FIX-IT WINDOW Proposal

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by johnr

just wondering if it would be better to drop the fix-it-window and go to something like ,"you can't change more then 25 percent of your robot ". better minds could figure out how to divide robot and/or percentage based on game. would it be for each event or whole season? maybe one official picture at first event uncrating.
the only reason i bring this up, it seemed that i saw a few teams carrying in alot of the robot at the comps. mainly ramps.it seemed to me that should be in crate already.
or would this to be a rule that you couldn't enforce? i do believe that writing code should be unrestricted and not part of the above idea.

There is already a rule that limits the total weight (25 lb) of parts that can be brought to the competition, so that satisifies the hardware part.

FIX-IT WINDOW software development restrictions have been contentious since inception. Writing "practice" code for a practice robot seemed acceptable to some teams and totally contrary to the intent of the rule by others. The 2006 "cease software development" CD thread here.

I also favor unrestricted software development after ship.

[Jonathan Norris]

Eliminate the Fix-it window. Or allow teams a much longer fix-it window.

Every year on Thursdays at every regional you see a large portion of the teams making major changes, building major components, and programing as quickly as they can. If allowing more time between regionals to give teams and opportunity to design improvements, test them, and build them and improve the quality of their robot why not. If we want a true competitive balance in FIRST, why not give a team every opportunity to improve the performance of their robot.

I know in my teams case last year we had to use the fix-it windows to make major changed to our robot, and I know how much more time would have helped us improve the quality of our robot. During the BAE regional we determined that how we had designed our arm it was going to be too difficult to score (think of 1251 last year, but harder to control...). So we stopped using our arm and played some mean defense. But every minute between matches we spent changing the design of our arm and manipulator system. We came up with a new design of the arm, with a single main joint, an extension, and a new roller-claw manipulator. We were not able to finnish the construction of the manipulator by the end of the competition (and we needed new banebots gearbox's anyway) so we decided to use our fix-it windows between BAE and Waterloo.

Back at the school we built the new manipulator and were able to do some crude testing, but truthfully what we had time to build was more of a prototype then a final product, if we had the time we would have rebuilt it after testing to make it more robust. We brought our new manipulator to waterloo on thursday, we fixed our turret in place cut off a joint for the old manipulator and cut down our extension and attached the new roller-claw. The design was great, it immediately made us a top scorer at the regional even with our major problem with consistency. The manipulator was great at sucking in the tubes, and could rotate them about 300 degrees on to the legs. Because the new manipulator was built under such time constraints we made sacrifices that came back to haunt us, it broke in some fashion during almost every match. During the quarter and semi-finals it consistently failed us. (edit: it did win us design awards at both Waterloo and GTR)

So the moral of my little story here is that I know that if we had more time between regionals we could have been even more effective and more successful at the Waterloo Regional (maybe even get to challenge 1114 in the finals again). I understand why the fix-it window is in place to stop teams from rebuilding the majority of their robot between regionals, but in reality all that team wants is to spend extra time and work to improve their robot why not let them?

[Bharat Nain]

For reasons stated above, I am all for eliminating fix-it window's.

[Pavan Dave]

I'd say eliminate the "fix-it" window but submit a copy of your code to FIRST. What FIRST would do with this code is they would check its file size, and check it to make sure you don't write jibberish in some files to get away with more room. Than you could make as many parts anything up to 25 lbs, and 50-100kb limit mod to the code or something. You would have to submit it wednesday night and you would be okayed to use it for the competition. Than when you get your 25 lbs weighed in, you must show your code to the same person who checks weight and you will be required to show that FIRST has approved your "post season" code modifications.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

I disagree, in that there needs to be limits on how much teams can do during the competition season - otherwise teams going to the NJ regional (1st week) have a disadvantage over teams going to, say Manhattan (5th? week)

I think that the more time the teams have to work on there robot the better they are going to be, so teams that go to only one regional are really disadvantaged. One regional teams only have one week to improve there robot where teams that went to say 4 regionals have 4 weeks; big difference. If a one regional team could watch and learn from the other regionals that they can afford to go to and they can make changes, it will make the teams more equal. I believe teams should have as much time as possible to work on there robots; in the end they are learning.

Another thing, I think teams should be able to make major design changes to there robots. We all want to be competitive, and the best designs in the real world are usually stolen designs. We need to be able to learn from others and improve on the designs. I think this breads enthusiasm in teams and gives them hope, especially if they completely missed the object of the game. Who wants to have to play the game and waste a whole year just because team members were forced or the team picked the wrong design?

To me this whole competition is about trying your best and doing everything you can to be the best. This is attitude our nation needs.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Pavan

I'd say eliminate the "fix-it" window but submit a copy of your code to FIRST. What FIRST would do with this code is they would check its file size, and check it to make sure you don't write jibberish in some files to get away with more room. Than you could make as many parts anything up to 25 lbs, and 50-100kb limit mod to the code or something. You would have to submit it wednesday night and you would be okayed to use it for the competition. Than when you get your 25 lbs weighed in, you must show your code to the same person who checks weight and you will be required to show that FIRST has approved your "post season" code modifications.

Why limit learning.

The parts weight rule has been in for a couple years and never enforced. I don't agree with it. I do believe the assembly’s that are brought in should be completely disassembled though. I agree greatly with that rule, and it is easy to enforce.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

I think that the more time the teams have to work on there robot the better they are going to be, so teams that go to only one regional are really disadvantaged. One regional teams only have one week to improve there robot where teams that went to say 4 regionals have 4 weeks; big difference. If a one regional team could watch and learn from the other regionals that they can afford to go to and they can make changes, it will make the teams more equal. I believe teams should have as much time as possible to work on there robots; in the end they are learning.

I believe it was 2006 that I inquired on Q&A about the topic of those who go to multiple events getting the chance to fiddle with their robots more; the rationale FIRST gave back was that while teams got more time with their robots, they also had far more opportunities to have their robots beat upon on the field. It makes sense--even in a total lovefest like 2001, putting your robot on the field puts your robot at risk of breaking stuff. Teams that compete more will either have to spend more time fixing their robots or spend more weight building more durable parts.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I believe it was 2006 that I inquired on Q&A about the topic of those who go to multiple events getting the chance to fiddle with their robots more; the rationale FIRST gave back was that while teams got more time with their robots, they also had far more opportunities to have their robots beat upon on the field. It makes sense--even in a total lovefest like 2001, putting your robot on the field puts your robot at risk of breaking stuff. Teams that compete more will either have to spend more time fixing their robots or spend more weight building more durable parts.

I agree with you, but teams that compete more get allot more gooood practice. I think that is more of an advantage. FIRST Robotics = 50% robot + 50% driver(s). Just my opinion. I just really want the people involved to learn as much as possible, and give them as much time as possible to learn.

[Aren_Hill]

another one for eliminating it.
1. It will promote teams using CAD systems in order to make parts without the robot present. Rather than lots of teams strategy of cut till it fits
2. Everyone gets better, how can that be bad

Last year after St Louis we used the fix it windows to make a completely new arm for chicago. Lets just say it would've worked alot better with more time.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

4. Teams that build a second robot have an advantage. NOT. We have done it and we waste all our time building the second robot and end up worse in the end, but the students are still learning.

I have to disagree with you here. It is becoming increasingly difficult to be successful on the field in FRC without a practice bot. Had we not had one in 2006 or 2007, there's absolutely no way we'd have won two regionals each year, or been even above average. Both years we put the robot in the crate having had zero drive practice, and in the case of 06, a non functional robot.

Pretty soon I don't think anyone who goes to fewer than two regionals, and doesn't have a practice robot will be able to really do very well. It's pretty much becoming an arms race.

I don't like the fix-it windows now. I think they're very awkward for the teams, and unenforceable to start with. I do believe that there has to be some sort of restrictions to what you can and can't do, or some teams will literally build an entirely new robot. I'm all for having chances to fix/modify things that didn't work quite the way they were expected, or making spare/replacement parts that have the same functionality as the previous part.

[Doug G]

Eliminate Fix-it windows or make it simple like the 100 man hours rule as previously stated.

Also, single regional teams will always be at a disadvantage, that's we try really hard to go at least two each year.

[Karthik]

In reference to the 25 lb. limit of parts brought into the venue:

Originally Posted by Mr.G

The parts weight rule has been in for a couple years and never enforced.

Inspectors have regularly scrutinized and weighed Team 1114's spare parts since this rule was introduced. Perhaps this isn't the case at all regionals.

----

Back to the topic of fix-it-windows, I am completely in favour of eliminating the rule entirely, allowing to teams do whatever work they wish after ship. In general I detest unenforceable rules, as they usually end up punishing those who obey them. There is no way to know if a team has stopped working after ship. The teams who obey the fix-it windows are thereby punished for being honest, as the teams who blatantly ignore the rules obtain a competitive advantage. What's the punishment for violating the fix-it window?

What would happen if an inspector discovered that a team broke the rule? Last year there was a team who posted on CD, saying that they took part of their arm to their shop during an evening of their regional to repair it. (They were unaware of the rule prohibiting this.) Clearly this is illegal, but how would they be punished? (They were no reprecussions for this incident, and rightfully so. You can't just makeup a punishment if there isn't one listed. )

Being a team who firmly believes in the honour code, it's frustrating to know that teams regularly get away with breaking these types of rules. Along with the reasoning that Mike put forth, I would be ecstatic to see the rule disappear.

[kramarczyk]

Loose the fix-it window definition.

In industry I am not familiar with any kind of "tools down" period during product development, so why are we doing it here? FIRST has already got a finite constraint on time between kick-off and the comps, so why create a sub constraint? I don't think that success on the field is related to number of hours worked. In fact, I suspect that consistently successful teams probably work fewer, higher quality hours. Limiting work hours probably only hurts the teams that are still working out the bugs in their process.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by Doug G

Also, single regional teams will always be at a disadvantage, that's we try really hard to go at least two each year.

Thank you. As much as we try, funds don't permit us to currently attend more than one regional, therefore we have whatever time that we're allowed at our only chance. I've got a headache right now, but my basic view is that it should stay, and the way it is.

[Mr. Van]

It has been suggested that the Fix-it Window restrictions be removed and teams be allowed to work on whatever they wished for any amount of time up to the competition. I am very much opposed to this for several reasons:

1. FRC is a competition. It is much more a sports-like competition than a contract bid competition. It is artificial by its very nature. In sports, there are game rules, sallary caps, divisions based on team resources, and other restrictions. FRC is the same way - there are attempts to level the playing field to facilitate competition. The Fix-it Window is one of these rules.

2. There is a very good reason that FRC has a "Build Season" of limited time. Many mentors, teachers and other volunteers are able and willing to commit countless hours to teams for a restricted time period. If teams are allowed to work endlessly on their robot until the final regional or championship, the Build Season effectively stretches for three and a half months! Even now, the Fix-it Window extends Build Season by up to 70 hours over a month and a half. This becomes a MAJOR issue between "have" and "have not" teams - those who have multiple mentors who are able to give lots of time and those who are being held together by a single mentor/coach who also has a 70 hour/week day job.

3. If there is no "put your tools down" time after the robot ships, why ship the robot at all? Why not simply allow teams to bring the robot to the event in whatever way they can. Why have a "ship date"? (For that matter, why have a restriction on the number of motors a team can use?)

4. FIRST already has a program that allows for endless work on the robot: FTC. There are also many other programs (BBIQ) that similarly have no restrictions on build time.

In the end - either eliminate the Fix-it Window and not allow any work on the robots OR keep it restricted.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox