Can we use duck tape?

[JesseK]

We can use duck tape !? Holy smokes, this changes ....


... nothing, oddly.

[Chris Fultz]

A word search in the Robot Rules did not find a refernce to duct tape or adhesives related to tape.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

A word search in the Robot Rules did not find a refernce to duct tape or adhesives related to tape.

It hasn't been mentioned.... yet.
We'll see whether the Q&A brings any direct answers.

[Bob Steele]

I feel certain that if there is a NEW rule... an omission on the part of the GDC.. that needs to be addressed... that it WILL be in an UPDATE.

This is different from an interpretation of a rule... not all of those get into the Updates... for good reason...

Significant changes are always addressed in the UPDATES...

Significant Interpretations are usually addressed in the UPDATES...

Your team should have a RULES person designated.... it is THEIR JOB
to read all the Q and A and to read the UPDATES and report this back to the team.

We should take some of the burden on OUR shoulders as FRC teams to be responsible to read the information that is provided to us.

The GDC and Q and A staff are taking a great deal of time doing the Q and A and the UPDATES...

Step up to your responsibility as a team also...

READ THE MANUAL...FIRST ... then READ IT AGAIN>>>
When you have a question... do research on Q and A to see if your question is there... if it isn't answered somewhere... Ask it directly...and be specific....

thanks and I hope everyone has a great season!!

[Matt C]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...r_ducttape.htm

Hey, if duct tape was used on the moon . . .

If it's good enough for a manned moon vehicle . .

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Matt C

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...r_ducttape.htm

Hey, if duct tape was used on the moon . . .

If it's good enough for a manned moon vehicle . .

FIRST celebrates 40th anniversary of moon landing by allowing use of duct tape on robots?

Probably not the GDC's intent...

[usbcd36]

One of our mentors claims it's to teach teams what happens to robots made out of duct tape.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by hihihiflcl81pig

I've been reading through the manual, and I can't find anything against using any adhesives. So does this mean that they will allow duck tape this year? Or has someone found a clause that states that we can't use duct tape?

Who wants to tape a duck? Was there a duck in the KOP that I overlooked?

[Ferdi17]

I think that first will come out with a rule about adhesives anyways because of electrial tape and other uses i think they just overlooked it this year

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

As a matter of fact, FIRST has neglected to publicly state the order of precedence for rules, updates, Q&As, etc. for the last couple of years. Especially with sources of information like the Director's Blog, it's time that they put something in writing for the teams.

Team Update #1 does put it in writing. "The ultimate authority regarding game rules is the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Game Manual posted on the FIRST website."

Updates do not take precedence -- they change the manual. Q&A either declines to judge a specific design's legality, quotes the Game Manual, or admits to unclear wording, which is subsequently changed in an update.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Woody1458

The way i think of it is like the three branches of the America government (sorry non Yankees) Q&A being the Judicial Branch, Updates being Legislative, and Referees being Executive. If you don't understand this,consult wikipedia or your 8th grade history textbook

Wouldn't the referees be in the judicial?

[GaryVoshol]

Team Update 1 fixed the Parts Use Flowchart in section 8.4. What had been missing was the lower left corner which in 2008 contained boxes about tape and additional energy sources. For 2009 they added back the box about energy sources (including the prohibition on gerbils), but left the tape box out. I think it's pretty clear they intended to allow tape, but you can always ask Q&A.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Wouldn't the referees be in the judicial?

A joke about "blind justice" would just be too easy ...

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Team Update #1 does put it in writing. "The ultimate authority regarding game rules is the 2009 FIRST Robotics Competition Game Manual posted on the FIRST website."

Updates do not take precedence -- they change the manual. Q&A either declines to judge a specific design's legality, quotes the Game Manual, or admits to unclear wording, which is subsequently changed in an update.

Fair enough: they've explicitly covered the half of that question that was implicitly clear already. The more pressing issue is whether they mean "nothing is official until it appears in the manual", or merely "everything in the manual is official".

Generally (absent explicit guidance) officials assume that Q&A responses are supposed to be clarifications or canonical interpretations of existing rules, but are not able to amend a rule or repair a faulty rule. A couple Q&A responses over the last couple of years seemed to suggest new restrictions that weren't ever codified in a rule. Although these were generally edge cases that didn't have much bearing on the competition, it would have been a definite stretch to enforce these statements on an equal footing with the rulebook.

As an example, in 2006, laser pointers were not prohibited by the manual¹, but a robot rules Q&A stated that they could not be used in any way. Assuming that the GDC was not making a statement about the event in general (i.e. don't bring laser pointers on-site), that's an example of an additional robot restriction that did not have justification from the rule book. (Laser pointers are not inherently unsafe—there's a whole system of standards that describes laser safety—and their suitability in any particular configuration should have been determined on an individual basis, by the robot inspectors, per the existing robot rules. If the inspector suspected that it was likely to be unsafe, it could still have been disallowed, but the team would at least have had the benefit of hearing a justification based on the ever-present blanket safety rule.)

As an example of what I percieve to be a correct (but difficult-to-follow) use of the Q&A, consider the bumpers in 2008. The rules called for standard bumpers as described in the text and diagrams in the rulebook. The Q&A clarified that certain other features (lightening holes, etc.) were not included in the published standard, and therefore were not allowed. This isn't the Q&A making a new rule; this is the Q&A clarifying what existed already. The trouble with this was that the GDC responses also included rationale related to structural integrity and other issues, leading to questions like "if it's strong enough, then can we drill lightening holes", which convoluted the issue.

I'm in agreement with the general consensus regarding an order of precedence—but that's because we're all familiar with the way FIRST operates, and the past history of the competition. In some other competitions, robotics and otherwise, the Q&A is binding and overrides the rules. Without an explicit statement one way or another, those who are not familiar with the FRC could easily get the wrong impression. Although we consider things like the e-mail blasts and other communications by FIRST staff to be non-binding (for the purposes of enforcing the game and robot rules), it's easy to see why someone might (for example) believe a statement from the director (in Bill's Blog) to be equivalent to a rule, rather than just good advice.

¹ Note that in 2009, all lasers are prohibited on the robot, according to the rules.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Wouldn't the referees be in the judicial?

Are police officers judicial or executive? The executive branch is generally responsible for enforcing the laws. However, the judicial system interprets the laws--after the executive officers arrest someone, or if someone thinks someone else is breaking their rights.

I'm thinking about the tape: I'd rather be safe than sorry. Ask now if that omission was intentional, and if so, then tape is legal.