Withholding limits and GP

[Steve W]

If you wonder why people like myself get fed up and leave it is because certain people, you know who you are, continually try and find ways to beat the system. Breaking the rules, and the spirit of the rules, seems to be an OK thing to do. NOT!!!

FIRST tries to help out teams that do not normally have the issues with weather that many of us are used to. Others then try to take the advantage that they are given and expand it even further. The rules state that you must ship your robot. Period. you are allowed to withhold 65 lbs of fabricated parts. Period. The first rule that you must ship your robot is still in effect. Basically a robot has a frame, wheels/tread, motors to drive. As you are allowed to keep your CRio then that would be a base robot. Anything less and, in my opinion, is not shipping a robot.

'nuff said.

[Chris is me]

I really don't see why people are angry that teams want to use the witholding allowance FIRST gave them. It's not like they went "BUT BUT YOU CAN HOLD BACK 65 POUNDS" and showed up at a regional with an empty crate and expected to make it through. These guys did not lawyer the rules! They did the right thing. They saw the new rule, thought "oh, maybe it means we can do this", then asked the GDC if that was okay and got an all clear.

You're honestly mad at teams for using the Q&A to figure out if something was legal, then being told it was and planning accordingly?

They have every right to be extremely upset with whatever complete 180 FIRST is doing. I mean, obviously they were "only" planning on it for a week, but they still planned around it. And now there's not enough time to ask how much they have to ship to consider "the robot" shipped.

FYI: What's in 2791's crate is not enough to operate on field as is, just like last year which was completely legal then. Did we not ship a ROBOT then, since we held back our electronics board? Who's to say, with an update that appeared the day of ship, after we sealed our crate?

[dtengineering]

Hi folks,

Let's tone this down a bit.

As pointed out above, the teams that saw an opportunity to withold a lightweight robot and possibly do so within the rules, asked for clarification in the Q&A, just as they were supposed to.

The question that was asked was very clear. The answer, unfortunately, was not. Based on the "what goes in the witholding allowance is up to you" answer, I honestly thought that it was okay to bring a lightweight robot to the competition with you... and I thought it was a really good answer.

So I have empathy for the teams who honestly believed that this was the intent of the answer. I know I did! The tradeoff of a light weight robot for increased build time struck me as a fair and reasonable engineering decision for a team to make.

I also have empathy for FIRST and the GDC, who attempt to answer questions quickly, and in the best interests of all involved with FIRST. Looking back, I am sure they wish they had included the "but you must ship a robot" clarification with the first Q&A response on the topic.

While it appears to me that FIRST has, in deed, if not in word, reversed the Feb. 16 Q&A response, I can also see how... from another persepective... their answers are logically consistant, even if the inital answer was somewhat ambiguous.

What is doubly unfortunate is that this issue revolves around the witholding limit, which is a great rule, and the increase in the witholding limit to compensate for the many teams that lost time to snow during build season. Making it triply unfortunate, of course, is the timing.

I hope that teams affected by this ruling are able to ship some significant part of their robot, then rebuild a duplicate of the shipped parts so that they can continue to make their robot better while complying with the rules of the game.

Jason

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

The tradeoff of a light weight robot for increased build time struck me as a fair and reasonable engineering decision for a team to make.

I agree with everything you said besides this. The problem is that the change happened after most teams already designed and built most of their robot. If at the beggining of the year the 'if you robot is under 65 pounds, you don't have to ship it' rule was in the rule book, I would have been fine with it. But, since it came so late teams that decided to build a light robot (for completely different reasons) got the huge advantage of keeping their entire robots for extra weeks.

[dtengineering]

Sorry... I should have specified that at the time the question was asked, the question was based on a 40 pound robot. The 40 pound witholding limit was in place at the start of the build season, and teams could have planned on keeping 40 pounds of fabricated mechanisms and components, in total comprising their robot, as their witholding limit.

I can see how the increase in the witholding limit changes the cost/benefit ratio of building a lightweight robot, and am not quite as enthusiastic about allowing teams to withold a 65 pound robot as I am allowing them to withold a 40 pound robot, but would still support the concept... but can also appreciate why others might not.

I think the good thing is that we now have a clear precedent for future years, and teams will be aware that the rule requiring them to ship a robot supersedes the rule allowing them to withold a certain mass of components and mechanisms.

Of course... rules do change from year to year.

Jason

[dlavery]

Everyone just needs to calm down, let your blood pressure settle, and think for a minute. Kim and Adam - take a dang chill pill and stop whining. Read Team Update #13. Nobody is trying to crap in anyone's Wheaties. Everybody gets what they want. All that anyone at FIRST was trying to do was be as accommodating as possible within the overly-constrained set of realities they have to deal with. You happy now?


-dave



.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Everyone just needs to calm down, let your blood pressure settle, and think for a minute. Kim and Adam - take a dang chill pill and stop whining. Read Team Update #13. Nobody is trying to crap in anyone's Wheaties. Everybody gets what they want. All that anyone at FIRST was trying to do was be as accommodating as possible within the overly-constrained set of realities they have to deal with. You happy now?


-dave



.

No good deed goes unpunished.

[EricH]

Dave, thanks for announcing that the update was out. And, thanks to the GDC for explaining what their reasoning was and clearing up the confusion that has been running wild over the last weekend.

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't come up in previous years. Then I remembered that the robots this year are exceptionally short by comparison, and thus many of them are lighter, leading to the questions about "can we simply withhold the robot?" The solution for next year is obvious: make a game where heavy robots have an advantage...

[mathking]

I think Al's advice to get some rest is sound. As is Jason's to tone it down. Let at least a couple of days go by and relax a bit. The build season is stressful and the end of build season is really stressful. Throw a bunch of snow days in and its worse.

To me it seems obvious that there was some confusion among members of the GDC as to what the changed rules meant in terms of having to ship your robot or not. The initial response to the question about withholding an entire 40 pound robot clearly indicated that at least someone on the GDC thought bringing your whole robot was OK.
Question:

If a robot with no battery or bumpers weighs less then 40lbs. Could the team ship just the bumpers? and keep the robot under the withholding allowance?

Answer:

There are no requirements on what is included or excluded from the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. Please see Team Update 11 for added clarification.

The question asked was very direct, and given the answer it was entirely reasonable for teams to assume that withholding their entire robot was OK as long as it did not exceed the weight limit. It may be that the initial responder did not closely read the initial question, that the GDC changed their minds, or that the initial responder was overruled by the majority.(EDIT: ... or that other issues prevented a completely clear answer and they were being as clear as the law allows...) I am confident that no one on the GDC was trying to intentionally frustrate or disadvantage any of the teams.

I don't think it is at all fair to assume/assert that teams or individuals were trying to gain an unfair advantage. It's not like they were trying to slap a ball into the goal with their hands in a World Cup qualifying match. (I know, cheap shot at Thierry Henry...) It was an honestly asked question. How often do we preach on Chief Delphi not to assume the meaning of a rule just because it was that way in the past?

But even if you were planning to bring a less than 65 pounds robot fully assembled this is not the end of the world. If you were planning to keep back the whole robot, you can disassemble your robot and put it back together on Thursday morning. More than one team under the old rules has come to a competition with a bunch of aluminum, some gear boxes, chain and wheels and built their robot from scratch. The most important thing I would tell you is have a <u>plan</u> if you opt for this course of action. Once your robot is working the way it is supposed to, disassemble the major systems. Make a plan for how you will reassemble it. You might even practice reassembling it before you get to competition (if you are not one of the week one regional teams). When we have had to perform one of our "catastrophic redesigns" we plan everything out in advance so that when we actually start working the workflow is as fast as possible.

[Bob Steele]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Nobody is trying to crap in anyone's Wheaties.
-dave
.

THIS has to be one of the all-time best quotes I have ever seen on CD.

thanks Dave... you brightened up my day....seriously... well not seriously ...
errr you know what i mean...

Fantastic quote...

I want the t-shirt

[OptimusPrime]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Hi folks,

Let's tone this down a bit.

As pointed out above, the teams that saw an opportunity to withold a lightweight robot and possibly do so within the rules, asked for clarification in the Q&A, just as they were supposed to.

The question that was asked was very clear. The answer, unfortunately, was not. Based on the "what goes in the witholding allowance is up to you" answer, I honestly thought that it was okay to bring a lightweight robot to the competition with you... and I thought it was a really good answer.

So I have empathy for the teams who honestly believed that this was the intent of the answer. I know I did! The tradeoff of a light weight robot for increased build time struck me as a fair and reasonable engineering decision for a team to make.

I also have empathy for FIRST and the GDC, who attempt to answer questions quickly, and in the best interests of all involved with FIRST. Looking back, I am sure they wish they had included the "but you must ship a robot" clarification with the first Q&A response on the topic.

While it appears to me that FIRST has, in deed, if not in word, reversed the Feb. 16 Q&A response, I can also see how... from another persepective... their answers are logically consistant, even if the inital answer was somewhat ambiguous.

What is doubly unfortunate is that this issue revolves around the witholding limit, which is a great rule, and the increase in the witholding limit to compensate for the many teams that lost time to snow during build season. Making it triply unfortunate, of course, is the timing.

I hope that teams affected by this ruling are able to ship some significant part of their robot, then rebuild a duplicate of the shipped parts so that they can continue to make their robot better while complying with the rules of the game.

Jason

Thank you for your comment Jason. I'm glad that some people realized we were up front and clear about our intentions and wanted to ensure we were behaving under the principles of GP. I can understand why some people seem to be upset with us (you know who you are) and see our questions as a means of undermining the competition or trying to subversively gain an advantage. I simply don't see our behaviour as falling into that category. If you don't question a process, it cannot be improved. If you are not up front with your intentions then it can be considered subversive and/or contravening GP. I have seen many an example of this in past competitions but don't begrudge the fact. If I begrudge anything, it's how so darn hard it is to come up with the $ to participate and then compete against teams with tens of thousands of $ in their budget... especially those Board funded teams... but that's just petty jealousy on my part.

I would like to take this time to thank the GDC for considering our request and providing, at last, a very clear response in the latest team update. We are truly respectful and grateful for the time and efforts they put into this endeavour... and having to put up with some emotional participants ... but this simply represents the passion with which people take on this task... and that passion is a good thing.

Finally, as a low budget team ($6000 this year, starting with a $3000 deficit because we attended two competitions last year), we are compelled to specialize and innovate to make our robot sufficiently competitive to be attractive in the final "draft". We feel like we're the "Bad News Bears" pulling out all the stops in this competition. We also take our sponsorship seriously to the point of putting out our best effort with THEIR money. This includes looking at the rules and maximizing our potential LEGALLY AND UNDER THE SPIRIT OF GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM. I'm impressed when the team reads the documentation and the rules in detail (something I try to hammer into them), then comes up with a strategy which should legally assist the team to maximize it's potential. It is then decided to put the question out to see if it is a legitimate strategy under the provisions of FIRST. The original question was indeed concerning the original limit and not the 65 lb. limit. I must admit, I find it disheartening when some people feel we are trying subvert the contest or create controversy. I plea to them for some understanding.

'nuff said