Cheesecake robot. How far is too far?

[Cam_Team 2619]

I would rather not be picked for eliminations than have to compete with another teams robot and scrap ours. I would be so saddened to say "Look, here is the blue banner that we won with another teams robot". Cheesecaking makes me sad, but this is just wrong on a new level.

[cj3958]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

Clearly someone wasn't at champs last year... Or wasn't paying attention to 1114's pit...

[The other Gabe]

Originally Posted by cj3958

Clearly someone wasn't at champs last year... Or wasn't paying attention to 1114's pit...

actually, we were beaten in finals on our field by that alliance.

the harpoon situation was a combined effort, built in team 900's pit (so of course I wasnt paying attention to 1114's pit, the stuff was happening in 900's!), and agreed upon before they were picked. I'm not saying it's something I entirely supported (I mean, the harpoons were damned cool, so I liked that bit), but that was something in which the team that was cheesecaked was totally cool with it and not surprised by their robot being completely replaced.

[taaha_alidrisi]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

whether or not it is within the rules, it would be neither gracious nor professional to imply that their robot was worthless by giving them a completely different one

it would also be a poor allocation of your pit space and resources, IMO

I've seen powerhouses teams help out the 3rd robot in their alliance by giving them major mechanisms but to respect their hard work and effort during the construction you should keep it at that mere minimum.

In addition, it's not a mere cheesecake robot if it's a full robot (in the 30lbs or not). Investing that money for other expenses would be the most beneficial decision.

[BetaHelix]

In my opinion if you have to cheesecake a whole new bot into you alliance, it says a whole lot about your strategy. If you are so focused on needing this one exact type of robot that you will completely remove a functional robot from the field, it is a poorly drafted strategy. A major part of FRC strategy is the aspect of adapting to what you have and applying problem solving skills. If you can't find one speck of utility in someone else's design, you find a role for them, or you don't pick them.

Also cheesecake is not an instant win. At one of our regionals we saw one of the top alliances take the entire lift of of a robot so they could replace it with can grabbers, and they ultimately only came in second to an alliance of three bots who worked together.

As a student and the drive coach of a mid tier team, I support improving existing systems that teams have build, but oppose adding new ones that are untested or risk removing current robot function

[murphy14]

Whether or not it is going too far is debatable. However, i feel that it is very against the point of FIRST, which is for students to work together with other students and overcome challenges as a team. Simply the fact that you have to ask this question should be enough of a answer.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Hello CD. I was thinking about it with a friend, and we consider building an entire robot at an event to give away as cheesecake to our 3rd alliance member. This seems entirely within the rules. The robot would be able to drive around. Is it too far? How would you feel competing with a robot you did not build? Opinions?

I know the manual is pretty long, and that sometimes people don't read ALL the way through, but... um... R1 is pretty close to the beginning:

R1 A Team must submit their ROBOT for Inspection. The ROBOT must be an electromechanical assembly built by the FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, BUMPERS, and movement. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST STRONGHOLD (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a ROBOT designed to play a different game does not satisfy this definition).

R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by
that Team, but isn’t intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams
(e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software,
developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or
MECHANISMS, etc.).

Emphasis mine. Feel free to give away whatever you want, but maybe read at least one of the rules before suggesting your strategy is "entirely within the rules".

Sorry if that seems a bit snarky... some FRC rules can be difficult to figure out, or hard to notice. But they were pretty clear about this one...

Jason

[IronicDeadBird]

Also if you haven't alreayd made and tested the robot how do you know its worth replacing a robot on an alliance?

[FIMAlumni]

Similar discussion from last season with poll results from the community. Last year 16.20% of voters thought a new cheesecake robot should be allowed. Cheescake: How far is too far?

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by IronicDeadBird

Also if you haven't alreayd made and tested the robot how do you know its worth replacing a robot on an alliance?

I can't know that. I believe it's worth the try

[JohnSchneider]

Is the plan to have a drive team compete with a robot for the first time in eliminations? Because if you give it to them before I would bet that it gets drafted. Then what? You reposes the robot? Both situations sound like poor decisions even if it finished skirting the legal grey area.

[IronicDeadBird]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

I can't know that. I believe it's worth the try

Approach a team with...
"We have an idea for the robot and the materials but we haven't tested it at all we would like to run this untested robot instead of your robot."

That'll turn some heads.

[logank013]

This has definitely been a topic before on our team but hasn't been discussed a lot. I won't talk about others on my team's views but I will talk about mine.
Basically, I believe the the line has been crossed when it forces a main component of the robot to be unfunctional.
Example: a team has spent 3 or 4 weeks developing their shooter. Despite shooter capability, it is wrong to make them stick a PVC pipe in front of it allowing them to not be able to shoot a boulder.
Cheesecaking is fine when you are adding to it but as soon as you take something away, despite how much you added, you are telling them that their robot isn't good in that part you took away. Does this make sense? Despite our team being an alliance captain much of the time these last two years, I never see our team Cheesecaking and alliance partner's robot. It is fine to a slight extent but most first teams who do it want to cross the line. Unfortunately, there is no rule against it.

[jwfoss]

I would advocate that if you think you have the time and are willing to put the effort into building a second robot at an event for a potential alliance partner, your time would be better spent helping those teams at the event that need it most. Raising the floor will give you more options come alliance selection time, and improve the event for everyone.

[Sperkowsky]

I do not see an issue with it. If that team gets to win now because of the robot you gave them that is great.