Spare parts and duplicate robots

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

1. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from a still-competing robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from an eliminated robot to keep another still-competing robot running?

2. Is it okay for a team to pull parts from the 25 lb of spares brought in by another team? Whose 25 lb is it then?

4. Is it okay for N teams with clones to pre-plan their 25 lbs of spares so that they each have essentially 25*N lbs of spares to work with should one of the teams need them?

I'd be game for items two through four--that's just good planning. But a still-competing robot? I could see a bit of an issue with the first item, though. Suppose Redateam creates two rookies in a Tripletesque arrangement, then finds themselves at the first question. What do the rookie teams do--bite the hand that feeds them? Ideally, the rookie team would keep themselves in one piece (going back to what Dave said last season about being legal and graciously professional, but still dumb), but I've always been a fan of clarity in the manual as to what FIRST is looking for.

Originally Posted by TimCraig

Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind. Why have any limitations at all? Why not let the rich teams spend as much as they like? There are already ways to get around the $3500 limit anyhow. Should the lesson of FIRST be that money is all it's about? Maybe life isn't fair but should the competition be made that lop sided?

The Triplets in 2005 consisted of one pretty successful team and two rookies. The Martians/More Martians collaboration this year was between another successful team and a team lost its mentor. 968, who collaborated with 254 and made it all the way to the last match on Einstein this year, initially planned only to attend their local regional. While you may still have successful teams collaborating in part (Division by Chickens, 2005) or in whole (254/60, 2004, or 254/22, 2005), it seems like the more recent trend is for one successful team to help bring up a new or improving team. If the arrangement works well for them, more power to 'em.

As for the ways to get around the $3500 limit, I'm sure they're out there. But what team in FIRST is really willing to risk their reputation to get that edge? Parts-swapping across teams is one thing, intentionally subverting a clear rule in the manual is another.

What should the lesson of FIRST (or, since we seem to be talking exclusively about robots, the robot-building part of FIRST) be? Work within your resources to build the most effective machine that you can--and, at the same time, work to increase those resources.

[Beth Sweet]

Originally Posted by Billfred

What should the lesson of FIRST (or, since we seem to be talking exclusively about robots, the robot-building part of FIRST) be? Work within your resources to build the most effective machine that you can--and, at the same time, work to increase those resources.

Billfred has entirely summed up our team's motto. Everyone wants to have enough money to go to 4 regionals, Atlanta and have a fancy catered banquet, a practice robot and 2 t-shirts per day but when it comes down to it, you just have to work your posteriors off and move that money around to the most important places. (I haven't read the rest of this thread and I have no idea whether this contributes, but this quote is basically our team motto)

[Ken Patton]

So, let me see if I got this right..... if we creatively go around some aspects of the rules beyond their current form (i.e. they don't yet cover this area), we are being "smart."

I'm sorry Dave, but in my opinion this is the sort of response that encourages people to be cynical about the rules and to lawyer the rules. I think you're wrong.

Back to the question. What is wrong with allowing or encouraging this? And, we are not allowed to use the word "unfair" because unfairness is okay.... hmmm....

How about that it violates the first sentence of R01?
"<R01> Each team may enter ONE robot into the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition. That robot must be assembled using materials from the 2006 FIRST Kit of Parts, and other allowed materials as specified in the Rules, and must fully comply with all Rules."

I assume the word "ONE" is capitalized because they mean one, and not one-point-five or two.


How about that it violates section 5.3.3?
There is a pretty detailed fabrication schedule given, and it is made clear that all teams are to follow it. If a team is "smart" and they figure a way around it by using parts that were built during some other team's fix-it window, it is my opinion that they are not following section 5.3.3.


How about that it creates uncomfortable conflicts of interest among teams?

"Hey we both made the elimination rounds - awesome! - but you know, we are the lead team here, and we don't want to break the lead robot. Plus, we think our alliance is going to win, so we are going to need to strip some of the good parts off your bot in case we need em for the finals."

"Aw, come on B-Team, you KNOW we only entered you to be the support robot. So what if you have a qual match in 20 minutes - we need your bumper-buster and we are 6-0 right now. Give it up. We'll try to get it back in time."


How about that it creates situations where the idea of "competition" is subverted, due to conflicts of interest?

"Hey we both made the elimination rounds - awesome! - but you know, we are the lead team here, and we think you should not play defense on us in the quarter finals. We gave the last spare subsystem to you (you know, because we each brought a different 25 lbs of stuff), so we have gotten you this far. Make sure to go easy on us."


How about that it will discourage teams who choose to treat this as an exciting COMPETITION? If you think that teams who are complaining about this sort of thing don't have the opportunity to do it themselves - after all, you suggested they didn't figure out "a smarter way to play" - you are living on another planet. There are teams who are choosing not to do it. Suggesting they were not smart enough to do it is insulting. Give them some credit for NOT looking for ways around R19, R20, R29.

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I am going to answer "Yes" to each of these. Or to be more accurate, I would say "Sure, why not?"
...NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates...

I'm a big racing fan. In racing, there are two paradigms:

1) NASCAR, where all of the cars are equal and for the most part the same car (NASCAR keeps moving toward it's "common template" approach).

and

2) Formula One, where each team MUST develop and build its own car from scratch. Collaboration between teams is strictly forbidden.

To the "sure, why not?" question, you should ask this to the leaders of Formula One or any Formula One fan and you'll get the same answer: because it will ruin the sport.

Personally, I really don't like NASCAR. I love the engineering aspect of Formula One. I don't ever want to see FIRST become a bunch of people driving the same robot around the field. Every collaboration makes me think that FIRST is moving one step away from F1 and one step closer to NASCAR. FIRST turning into NASCAR is one of my biggest fears.

Anyway, I really don't like the idea of duplicate robots cometing in the competition for the above reasons. That being said, I'll get back on topic: My answer to all of Ken's questions is "No". I don't want to see teams pre-planning their spare parts so the collaborators have another advantage over the non-collaborators.

[travis48elite]

Our team has a practice robot that is a clone of our competition robot. This robot became useful between competitions for fixing problems or making new or modiefied parts. And we would usually take these new completed parts that we improved to the competition to replace. But the only parts that we regularly took to the competitions was our tank tread modules. But I do agree we have to draw the line as far as what you may take from a team with the same robot.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

If the statement is "no problem" then that's just fine. To me, the most basic issue is that FIRST say something, because there is obviously controversy surrounding the issue.

I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

Again, I am looking for a clear, well thought out, fact-based argument for why the referenced parts sharing is a bad idea. Why is it necessary for FIRST to address this issue at all? If there is a real reason, then please point it out. So far, I am not seeing one.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

But it appears to be exploitable to absurd degrees: what if 188 built a significant portion of a robot for 116, and vice versa? If exchanges of parts are legal without exception, do we have a problem?

Please, yes! We will be sending you the specs for some parts by the end of the week! The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.

Originally Posted by TimCraig

Well, not all teams have exactly the same resources. And we know the way the team alliances are going to be formed. The teams who already have the most resources are going to be the ones getting together leaving everyone else that much further behind.

As Cory has pointed out, the actual data associated with patterns of collaboration counters this argument. It is this simple: this is not what happens, and the data supports that.

Originally Posted by Cory

1114/1503/1680--We all know that the reason this collaboration was started was because the area couldn't support 3 independently operated teams. Combined, yes they do have a lot of resources. Individually, obviously they wouldn't.

70/494--As can be seen in this thread, 70 was on the verge of extinction until 494 stepped in and revived them.

980/4. I can't speak for this collaboration, but nobody has ever accused either of them of being rolling in dough in the past.

254/968--On the outside, you'd think that 968 has tons of money and resources, as they've had beautiful robots the past 4 years. Looks couldn't be more deceiving. They consistently achieve more with less than the vast majority of FIRST.

And just to complete the story, despite what some mis-informed people on this very forum may believe, Team 254 is far from swimming in cash or resources either. Their entire mentoring team is composed of four college students. No professional engineers work with the team. The financial support they receive from NASA is actually less than the amount received by many other NASA grant recipients. They don't have a lot - but they are very, very good at doing a lot with what they have.

-dave

[Kevin Sevcik]

I have a hypothetical. It's really easy too. You've got quadruplets in a regional. It's their one and only regional for the season. Only one of them managed to make it to the finals, the rest being eliminated. QuadA-Team competes in the first round, gets knocked over onto the railing, and breaks their intricate shooter mechanism in half. It would take them 30 minutes to replace it with the spare in the pit. But thanks to a nifty modular electrical system, they can swap robot RCs in just 5 minutes. QuadB-Team says, "Well why don't you guys just swap your RC into our robot and compete with it?"

Letting teams donate parts off an eliminated robot invites all sorts of craziness like this. However, after (finally) reading R29, I think it already prevents teams from doing ALL of these things. Here's the rule:

<R29> Teams may bring a maximum of 25 pounds of custom FABRICATED ITEMS (SPARE PARTS, REPLACEMENT PARTS, and/or UPGRADE PARTS) to each competition event to be used to repair and/or upgrade their robot at the competition site. All other FABRICATED ITEMS to be used on the robot during the competition must arrive at the competition venue packed in the shipping crate with the robot.

The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

[Mike Shaul]

Originally Posted by dlavery

... NASCAR drivers swap parts between different cars, and different teammates, all the time.

I personally, don't like the idea of making FIRST into NASCAR. We'll all end up with the same robot and the competition comes down to 2 things, drivers and who can "push" the rules the furthest. My favorite part of FIRST is seeing all of the different robots and solutions.

I'm also afraid that if FIRST continues to support this type of "advantage" for teams, this "smart" behavior, it is going to increase the barrier of entry for new teams (you need more resources, more money, more people etc; which may be hard for many new teams to deal with). If FIRST wants to continue to grow the number of schools and teams we can't make it harder for new teams to have fun and be competitive.

I really think the ultimate goal of FIRST is to increase and support the level of education on a local school level (across the world), the harder it becomes for a single school to enter/compete, the less effective FIRST becomes.

[Mike Shaul]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

I completely agree.

[Rob]

Dave,

I'm glad you are taking part in this thread, as someone involved in rules creation your input is valuable to all of us. You provided a sterling argument supproting collaboration and the way it mimicks real world situations.

Unfortunatley, I feel that you did not address the original point I was trying to bring forward in my post. I was not trying to once again debate whether teams should share resources, but whether it should be legal for clones to use one another as spare parts during competitions. Let me put forth an example:

Two teams collaborate during the build and make exactly identical robots called "Thing 1" and "Thing 2". Each manages their spare parts separately. They compete at various regionals and both end up competing at the Championship event, but end up in separate divisions. Both end up competing in the elimination rounds of their divisions. "Thing 2" is eliminated in the quarter finals, while "Thing 1" wins their division, but had to use up all of their 25 pounds of spare parts to stay working. Now I would like to pose 2 scenarios:

A) "Thing 1" takes the 25 pounds of spare parts from the eliminated "Thing 2" out to the Einstein feild to repair themselves between matches.

B) "Thing 2" leaves their eliminated machine on the Georgia Dome floor so that the pit crew of "Thing 1" may scavenge parts between matches on the Einstein feild.

In my interpretation of the current rules, both scenarios would violate rules R01, R16, R26, R29, and R46. In scenario "B" any parts taken would not fit the definitions of spare, replacement, or upgrade parts as defined in the manual.

My effort is to get a specific rule to address these two potential scenarios so that the aforementioned rules are not subject to interpretation or "gray areas".

The fact based argument against sharing parts in this way is clear in the rules per my interpretation. If my interpretation is wrong, please let me know. If it is correct, then we should introduce a rule specifically about these situations so that there is no temptation to falsely interpret the rules stated above.

Rob

[Ken Patton]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

Nobody is asking for a vote Dave. Its a simple discussion, a valid question was asked, people are interested in what the right thing to do is.

Just a bunch of peeps out here with opinions. You're the only one who's posted so far that gets a vote.

Ken

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by dlavery

I'm sorry, but exactly where is the controversy? Is there any data, anywhere, to support the contention that this is a big deal for anyone? Other than the eight people that have contributed comments to this thread, I have not heard one peep about this topic at any competition, team forum, Q&A discussion, or feedback message. Eight people out of an audience of >10,000 does not exactly create a mandate for FIRST to do something. If there really is a groundswell of resentment arising from the teams on this topic, then please point out where data to support that contention may exist, and where we can find more information.

You'll note that I said "controversy", not "popular outcry". I'm not talking about an outpouring of resentment from the masses; I'm describing a disagreement among interested parties as to the nature of the rules.

Originally Posted by dlavery

The second sentance gets right to the point: right now, this would apear to be a non-issue. The actions referenced in Rob's original post do not viollate any rules. So is there even a problem here? If the contention is that the rules need to be changed, then please make the case for WHY they need to be changed.

Like I said before, if FIRST thinks that this is fine, and expresses that position, then there is no problem. However, doesn't FIRST realize that it might be imprudent for a team to base a major strategic decision on something which is simply omitted in the rules, and which is bound to generate dissenting opinions among participants and officials? Basically, if I show up with my robot (which has taken advantage of FIRST's lack of a ruling on the matter), and an inspector or referee, who is familiar with the spirit of the rules, decides that it violates certain principles, how am I to argue? To not state clearly what is allowed invites teams to push the limits of the existing rules, and forces officials to make interpretations which will inevitably be inconsistent. (I say inevitably, because the rules themselves are in conflict, much less their interpretations; see below.) It is a relatively simple matter for FIRST to write the rules in a more comprehensive way, to take into account the interactions between teams and other entities; to not do so only tempts conflict at a later stage.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Letting teams donate parts off an eliminated robot invites all sorts of craziness like this. However, after (finally) reading R29, I think it already prevents teams from doing ALL of these things. Here's the rule:
The reasoning: It explicitly states that the 25 pounds are to be used to repair that team's robot. Moreover, it states that all other fabricated items not included in these 25 pounds to be used on the robot MUST arrive in the crate with that robot. Not in some other team's crate with their robot. Not brought in as spares by another team. So unless I'm somehow interpretting this rule too strictly (anti-lawyering?), I think it's pretty clear what teams can use on their robot.

The trouble with <R29>, as I noted in the footnote above, is that it contradicts the more explicitly worded <R19>. <R29> says that all fabricated items not included in the 25# must arrive in the crate—clearly this is impossible, because <R19> (not to mention years of precedent) allows fabrication on-site. The reasonable way to interpret this allows fabrication on-site by ignoring that part of <R29>, but, to be consistent, it also opens the door to the sharing of fabricated parts.


Also, I just want to be clear on the issue with teams building parts for one another: while that may be fine in principle, the rules (as currently written) don't provide for a clear limitation on the timeframe under which this process can operate. It is not the fix-it windows, because those refer to teams working on parts for their own robots. One could reasonably determine that the prohibitions should be extended to teams working for one another, but then issues arise like whose fix-it window applies (one/the other/both/none)—but that's a ruling that will be made later, at each competition, and puts everyone in a precarious situation where everything hinges on matters of interpretation, and the officials' willingness to extend the rules beyond what's written, and the teams' willingness to accept that sort of ruling gracefully. It serves nobody's interests to let it come to that stage; all FIRST has to do is account for these possibilities in the rules. If that means a long-winded, even legalistic rule, then so be it. Because the alternative (i.e. conflict) isn't worth it.

[Tyler 783]

Originally Posted by travis48elite

Our team has a practice robot that is a clone of our competition robot. This robot became useful between competitions for fixing problems or making new or modiefied parts. And we would usually take these new completed parts that we improved to the competition to replace. But the only parts that we regularly took to the competitions was our tank tread modules. But I do agree we have to draw the line as far as what you may take from a team with the same robot.

I realy have no problem with the colaberation, or even the donation of parts to from one robot to another. My largest problem is the problems that it has with the FIX IT window rules. Say there is a three team colaberation, and say that all three teams have decided to go to 1 regonal all together and 1 regonal by themsleves. So you have team A that decides to go to a regonal in week one. They work on thier robot and their code because there are a few bugs in the code and the design. Then week 2 comes along and it's the regonal that all three have decided to attend all together. All the work that team A did in the first week on their robot and code is then sent to teams B and C before the second regonal so that when the FIX IT window opens before the competition the two other teams can fabricate the parts they need to make the modifications. This I think violates the FIX IT window rules since the parts had been designed before teams B and C had their FIX IT Window open. This is lawyering the rules and may or may not be alowed.

The more blatent problems with the FIX IT window is the use of a practice robot. This practice robot is used between the ship date and the competition to find bugs in the design and the code. So durring practice with your practice robot you find a problem with your shooter which requires a small part to be made. This part is designed and made for the practice robot and works perfectly. The team then waits for the FIX IT window to open and then makes that part for a "upgrade" that is brought in as your 25 lbs. But did they not design that part outside the fix it window? Does this not break the FIX IT window rules? Finaly this team works on their code for they're practice robot to make the robot's autonomous code work more smoothly and makes the robot function better. They then arive at the competition and upload this inproved code into their robot. I know that there was a specific question in the Q&A about programming and the Fix it window and the answer was along the lines that you are alowed to think about changes to the code but are not allowed to actualy code anything. Would they not have been coding for their competition robot when they were improving their code for their practice robot? Do teams rewite the code line for line when they get to the competition to avoid this? I find that if this is if not against the rule at least against the spirit of the rule, which i beleive is almost as bad as breaking the rule itself.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

FIRST turning into NASCAR is one of my biggest fears.

What, you wouldn't want to see Woodie interview Paul Copioli after the finals in Atlanta and watch Paul douse the crowd with a 2 liter of Mountain Dew as he exclaims:

"Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw! The Ford-powered Sharpie Innovation FIRST Intellitek Microchip Allen-Bradley Autodesk Poof-Slinky Carnegie-Mellon University Craftsman Tools Dewalt Krispy Kreme Mountain Dew Thunderchicken 217 robot really kicked some butt out there today! Boogity boogity boogity!....."

Who wouldn't want to see that???

We now return you to your serious and on-topic discussion thread.

[meaubry]

When collaboration started pandoras box was opened for a wide variety of concerns.
My take on this subject goes like this -
I love seeing teams "help" each other - it builds and bonds and makes everyone feel good.
But, each team individually should account for the 25 lbs and also meeting the intent of the rules as written.
The best thing that could happen is to eliminate many of the rules that lawyering or being "smart", causes this kind of controversial debate - obviously the rules are NOT clear or else the majority of the teams just aren't "that smart".
Sorry - I got off track for a second there.
Back to the topic at hand - Teams should NOT be allowed to swap complete mechanisms with other teams, but - parts and raw material are completely okay in my mind.
Even if the interface is designed through collaborative efforts, each TEAM is responsible for their own robot. The mechanism was designed for a single teams application - yes, I realize that many teams could swap many mechanisms and they would work just fine - but, why is that okay??
6 weeks - one robot (defined as the sum of the mechanisms manufactured and assembled to function as a single machine).
The single simple rule should be - if the mechanism is designed and built by your team, it should remain ONLY on your teams robot.
As far as the rules go - sometimes less is more.
Good discussion - lets not allow this one to degrade though, everyone should respect the fact that each person should be allowed to state their feelings and sometimes we all just need to agree to disagree.