FIX-IT WINDOW Proposal

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Mike Martus

Eliminate the fix it window....

+1

[JohnBoucher]

Eliminate the fix-it window. I presume we have it because some teams were not playing by the existing rules so FIRST bent them a little to satisfy everyone.

I presume that those teams will still do what they want. Allow the teams to decide what message they give their students. Play within the rules or win at all costs.

I don't think this is something FIRST can solve.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by JohnBoucher

Eliminate the fix-it window. I presume we have it because some teams were not playing by the existing rules so FIRST bent them a little to satisfy everyone.

I presume that those teams will still do what they want. Allow the teams to decide what message they give their students. Play within the rules or win at all costs.

I don't think this is something FIRST can solve.

I've never really been thrilled with the concept of the Fix-It Window, for similar reasons to the above. As written for the past few years, they've just been too inflexible to allow for a lot of otherwise-valid methods of getting things done.

That said, I can see the need for some kind of regulation to keep teams from shipping the RC and a kit frame, then prototyping during the regionals and bringing the whole upper half of the robot to the event with them. I propose the following:

-Teams may bring up to 25 pounds of fabricated items (as defined in the 2007 manual) to the event.
-Fabricated items brought to the event must have similar functionality to a component or mechanism shipped in the crate. (The tube gripper may look completely different, but it must still be a tube gripper.)
-COTS and KOP items are still allowed in unlimited amounts.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Mike Martus

Eliminate the fix it window....

I agree.

1. It can't be and isn't enforced.
2. As Mike said, "Why stop the learning."
3. "The students are most energetic at ship date, and we want them to stop because of a fix-it-window." Paul Capioli
4. Teams that build a second robot have an advantage. NOT. We have done it and we waste all our time building the second robot and end up worse in the end, but the students are still learning.
5. Teams make large changes to fix problems. We are all learning from our mistakes. Note: Most teams are worse off because they can't get the new change working at the event.
6. As long as we all have the same amount of time, who cares.
7. All businesses are in this same type of competition with each other, and they don't have fix-it-windows.
8. May the best team win. We are all still learning.

These are my experiences after being in this for 7 years and still learning. We have yet to win anything, but we have fun. FIRST has done a great job every year designing a game that has many ways to win, simple to complex, but we always have too many rules. It is allot better then back in the day when we had to count screws and buy parts from certain companies. Let’s all state our views and help make this decision. The competition has come a long way for the good.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Mike Martus

Eliminate the fix it window....

In OCCRA (Oakland County Competitive Robotics Association League) we have no restrictions and the education, and improvements in the robots are fantastic.

I take it that you mean there is no fix-it "window" - one can do whatever they need, whenever. *

I disagree, in that there needs to be limits on how much teams can do during the competition season - otherwise teams going to the NJ regional (1st week) have a disadvantage over teams going to, say Manhattan (5th? week) - specifically, 5 extra weeks on which to perfect a mechanism that was only conceived after the team actually got to see the Game being played.

The argument that learning never ceases is, in this case, eclipsed by the need for a level playing field.

Not a fact, just my opinion.

Don

* And if I totally misinterpreted it, then, never mind...

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Don Rotolo

I disagree, in that there needs to be limits on how much teams can do during the competition season - otherwise teams going to the NJ regional (1st week) have a disadvantage over teams going to, say Manhattan (5th? week)

I think that the more time the teams have to work on there robot the better they are going to be, so teams that go to only one regional are really disadvantaged. One regional teams only have one week to improve there robot where teams that went to say 4 regionals have 4 weeks; big difference. If a one regional team could watch and learn from the other regionals that they can afford to go to and they can make changes, it will make the teams more equal. I believe teams should have as much time as possible to work on there robots; in the end they are learning.

Another thing, I think teams should be able to make major design changes to there robots. We all want to be competitive, and the best designs in the real world are usually stolen designs. We need to be able to learn from others and improve on the designs. I think this breads enthusiasm in teams and gives them hope, especially if they completely missed the object of the game. Who wants to have to play the game and waste a whole year just because team members were forced or the team picked the wrong design?

To me this whole competition is about trying your best and doing everything you can to be the best. This is attitude our nation needs.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

I think that the more time the teams have to work on there robot the better they are going to be, so teams that go to only one regional are really disadvantaged. One regional teams only have one week to improve there robot where teams that went to say 4 regionals have 4 weeks; big difference. If a one regional team could watch and learn from the other regionals that they can afford to go to and they can make changes, it will make the teams more equal. I believe teams should have as much time as possible to work on there robots; in the end they are learning.

I believe it was 2006 that I inquired on Q&A about the topic of those who go to multiple events getting the chance to fiddle with their robots more; the rationale FIRST gave back was that while teams got more time with their robots, they also had far more opportunities to have their robots beat upon on the field. It makes sense--even in a total lovefest like 2001, putting your robot on the field puts your robot at risk of breaking stuff. Teams that compete more will either have to spend more time fixing their robots or spend more weight building more durable parts.

[Mr.G]

Originally Posted by Billfred

I believe it was 2006 that I inquired on Q&A about the topic of those who go to multiple events getting the chance to fiddle with their robots more; the rationale FIRST gave back was that while teams got more time with their robots, they also had far more opportunities to have their robots beat upon on the field. It makes sense--even in a total lovefest like 2001, putting your robot on the field puts your robot at risk of breaking stuff. Teams that compete more will either have to spend more time fixing their robots or spend more weight building more durable parts.

I agree with you, but teams that compete more get allot more gooood practice. I think that is more of an advantage. FIRST Robotics = 50% robot + 50% driver(s). Just my opinion. I just really want the people involved to learn as much as possible, and give them as much time as possible to learn.

[Aren_Hill]

another one for eliminating it.
1. It will promote teams using CAD systems in order to make parts without the robot present. Rather than lots of teams strategy of cut till it fits
2. Everyone gets better, how can that be bad

Last year after St Louis we used the fix it windows to make a completely new arm for chicago. Lets just say it would've worked alot better with more time.

[GaryVoshol]

Other: 10 hours of fix-it allowed per week, time to be allocated at the team's option. Retain restrictions on amount of new materials that may be brought with you to a regional. Allow 10 hours of software development, not required to be during the same 10 hours of mechanical development. Code developed during those 10 hours may be brought to the regional in electronic form - it does not need to be retyped at the regional.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Mr.G

4. Teams that build a second robot have an advantage. NOT. We have done it and we waste all our time building the second robot and end up worse in the end, but the students are still learning.

I have to disagree with you here. It is becoming increasingly difficult to be successful on the field in FRC without a practice bot. Had we not had one in 2006 or 2007, there's absolutely no way we'd have won two regionals each year, or been even above average. Both years we put the robot in the crate having had zero drive practice, and in the case of 06, a non functional robot.

Pretty soon I don't think anyone who goes to fewer than two regionals, and doesn't have a practice robot will be able to really do very well. It's pretty much becoming an arms race.

I don't like the fix-it windows now. I think they're very awkward for the teams, and unenforceable to start with. I do believe that there has to be some sort of restrictions to what you can and can't do, or some teams will literally build an entirely new robot. I'm all for having chances to fix/modify things that didn't work quite the way they were expected, or making spare/replacement parts that have the same functionality as the previous part.

[Doug G]

Eliminate Fix-it windows or make it simple like the 100 man hours rule as previously stated.

Also, single regional teams will always be at a disadvantage, that's we try really hard to go at least two each year.

[Karthik]

In reference to the 25 lb. limit of parts brought into the venue:

Originally Posted by Mr.G

The parts weight rule has been in for a couple years and never enforced.

Inspectors have regularly scrutinized and weighed Team 1114's spare parts since this rule was introduced. Perhaps this isn't the case at all regionals.

----

Back to the topic of fix-it-windows, I am completely in favour of eliminating the rule entirely, allowing to teams do whatever work they wish after ship. In general I detest unenforceable rules, as they usually end up punishing those who obey them. There is no way to know if a team has stopped working after ship. The teams who obey the fix-it windows are thereby punished for being honest, as the teams who blatantly ignore the rules obtain a competitive advantage. What's the punishment for violating the fix-it window?

What would happen if an inspector discovered that a team broke the rule? Last year there was a team who posted on CD, saying that they took part of their arm to their shop during an evening of their regional to repair it. (They were unaware of the rule prohibiting this.) Clearly this is illegal, but how would they be punished? (They were no reprecussions for this incident, and rightfully so. You can't just makeup a punishment if there isn't one listed. )

Being a team who firmly believes in the honour code, it's frustrating to know that teams regularly get away with breaking these types of rules. Along with the reasoning that Mike put forth, I would be ecstatic to see the rule disappear.

[kramarczyk]

Loose the fix-it window definition.

In industry I am not familiar with any kind of "tools down" period during product development, so why are we doing it here? FIRST has already got a finite constraint on time between kick-off and the comps, so why create a sub constraint? I don't think that success on the field is related to number of hours worked. In fact, I suspect that consistently successful teams probably work fewer, higher quality hours. Limiting work hours probably only hurts the teams that are still working out the bugs in their process.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by Doug G

Also, single regional teams will always be at a disadvantage, that's we try really hard to go at least two each year.

Thank you. As much as we try, funds don't permit us to currently attend more than one regional, therefore we have whatever time that we're allowed at our only chance. I've got a headache right now, but my basic view is that it should stay, and the way it is.