Batteries Carried Into Competitions

[Lil' Lavery]

Honestly people, come on.

Take a step back, breath. Relax. And think for a moment.

The purpose of the Q&A is to clarify rules, not to create or modify rules. That is the purpose of the Team Updates. The GDC clarified a rule, as currently written.

If anyone honestly thinks this rule will not be updated in a Team Update, they are insane. Everyone with a bit of common sense realizes this was not the intent of the GDC rule, but it was how it was written.

Nobody, including the GDC, realized the implications of the COTS rules on batteries. The new withholding allowance caused teams to look at these rules from a different angle, which caused the teams and GDC to see this discrepancy.

Is it a good rule? No, absolutely not.

The GDC is not some superhuman being, they cannot see every problem coming.
Nor can they create team updates immediately to solve every problem (they have lives just like the rest of us). Yes, there was one today, but the changes in that one had likely already been discussed before this issue exploded.

If anyone is seriously suggesting the GDC answer the Q&A by anything other than the letter of the rules (as currently written), they are, once again, insane.

Chill out, give this issue some time. You all know how quickly the leads can be removed, you've posted about it constantly. If the rule does not change, you are more than capable of doing it before week 1. But if they do, and they will, you can save yourself those five minutes by being patient now.

[AndyH]

The battery does not count in the weight of the robot so I believe that conectors on the battery could not count either. I havew never been told to take the connector off the battery and put it on the robot at weigh in.

[Herodotus]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Honestly people, come on.

Take a step back, breath. Relax. And think for a moment.

The purpose of the Q&A is to clarify rules, not to create or modify rules. That is the purpose of the Team Updates. The GDC clarified a rule, as currently written.

Here is the problem, as I see it. If, as you say, the Q&A can only clarify rules, and only team updates can add new rules, you have a very inefficient system. Why clarify a rule as it is if they are going to change it? A much more effective system would be the Q&A both clarifying and changing rules. If they see a problem with a rule, such as is the case with these battery rules, than in their answer they should say.

"This is what the rule says, however we see the problem and this is how the rule is going to change."

At that point the team updates would essentially be compilations of the rule updates. We don't care what the current rules mean if they are going to change anyways.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Honestly people, come on.

Take a step back, breath. Relax. And think for a moment.

The purpose of the Q&A is to clarify rules, not to create or modify rules. That is the purpose of the Team Updates. The GDC clarified a rule, as currently written.

If anyone honestly thinks this rule will not be updated in a Team Update, they are insane. Everyone with a bit of common sense realizes this was not the intent of the GDC rule, but it was how it was written.

Nobody, including the GDC, realized the implications of the COTS rules on batteries. The new withholding allowance caused teams to look at these rules from a different angle, which caused the teams and GDC to see this discrepancy.

Is it a good rule? No, absolutely not.

The GDC is not some superhuman being, they cannot see every problem coming.
Nor can they create team updates immediately to solve every problem (they have lives just like the rest of us). Yes, there was one today, but the changes in that one had likely already been discussed before this issue exploded.

If anyone is seriously suggesting the GDC answer the Q&A by anything other than the letter of the rules (as currently written), they are, once again, insane.

Chill out, give this issue some time. You all know how quickly the leads can be removed, you've posted about it constantly. If the rule does not change, you are more than capable of doing it before week 1. But if they do, and they will, you can save yourself those five minutes by being patient now.

We have every right to be upset when the GDC makes such a huge mistake. Don't tell me to chill out or call me insane.

This rule could have been interpreted in several ways, They didn't have to rule this way. As you say they are not superhuman beings, they should know how bad this ruling was and what a ----storm it would cause.

They could very easily have said in the answer that the rule was bad and would be corrected in an update and avoided all of this trouble. They chose not too. And in my opinion that was a HUGE mistake.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'm not sure what makes anyone think that the whole GDC debates every Q&A answer.
In terms of the wording of the rules, it was cut and dry. Whichever GDC saw it on the Q&A first likely answered it. Then they took it back to the rest of the GDC to debate and ensure the GDC agreed upon changing it.

A single GDC member can't create a team update by themselves. A single GDC member can answer Q&A.

[cbale2000]

Somehow I've got the feeling that if this rule does turn out to be left unchanged, it would not surprise me if it becomes one of the "less enforced" rules of the competition (I'm sure most of you know what I mean).

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm not sure what makes anyone think that the whole GDC debates every Q&A answer.
In terms of the wording of the rules, it was cut and dry. Whichever GDC saw it on the Q&A first likely answered it. Then they took it back to the rest of the GDC to debate and ensure the GDC agreed upon changing it.

A single GDC member can't create a team update by themselves. A single GDC member can answer Q&A.

Again I'm gonna disagree with you. The battery has never been included in the weight of the robot so why should it be included in the weight of the withholding allowance? It's not so cut and dried as you say.

Also whomever on the GDC that answered this question should have known how controversial the answer would be and should have consulted with other members before answering.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Also whomever on the GDC that answered this question should have known how controversial the answer would be and should have consulted with other members before answering.

I see your point here for sure, and this little "twist" was certainly enough to get my attention today, but I will also say this as someone who spent three years configuring a Q&A and answering questions for the intermediate program. Everyone I worked with on that GDC made at least one mistake or took a misstep at least once a year in the Q&A, myself included. One time I answered a question solo that I really, honestly thought was pretty benign and two hours later my inbox started filling up with superlatives. I cannot imagine what this exhausting effort must be like in FRC where the volume of questions is massive compared to what I experienced in the other program.

In no way did I find today's post on batteries to be a "good" one, but there is a team update coming out Tuesday and I'm willing to wait for that to see what transpires. After I got done bemoaning this today with my team, we decided we'd pack everything for our week one regional as "normal" with all battery cables connected and, if Tues. team update doesn't clarify or change things, we'll pull the cables off in our hotel Wed. evening.

Yes, I'd prefer this system to get everything right the first time, but I'm also willing to be realistic about it all - even when it makes me grumpy.

[A_Reed]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Again I'm gonna disagree with you. The battery has never been included in the weight of the robot so why should it be included in the weight of the withholding allowance? It's not so cut and dried as you say.

Also whomever on the GDC that answered this question should have known how controversial the answer would be and should have consulted with other members before answering.

I do believe there was a point in FIRST history when the weight limit was 130lbs with the battery on board, I think that rule changed as of 2004-2005.

Now a days though I don't see why (even if it might be considered a COTS item) a battery would give any advantage that would require a limit at the events. Batteries should be considered an integral part of the robot and should be treated separately from all other COTS items, while of course fitting into their own modification rules for safety purposes only.

[BHS_STopping]

Question: Do bumpers count in a team's Withholding Allowance? I'm searching through the Robots section of the manual but have not yet seen a clear indicator as to whether or not bumpers carried to an event are part of your withholding allowance.

If bumpers are not part of your withholding allowance, are they not Fabricated Items either? There seems to be a conflict of rules here, as the Withholding Allowance policy clearly only applies to "A limited amount of FABRICATED ITEMS that are permitted to be withheld from the ROBOT shipping requirements," and I have seen no indication that bumpers are taken into consideration in this rule.

If batteries with terminals and leads attached are Fabricated Items and count against your Withholding Allowance, then bumpers must follow the same ruling.

[dbeck103]

According to rule R11 it states: The 12V battery and its associated half of the Anderson cable quick
connect/disconnect pair (including no more than 12 inches of cable per leg, the
associated cable lugs, connecting bolts, and insulating electrical tape). By creating this rule FIRST has already determined that the battery and its associated quick disconnect are one piece and it has not been fabricated. Therefore their ruling on the Q and A is in contradiction of this rule and should be rescinded.

[Chris is me]

This rule doesn't make any sense to me. Why would GDC want us to perform the somewhat trivial task of disassembling and reassembling all of our batteries just so that we can bring them in to the competition? What's the "intent" of this ruling? What positive impact does it have on the FIRST competition?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dbeck103

According to rule R11 it states: The 12V battery and its associated half of the Anderson cable quick
connect/disconnect pair (including no more than 12 inches of cable per leg, the
associated cable lugs, connecting bolts, and insulating electrical tape). By creating this rule FIRST has already determined that the battery and its associated quick disconnect are one piece and it has not been fabricated. Therefore their ruling on the Q and A is in contradiction of this rule and should be rescinded.

While I'm usually one of the ones talking about contradictions and the like, this isn't one of them. Just mentioning that the battery and its leads are excepted doesn't make them an indivisible assembly for the purposes of all of the rules.

Actually, the GDC's ruling is correct, based on the established definitions in the rules. The problem is that never have these definitions been applied to the batteries in this manner. That may have been due to a collective oversight, or may have been a natural extension of the special treatment that the batteries have long received (exemptions from weight, special conditions on use, etc.). Either way, it comes as a surprise to most.

There's also the issue of whether the GDC's answer is a good policy in general. I don't think it is. Many teams don't want to be burdened with rules that don't have much utility; some ignore the rules, some comply, unhappily. I think that some flexibility (issued in an update) would be advantageous, because it would be a sign that the GDC was willing to work toward a solution that benefits the participants collectively, while still maintaining the primacy of the rules.

On the other hand, it was suggested to me that by changing the rule at this point, FIRST would be disadvantaging the teams that complied properly in the first place. I'm normally a strong proponent of this rationale (precisely because teams will often ignore rules that they figure they can get away with) but I'm wondering, with the apparent scope of this confusion, whether there's more value in adjusting the rules for leniency, and bringing the rules in line with past practice (despite the fact that that practice may not have been technically legal in the past).

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

While I'm usually one of the ones talking about contradictions and the like, this isn't one of them. Just mentioning that the battery and its leads are excepted doesn't make them an indivisible assembly for the purposes of all of the rules.

Actually, the GDC's ruling is correct, based on the established definitions in the rules. The problem is that never have these definitions been applied to the batteries in this manner. That may have been due to a collective oversight, or may have been a natural extension of the special treatment that the batteries have long received (exemptions from weight, special conditions on use, etc.). Either way, it comes as a surprise to most.

There's also the issue of whether the GDC's answer is a good policy in general. I don't think it is. Many teams don't want to be burdened with rules that don't have much utility; some ignore the rules, some comply, unhappily. I think that some flexibility (issued in an update) would be advantageous, because it would be a sign that the GDC was willing to work toward a solution that benefits the participants collectively, while still maintaining the primacy of the rules.

On the other hand, it was suggested to me that by changing the rule at this point, FIRST would be disadvantaging the teams that complied properly in the first place. I'm normally a strong proponent of this rationale (precisely because teams will often ignore rules that they figure they can get away with) but I'm wondering, with the apparent scope of this confusion, whether there's more value in adjusting the rules for leniency, and bringing the rules in line with past practice (despite the fact that that practice may not have been technically legal in the past).

I doubt there is any teat that explicitly shipped their batteries because they knew they would be considered part of withholding allowance otherwise.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by BHS_STopping

Question: Do bumpers count in a team's Withholding Allowance? I'm searching through the Robots section of the manual but have not yet seen a clear indicator as to whether or not bumpers carried to an event are part of your withholding allowance.

Answer: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=11895