Frustrations with Minor Technicalities

[joeweber]

I have been reading FIRST rules for 10 years and I know them inside and out but I can still miss things. The best solution is have more than one person read and know the rules. Have everybody go over the robot looking for violations way before ship date. The best policy is have the students go over the robot with the inspector to be sure that they know the rules and that they will be expected to know the rules. Nothing like pop quizes to help them learn. Going through the inspection check off list with a fine toothed comb does not hurt (assuming it is released sooner than it was this year).

[JohnBoucher]

A hard lesson learned a long time ago is to build 1" under-size to prevent problems like this. Do you ever really need 100% of the allowed dimensions?

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

A hard lesson learned a long time ago is to build 1" under-size to prevent problems like this. Do you ever really need 100% of the allowed dimensions?

John,

Great point, ever since 2007 1323 has designed their robots to be 27x37 which helps us in the long run. This year is a prime example, we had our wheels stick out an 1/8" but the inspector at SVR didn't catch it. So we didn't have to expand our frame perimeter, but in Davis they caught it. We had to expand it up to .5 inches but designing one inch under helped us make the adjustment easily.

Lesson Learned, just design one inch under.

-RC

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

A hard lesson learned a long time ago is to build 1" under-size to prevent problems like this. Do you ever really need 100% of the allowed dimensions?

We did, but that wasn't the problem...because we did build 1" under it was a simple(r) fix.


I would like to point out to point out that I actually had to apologize to Mr. Martus today because of this thread because people misconstrued what I was aiming to point out. I in no way meant any offense to him or any other inspectors and I did say that in my original post. I just wanted to point out the fact that the rules/updates system is difficult and minor technicalities are really getting to us.

Other examples of frustration from little things that happened this weekend at MSC:

1) We were informed Friday (along with half a dozen other teams) that we are not allowed to use an off-board compressor when we have an on-board one because of power distribution rules that state our air needs to come from that battery. While this literally makes no difference other than the pain in the neck that is connecting with the robot. Our team has been doing this for 3 years and no one has ever said anything and that rule has apparently always been in place. We assumed we were fine because there is nothing in the pneumatics rules regarding this and we see other teams do it. We DO read all the rules, but we aren't perfect we occasionally miss things. It isn't that we're an irresponsible team who isn't paying attention. 397 has been around for 10 years. Why is something like this just now being pointed out to us.

2) During QF 3 Match 1, Dave introduced 217,67, 2612 in his usual elaborate manner. We have a slight problem with losing pressure over time in our pneumatics and we NEED pressure to kick in auton. I asked during the introduction if we could just re-tether while he was introducing us and add more air so we wouldn't have the problem and I was told no. The long introduction caused our auton to fail. 67 stole those two balls from us right away in tele-op. While yes this is a problem with OUR robot our solution was to just charge it right before the match but between wait time for teams to get off the field, and set up, and the 5 minute introduction it was just too much time wasted before the match. It wasn't anyone's fault it's just another frustration.

3) I am shocked at actions I've seen teams do and things I've heard teams say. I also am very frustrated with the way people have been treated lately in FIRST. 469 has been bashed to a point that sickens me, and the little Update #20 stunt was, in my opinion, offensive, but I will not go into that because there are other threads for it.

4) My parents were sitting (taking up two seats) in the stands in a somewhat unoccupied area. An adult from another team approached them and told them "You have to move this is where our team is sitting, we've been here for the past two days." My mom, in shock that someone just said that to her, stood her ground and stated the venue rule: you can't save seats. If they has asked politely it wouldn't have been a problem, but...REALLY? How would your grandma react to that. That team sat watched the quarterfinals and then half of them got up and left leaving a large amount of empty seats.


I understand not every team gets the GP concept and that no program is perfect but I would like to say that my experience this weekend was certainly less than ideal that has nothing to do with my teams performance, but it was just all the little things adding up.

[joeweber]

I do understand some of the frustrations with the minor technecalities and acording to 8.3 ROBOT RULES "When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes." we should not "lawyer" the rules. It dose seem that a small number of inspectors are lawyering the rules against us (along with CD fans durring build). Regardles, no matter how diffacult it is we must follow the rules as close as we can and be ready for quick changes at the event. Sounds like a real life situation that happens to me every other day at work.

[maltz1881]

I seen some very weird/strange things happen this year with robots. One team never opened up their "kit" this year and tried to use last year's robot. Now they are far from being rookies and should know better. They hadn't read a single rule for the year either. The mentor went to the store and came back with black and green fabric for the bumpers. While their team sat in the stands watching the game, students from other teams built them a working robot. They of course were DQ'd from the event. BTW they did the same last year as well. I also seen a team using 6 CIM's this year. I don't understand why it seems this year teams aren't following the rules. Though in 397's defense this seems pretty minor, but rules are rules.

Mike is probably one of the best if not the best inspector out there. Having worked with him for a couple years now in the pits, he is such a fair and hard working man.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

1) We were informed Friday (along with half a dozen other teams) that we are not allowed to use an off-board compressor when we have an on-board one because of power distribution rules that state our air needs to come from that battery.

The rule is this...

<R75> Compressed air for the pneumatic system on the ROBOT must be provided by one and only one compressor.

Sorry if you were mislead. In one form or another this rule has been present for many years. One and only one compressor.

[joeweber]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

We have a slight problem with losing pressure over time in our pneumatics and we NEED pressure to kick in auton.

We did have a small leak like this and decided to find it. We took soapy water and searched it down, it took awhile but we found many leaks. After finding all of the leaks we found it held pressure overnight. We were in line at kettering for an hour and did not loose any air pressure.

[Ed Sparks]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

A hard lesson learned a long time ago is to build 1" under-size to prevent problems like this. Do you ever really need 100% of the allowed dimensions?

Ya know, I've been around a long time and this general issue of fitting into a sizing box just keeps comming back and giving us inspector types heartburn. I suggest that starting next year, after ship date, the GDC issue an update that increases the max sizes by 1" in all directions.

[Mike Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Ed Sparks

Ya know, I've been around a long time and this general issue of fitting into a sizing box just keeps comming back and giving us inspector types heartburn. I suggest that starting next year, after ship date, the GDC issue an update that increases the max sizes by 1" in all directions.

Robots are made to this size so that with bumpers they fit through a door... an extra inch will not go through a standard door.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

Robots are made to this size so that with bumpers they fit through a door... an extra inch will not go through a standard door.

If this is true...how come these dimensions were the same pre-bumper requirements?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

So that if you find a standard door (30") you can go through it with no bumpers. Such doors were once standard for schools with a center post on double doors. Following some changes in building codes, i.e. ADA in larger cities, doors were modified to allow wheel chairs and other vehicles. Some older venues that do not fall under such codes are still around.

[Ed Sparks]

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

Robots are made to this size so that with bumpers they fit through a door... an extra inch will not go through a standard door.

Ummm, I was trying to be humorus........ Besides you could start off at 20" x 26" x 30" and then change it to "Door fitt'n", "Box fitt'n" dimensions in Team Update #XX.

(More stupid inspector humor)

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Ed,
You warming up for next week?

[dtengineering]

The FRC rule book is pretty thick.

One thing that makes up for it is knowing that there is no such thing as a "Minor Technicality". I expect each and every rule, no matter how obscure, will be enforced to the best ability of the inspectors at an event. I hate to think how many hours I spent going through the rule book our first year to make sure that we would pass tech straight out of the box. We were through tech by about 1:00 pm at our first ever regional. I think we only had to do the obligatory and ceremonial filing of a few sharp corners in order to pass tech.

And that was with one adult, working with 12 students, and well before General Motors Canada became our sponsor. None of us had ever even seen an FRC robot in person before. We just read the rule book... painstakingly... and followed it.

It has become easier over the years, as many of the rules stay the same, but every year I go back to that rule book, and go through the team updates, and read the Q&A... and measure the robot (usually just 1/2" under... this year about 1/4"-1/8" under as it was very short and very square) and weigh the robot and double-check our wiring requirements and pneumatics (for leaks, as well as rules... we know it's our job to build a "tight" pneumatic system that doesn't leak... or suffer the consequences.)

It is one responsibility that I won't pass off to the kids. As the lead technical mentor, the buck stops with me when it comes to tech inspection. If we don't pass, even for a "minor technicality", then it is MY fault, and I don't whinge about it. Strangely, the kids seem to pick up on this and are pretty careful about following the rules, too, but it takes a lot of care and attention to detail to set that tone.... and if we're called on something that I don't think is right, I take the time to read the rule a second time, and take it with me when I go to have a quiet talk with the inspector. While I've seen an inspector miss something, I've NEVER seen an inspector enforce something that wasn't a rule. (Its probably happened, somewhere, to someone... but every inspector I've worked with has gone out of their way to help robots pass.)

A few years back I had the pleasure of doing tech inspection on Galileo, and working with some of FIRST's truly awesome LRI's. I loved seeing the robots up close. I felt bad for the teams that were non-compliant, especially when they were non-compliant with a few rules that I wasn't particularly fond of myself, but we did everything we could as inspectors to get them compliant ASAP. The vast majority of teams took time to say "thank you" for this level of care, support, and attention to detail.

So I know it's hard to do, but if a tech inspector catches something on your robot that you've missed, then don't blame them... THANK them. They caught your oversight. Chances are, they'll do what they can to help you fix it, too.

And if the inspection team missed something on another team's machine (quite possibly the inspection was done by a less experienced FRC hand) and you think it needs to be brought to their attention, then please do so at the earliest opportunity. The inspection team should thank YOU for helping them do their job more effectively.

But never blame it on a "minor technicality". It's either a rule or it isn't.

Jason