Go to Post Do what you do well and I'm sure there will be much hope in your future! - Collmandoman [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Rules/Strategy
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 12:54
Elgin Clock's Avatar
Elgin Clock Elgin Clock is offline
updates this status less than FB!
AKA: the one who "will break into your thoughts..."
FRC #0237 (Black Magic)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: H20-Town, Connecticut
Posts: 7,773
Elgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond reputeElgin Clock has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Elgin Clock
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by KTorak View Post
** The different environment while being on the field also has prompted our driver team, coach, and human player to wear shorts. While it may be 20F outside, it's VERY warm down on the field and you definitely want to be comfortable.
Now you just watch, the next thing they will say is no shorts allowed in the pits.



I mean seriously. The whole safety glasses thing isn't a tried and true system, and now they want to get even more complicated?? How many people you see in the pits think it's ok to not wear glasses when in the walkways? Is it? Idk. I know my work site has places designated saftey glass zones (inside the yellow and black caution tape - similar to your actual pit) while outside the taped zone (similar to the walkway in front of the pits) are non-safety glass required zones.

Sometimes I think some of these rules are just written based on the current OSHA "work force" standards, and are not adapted at all to FIRST Robotics "competition life" ways of working.

I mean, safety is the key to it all, there is no denying this.. but who was hurt last year by wearing tinted or reflective glasses?

If they were wearing them, they were safe from flying debris in the eyes which is the whole point of wearing safety glasses. We don't mix chemicals in the pits (or shouldn't) and we don't deal with lasers (or shouldn't).

So.....

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/eyea...pectacles.html

^---- Most common FIRST Event usage shown, and approved types.

Note for the Plano Lenses which is the most common type I see at FIRST events:

Quote:
Are available in clear, filtered, or tinted lenses
Just give us a link next time FIRST to something that is industry proven & we can rely on and that the safety inspectors won't be biased to by funky wording when handing us them little green poker chips in the pits.
__________________
The influence of many leads to the individuality of one. - E.C.C. (That's me!!)


Last edited by Elgin Clock : 24-01-2007 at 12:59.
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 13:59
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall View Post
Despite that, judging by these two Q&A responses and the update, it seems that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders. To keep things consistent, <R106> therefore ought to also be amended to include something similar to the last sentence of <R105> (stating that even non-purchased, ex-KOP cylinders need to be the same as the ones in the current Bimba form). If that amendment is made to <R106>, the inconsistency will disappear, because the non-purchased ex-KOP Parkers will become explicitly illegal.
Wrong. Read all of Rule <R105> and Rule <R106>, carefully. Now read it again. Now read it again. Don't analyze it seventeen times. Don't try to read between the lines. Don't insert your own interpretation of what hidden meaning might be there. Just read the words. There is no inconsistency. There is no conflict between the rules. You are finding fault where there is none. If you still think there is a conflict, then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject. But you need to stop poosting incorrect interpretations of the rules and misleading other teams.

-dave
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 14:10
DRH2o's Avatar
DRH2o DRH2o is offline
Registered User
AKA: Dan Waters
FRC #1598 (Team Talon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Danville, VA
Posts: 147
DRH2o is a glorious beacon of lightDRH2o is a glorious beacon of lightDRH2o is a glorious beacon of lightDRH2o is a glorious beacon of lightDRH2o is a glorious beacon of lightDRH2o is a glorious beacon of light
Thumbs down Re: Team Update #5 Posted

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.
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 16:07
Mr. Van Mr. Van is offline
Registered User
#0599 (Robo-Dox)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Posts: 350
Mr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond repute
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
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 24-01-2007, 18:40
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
Wrong. Read all of Rule <R105> and Rule <R106>, carefully. Now read it again. Now read it again. Don't analyze it seventeen times. Don't try to read between the lines. Don't insert your own interpretation of what hidden meaning might be there. Just read the words. There is no inconsistency. There is no conflict between the rules. You are finding fault where there is none. If you still think there is a conflict, then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject. But you need to stop poosting incorrect interpretations of the rules and misleading other teams.

-dave
While that's generally good advice, you don't seem to realize that I did not attempt to read between the lines, nor did I insert some interpretation of hidden meaning.

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:
Originally Posted by <R48>
  • Is the part a safety hazard or likely to damage robots, the field, or interfere with the humans or the controls?
    (No.)
  • Is the part used as a bumper?
    (No.)
  • Is the part used as a non-functional decoration?
    (No.)
  • Kit Part? Was the part included in the Kit of Parts?
    (No; that applies to the 2007 kit.)
  • Pneumatics? Is the part a pneumatic component?
    (Yes.)
  • Is it an Air Cylinder ordered from the Custom Cylinder Order Form?
    (No.)
  • Is it a purchased fitting or valve rated for 125 psi?
    (No.)
  • Is it a previous year's cylinder, valve, or tubing?
    (Yes; the Parker cylinder in question was a KOP item in several previous years.)
  • Is the part or material off-the-shelf or is it custom made by the team after the start of the 2007 Kickoff? (See Robot Section)
    (Yes; it is COTS, from Parker.)
  • Does it exceed quantity limits and/or cost limits? (See Robot Section)
    (No; <R105> specifically describes cost and quantity limits, and they would not be violated.)
  • Yes The part may be used
Quote:
Originally Posted by <R105>
There is no limit to the number of solenoid valves, air cylinders, pressure regulators, and connecting fittings that may be used on the ROBOT. They must, however, be “off the shelf” pneumatic devices rated by their manufacturers for pressure of at least 125psi. Besides the “free” pneumatic components listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form, additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased. However, they must be identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form (i.e. same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker Hannifan distributor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by <R106>
The following pneumatics items may be added to the ROBOT:
  • Prior year FIRST Kit Of Parts pneumatic cylinders, solenoid valves, and pneumatic tubing may be used in addition to those items in the 2007 Kit Of Parts. Their costs must be accounted for explained in Section 8.3.4.3 Additional Parts - Cost Limits and Accounting.
...[The rest is not relevant.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Update 5
~ Under Rule<R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the Bimba Custom Cylinder Order form found on the last page of the Pneumatics Manual.
It satisfies the flowchart in <R48>.

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.
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2007, 12:23
GaryVoshol's Avatar
GaryVoshol GaryVoshol is online now
Cogito ergo arbitro
no team
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
Posts: 5,757
GaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond reputeGaryVoshol has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Does no one have a problem with this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Update 5
° Ship the two (2) Kit of Parts 12VDC batteries inside their original box or carton packaging.
Additional batteries can be shipped or brought with you.
Anyone who didn't keep the cartons?
__________________
(since 2004)
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-01-2007, 12:30
Katie Reynolds Katie Reynolds is offline
Registered User
no team (NEW Apple Corps)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Appleton, WI, USA
Posts: 2,598
Katie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond reputeKatie Reynolds has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Katie Reynolds Send a message via Yahoo to Katie Reynolds
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV1188 View Post
Anyone who didn't keep the cartons?
We didn't ... we (foolishly, it seems) assumed the rules would be the same as last year, where you had to option to ship or bring the batteries to events.

For us, it's easier to bring the batteries to competition since we drive anyway. Shipping them adds an extra 30+ lbs to the crate, we don't have the original packaging, and we'll be bringing extras in the car anyway - why can't we just bring the original kit batteries too?

I guess my biggest problem with this is I don't see why we have to ship two of them. It seems more of a hassle and hindrance than anything.
__________________
Team #93 - NEW Apple Corps
Student - 2001-2004
Team #857 - Superior Roboworks
Mentor - 2006-2009
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 02:32
dlavery's Avatar
dlavery dlavery is offline
Curmudgeon
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1996
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 3,176
dlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond reputedlavery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall View Post
While that's generally good advice, you don't seem to realize that I did not attempt to read between the lines, nor did I insert some interpretation of hidden meaning.
... blah blah blah ...
OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong. You are finding fault and making distinctions where there are none. Again, if you still think there is an issue here then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject.

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:
Originally Posted by Mr. Van View Post
Is that the intent here? No Parker cylinders from previous years? If that is the intent, then the first bullet of <R106> is completely redundant since any of the items listed there would be covered by <R24>.

We have nearly all of the pneumatics components that were in any of the previous year's kits - and we use 'em. (We used a 2001 cylinder on our 2005 robot.) We just want to be sure that we are within the rules!
And this is exactly to the point. Tristan's incorrect conclusion about the legality of Parker cylinders that led to this follow-up question is flat out wrong. When this bad information causes other teams to question/alter their designs, then it needs to stop. Rather than purveying another round of torturous logic that leads to the wrong outcome, you need to refer to the one and only resource that teams should use when seeking a clarification of the rules – the official FIRST Q&A.
__________________
"I know what you're thinking, punk," hissed Wordy Harry to his new editor, "you're thinking, 'Did he use six superfluous adjectives or only five?' - and to tell the truth, I forgot myself in all this excitement; but being as this is English, the most powerful language in the world, whose subtle nuances will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' - well do you, punk?"
- Stuart Vasepuru, 2006 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest



My OTHER CAR is still on Mars!!!
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 03:26
jgannon's Avatar
jgannon jgannon is offline
I ᐸ3 Robots
AKA: Joey Gannon
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,467
jgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond reputejgannon has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong.
My understanding of the Q&A is that the answers are merely guidance and clarification from the GDC, and that the manual and updates are still the law of the land. <R105> has been modified to say that only cerrtain Bimba cylinders are allowed. <R48> has not been modified, and as Tristan showed, the flow chart indicates that old KOP Parker cylinders are legal. (I went through it myself to be sure.) The GDC has made it very clear that this is not the intent, by modifying <R105>, but <R48> still stands as written. I agree with you, Dave, that the intent of the GDC is unambiguous, but I think that it's foolish to not acknowledge that there is seemingly a conflict between <R48> and <R105>. I don't want to beat this topic to death any further, but can anyone use the <R48> flowchart to show that the old KOP Parker cylinders are illegal? Or should we ask the GDC to modify <R48>?
__________________
Team 1743 - The Short Circuits
2010 Pittsburgh Excellence in Design & Team Spirit Awards
2009 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 222 and 1218)
2007 Pittsburgh Website Award
2006 Pittsburgh Regional Champions (thanks to 395 and 1038)
2006 Pittsburgh Rookie Inspiration & Highest Rookie Seed

Team 1388 - Eagle Robotics
2005 Sacramento Engineering Inspiration
2004 Curie Division Champions (thanks to 1038 and 175)
2004 Sacramento Rookie All-Star

_
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 09:00
Tom Bottiglieri Tom Bottiglieri is offline
Registered User
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,188
Tom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond reputeTom Bottiglieri has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Ok, so you can buy new pneumatic cylinders, or you can use old ones. Where is the complication? One point doesn't detract from the other.

This lawyering needs to stop! Just build a robot and have a good time.
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 09:13
KTorak's Avatar
KTorak KTorak is offline
Fire Rescue 47
AKA: Kyle Dersch
FRC #1023 (Bedford Express)
Team Role: Driver
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Montgomery Village, MD
Posts: 899
KTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond reputeKTorak has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to KTorak
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri View Post
This lawyering needs to stop! Just build a robot and have a good time.
Someone said what I was thinking! Finally. This is the complete truth. There is so much, 'if i think this, im right' 'but if i think that, im wrong'. This has to be the worst year, of my three years of experience where people are trying to argue the rule in favor of themself. No, I do not mean that everyone has this intent either. However, the rules simply have not changed alot from previous years, and I will agree that some are unfair, while others are very beneficial. However, there is no need to (stealing from Tom here) lawyer the rules. I can guarantee that if an inspector says that you are in violation of rules, and you try to argue with them without say a specific Q&A response allowing your instance, you most likely will not pass inspection. The rules are not per your interpretation, rather the people who wrote them, FIRST.
__________________
Kyle D- Myspace - Facebook
2008 Bedford Express Driver & Build & Design (Team) Co-Leader
2007 Bedford Express Driver & Build & Design (Team) Leader
2006 Bedford Express Driver, Build Team Member, & Board of Directors
2005 Bedford Express Rookie, Build Team Member & Robot Operator
-
2008 - GLR Quarter Finalist
2007 - GLR Finalist & Boilermaker Finalist & MARC Off Season Event Winner
2006 - GLR Johnson & Johnson Sportsmanship Award & Archimedes 7th Seed Quarter Finalist
2005 - GLR Finalist & Judges Award.
2004 - GLR Semi Finalist.
2003 - GLR/DTR Quarter Finalist & GLR/NAT'L Rookie All Star.
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 17:49
Mr. Van Mr. Van is offline
Registered User
#0599 (Robo-Dox)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Posts: 350
Mr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Van has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Ok, now I'm confuesed - and rather upset.

We just completed our 3 cylinder order from Bimba - ordering three cylinders that are the same bore and stroke as previous kit PARKER cylinders that we already have. Why? Because update #5 makes these Parker cylinders illegal.

Update #5 states that:
"~ Under Rule<R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the Bimba Custom Cylinder Order form found on the last page of the Pneumatics Manual."

The FIRST Manual rule <R105> states that:
"...additional air cylinders or rotary actuators may be purchased. However, they must be identical to those listed on the Pneumatic Components Order form (i.e. same part numbers), and obtained from a Bimba or Parker Hannifan distributor."

The rule is quoted numerous times by the GDC in the Q&A forums. They go further to say:
"...and you may NOT use purchased cylinders that are not IDENTICAL to those found on the Custom Cylinders Order Form." (emphasis in original post)

PARKER cylinders do NOT have the same part numbers as BIMBA cylinders.
They are NOT "IDENTICAL" (the piston shaft, for example appears to be stainless on the Parker and steel on the Bimba). Therefore, Parker cylinders are NOT legal parts.

Is there any other way to interpret this?

No matter what, I can see that teams will be upset at inspection time - either at having to swap out old Parkers or at learning that they didn't really have to take the rules literally...

-Mr. Van
Coach, 599
RoboDox

PS. I now very much wish that I hadn't deleted my earlier post!
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 21:58
Tristan Lall's Avatar
Tristan Lall Tristan Lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #0188 (Woburn Robotics)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,484
Tristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond reputeTristan Lall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Team Update #5 Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
OK, let's try this again. There is no inconsistency in the rule. The intent of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. The application of the rule is not as you have portrayed it. FIRST has made it clear your conclusion is wrong. The official Q&A has made it clear the conclusion is wrong. The FRC updates have made it clear the conclusion is wrong. You are finding fault and making distinctions where there are none. Again, if you still think there is an issue here then post a question to the Q&A system and get an official response from FIRST on the subject.
It has been established that Q&A responses are for guidance, and don't change the wording of the rules. Clarifications in updates can be assumed to clarify, not change the wording of the rules. Only new versions of the rules documents, and updates containing modified rules actually change the rules. So your insistence that it has been done to death in the Q&A and updates is hollow, because FIRST didn't actually change the rule—and the clarification isn't a good clarification at all, because it doesn't necessarily follow from what's written.

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:
Originally Posted by dlavery View Post
And this is exactly to the point. Tristan's incorrect conclusion about the legality of Parker cylinders that led to this follow-up question is flat out wrong. When this bad information causes other teams to question/alter their designs, then it needs to stop. Rather than purveying another round of torturous logic that leads to the wrong outcome, you need to refer to the one and only resource that teams should use when seeking a clarification of the rules – the official FIRST Q&A.
Actually, it appears that Mr. Van was considering using his teams old Parker cylinders this year, then came upon this thread and discovered that FIRST intends for them to be illegal. (He apparently learned from my post that "that the intention of the rulemakers was to ban those old Parker cylinders".) That's hardly a disservice to him, considering that not knowing this fact could have been far more harmful to his team.

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:
Originally Posted by KTorak
This has to be the worst year, of my three years of experience where people are trying to argue the rule in favor of themself.
I'm not arguing in favour of myself or my team (and I'm not sure if that was what you were suggesting). I'm actually about 90% sure that none of <R105> will apply to 188's robot this year.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Van
Is there any other way to interpret this?
You've apparently captured what FIRST intended to say, but not necessarily what they actually said in the rules. Just so that Dave is clear on this point, I never recommended that any team (including my own) use the old KOP Parkers—merely that FIRST left a loophole in the rules that would have made them legal (de jure), if they weren't purchased. And as a matter of fact, with the differing interpretations here, I'd suggest that teams avoid the Parkers, whether or not they're actually allowed by the rulebook; with free Bimba alternatives available, it makes sense to avoid the controversy entirely.



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.
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-01-2007, 22:31
Beth Sweet's Avatar
Beth Sweet Beth Sweet is offline
is getting lost in her new home
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta), #1504 (alum), #67 (alum)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Reston, VA
Posts: 1,938
Beth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond reputeBeth Sweet has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
This season, I was a part of a great team, with great kids who were really inspired, and who inspired me back. That's my brag, what's yours?
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 31-01-2007, 17:52
EricH's Avatar
EricH EricH is offline
New year, new team
FRC #1197 (Torbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 19,819
EricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond reputeEricH has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
Past teams:
2003-2007: FRC0330 BeachBots
2008: FRC1135 Shmoebotics
2012: FRC4046 Schroedinger's Dragons

"Rockets are tricky..."--Elon Musk

Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:08.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi