is little that can be done. Many inspectors are volunteers who have never before seen some of the kit components. They have no idea what certain rules are, and are only trained to look for certain safety violations. On thursday night at BAE we were looking over scouting photos and noticed that one team powered part of their machine using 2 seat motors. Inspectors do not catch these things because they don't have experience with many of the rules. IF YOU WANT TO HELP THIS SITUATION, VOLUNTEER TO BE AN INSPECTOR AT A REGIONAL! I noticed at UTC that there was a huge gap in knowlege about the rules between certain inspectors. Colleen from team 190 has lots of experience at FIRST, knows the rules, and was an excellent inspector. I am sure that many of you could also be.

#3...These are the teams that simply don't get it. They have no idea what FIRST is really about. They are also the teams that probably most need our help, because FIRST is not having the effect on them that it should. It is tough to do, but we need to ask these teams to comply with the rules in order to maintain the integrity of the rules. FIRST is based on friendship, fellowship, trust, and grcious professionalism. These teams have no idea what those words mean. We can help them by showing them what the rules are, and if they are receptive, suggesting ways they can complete their tasks within the rules.

After analyzing this situation, it is clear that this can only get better by more people being publicly involved. Mentor a team, volunteer at an event, talk to teams about potential rules violations before they become a problem. FIRST is a community, and we are it's citizens. If we want it to be a better place, we need to be more involved.

Have a wonderful time in Atlanta!

Rob

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Rob

After analyzing this situation, it is clear that this can only get better by more people being publicly involved. Mentor a team, volunteer at an event, talk to teams about potential rules violations before they become a problem. FIRST is a community, and we are it's citizens. If we want it to be a better place, we need to be more involved.

Alright... this might sound ridiculous but here me out guys.

There is a sweater at Abercrombie that is just totally awesome. I want it so bad, but it's $50 and I just don't have the money.

There are 2 reponses: A. Legally obtain the sweater. B. Steal it.

I'd like to hope that the people in FIRST are the group A type. They want to play by the rules.

A person in groub B is willing to take the gamble that they will get away with their crime.
In my hometown of Enfield, CT, shoplifters are dealth with in two ways, depending on your age. If you're under 18, the police scare you and then embarass you in front of your parents. If you're over 18, you're arrested, and embarassed publicly in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, in the FIRST community there isn't a serious way to deal with violations of the rules. We have to be more pro-active in how we deal with violations. I think this thread has shown, that violations of the rules occur much more often than we could have imagined.

So I think we need some serious penalties. Not serious enough to cause someone to leave FIRST, but serious enough that they are embarassed.
Just as the sweater stealer in my hometown, we should publicly announce when a team breaks the rules.

[ngreen]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

So I think we need some serious penalties. Not serious enough to cause someone to leave FIRST, but serious enough that they are embarassed.
Just as the sweater stealer in my hometown, we should publicly announce when a team breaks the rules.

Mike,

No we shouldn't. This is the harsher of crimes. The FIRST teams are like the juveniles. They should be dealt with out of public. Approach the team. If they don't change their ways you go to FIRST official aka the police. And they will let the public know if needed. We shouldn't announce publicly against any team like that.

It would be horrible. Most people wouldn't actually approach the other team and just complain public about them here without the evidence and that could get ugly really quick. There would be a lot of false accusations because some teams have more resources or work harder than others. It would put a black mark on the whole competition. I can just imagine a member of a team that has a grudge against a team that did well accusing them of breaking rules. Not pretty. Not needed. Deal with this the correct way, privately and through FIRST. Don't become the vigilante.