Reasoning of the GDC

[martin417]

After the latest update, I began to wonder, what drives the rulings of the GDC? One would assume that there are few criterea for a rule:

1) safety
2) Game-play
3) Damage prevention
4) Fairness (try to keep veteran, or well funded teams from having a big advantage over rookies teams)

Not sure what other criteria may apply, but these will do for a start.

With that in mind, what drives rulings? Looking at team update #7, I am baffled. This ruling will likely punish rookie teams because they are less likely to carefully follow Q&A, updates, and Chief Delphi. Let's assume a team builds the kit-bot chassis. In order to keep the CG low, they choose not to use the wheel stands provided. They use the 3/8" bolts for axles, and build the frame upwards to make a mount for the bumpers in the zone. Unless they make the upper frame larger than the lower frame, they will violate the new rule. How does the improve safety? Playability? Damage prevention? I don't see where this will improve anything, and I definitely see where it adds to the frustration of teams.

Another example is the valve rule introduced last year, setting a max Cv. We have a quantity of valves on the shelf that we will be unable to use because of this rule. Again, it doesn't affect any of the criteria mentioned above. In fact, it punishes poorly funded teams. A well funded team can get around the rule by using multiple smaller valves, so it has no effect other than increasing cost to teams. We have to spend hundreds of dollars to buy valves, even though we already have valves that are perfect in every way, except the Cv is slightly higher than allowed (~.4). The flow is pretty well limited by the fittings and tubing anyway, so little is gained by adding more Cv.

I understand the GDC wants to make the best game possible, and I am not privy to all the reasoning behind their decisions, but I can see the frustraion among the posters here on CD.

[JesseK]

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows

[martin417]

Originally Posted by JesseK

5.) Veteran teams lawyer the rules to H*** and back.
6.) Many veteran teams are willing to assist the rookie teams, if the rookie teams ask.
7.) The answer to the universe and everything is 42. Perhaps a CV of .32 is a random number, or a generated number based upon safety, or a number based upon possible suppliers for the KOP. Who knows

5) I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it? All the discussion I have seen about rules, especially the fastener protrusion rule has to do with understanding the rule or trying to clear up inconsistencies (allowing pockets for fastener protrusions, but fastener protrusions are illegal).

Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

6) this is not a criteria
7) Neither is this

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by martin417

I have always had a problem with complaints about "lawyering" the rules. If we don't understand a rule, how can we follow it?
...
Every team should make every effort to fully understand all rules so they won't be surprised at inspection. Don't complain about attempts to understand.

My comments were more directed at philosophies that seek to exploit rules in order to simply get a win at the expense of sportsmanship/GP. Those philosophies are abundant and obvious to anyone who reads the Q&A. If I remember correctly there was even a seminar in Atlanta last year on (and I'm paraphrasing here...) 'How to Win, Period'. While I don't wholeheartedly disagree with that line of thinking due to the fringe ideas it produces, those philosophies are what expose loopholes in the wording of the rules that are against the obvious (to me...) intent of the rule. Thus I'm sure there is much consideration given to such philosophies, ergo the sometimes odd or constricting wording of the rules. It would seem apparent that the less word play to find a niche strategy, the better off a team is. A perfect example is 190 in 2008 (I hate to call their design out, but it's the epitome of what I'm describing).

If a rookie team can't put everything in their head at once to ensure conformity across the entire rulebook, then it should be up to the veteran teams to step in and help them come competition time. Turning a blind eye to it simply hurts the overall morale and sustainability of that team and by association the overall Regional. While that situation may not be a direct criteria for a ruling, it is probably present enough in reality that the GDC doesn't even need to consider such specific scenarios as what you described.

[Andrew Y.]

i agree with martin all the way. Seems every year the rules become more and more complicated. Its like i have to read, research, ponder, research, twiddle my thump then i MAY have a smiggin of a clue on what its saying...then its all changed a week later and the same process is happening!

Also, the updates should be to correct errors and clarify rules, this year the updates seem to be a bit "CHANGING RULES...TKE THAT!!"..
MAybe first should take the manual from the engineers to proof read it? things like the tunnel dimension differences is ridiculous! What if my robot was 1/2 too big?....it should be allowed through inspections

I am a firm believer that FIRST needs too find ways to lower the cost to teams. Yes there are teams out there with solid funding, but there are more teams out there with VERY limited funds and resources.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. I see these as "virtual gravity" rules and sizing fits into that grouping.

No comment on Team Update #7 at this time.

[Andrew Y.]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Martin,
I believe the GDC adds in certain rules to provide constraints to make teams think harder. .

haha or to raise my blood pressure

[coldfusion1279]

I would be curious to see what percentage of active teams have a member that is dedicated to checking CD forums or Q&A etc.

If there is a problem with information about relaying finer points of rules to the entire FIRST community, then maybe they should take a different approach to clarifying rules. I don't know what the next step is... emailing everybody everything seems a bit excessive, but something like this?

I do not think one can blame teams for trying work around the rules a little.

We do not have the luxury of other sports where the rules are consistent and fine tuned after years, yes YEARS of gameplay and critique. Every year in FIRST, there are going to be minor inconsistencies or unclear statements in the rules that could dramatically effect the game play.

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know shooting faster could have helped many teams.

Could that be the difference between the horizontal component of velocity and velocity regardless of direction? Maybe... Was this ever explicitly clarified by the GDC? Maybe, I don't remember, but even if it was, our team never would have known because our team didn't have avid subscribers to Q&A forums back then...

My point is that both of these opinions are correct. "Lawyering" could lead to unfair advantages, so the GDC tries to set a rule on everything, even valves, just for consistency reasons. However, questioning the rules could be the only way to make the game better for everyone... point out inconsistencies in game play, as well as allowing your team to design an optimal and legal robot for the season.

Anyway, I need to get back to work...

[EricVanWyk]

I'm actually a fan of the 0.32CV rule, and I forgive it for appearing to be petty and random at first blush. It reduces cost to teams for free, so I hope we see similar changes in the future.

In the past, we were only allowed to use specific part numbers for valves. Now we can use any valve we have... that isn't better than those specific part numbers. Combined with the 24V ruling, it allows teams to use many valves that weren't available last year, thereby reducing probable cost. Even though your particular valves aren't available, many teams have been able to tap into existing unused resources.

Your complaint is that it doesn't go further, and I agree with you in principle - not enough to complain this year. 0.32CV is low hanging fruit, because we've proved it out over the last however many years and increasing the flow rate could arguably require testing/validation/etc. I'd rather the GDC pick as much low hanging fruit as possible before moving up the tree.

That said, I do hope it opens further next year.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

A PERFECT example of this is the 2006 AIM HIGH game, in which there was a speed limit on initial ball velocity out of the shooter for safety reasons. I never recall any checks on actual ball velocity during competition, but I remember our team followed the rule strictly, while other bots had the ball flying out twice as fast.... Teams that shot at higher velocity could shoot from further... I know that would have

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

[martin417]

Originally Posted by EricVanWyk

I'm actually a fan of the 0.32CV rule, and I forgive it for appearing to be petty and random at first blush. It reduces cost to teams for free, so I hope we see similar changes in the future.

In the past, we were only allowed to use specific part numbers for valves. Now we can use any valve we have... that isn't better than those specific part numbers. Combined with the 24V ruling, it allows teams to use many valves that weren't available last year, thereby reducing probable cost. Even though your particular valves aren't available, many teams have been able to tap into existing unused resources.

Your complaint is that it doesn't go further, and I agree with you in principle - not enough to complain this year. 0.32CV is low hanging fruit, because we've proved it out over the last however many years and increasing the flow rate could arguably require testing/validation/etc. I'd rather the GDC pick as much low hanging fruit as possible before moving up the tree.

That said, I do hope it opens further next year.

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

[EricVanWyk]

Originally Posted by martin417

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

My apologies and retraction. I must have skipped a few years with pneumatics rules. My sporadic view supported my claims, but it appears that a full view does not.

[coldfusion1279]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Inspectors had access to a ball velocity test jig and used it frequently. Inspectors and refs were in constant contact to check teams coming off the field to insure that this specification was met. We take our jobs seriously.

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

[Jones571]

Originally Posted by martin417

I just looked up last years rules, and saw that the .32 Cv rule came in then. (we didn't use pneumatics last year), but in 2008, there was no restriction on valves. We have a quantity of valves from 2008, they meet all rules, but Cv=~.4 Now we have to buy more valves, and at $50-$75 each, that is not a cost reduction. Teams already had access to the pool of valves you point out.

Limiting the Cv, but not limiting the number of valves allowed (It is allowed to hook up as many valves as you wish to a single actuator, this has been answered in Q&A) only punishes teams that can't afford a lot of valves, and those teams that have access to valves that would otherwise be legal.

The smaller Cv doesn't hurt us, but the $$$ we now have to spend to get legal valves does.

in 08 they did not limit cV but only limited you to the ones provided in the current KOP or previous years.

Originally Posted by 2008Manual

Prior year FIRST Kit Of Parts solenoid valves, and pneumatic tubing may be used in addition to those provided in the 2008 Kit Of Parts. Their costs must be accounted for as explained in Section 8.3.3 Budget Constraints.

As we have found the old festo block has a Cv of .3 so it is good. So are you saying the SMC valve of 2008 had a .4 Cv? and if so were did you get this information from.

[Aren_Hill]

Originally Posted by coldfusion1279

Interesting, I guess my memory is a little foggy, my apologies, and there was no intent of ragging on judges for skipping checkpoints. I merely thought it was an 'honors system' type arrangement.

Nonetheless my point remains: our team thought we were following the rule very carefully, when clearly we could have enhanced our shooter even further.

Questioning rules allows more latitude in the creative thought process, but can offer unfair advantages to those who are privy to rule updates and discussion.

Like I said, it would be interesting to see what percentage of teams have someone avidly follow CD or Q&A etc.

They definitely had speed testers that year, consistency between regionals would be one thing that may have varied. In St. Louis our team had many complaints from others about "shooting too fast" and we spent ~2 hours at that test rig proving we didnt. Turns out alot of backspin creates a flatter trajectory, who knew