Spare parts and duplicate robots

[Rob]

I would like to start by disclaiming that this is not meant in any way to attack, bash, or diminish the accomplishments of any team that was involved in collaboration this year. This is not meant as a new collaboration debate. This is intended to alert FIRST and this community to a situation that may need some new rules created to address it. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please think about what you are posting before you do it, and be sure that what you post is respectful and constructive. If you want to debate collaboration, please go look up one of the threads on that topic.

Over the last several competition seasons, FIRST has made an effort to control what teams may bring to events and use as spare mechanisms, and made effort to restrict teams from bringing duplicate practice robots to events for use as spare parts. With the emergence of teams using a collaborative approach to designing and manufacturing their machines a situation exists where duplicate robots may coexist at the same event. With the increasing frequency of collaborating teams, this offseason is the time for FIRST to address how these teams should interact with one another regarding the use of parts from one “clone” robot as spare, replacement, or upgrade parts on another.

A situation could exist where one “clone” is competing in qualification or elimination rounds and may need access to some spare, replacement, or upgrade parts. There could be temptation to use parts off of another “clone” who is not currently competing in a qualifying round or who has been eliminated from the elimination rounds to make the needed repairs or maintenance.

It is my interpretation of the rules that if a team were to use parts off of another “clone”, these parts would not fit the definitions of “spare parts”, “replacement parts” or “upgrade parts” as defined in the manual, and would also not comply with rules R01, R16, R26 (if the robot the parts came off of had competed at a previous event), R29 and R46.

FIRST needs to create a rule for next year’s competition that specifically addresses this situation so that there is no “grey area” or room for interpretation. It is my opinion that if all teams can only bring 25 pounds of spare mechanisms to the competition with them, that collaborative teams should not be allowed to pull parts off of one another.

Lets please keep the discussion civil

Rob

[Kevin Sevcik]

A rule like this would make sense to me. If you have a 4 team collaboration, the could concievably coordinate spare parts and bring an entire robot of spare parts between them. It does seem a bit unbalancing. If the robots truly are exactly identical, you could concievably have a collaborating team donate their entire robot to another team for the elims so they could just swap control systems between matches if the robot hit a land mine or something.

It would be a tricky rule to word, however. You don't want to overly restrict teams helping each other. The best wording I would think would be something like "Teams may only use the 25 lbs of spare parts they have brought on site, any spare parts in their crate, or COTS items, kit parts or raw materials from any source." The point being that you can't use manufactured parts from other teams. The problem being that that might prevent another team from manufacturing a part on site for you. So maybe a clause for "or parts manufactured on site." I'm not certain it's a big enough issue to worry about yet, but it potentially could be.

[Ken Patton]

I think this is a discussion that needs to be had, and hopefully FIRST will follow it. I agree with Rob's and Kevin's comments. We're already at the point where such things as swapping in parts from another team with an identical robot can happen.

It'd be great if there were a way to enable teams to help one another (helping to make a part on site, or lending a spare COTS item) while also living up to whatever spare-parts-rule FIRST decides on.

Some possible questions that the new rule might address:

1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then?

4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them?

Definitely something for the rules-makers to noodle on.....

Ken

[Tristan Lall]

You've correctly pointed out a loophole in the current rules, and one into which I looked quite deeply, knowing the Triplets were coming to Waterloo. Parts from one team, given to another, aren't covered by the limitations on part fabrication—<R29> (the 25# rule) only deals with parts "to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site"; parts to be used on other robots aren't included. (Note that references in this rule to "the" robot refer to that team's robot—otherwise it doesn't make much sense, in context.)

So, this means that if I fabricate a device (wholly separate from my robot), and give (not sell) it to another team, at the competition site, there's no rule that forbids it, and furthermore, there's plenty of precedent that would seem to permit it. Basically, the rules assume that a team will perform all work on its own robot, and don't cover the case where another entity acted on their behalf, but without their prior knowledge! (And, in the case of the Triplets and other clones, as long as they have plausible deniability, it's essentially impossible for an inspector to determine that there was prior knowledge or intent—to say nothing of the language in the rules which leaves a grey area surrounding "their" robot(s). It's easy to speculate that they're smart enough to take advantage of this, but without proof of actual violations, the ruling has to be in their favour.)

What we ought to see is some statement of limitation on the ability of teams (or other entities) acting on behalf of another team to fabricate parts outside of the regular rules, and furthermore, we could use a ruling on whether or not the intended use of the part (i.e. on whose robot it will reside) has any bearing on its legality.

[Madison]

Would you all similarly object to teams that did not collaborate sharing parts from their machines with one another?

I understand that the collaboration among teams that is now taking place makes the situation you describe more plausible, but questions about a rule as you've described above should be answered without regard for 'collaboration'.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Would you all similarly object to teams that did not collaborate sharing parts from their machines with one another?

I understand that the collaboration among teams that is now taking place makes the situation you describe more plausible, but questions about a rule as you've described above should be answered without regard for 'collaboration'.

Quite right; collaborators (by definition) bring the element of intent into the balance, but the rule should apply to all cases.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Would you all similarly object to teams that did not collaborate sharing parts from their machines with one another?

I understand that the collaboration among teams that is now taking place makes the situation you describe more plausible, but questions about a rule as you've described above should be answered without regard for 'collaboration'.

In answer, yes I would object. I don't object to teams sharing kit parts, COTS parts, AndyMark parts, raw materials, etc. I just don't really agree with teams having more than 25 lbs of fabricated spare parts available to them because they know 5 other teams are using the same custom tranny that they are. If it's something you had to machine for your robot, you should be responsible for bringing the spares and you shouldn't be able to mooch a premade spare off another team because you used your 25 lbs on other things.
There was a discussion last year on the 25 lb limit that pretty much crystallized my understanding of it. Dave Lavery (I think) hypothesized a team that brought a 100 lb spare robot in a truck, and went out to grab different spare parts from it. They added up to less than 25lbs over all, but they clearly had over 25 lbs of parts available to them. 4 collaborating teams would have 100 lbs of fabricated spares actually available to them. Ditto for a team getting a fabricated spare from some other team. Whats to prevent them from asking the other team to carry in and store spares for them, aside from GP? I think the whole intent is to strictly limit a team to just the 25 lbs of spares to keep the playing field level. And again note that I'm only talking about the restricted fabricated spares here.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

I think this is a discussion that needs to be had, and hopefully FIRST will follow it. I agree with Rob's and Kevin's comments. We're already at the point where such things as swapping in parts from another team with an identical robot can happen.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ken. As most of you know, I'm a firm believer in collaboration. Ken and I had a good discussion on the possible problems with collaboration in Toronto, and this current gray area is one of them. For collaboration to proceed in FIRST, the teams who participate must eliminate any possible conflicts in interest. The collaborations should be to help team development and growth, not an excuse to circumvent existing rules.

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

3. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then?

4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them?

I would answer "No" to all four questions. The only caveat, is for questions 1 & 2. If a team would like to pull a COTS or KOP part off their robot to give to another team, more power to them. At the Great Lakes Regional, the triplets came to the event with 16 belts between our three robots. Since these were unmodified COTS parts, we felt comfortable sharing them between the teams. They did not fall under the 25# spare parts limit. Actually, at the championship, we measured these belts for both teams 48 and 195, who had some difficult with breaking their belts.

When it comes to question 3, I think we need to be careful. I recall a situation in 2005 where a team's tetra gripper was damaged beyond repair. Another kind team stepped in, and lent the team their spare gripper. I would hate to see a rule preclude something like this happening. As Tristan and Madison mentioned early, where and how do we draw this line. Yes it comes down to intent, and intent is always difficult to determine. Do we let the lead inspector be the judge of whether the predetermined intent to circumvent the 25# rule?

A way of enforcing the simpler part of the 25# rule, would be to have teams declare their spare parts on Thursday morning, and have a sticker with a team number placed on them signifying ownership.

Let's keep these ideas flowing. (Rob, great thread idea)

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Karthik

A way of enforcing the simpler part of the 25# rule, would be to have teams declare their spare parts on Thursday morning, and have a sticker with a team number placed on them signifying ownership.

Maybe this could be added to the inspection checklist?

There may be logistical difficulties with tagging or otherwise identifying spare parts that have been declared at inspection and/or at check-in.

In St. Louis we've had a policy of checking teams on their way into the venue Thursday morning to see what spares and potentially dangerous tools they are bringing. We've stationed a few robot inspectors at the entry doors for that purpose.

The policy started in 2005 as an attempt to prevent a repeat of the 2004 incident in which a team brought a spare robot into the venue and used it to practice while they completed the competition robot in their pit.

[sanddrag]

I'm going to take the opposing side on this one and say that I have no problem with the teams sharing parts. If one team brings 25 lbs of transmissions and the other brings 25 pounds of appendages, I think that is excellent strategic planning that should not be frowned upon.

Collaboration is a whole new approach on FRC and I think it will continue to grow and improve the program for the better. I don't see any problem with collaboration contunuing to spare parts.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Sanddrag,

I think the everyone would agree that it's great strategy. People are questioning whether it's fair to other teams that can't or won't collaborate with other teams. Imagine a world where 50% of the teams have mananged to get into a 3-4 team collaboration and can do this spare parts trick to effectively triple their spare parts. How fair is it to the other 50% of teams that can't use any tricks to get access to 75 lbs of spare parts?

Also to Karthik,

I too was considering how situations where teams donate fully functional systems to other teams. I agree that it's an incredibly generous thing to do, but I am undecided as to whether it's a good thing to encourage or not. You might end up with teams bringing a set of super tetra grippers to outfit their alliance partners with for the elims or some such madness. And under current rules, it's a toss up as to whether the extra grippers would be bound by any 25 lb weight limit. The good probably outweighs the bad in these instances, but as you said, it would be a very tricky thing to draw a rule up for.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then?

4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them?

I am going to answer "Yes" to each of these. Or to be more accurate, I would say "Sure, why not?" What is wrong with allowing, or even encouraging, any of these options? I absolutely do not look at this as a loophole in the rules. Instead, I see this as an opportunity that FIRST has given to all teams, some of which may be smart enough to recognize and utilize that opportunity. It has been suggested that FIRST needs to issue a statement that limits that ability of teams to act on behalf of other teams to fabricate parts. To which I respond: why in the world should FIRST ever do such a thing?

These types of arrangements happen in the corporate world, and even the sports world, all the time. NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates, all the time. Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France because his teammates worked up a strategy to impede his biggest competitors while maximizing the resources they could share to support his ride. Ford makes strategic corporate alliances with specific parts vendors all the time, with the full knowledge and expectation that the supplied parts will be interchangeable across multiple car models - and even with some of their competitor's models. In every case, these moves are considered smart business. The practice is not condemned, but rather applauded.

And please don't say that teams should not do it because "it isn't fair." WHY isn't it fair? "Fair" by what standards? Just because a few teams got together and decided to work for a larger common good than just their own interests, and another team chose not to take advantage of the same opportunity, how is that not fair? Just because a few teams figured out how to maximize their potential resources within the rules, and other teams didn't, how is that not fair? To be blunt, just because some other teams figured out a smarter way to play by taking advantage of exactly the same resources that everyone else had and you didn't, how in the world is that not fair?

As has been said several times, FIRST is not meant to be fair. Neither is life. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. I am looking for a logical, well reasoned, fact-based argument for why the sharing of fabricated parts between teams should not be allowed. I haven't seen it yet.

-dave

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by dlavery

To be blunt, just because some other teams figured out a smarter way to play by taking advantage of exactly the same resources that everyone else had and you didn't, how in the world is that not fair?

Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind. Why have any limitations at all? Why not let the rich teams spend as much as they like? There are already ways to get around the $3500 limit anyhow. Should the lesson of FIRST be that money is all it's about? Maybe life isn't fair but should the competition be made that lop sided?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

It has been suggested that FIRST needs to issue a statement that limits that ability of teams to act on behalf of other teams to fabricate parts. To which I respond: why in the world should FIRST ever do such a thing?

If the statement is "no problem" then that's just fine. To me, the most basic issue is that FIRST say something, because there is obviously controversy surrounding the issue. Right now, it seems very much like a loophole, because the rules don't explicitly cover these situations, and, quite frankly, some officials (i.e. volunteers such as referees and inspectors) disagree on the limitations that are currently in effect—this doesn't help the overall effort to maintain consistency between events.

Note, however, that when I referred to limitations, I said "outside of the regular rules" in reference to those situations where an agent of a team manufactures something at the team's behest, or alternatively, where a team accepts a part which, if it had been constructed by the team, wouldn't be legal (e.g. made outside a fix-it window). Right now, I would be forced to be permissive in my interpretation, because there's no rule that disallows this sort of thing*. But it appears to be exploitable to absurd degrees: what if 188 built a significant portion of a robot for 116, and vice versa? If exchanges of parts are legal without exception, do we have a problem? (Recall that these are not subject to the 25# rule, since they're originals, and not spares, replacements or upgrades.) Those robot parts would be, in effect, excused from much of 5.3.3, because of the fact that those rules cover what a team may do for their robot, and not what they may do for others' robots.

So, am I lawyering again? Maybe. But it might also be characterized thus: like any good engineer, I'm reading the specifications as published, and seeking clarification of the ambiguities and oversights. There's no sense in being dogmatic about our "technical common sense" when the opportunity exists to decide upon a definitive interpretation.

The fact of the matter is that FIRST's intent is not clear on this matter, and this interpretation, while not rock-solid, is apparently valid, given the letter of the rules. So I wonder, is FIRST willing to permit this extreme case as well? Even if it allows teams to effectively circumvent the fix-it window rules?

I could speculate wildly that the loopholes (or whatever we wish to call them) were purposely included in the rules, to reward the "smart" teams. But all talk of fairness aside, I can't really see how that would help the competition, or FIRST's greater goals. To an observer, these sorts of crazy situtations, should they ever play out, would look like incompetence, rather than strokes of genius—because whatever deeper purpose they serve would be obscured by the outrage and confusion. And as a practical matter, who would want to be the person charged with explaining the intricacies of who can, and who cannot build what, when and for whom, to an irate team?

In summary, it's not the sharing that's the problem; it's the degree of sharing theoretically permitted by the 2006 rules.

*Except <R29> which would tend to rule out part-sharing, as well as on-site part fabrication due to the shipped-with-the-robot limitation on all fabricated items. Since that portion of the rule is never strictly enforced, and in fact is contradicted elsewhere (in <R19>), I would have to ignore that portion of the rule as erroneous—it can't logically co-exist with <R19>.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by TimCraig

Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind.

You might have a valid concern, if this were true.

Let's look at everyone who collaborated this year.

1114/1503/1680--We all know that the reason this collaboration was started was because the area couldn't support 3 independently operated teams. Combined, yes they do have a lot of resources. Individually, obviously they wouldn't.

70/494--As can be seen in this thread, 70 was on the verge of extinction until 494 stepped in and revived them.

980/4. I can't speak for this collaboration, but nobody has ever accused either of them of being rolling in dough in the past.

254/968--On the outside, you'd think that 968 has tons of money and resources, as they've had beautiful robots the past 4 years. Looks couldn't be more deceiving. They consistently achieve more with less than the vast majority of FIRST.

I don't see anywhere where two or more super powers are collaborating to wipe the competition off the map. I see 4 groups of teams who are all working together, each bringing different assets to the table, to inspire the maximum number of students possible.