"Spare Parts" Rules Are Broken

[Don Wright]

While I believe that we violated the intention of the rules by putting our practice robot on the field for practice, it was because of a misunderstanding and it will never happen again.

I hope most of the teams that are violating the rules are doing it because they misunderstand them and not because they are trying to bend them. Even the fact that this discussion has gone on so long back and forth between respected members clearly shows that this is a gray area that probably needs to be clarified.

I assume that anything that is added to a shipped robot must be fabricated at the competition, from purchased parts shipped with the robot, or brought to the competition.

For example...we changed a gear in our arm. We made a brake bracket out of aluminum in the PICO trailer and added a purchased cylinder to it and screwed it to our winch. We made little aluminum covers out of painted sheet aluminum that we cut, bent, drilled, and screwed to our robot at the Regional. We bought new nylon strap Friday night at REI and Saturday morning, cut it to length, added the eyelets, and attached it to our robot after our original strap that shipped with it slipped off the pulley one round and got caught in some gears.

Since all of the changes we made were fabricated at the competition from common purchased parts, I assume this would all be legal.

We spent a lot of time making all the parts on our robot so that we coule easily make and replace them at the competition. We think that is one of our strong points. Although it was a good thing our mast screw mechanism broke because that was a weak link that needed to be found out because it would be hard to repair.

So, that brings me to my next question. Ironically, the screw drive nut on our practice bot broke right before we took it out of the arena. The screw drive nut on our real robot broke in quarter finals. So, we now have to fix both.

So, I am keeping in mind that however we repair our practice robot, we have to be able to make the same repair at Grand Rapids on Thursday. This means any fabrication too. So, I will be bringing bare material (sheet aluminum, tube, nuts, bolts, etc.) and even though the design was done here in the time between regionals, and we can try the design on our practice bot, it will be entirely fixed at the competition on Thursday. I will not be bringing the "fix" completed in with me. It will be made at the regional.

I assume I would not be in any violation of any rules. Am I correct?

Thank you.

[dlavery]

In the example you give above, I would say that you are acting both within the spirit, letter and intent of the rules. All your fabrication, both in the case of the changed gear and the screw drive nut repair, is being done on site or at facilities open and available to all the competition participants. All the fabrication is being done within the time frame of the competition. All repairs/spares are made from component materials, and not built-up assemblies that have been built off-site. So, it looks like you are OK.

Which is exactly my point. You guys had to figure out a way to repair your machine, and you managed to find a way to do it within the rules. The fact that you did DESIGN work off-site is fine. Even using your practice robot to work through the design is OK, as long as you don't use any of those parts on your competition machine (and you have clearly indicated that you won't be doing that). The fact that you were able to find a way to do this, within the rules, is to your credit.

And the fact that you were able to do this provides an existance proof that it can be done - within the rules. If these teams can do it, why shouldn't we expect ALL teams to stay within the rules regarding spare parts?

If they are violating a rule because they do not understand or misinterpreted the rule, then then can be gently informed of the problem, and will probably respond as gracefully and honestly as Team 830. If they are knowlingly violating a rule (hopefully a VERY rare occurance) then they should be called on it.

-dave

[Richard Wallace]

Quote:
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?

<dlavery in response>:
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:
Quote:
"FIRST staff and volunteers will vigorously support and enforce 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."


Well said, Dave.

I'd like to add one thing, though. Responsibility for complying with FIRST rules belongs to the teams. I think of it as similar the tradition in the game of golf, where players (at least the gracious professional ones) call penalties on themselves when they break a rule. FIRST staff and volunteers must rely on the gracious professionalism of the teams to determine if all components comply with R09.

[kacz100]

Originally Posted by FIRST rule 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).

I personally disagree with this rule in some senses. Our team created 4 tracks for our robot incase we broke or something horrible happened. So this rule would state that we would have to take apart our 2 spare tracks?
Our 1 track
I don't know about you but that just isn't going to happen it took DAYS to put together and if we broke our track match 1 we would they have a robot that didn't work and we could go home on thursday. The rules are stated for someone to CHANGE a complete arm, drive system, or any other part (IMHO); replacement parts should not be a problem. If 1 team can make a second robot in 6 weeks whats the problem with them using it for parts on the robot they shipped? Some things that are created in the 6 weeks just cannot be remade to work in a couple hours.

Well thats my 2cents on this matter

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by kacz100

I personally disagree with this rule in some senses. Our team created 4 tracks for our robot incase we broke or something horrible happened. So this rule would state that we would have to take apart our 2 spare tracks?

If you created the spare tracks during the 6 week build season, then you may ship them with the robot and use them as is. However, if they were made after the 6 week build season, then you must remake them from raw materials at the competition.

[kacz100]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

If you created the spare tracks during the 6 week build season, then you may ship them with the robot and use them as is. However, if they were made after the 6 week build season, then you must remake them from raw materials at the competition.

Because of a heavy crate we couldn't ship anything but our robot. Yes you are correct we could have put them in the crate.

[Swan217]

FIRST is aware of the situation that happed at the GLR, and should be taking steps as we speak to correct the problem.

The major problem was an unnamed team using their practice robot all day on Thursday during the practice rounds. The referees conferred, and though there is no rule against it, we all concluded that it should have been an obvious understood that the practice robot does not go onto the playing field. However, there being no written rule about it, we could not disqualify said team.

As for the question - did they use prefabricated parts from their pratice robot on their competition robot - the referees asked the team, and hopefully they showed gracious professionalism and were truthful when they answered that they had NOT made a parts exchange. Unless anyone can bring proof that they were not honest, there is nothing that FIRST can do about it.

On a personal note, I am shocked at the lack of respect this team showed the competition. Other teams were forced to skip their practice rounds to fix and upgrade their robot, and I think the team gained a significant advantage by skirting the rules with this move. As Dean said - we should look at the rules as engineers would, not lawyers. It is my personal belief that the robot you practice with on Thursdays be the same one you are required to get certified for the competition.

[Don Wright]

Please see my post here:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...076#post236076

Again, I'm sorry.

[dlavery]

This same thing happened at St Louis. The fact that this happened at least twice (maybe more?) is a strong indication that FIRST will have to make the prohibitions against this practice absolutely clear and unambiguous. This may be intuitively obvious to some teams, but not others, so here we are...

-dave

[Jeff Waegelin]

I'd like to commend Mr. Wright for his full disclosure of what went on with his team's practice robot at GLR. It takes courage to admit you did something wrong, and not just deny everything flat-out. Thank you for telling us the full story.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

I'd like to commend Mr. Wright for his full disclosure of what went on with his team's practice robot at GLR. It takes courage to admit you did something wrong, and not just deny everything flat-out. Thank you for telling us the full story.

It was definately the right thing to do 830, your apology has been accepted by me Mr. Wright.
Even though 830 did violate the rules I don't think their violation is nearly as extreme as the other teams who were swapping upgraded components as Matt Adams has described. I want to hear more on that subject. I don't think the CD community will be nearly as accepting of that type of conduct.

[R2K2D2]

This may have been a problem at GLR, but I can say that I did not see 830 participate in anything illegal with the spare parts. I was in the pits most of the competition, and they were our put neighbors. Any team that had a spare bot could have made the same mistake they did, but they took care of the problem right away once they found out what it was. I NEVER saw their practice bot "lightened up" from it losing parts. They played fairly and in the spirit of the game, and had a great robot.

This thread was in no way started to "slam" team 830, because everyone on our team knows that they competed graciously. Good luck to ya guys at Grand Rapids, kick some robot~!

[NoRemorse]

Just for the record, the team i was speaking of DID use their spare for more than just parts, and MORE IMPORTANTLY was not 830, I too commend them for thier apology, and eagerness to comply to the rules when confronted

[Joe Johnson]

I inspected team 830. It was not until late in the day Thursday that I realized that they were running their extra robot -- to be honest, I saw at least one other team with their spare robot there -- I also saw that team asking if they could run their spare robot on Th -- they were told no.

Here is how I would have dealt with it at that point. I knew 3 things,
#1 the other team had been told no.
#2 they made no secret of their second robot and
#3 they had not been told to escort their robot to the door.

So at that point, knowing what I knew about the other situation, I just decided to ignore it.

I guess things later blew up a bit.

I have not liked this rule from the beginning but I guess if it is here to stay so be it. We need to get a little more legal to make it fair (and clear).

Joe J.

[Matt Adams]

I'd just like to clear the air that my original post had nothing to do with team 830's actions... and though they made great strides in improving their robot over the course of the competition, I didn't witness anything that had me second guessing their practices or gracious professionalism.

Matt