"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[Don Wright]

Well, please let me reply since I am sure that we are the team that everyone is speaking of.

1. Yes, we brought our practice robot into the GLR.
2. Yes, we used our practice robot during the practice rounds. 2 or three of the rounds I believe it didn't even move.

I know I speak for my entire team in apologizing for breaking the rules about this. I was not aware of the rule but should have been and it is my fault and I am the one to blame. As soon as we were told we were in violation of the rules, we removed the practice robot from the building.

However, I can say exactly what I told the judges who confronted me. Absolutely no parts that were on the practice robot were used on the robot we shipped. ZERO.

This is what was done to our shipped robot on Thursday:

1. One gear that was on the elbow was replaced to increase the gear ratio.
2. The robot controller was swapped from the prototype electronics board to the real board which is not a violation of the rules.
3. We added a pneumatic brake to our winch. This had been part of our robot before it shipped (someone from 469 might be able to remember it when they saw it), but we removed it because we didn't think we needed it when we shipped. Later, we found that we did and on Thursday, our machinists re-fabricated the bracket in the PICO trailer (along with helping other teams make parts for their robots).
4. We added a piece of aluminum tube to the bottom of the winch mechanism to stop the plate from flexing.
5. We added the rubber rat to the control console.
6. The rest was programming and electronics work which we did to the shipped robot as we debugged it in the pit on Thursday.

The first round on Friday, our autonomous mode was unknown, so instead of taking a chance of damaging the robot, we did not even bring a robot to the round.

Again, I sincerely apologize for our acts at GLR but can honestly say that we did not mean any harm. I take full responsibility for our actions.

If anybody wants to disagree with anything that I have said, please feel free to post here or email me at dfwjr1973 @ hotmail.com and we can discuss.

Also, No Remorse, I am curious to you comment, "They also used the practive bot for something else, but I won't elaborate". Could you please contact me. I would really like to know what you are talking about.

Sincerely,
Donald Wright
Project Engineer for Team 830

[Natchez]

As soon as we were told we were in violation of the rules, we removed the practice robot from the building.

This is what I love about the engineering community. Team 830 is part of the solution and not part of the problem!!! We will all make mistakes; it is what we do after our mistakes that defines our character. Thanks for the explanation Donald.

[Matt Adams]

Originally Posted by R09

During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spare parts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

As best as I can tell, it looks like any "spare part" should not have any fasteners, which includes bolts, pins, set screws, string or keys.

I'm glad that we've got this out in the open as a refresher for teams that may be planning on bringing practice robots to the competition - it's not allowed unless it's completely disassembled.

I have to say I disagree with this intrepretation. Yes, I am disagreeing with my own opinion after a night of sleep.

I guess it comes down to the definition of "component."

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

Below is a picture of our robot this year... I've highlighed the small ball roller that's used to pull the balls into the cage, our entire big ball arm, and the sprocket with a custom bolt on hub on the top of our big ball arm. One could possibly define either of these as "components" or "bolt on assemblies".


FIRST needs to clarify this formally before this weekend so everyone can play within the bounds of the intended rules.

Matt

[KenWittlief]

you might argue about the meaning of component

but "completely dissassembled state" is pretty clear

[rees2001]

I think that there are a few different points of view being discussed here. some people are talking about bringing spare "parts" (the letter of the law) and some people are talking about spare components (individual reading of the rules). The main point of this discussion started when someone witnessed a team putting upgraded mechanisims onto thier robot from a practice robot. There is a difference between bringing and making BACKUP parts, going to 2 or 3 regionals and improving a system at the regional and keeping a robot back at your shop to make changes to while other teams robots sit crated and still.

This reminds me of another experience I had with teams bending the rules. A few years back I watched a team take their robot out of the competition facility on Friday night. I had watched this team during practice and saw the trouble they were having with their ball pick-up mechanism. The next morning the robot had all new components and even new signs. When I asked one of the students what they had done he told me, "we took it back to our school and worked on it all night long." The new system worked excellently, this team went on to do well at the regional and very well Nats.

This situation was not and is not fair. Part of me looks at the rules and thinks "they are breaking the rules, I should do something about it." The other part of me looks and sees kids working very hard to perfect something they are proud of. It's not a tough decision to make. I just wish these team's mentors could see the lesson we all want them to see. Do your very best, just do it fairly.

[Gabriel]

So how does software fit into all of this? IIRC FIRST specifically allows us to keep our controllers so we can work on software, but that seems to violate the principle behind the spare parts decision.

Yes, all teams have the same physical resources WRT software, (a laptop and a compiler), but because the regionals are spread out we all have different amounts of time. So it doesn't seem entirely consistent for FIRST to encourage us to work on software after the ship date but not to build spare parts.

[KenWittlief]

because you can put a piece of metal on a machine and fabricate it into a part, and you can tell when its done

but FIRST knows that SW is never done, the rev number just increments forever

[Natchez]

I am now in favor of a future rule that states, "Only off-the-shelf and raw materials may be brought to the pits."

The rules currently allow teams to

1. Manufacture a gravelator in the 6 week period
2. Not ship the gravelator
3. Use the gravelator to practice
4. Disassemble the gravelator
5. Bring the gravelator parts to the competition
6. Reassemble the gravelator on Thursday and put it on their 'bot

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

Basically, if the "don't bring any modified parts to the pits" rule was enacted, this would eliminate any questions about when parts were manufactured. Yes, this means that any parts that were manufactured/modified in the six week period would need to be stuffed in the crate with the robot if a team thought they may use them at the competition. For those who are going to argue that their crate will weigh more than 400 lbs. if they have to stuff it full of spare parts, just consider it another engineering challenge ... or fundraising challenge.

Now in favor of the anti-gravelator rule,
Lucien

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Natchez

This is certainly within the letter of the rules but I contend that this violates the spirit of the rules. To the extreme and somewhat ridiculous, a team could conceivably ship a block of aluminum, practice with their real robot after the ship-date, disassemble it, and then put it back together on Thursday of the competition. I reviewed the robot and shipping rules and can not find anything to contradict this. Please set me straight if I overlooked something.

I would check out Rule R09 in the robot section.
During the six week period following Kickoff: You may fabricate spareparts for replacement purposes of items on your robot as long as they are exact replacements for parts on the robot you shipped to the event. They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Natchez]

You can only make spare parts which are exact replacements for what you shipped. If you shipped a chunk of aluminum, you can only bring spare chunks of aluminum. Seems pretty clear to me.

Duly noted & I was mistaken. I still don't like the idea of shipping one 'bot while walking in with a practice 'bot disassembled and having the opportunity to "selectively" assemble it on Thursday.

Lucien

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Matt Adams

I heard a plea from a college student on 1466 talking about making spare tracks for his drive system. To me, I think that's a really smart move, due to the amount of time it takes to create this tread. To me, tread is a "component" just like a roller on a small ball gatherer is, and just like a wheel with a couple plastic hubs are.

I'm going to go with Ken on this one...
1466 made a design decision to use treads. They knew rule R09 stated:

They must be brought to the event in a completely disassembled state as
individual components (no bolt-on assemblies).

If they wanted those treads to be avaliable as an assembly than they should have shipped them.

I do think FIRST should put out a team update and define a component and an assembly. Here's my take:

A component is a part not held together with fasteners (mechanical, chemical, spritual, whatever.) They are allowed.
An assembly is a collection of components put together using fasteners to serve a specific function. They are not allowed.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Cory

Everyone is looking at the rules like lawyers again, and that isnt the way it's supposed to be.

Thats my problem with looking at the rules with common sense and using gracious professionalism.

This thread has shown that the rules need to be defined further. You could even say more lawyer-like. Otherwise teams will just bend them... to the point where they are swapping upgraded mechanisms (the purpose of this thread).

I don't you about you guys, but I'm starting to feel like following gracious professionalism is like having walk all over me stamped on my chest. Since I follow the GP mind set, I'll just smile and wait for another team to do it.


BTW: Yes, we did bring our spare wheel to BAE dissasembled. Hub, tube, and wheel.


EDIT:

can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

No, I would tell them they can use their pre-assembled, non-component treads. I will know that they would like to violate the rules, and I will let them violate the rules because that's what GP is about... right?

[Andy Baker]

Disassembled means disassembled. Any spare assemblies we brought to competitions were packed in our crate at ship time and then shipped in the robot crate to the next regional. If we brought any other parts to the competition, they were all in disassembled state. Some parts were 2-3 pieces welded together, but that was as disassembled as we could get. I am hoping that all other teams did the same, or they will do the same next time.

As for purchased parts (wheels, etc.), I figure that you can bring them as an assembly, just like they were purchased.

GP means following the rules. Also, it means changing your ways if you did not know that you broke a rule.

Andy B.

[KenWittlief]

the spare parts rules only apply to custom fabricated components and assembiles - parts you FABRICATED yourself

we didnt fabricate the skyway pneumatic wheels, so we dont have to dissassemble them

we didnt fabricate the chain on our bot, so we dont have to take each link apart

the point of the rule is to discourage teams from making very complex assemblies that are prone to being broken - if they are going to break the spares are going to break - are you going to bring a spare for each match?

its simply good engineering practice - dont builld something custom if you can get the same function from a commercially available off the shelf product - dont build something that is unreliable (breaks) when being used - dont build something that is expensive or difficult to repair or replace

THATS what FIRST is trying to convey here - be in the robust machine business, not in the spare parts emporium business :^)

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cory

Guys, use some common sense... they took MASSIVE amounts of time to make those treads, can you honestly go to them, look them in the face, and then tell them that they have to disassemble their treads and put them back together?

Yes, I would. In a heartbeat, and with no guilt. Look folks, we all know what the rules are. FIRST was even very specific about issues like this. Update #11 makes a point of stating:

"FIRST staff and volunterrs will vigorously support and envorce the 2004 rules as written. A team's excellent and creative work that may not align /be in agreement with the rules will be acknowledged as excellent work but will be disallowed."

If the team mentioned above wants to have custom treads on their robot, and wants to have a spare set for the competitions, then they have a simple choice to make. Either make a spare set of the treads, fully assemble them, and throw them in the box with the robot to have as ready-to-go spares; or bring the individual components of the tread assemblies (note: individual components include unmodified off-the-shelf items such as wheels [with hubs] and umodified chains - Andy Baker has the right interpretation), and then assemble them on site. Under the rules, there is no other choice. If they show up at a competition with an assembled set of treads, that they did not ship with their robot, then those treads cannot be used in the competition.

If all the teams that manage to work within this set of rules can make it work, why in the world should we make an exception for those that cannot stay within the same constraints? A majority of teams have found a way to make their robot design and spares policy fit within the rules that we have all been given. I believe that they should be acklowledged and congratulated - and their efforts should not be tainted or trivialized by someone else's inability to play by the same rules. A small number of teams are trying to make the rules fit their own robot design and spares policies. FIRST has made it clear that this will not be accepted.

-dave