|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
-dave |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
In referance to R105 and what was available on the bimba site and responses on the Q and A the manual very clearly states Please check the Bimba web site for available strokes in each bore size. We did and ordered what was available. We are now going to be out time and money due to a serious mistake that was not ours. This is not good When the speed limit sign changes after you pass it -- should you get a ticket for going the old speed limit ?????Last edited by DRH2o : 24-01-2007 at 14:18. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
OK - If this seems obvious - I'm sorry, but I think there is still room for confusion regarding legal pneumatic cylinders - primarily because of differences in the Bimba order webpage and the printed order form. I wish for teams to avoid problems in a few weeks at inspection. I've read the Q & A and the updates and the manual. I've come to the following conclusion:
The PRINTED order form (the last page of the pneumatics manual) lists the ONLY pneumatic cylinders that can be on a 2007 robot. It does not matter that teams can order different cylinders from Bimba's FIRST webpage. It does not matter that the manual is somewhat confusing regarding previous KOP cylinders (<R106>). It does not matter that the Pneumatics Manual states "you may order the exact custom cylinder or rotary actuator you need for the job". It does not matter that the Pneumatics Manual states "please go to www.bimba.com and click on the FIRST link and follow the instructions". Only those cylinders IDENTICAL to those on the FIRST Free Components Order Form (p. 16 of the Pneumatics Manual) and allowed. This means no Parker cylinders at all. This means no 1.5" bore cylinders longer than 11". I make this post because I think lots of teams are going to confuse the PRINTED order form with the Bimba FIRST webpage - even after Update #5. As an inspector, I do not want to be telling teams that their pneumatics are not legal. -Mr. Van Coach 599 RoboDox |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
Perhaps you need to look at what's actually written, and not what you (or whoever was responsible for this rule) intended to write. That's the salient point here: what's actually written. Teams are not bound by intent, they are bound by rules. You know as well as I that the officials can't just insert words and concepts as if they should (in someone's opinion) be there. While I certainly recognize that the intent of the rule is very important, if the rule doesn't actually say what it was intended to say, no amount of good intent can take the place of actually fixing the rule. I'm not trying to mislead teams, but you're not helping matters by denying that the rule is potentially inconsistent. If they're misled, it will be because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a slight difference in the way that the rules are worded, and that omission has the potential to cause practical consequences. I'm going to go over this in detail: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The first sentence of <R105> says there is no overall quantity limit on cylinders. The second sentence says that they must be rated for 125 psi and COTS. So far so good. The third sentence says that you may purchase cylinders. The fourth sentence says that they must be the same as the ones on the form (same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker dealer. So, what's that saying? The word "they" bolded above logically refers to the objects in the preceding (third) sentence, namely purchased pneumatic cylinders. Not pneumatic cylinders in general. Not donated, found, stolen or bartered pneumatic cylinders. If you take that fourth sentence to mean cylinders in general (referring to sentences one and two, but not three), its content is logically consistent, but grammatically disjointed. You wouldn't write an essay like that, and you can't reasonably expect people to read like that. Going to Update 5, the relevant sentence references rule <R105>. We have previously established that the text restricting us to cylinders from the form applies to purchased cylinders. If we are operating under <R105>, then the clarification ought to be referring to those items in <R105> which are in question—namely the ones with the restriction that needs clarifying, or in other words, the purchased ones (see sentences three and four). It makes no sense for the update to be referring to all cylinders (i.e. clarifying one of the first two sentences), because it isn't a mere "clarification" to add a new restriction where it never existed before. If the intent was to modify the rule, then you can't just call it a clarification, and expect people to treat it identically. <R106> says, in the first sentence of the first bullet, that prior year KOP cylinders are allowed in addition to those in the KOP. The second sentence of that bullet says that these parts must be accounted for as explained in Section 8.3.4.3 (i.e. account for the cost like any conventional COTS item). Note that the word "purchased" doesn't make an appearance in <R106>. Like I said earlier, there's a subtle point that was overlooked. It's your problem if you feel compelled to take it personally, but the fact of the matter is, given a reasonable application of English sentence and paragraph structure, I can't interpret it your way. The stupid part of all of this, is that it's a tiny change to fix it to everyone's satisfaction. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
If you want to convince yourself that you are right and FIRST is wrong, then go ahead. If your robot design is impacted by the incorrect conclusions you reach, then that is between you and your team. That is your business. But when you come into a public forum and repeatedly make incorrect statements about the meaning and applicability of the rules, then there is a problem. Asserting statements that contradict the answers provided by FIRST is misleading to those teams that are trying to follow the official rules. More importantly, it is a disservice to those teams that may not yet be experienced enough to understand that answers found here carry no weight with inspectors, judges or referees, and the only official answers are those found on the FIRST Q&A system. Quote:
|
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
If the GDC writes a rule, then it's their responsibility to make the rule agree completely with their intent. It is never up to the teams to make up for a shortcoming in the communication of the GDC's intent. In particular, if, on a minor point, FIRST leaves a loophole, an inconsistency or a statement with multiple interpretations, then it stands to reason that FIRST ought to fix it (once it's been communicated to them via the proper channels). And if FIRST doesn't agree that there's a problem, then it's their prerogative to say so—but they do so at their peril, because it might represent a missed opportunity to defuse some of the conflicts that occasionally arise at inspection. Quote:
And I know you don't agree with my rationale. But it's FIRST's job to avoid phrasing things in ways that lend themselves to torturous logic. If the rule were precise in its statement of intent, you wouldn't be having this argument. I can send this to my team's Q&A person, and we'll see what happens. I would like to point out, however, that a flippant response of "see Update 5" doesn't address the issue—it would be nice if the person answering it takes the time to explain precisely why the existing rule justifies their interpretation, and not my own. Quote:
Quote:
Incidentally, there's another reason why you can't read <R105> in the manner that Dave prefers. If the fourth sentence applies to the first and second sentences, you're in effect saying the following: "solenoid valves, air cylinders, pressure regulators, and connecting fittings" must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"Of course, this makes no sense. You can't order valves, etc. from the Bimba form. If you want to cherry-pick the reference to cylinders, sure, that part makes sense (I referred to this earlier)—but then you have the little problem of how to justify the rest of the items ("they"); basically, the rule lacks logical consistency when read this way. (And on top of that, the rest of the fourth sentence would mean that any new fittings, even for the Festo components in the kit, would need to come from a Parker or Bimba dealer; while FIRST is free to mandate this, it's a bit strange, especially considering that other pneumatic parts like tubing can come from any vendor.) Now, instead, read it as if sentence four follows directly from sentence three: "additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased" and must be "identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form"Note that this makes sense. Note that this one also doesn't require a leap of grammar to make it work. Last edited by Tristan Lall : 30-01-2007 at 22:02. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Tristan,
We all are human beings. Our grammar (including yours at times I'm sure) is not always perfect, nor are we. This is why FIRST has established a means for clarification for the 10 section manual that they published: FIRST Q & A. No, the replies to it are not officially in the manual, but they are official clarification on any confusion, and they are from the GDC, thus making them valid. As to your frustrations with the descrepancy between what the rule says and what it means, these men are engineers, not lawyers. A lawyer would spend months of just working on this to get the technicalities correct. These men spend their volunteer free time. I, for one, know that I spend my free time on catching up on Grey's Anatomy and I am grateful to them for contributing theirs to help me. Yes Tristan, it is frustrating when the things that we think should be clear are not. But there is an established mean for fixing the issue in place here. Please use it. And please stop the lawyer-like arguments. From what I've read, the last page or so has been arguing that is doing nothing but getting people confused. And that just doesn't benefit anyone. FIRST is something we do for fun, because we love it. My team has had to remind me of that lately. It should be fun, and we shouldn't torture ourselves over tidbits like words. We're halfway through, so please, everyone (readers and posters) just take a breath and remember why you go to robotics every day. |
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Tristan and Dave: There is an easy way to reconcile your views. First, make the change, assuming that it changes nothing else. Then, put Tristan on the GDC for the 2008 game. This will give him experience as to what the GDC goes through every year and (hopefully) give a more grammatically correct manual.
I'm not joking here. "Never criticize someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes." You can't know what the volunteers go through until you volunteer to fill one of their places. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Eric, I like your ideas about using caution when criticizing. Nonetheless, I'm not sure why everybody is seemingly dismissing this as a mere semantics issue. Go take a look at <R48>. I know that Eric is plenty familiar with it by now, because he is one of the outspoken rules gurus around here. Follow the flowchart with the 2006 KOP Parker cylinder in mind, as Tristan does. It passes without any question or lawyering or grammatical quirks. It is obvious that this is not what is intended, because of the latest updates and Q&As, but <R48> still stands as written. This is a problem! I don't think it's worthwhile to criticize the GDC over ticky-tack semantics, but it's also a mistake to blindly defend them when there's an obvious conflict. Am I missing something here? I feel like I'm going nuts, because it's so apparent to me, but there's only one other person who will even acknowledge what I'm seeing.
|
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
I have to say that I'm with Tristan and Joey on this one. The way <R48> reads, since the Parker cylinder is a previous year's cylinder, is off-the-shelf, and does not exceed the quantity and/or cost limits for this year's competition, the cylinder passes the flowchart and is a legal part.
|
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Ok... Everyone who's dismissing this problem as a clash between egos needs to read the first few posts, because the question (as jgannon has stated) is entirely valid. One part of the manual says that the parker cylinders are legal, and another says that they aren't. This is a problem.
When I'm deciding what to put on the robot, I go to the flowchart. In this application, If I went to the flowchart... My team's robot wouldn't pass inspection. (That is bad). You can walk in someone else's shoes all you want, but that doesn't make a mistake that they previously made correct. There job is hard, and I am very grateful that they do it (Thank you GDC ), but I still expect a clear, concise manual. as does everyone else in FIRST.So... Has anyone posted this to Q&A yet? EDIT: I also haven't seen one person criticize the GDC, I've only seen a problem with a manual being pointed out. Nobody should be taking anything said here personally, as that only aggravates the situation and causes hard feelings. Last edited by Cody Carey : 31-01-2007 at 21:01. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Tristan's question has been posted on the Q&A exactly as I received it tonight.
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
The answer has been posted http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=3276
|
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Team Update #5 Posted
Quote:
So you can use one of the old Parker-Hannifan cylinders, as long as it is identical in function to one of the cylinders listed on the current Bimba order form. OK. Thank you GDC. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Team Update #3 Posted | Katie Reynolds | Rules/Strategy | 26 | 21-01-2007 19:41 |
| Team Update #2 is Posted | geo | General Forum | 1 | 16-01-2004 10:56 |
| Team Update 8 Posted! | Harrison | General Forum | 1 | 30-01-2003 08:08 |
| Team update #6 posted | Joe Ross | General Forum | 6 | 22-01-2003 10:14 |