|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#46
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
(More stupid inspector humor) ![]() |
|
#47
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Ed,
You warming up for next week? |
|
#48
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
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 |
|
#49
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Awsome, well said Jason ........ |
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
If the rules were clearly and easily readable in one location and unchanging I could nearly guarantee my team's robot would be compliant, the problem is FIRST tries to clarify one rule and makes other rules unclear. We read just that update and assumed we were legal, but the way that update combines with other rules messed with us. Yes it's a rule. Yes we missed it. What I meant by minor technicality is that it got by 2 inspectors and gave us no competitive advantage. Yes we were illegal and it IS a rule you are correct. but compared to being overweight or out of the box it is a minor infraction.
|
|
#51
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
But that just wouldn't be life. In the real world, the rules are always changing and never clear. Sometimes the location is almost impossible to find. I've seen production stopped over things that people out on the line consider "minor" or wasn't aware of the problem. Often the engineers think its minor too. Until one person sees it and notifies everyone. Then they have no choice but to fix it immediately. That is exactly what happened in your case. It got overlooked until it was made apparent. Then it needed fixed immediately. I guess that's just something we all have to learn to deal with.
|
|
#52
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
And I appreciate that sometimes the "little stuff" that gives no technical advantage is easy to overlook, and easy to miss, especially for rushed rookie tech inspectors who are trying to get a robot passed at seven o'clock on Thursday evening. And I'm not trying to dump on teams who have missed something. I know what that feels like. In "Rack'n'Roll", after passing tech in Portland, we were caught at GTR with a pneumatic cylinder (that we'd pulled off an old FRC bot and WAS legal the previous year) that was 8 1/2" long, rather than the 8" or 9" lengths allowed in the rules that year. My first response was, "It's such a little thing... and our legal spare is 5,000km away... maybe it could slide." I don't think I really meant it, but was just facing a combination of dismay that I'd missed something, and concern that we might not be able to compete. The LRI at the event (Tristan Lall) earned my enduring admiration by having none of that, apologizing that he didn't make the rule and that while the 1/2" length difference gave us no competitive advantage, that he did have to enforce the rules equally and for everyone. And then proceeding to help us find a legal replacement. Oddly enough... it actually made the robot work better and reinforced my dedication to making sure that we were compliant with ALL the rules. I hold it up as an example of why FRC is the "gold standard" for robotics competitions, and an awesome example of how tech inspection SHOULD work. So yeah... I appreciate that it takes a tonne of hard work to follow the rules, but I also recognize that it could be far, far worse if the GDC didn't really try hard to make them as clear as they do. And it would be absolutely disastrous if we didn't know which rules were going to be enforced, or how strictly they would be enforced. It actually makes life easier knowing that, as much as possible, every rule will be enforced 100%. But yeah... it can be painful sometimes when you miss something. Jason |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
Not saying the rules are wrong or that teams should be allowed to compete with illegal robots but merely remarking on something bouncing around inside my head. |
|
#54
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
It's not mentioned much around here, but a different robot competition, BEST, does rules like this. They have a packet of "Generic Rules" that is available year round and rarely changes from year to year. This includes many robot build and wiring rules. Since it's available all the time up to kickoff, it's a great resource to point teams to to get them ready for building a bot. I think FIRST could greatly benefit from employing this kind of philosophy to the rules. Many (Most?) of the robot rules are identical from year to year or nearly so and have no connection whatsoever to the actual game. I think FIRST could release these generic robot rules well before the kickoff for teams to pick at, and declare a freeze a month or two before kickoff. This would let us hold workshops on robot building well before kickoff and give teams ample time to familiarize themselves with 75% of the robot rules in a non-pressure situation. The only difficulty would be making sure everyone is clear that the game specific robot rules entirely supercede any noted generic robot rules. Or just make the generic rules are generic enough by skipping specific sizing and weight requirements. Anyways, I think the benefits of this approach would far outweigh the minor difficulties. |
|
#55
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
I understand what you're saying about the seemingly insignificant details and unequal enforcement. All I can reply to that is to ASSume that nothing is insignicant and build your robot so that the best inspector can find nothing wrong with it. Maybe get with another local team and do an inspection before ship of each others robot so you get "fresh" eyes and the benefit of a second set of rule interpretations. Last edited by 45Auto : 08-04-2010 at 11:46. |
|
#56
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Given the chance, an inspector will go out of their way to make sure you compete. We will give you guidance, find you help and assist in design if needed. If you refuse or don't show up, then yes, you might not compete. If you meet us halfway we will get you running. If you leave the pits early, come in after opening ceremonies, or sit in the stands and want someone else to work, then you will have to live with the consequences. I will do everything I can to give your students a quality experience. Sometimes you don't even have to ask.
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
I attended three events this year and the vast majority of inspectors would go out of their way to help every team. I know individuals who would spend all day helping teams (both inspectors and other teams). |
|
#58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Frustrations with Minor Technicalities
Quote:
I guess I'm just saying that overcoming hardship is the most inspirational thing I've seen. Yes, if you can't overcome it...that is disappointing. But with all the help available to the teams from the inspectors and other teams, I'm sure any team can overcome. Even if they have to start from scratch. Wasn't there a team that built one from scratch this year even? Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Lane divider technicalities | a1f6d | Rules/Strategy | 2 | 10-02-2008 09:50 |
| LSR minor notice | njamietech | Regional Competitions | 0 | 09-02-2008 16:22 |
| EasyC-Vex Rx/motor frustrations- please help! | Steve0100 | Programming | 10 | 08-07-2006 02:18 |
| Pittsburgh, wrap up and frustrations | D.J. Fluck | Regional Competitions | 29 | 19-03-2003 19:13 |
| a few minor things... | Brandon Martus | Announcements | 0 | 03-01-2003 23:39 |