MAJOR TWEAKING

[archiver]

Posted by Bill Beatty, Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST



I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Baker, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



My personal vote would be be for the 'almost anything goes' option.

I have two reasons:

1. The machines would get better by being more effiecient, more
competitive, and more reliable. The competition would be closer
and more fierce. This would make the action on the field more
interesting. For example: Wildstang legally improved their 'hook'.
This improved design enabled them to give us all those great matches
against Chief Delphi 4. I think that was excellent and FIRST will
benefit from action like we saw in those matches.

2. Every year the game is different. 6 weeks is not only a short time
to build a robot, but is also a short time to figure out a winning
strategy for your team's robot. In Chicago, we had a basket. It
was the last thing we designed and it was pitiful. After watching
the elimination rounds, we realized that we didn't even need that
darn basket to win matches. We legally changed our concept by
removing our basket which enabled our arm to be a defensive menace.

In my opinion, both of these cases help achieve our colletive 'prime
directive': growing FIRST.

Andy B.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/16/99 8:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Andy Baker on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST:



I go with 'almost anything goes' too. FIRST's stated goal is to inspire young people to pursue careers in science and technology. Think about the 'rules' in the competitive marketplace in which engineering is practised. We pursue opportunities by creatively exploring the spaces between the boundaries and prohibitions of the rules. More rules will never solve all the 'problems' in the FIRST Competition- they just make more opportunities. It never ends, until we all become lawyers. YUCK!

Personally, I most enjoy showing up at the tournaments and seeing what other teams have done with a common set of parts and a framework of rules which limit physical (and financial) scope but not creativity and imagination. Seeing how teams respond with modifications and new mechanisms to the strategic insight they gain through the Regionals - by competing or by watching - is just an extension of that same enjoyment of FIRST for me. The inspiration and recognition part is for the engineers, too!

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 4/16/99 9:26 AM MST


In Reply to: Ditto posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/16/99 8:31 AM MST:



:

Anything goes is OK if it is known and intended at the start. If that is the case why even have a 'six weeks' rule? I agree the less rules the better but everyone knows the rules as stated when we sign up. Why stop on February 22nd? If the intent is anything goes, I would have thought that we could just start in January and bring our machines to Orlando and never go through the process of locking, securing, or shipping at a certain time. If 5:00 on 2/22 was intended to have no real meaning, I wonder why FIRST even bothered to suggest it at all?

I personally like the idea of 'anything goes'....less is better as far as rules and regulations go....I just think we all need to know what is expected.

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 4/16/99 12:45 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ditto posted by Greg Mills on 4/16/99 9:26 AM MST:



: :

: Anything goes is OK if it is known and intended at the start. If that is the case why even have a 'six weeks' rule? I agree the less rules the better but everyone knows the rules as stated when we sign up. Why stop on February 22nd? If the intent is anything goes, I would have thought that we could just start in January and bring our machines to Orlando and never go through the process of locking, securing, or shipping at a certain time.

I have proposed this approach previously on the Rumors board, mostly to address the development time advantage of teams who attend multiple Regionals. Some who responded actually appreciate being told when to stop working and take a rest, if you can believe that! So I guess we all should.

: I personally like the idea of 'anything goes'....less is better as far as rules and regulations go....I just think we all need to know what is expected.

All we have to work with is the Rules in divining what FIRST intended or expected of us. I don't believe the Rules speak directly to upgrades, mods, and retrofits, whether done in the post-Regional repair time or in the downtime intervals. Maybe FIRST (to personify the organization) doesn't want to risk over-constraining the Competition and exceeding the chicken____ threshold of potential players, expecting us instead to make some interpretations for ourselves. If we try to manage the Competition outcomes by limiting one another (or asking FIRST to do so) in the amount of time or energy we can put into the machine task during downtimes, I think we just risk getting off track with a lot of sea-lawyering and hard feelings. I also think it would be a practical nightmare to enforce any kind of static configuration rules. My 2 cents.

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Ditto posted by Dodd Stacy on 4/16/99 12:45 PM MST:



I often tell new comers that if you just read the rules and updates, you would THINK that FIRST is played by a bunch of lawyers, but that it is not.

This is an on your honor type deal.

Has anyone ever audited your Bill of Materials?

Has anyone ever inspected every material used in the deepest darkest recesses of your machine?

Other than size, weight, wiring and wheels, FIRST monitors very little.

For the most part, I have been very pleased with the integrity of the FIRST community.

The bottom line for me is that enforcement of the rules is not really an issue.

If FIRST makes a clear ruling on what changes are allowed and when, I think that teams will stick by that rule.

Don't let's become lawyers.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:52 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Andy Baker on 4/15/99 10:43 PM MST:



I felt I had to respond to this post even though I stated my stance on this issue in my 'Unwritten Rules' posting.

If it makes any one feel any better, I actually had the new hook design done before the design we used in the Midwest regional. I can actually show you my engineering log book that is dated that shows the design. After all who didn't initially consider getting on the puck as the number one design challenge for this year.
Anyway, just like in previous years, we tried to go back and simplify the design. This is common engineering practice - come up with a cool design and then go back and make it lighter, cheaper, easier to manufacture, etc. So, in fact I came up with a very simple design similar to what we had used the previous year (I guess you could say that design was done first). You should see the incredibly cool but complex design we had last year for grabbing the goal while we squeezed the balls between the pipes. It is hanging on the wall of our robot shop.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Raul on 4/16/99 2:52 PM MST:



Raul,

What's this I read about log books?

I feel lucky just to get the robot done and you're busy documenting.

Seriously, I wish I would be more organized.

Hats off to anyone who manages to manage this project in such a professional manner.

Joe -- the chaos factor -- Johnson.

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, C.H.A.O.S.-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 4/16/99 4:35 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:




I strongly agree, stiffer guidelines are needed.
FIRST should abandon the early shipping dates if it is
allowable to make such dramatic changes to the robots.
The 6 week building period is stressed over and over, some
teams apparently are now rushing to complete a ''3 month''
construction period.
Using down time to make replacement parts is different than
some of the extensive changes we have seen.

The 6 week rule seems to be one of the strongest ways to keep
a level playing field. Asking sponsors to dig in for an even longer
construction period is going to hurt teams in the end.

: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Greg Mills, Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 4/16/99 6:26 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



:
:
Courageous Comments!! I have read with great interest about the teams with new and improved features and wondered how that gets done in two days! The whole spirit of FIRST is to play with what you build in six weeks. I think the intent of the two days is to repair any damage that occurred during a regional.

Maybe this is a question for FIRST...Is the intent to work for six weeks and then play? Or pack up a robot and use the time between to work on parts that can be added once the crate is opened up again? I guess either way is OK provided everyone understands up front. You guys at FIRST feel free to jump in here and let us know what you think!

I have to take my hat off to the teams that worked around the clock and did the major changes solely within the alotted time. I am impressed by your dedication...Our machine is exactly the same as it was when we locked it up on 2/22.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 4/16/99 6:58 AM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



This might be about our robot last year. Was it?

For people that don't know, our robot last year at nationals looked absolutely nothing like our robot a regionals. However, I assure everyone that all of the changes were made in the alloted time between the regional and nationals (72 hours or so). We worked out a schedule to work in shifts so that the shop was running 24 hours a day. So, it can be done.

By changing our robot around, we were able to become competitive at nationals, even beating Chief Delphi in a qualifying match. This was very important for our team morale as we were completely devestated at the regional. I think teams need a chance to make improvements so they have some hope of doing well if their first competition flopped. In fact, it may have saved our funding for this year.

One other thing: we demonstrated to the students that when you are in a tough situation, hard work and persistance can make you a winner. Without this opportunity to do the drastic change, we couldn't have shown that.

-Chris


: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 4/16/99 7:40 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Presto Chango posted by Chris on 4/16/99 6:58 AM MST:



Chris,

I don't think that your machine last year was the one that inspired the comments.

But...

I do remember the major changes you made to your machine as well as your team defeating us in the last seeding round of the day in FL last year.

Well done on both counts.

As to my take on the changes to robots rule, I have mixed feelings.

The first year we were in FIRST, I asked what type of changes were allowed during the 2 days. I was told the ANY changes were legal provided the machine was in the box on time.

Eric also said that making spare parts during the down time between regionals and nationals was okay, but that entirely new mechanisms seemed to be stretching the rules a bit too far.

Times have changed alot since then. I agree that it is time for some clarity, but... I think that FIRST should keep the status quo for another week and a half.

No matter what the clarification is it is going to cause trouble. Either teams will say, 'we would have if we had only known...' or teams will say, 'I KNEW that teams was a bunch of cheaters' Better to leave it grey until the Nationals are over.

My two cents.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:26 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



I vaguely remember calling up FIRST 2 years ago when we wanted to add a goal topper to out robot after the Motorola regional. We felt it gave us a great chance to beat Beatty, who was dominating that inner-tube game.

FIRST (I don’t remember who I spoke with) said that it was OK to make any changes we could during the 3-day period after the regional before we had to ship the robot. They did say you could not just switch robots (in case someone had actually constructed a second robot). They also said that you could bring parts to the nationals that were slightly improved as long as the original parts 'intended functionality' was not significantly changed. I asked several specific questions about this 'intended functionality' statement because I had a hard time interpreting it. I don’t recall all the specific questions and answers but the gist of the ruling has stuck in my mind: You are allowed to make changes after your robot has shipped as long as they enhance the original functionality and do not give you new functionality.

To summarize my understanding of FIRST’s unwritten rules on this and the ones I have been living by for the last 3 years:

1) You can make any change or add any functionality while the robot is in your possession.

2) You can only make replacement parts that enhance existing functionality when the robot is not in your possession.

It would be great if someone from FIRST would affirm, clarify or correct these two statements.

Otherwise, your conscience and gracious professionalism govern the unwritten rules.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Andy Grady, Coach on team #42, P.A.R.T.S, from Alvirne High School and Daniel Webster College.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Unwritten Rules posted by Raul on 4/16/99 2:26 PM MST:



We asked FIRST this year about that exact ruling. They said that spares can be made up after the robot ships, just as long as they are functionally the same as the original. Also you can make any changes to the robot at the competition as long as all parts are manufactured at the competition. Otherwise small changes are allowed. As for the time in between regionals and nationals, it really doesn't take much time to change a robot significantly enough to change the way it competes. Simple things like changing the pickup or speed of a robot can make a world of difference. Rember Harris/RIT during hexagon havoc? They did fair at the regional competition, tweeked it a bit and had a national championship bot. Some changes are more noticable than others and whatever the change may be, it can make the difference in a robot a far cry from the origanal.
Good Luck to all
Andy Grady, DWC/Alvirne HS

[archiver]

Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 4/16/99 2:48 PM MST


In Reply to: MAJOR TWEAKING posted by Bill Beatty on 4/15/99 10:07 PM MST:



I'm all for changing robots - I believe it is a huge part of the design process: to recognize weaknesses in the machine, and develop solutions for them. However, I don't believe in building an entirely new robot. I think the new design(s) should be (key word here) an evolution of the original concept of the robot.

: I apologize for raising such a heavy subject on the eve of the National Competition, but I want to start the thought process now, just in case there might be a circumstance or situation at the Nationals that might be misconstrued. I feel before the next competition FIRST is going to have to make a ruling or policy statement concerning improvements and revisions after the six-week time period has lapsed.

: Over the years we have seen robots appear at subsequent tournaments with major changes from their initial competition. It is obvious that these revisions could not have been completed in the three-day period after the regional tournament and major work has was done during the interim. An extreme example would be to enter the Chicago and Michigan regionals spaced four weeks apart. After competing in Chicago and shipping to Michigan, there are four weeks to construct components or, if necessary, an entire new robot and after Michigan's tournament, install the new components or swap the entire machine. In a less extreme example, teams could utilize the eight weeks. between the first regional and the national to build components and take them to Orlando and install them there.

: I'm sure there are many different opinions as to what is proper and in keeping with the spirit of the competition. It probably varies from 'no changes allowed' to an 'almost anything goes' as in the examples above.

: My own personal preference would be that at the first appearance of a machine, it should be documented and the only tweaking allowed would be strengthening, speeding up, and refining. I don't feel conceptual or functional alterations should be allowed.

: I'm curious what others feel concerning this situation.

: Congratulations to all the 200 plus winners in Florida

: Bill Beatty .