Least favorite rules?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have a suggestion. Let's all step away from this thread for a few months, build some robots, go to some competitions, and then come back and use this thread to develop some good comments and feedback for the team forums.... Only after we've seen all the rules in action and see how they work. Instead of guessing about how things in the future would've been better with different rules, or declaring our dislike for a rule because we heard someone say something about some part of it.

[GMKlenklen]

whatever, dude... I want to use some electic solinoid actuators! lol. pnumatics are just more trouble than it's worth for a small latch. And It doesn't help that IFI fresh ran out of HS-322HD servos!

[TimCraig]

My least favorite rule is all the detail FIRST goes to defining how number should go on the robots and then don't bother to enforce it. There are always a slew of robots with small numbers, numbers not on all four sides, poor contrast.... It's annoying when teams go to the trouble to do something so simple right and others get to skate.

[Jared Russell]

The 72" penalty for unintentionally tipped robots, BY FAR!

Penalties exist for two reasons.

1. To ensure that the arena is safe.
2. To ensure that the arena is fair.

This penalty has nothing to do with safety, and it further penalizes a team that's been disabled!

[Bongle]

My most disliked rule is probably the no-handling-of-multiple-tubes rule. Why remove a potential challenge? If people want to aim for the sky, let them.

[tcj103]

The kinds of rules I dislike most are the ones where due to some random act, you are penalized. This year, it happens when a human player tosses a ringer, and it snags on the robot, most of the time on your alliance flag. Once that 'bot "controls" another ringer, it's like a 10 point penalty for controlling two ringers. Very annoying.

Also, the tape rule, which I saw in an earlier response. Maybe not the rule itself, so much as the blind and somewhat arbitrary enforcement. I understand not using tape to hold your gripper together, but there how about the intended use of some kind of tape being allowed? Example this year was skateboard grip-tape, which can be used for traction on a ramp. A team was told this was not legal, unless the tape was glued on, after removing the adhesive.

After writing this, the tape rule, for the above reason, is my most dis-liked rule. A rule that states the intended use of a tape, if it's a specialty item, should be allowed. ENGINEERS DESIGN TAPE AND ADHESIVES. FIRST IS NOT RECOGNIZING THE ENGINEERS WHO DEVELOPE AND ANALYZE THESE PRODUCTS! They are basically saying that any tape product (other than electrical tape for insulation) is "beneath" the standards of FIRST.

I'm going to contact 3M about this...

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by tcj103

I'm going to contact 3M about this...

The guy to contact there is George Buckley. He is their CEO. Many years ago, when he was with Emerson, George met Dean Kamen and that meeting got me started with FIRST. George is an engineer (a Ph.D., in fact) and he knows what FIRST is about.

[Josh Fox]

at Detroit, we scored a tube on the low level of the rack. while reaching for a tube directly beneath that, the tube we just scored got knocked off. because of this, we scored the tube we just picked up there and scored the other next to it to get a row of five. the tube wasn't counted, so we only got 3 and 1 single and lost the match

[Rich Ross]

A few things.
1. Tape is prohibited because FIRST doesn't want to backslide. Letting us use tape for something besides insulation will lead to the eventual construction of robots held together by little more than duct tape and zip ties as opposed to nuts and bolts. If you want to use grippy material, find something that is pretty much the same, but is not described as tape. We used "safety tread" and passed inspection, and it was virtually the same as grip tape except in name.

2. If your robot falls over, hit the e-stop. Doesn't that solve the problem?

3. Multiple tube containment would be ridiculous. The reason FIRST eliminated this is for many reasons, but here are what i think are the primary ones.
A) When people can store something like 10 tubes, it broadens the gap between rookies and veterans.
B) The game isn't about making a storage device, its about either scoring, playing D, and/or ramping/lifting.
C)when people store tubes, its BORING for a long time. In 2005, watching teams (like 868, 469, 279, 71, and countless others) sit there, driving in and out of the loading zone so they could fill up with a ton of tetras. This is not fun for spectators. It does result in a little more excitement at the end (arguably) but it lowers the total energy in the arena.

My least favorite rule is regarding timeouts. From the end of a match, you have 4 minutes (at least) until your next match, but only 2 minutes to call a timeout. WE ran into a problem where 302 would have liked to call a timeout, but the referees would not let us call it. We complied, and i think the refs gave us a little bit longer to fix it, but 703, who also did not call a timeout, took about 8-10 minutes (their drive was broken to some extent and needed to be fixed). In the finals, You need to let teams fix their robots. watching a team lose because they couldn't replace a chain was silly, and the rule should have been enforced (even if that meant that 302 and 703 couldn't play).

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Rich Ross

3. Multiple tube containment would be ridiculous. The reason FIRST eliminated this is for many reasons, but here are what i think are the primary ones.

I think the main reason would be that given how mangled poof balls got last year, internal storage of something inflateable would require a few warehouses worth of ringers for every regional.

As for tape, just change the rule so that it is "tape is allowed so long as a single strip of tape only contacts one object". That would prevent teams from using it for any bundling/construction, but would allow many legitemate uses such as labelling, grip, etc. We used masking tape to label all our PWM cables at GTR, and the inspector told us to take them off simply because it was tape.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Bongle

We used masking tape to label all our PWM cables at GTR, and the inspector told us to take them off simply because it was tape.

Thats funny... we did that too and had no troubles with the inspectors (although while they were inspecting it, we were replacing all the connections with better ones)

We were also told by the inspectors that any electrical contacts that were exposed (such as on the victors) had to be covered somehow, and he recommended electrical tape (which is legit).

I have to say that (after the competition) I wish the refs would make the same calls during the qualifying matches as they would in the elimination. Theres no reason to become stricter... in fact, it only ruins the play. If they were to be strict always, then it would be easy to learn how to avoid those situations.

Oh, and my least favorite rule was the 10 pt penalty for the human player stepping on the line....

[Liz Smith]

Originally Posted by Bongle

As for tape, just change the rule so that it is "tape is allowed so long as a single strip of tape only contacts one object". That would prevent teams from using it for any bundling/construction, but would allow many legitemate uses such as labelling, grip, etc. We used masking tape to label all our PWM cables at GTR, and the inspector told us to take them off simply because it was tape.

<R35> "Adhesive backed tape and lables may be used for labeling purposes on wires, cables, pneumatic lines, etc."

It looks like the inspectors may have made a mistake.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Liz Smith

<R35> "Adhesive backed tape and lables may be used for labeling purposes on wires, cables, pneumatic lines, etc."

It looks like the inspectors may have made a mistake.

Or I misinterpreted what he said, I guess. I just remember him saying "...and get rid of all this tape", although he might have said something similar that meant "mess", because our wiring was a mess at that point. I had to go home, so I wasn't involved in implementing the inspector's requirements to find out what he really said.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I have a suggestion. Let's all step away from this thread for a few months, build some robots, go to some competitions, and then come back and use this thread to develop some good comments and feedback for the team forums.... Only after we've seen all the rules in action and see how they work. Instead of guessing about how things in the future would've been better with different rules, or declaring our dislike for a rule because we heard someone say something about some part of it.

Can we still complain about the battery rule in the mean time? There's still a little part of me hoping that something will change in the next week.

[ChrisMcK2186]

I'm gonna say the whole rule set of size vs. weight. I would have loved a 150lb robot with a much larger playing size so we could use the original team ideas. The six weeks is also something of a damper

Chris