[moderated] Spare Parts Rule for 2005

[Ken Patton]

Sorry Ken,
I messed up when I was trying to reply to your message and overwrote it. Too tired - so sorry, I'll call Brandon and see if he can fix it.
Mike

PS - I agree with your post.

[Jim Zondag]

Much as I like being limited to 6 weeks for personal and family reasons, I have always found many of FIRSTs rules governing when and how you can work on your robot are totally bizarre. Think about...In what other sport or competition involving machines are you ever disallowed from servicing, maintianing, improving or practicing with your machine. I my life I have been invovled with racing car, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and other robot challanges. In no other league I have ever seen do they take away your machine and deny you the right to make it better if you can.
To me the question is and has always been: What would really change if we could do whatever, whenever we want so long as the machine on the field is legan and safe?

[BillCloyes]

Originally Posted by Andrew

...if you allow 3 days prior to competition for additional fabrication and you require a team to check their parts in at the competition, the inspector would have a pretty good idea of what was realistic to fab and what wasn't in those three days.

Considering the disparity amoung teams and their resources, how could an inspector determine what is "realistic" for each team. Some teams have 100 people involved, some less than 10; some teams have more/better funding and could afford to "buy" 3 days of machine shop time in 7 different shops. I think that forcing the inspectors to try to determine what teams are capable of designing/building in 3 days is going to do nothing but create problems... not just problems, but big, ugly inconsistancies. (This is generally a bad thing for soo many reasons that I hope that I need not go into it...)

... If you don't get everything done, you run against a hard limit; you're getting in a van or on an airplane.

So teams that have and attend a local competition (little or no travel time) have an advantage? What about those teams (the #s seems to increase every year) that compete in back to back competitions, competitions that are nowhere near each other? do they just lose out?

As long as there is a rule that the super-majority of people understand and follow, the playing field will be level.

Not quite...A completely level playing field will never happen. It can only really be done by limiting innovation and creativity; putting a "freeze" on the good teams and let everyone else catchup... What the goal should be...Raise the low end of the field, so that any team can get a robot of some form moving and participating... something that is seems that FIRST is trying to do (the drill motor kits and related items)

I do like the idea of fabricating true,identical "spare" parts (with components broken down into basic mechanisms, not necessarily individual pieces) any time after ship. I know that there are still problems with that method as well though...

-Bill

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by BillCloyes

Considering the disparity amoung teams and their resources, how could an inspector determine what is "realistic" for each team. Some teams have 100 people involved, some less than 10; some teams have more/better funding and could afford to "buy" 3 days of machine shop time in 7 different shops. I think that forcing the inspectors to try to determine what teams are capable of designing/building in 3 days is going to do nothing but create problems... not just problems, but big, ugly inconsistancies. (This is generally a bad thing for soo many reasons that I hope that I need not go into it...)

If a team shows up at competition with an entire robot, which they supposedly built in three days, I think eye-brows will be raised. Assuming that FIRST maintains the $3500 limit and requires included costs of fabrication, the bill of materials for this "spare" + the costs of the original robot would have to fit into such a limit.

Originally Posted by BillCloyes

So teams that have and attend a local competition (little or no travel time) have an advantage? What about those teams (the #s seems to increase every year) that compete in back to back competitions, competitions that are nowhere near each other? do they just lose out?

Per my original proposal (which probably won't be adopted by FIRST anyway, so don't worry), you would only be able to fabricate for three days prior to ONE regional. If you go to multiple competitions, you potentially lose out as your robot accumulates damage that cannot be repaired. This would at least make it a trade-off on whether to go to multiple competitions. Right now, if you can afford it, there is no down-side to attending multiple regionals. It's all good.

Originally Posted by BillCloyes

Not quite...A completely level playing field will never happen.
-Bill

What I meant by "level playing field" is that all teams would be following the same set of rules. In the past several years, teams have had the lee-way to interpret the rules to their advantage and to find gray areas in the rules that allow them to justify their activity.

[BillCloyes]

Originally Posted by Andrew

If a team shows up at competition with an entire robot, which they supposedly built in three days, I think eye-brows will be raised. Assuming that FIRST maintains the $3500 limit and requires included costs of fabrication, the bill of materials for this "spare" + the costs of the original robot would have to fit into such a limit.

Not quite...as noted here

Originally Posted by Mike

...per rule R75 the spending limit was $3500 last year. Rule R76 states that spare parts are excluded from the $3500 cap.

Originally Posted by Andrew

...Per my original proposal (which probably won't be adopted by FIRST anyway, so don't worry), you would only be able to fabricate for three days prior to ONE regional. If you go to multiple competitions, you potentially lose out as your robot accumulates damage that cannot be repaired. This would at least make it a trade-off on whether to go to multiple competitions. Right now, if you can afford it, there is no down-side to attending multiple regionals. It's all good.
What I meant by "level playing field" is that all teams would be following the same set of rules. In the past several years, teams have had the lee-way to interpret the rules to their advantage and to find gray areas in the rules that allow them to justify their activity.

I, too, would love for a more "level playing field" (as defined above), but I'm not sure if this would make that much of a dent. "Level playing field" I take as to include other things. Things that are supposed to be common for all teams; Kit of parts, starting size/shape, maximum weight, the length of the build season....
Limiting the time for post-ship spares to be fabricated, regardless off the number of competitions seems to be a step in the right direction. By itself however, is not enough. It does nothing to counter the use of multiple regionals to fabricate, tune, and debug. It is this additional competition time that seems to doom the potential of a real 6 week build season. I'm not trying to necessarily pass judgment one way or another on this, just point out what I see as the root issue.
-bill

[computer411]

I believe that the $3500 cap should include spare parts because some teams do not have enough bank to support that amount of spare parts. Our team for this year's competition had a $1,000 for parts along with whatever we could make in the metal shop. Needless to say this wasn't a lot and we were not able to compete as well as other teams.