Consider the following...

FIRST General Forum
1

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST

I am ready to live with the rule concerning no manufacture of replacement parts after the machine is in the box.

But… …ARE WE AS A FIRST COMMUNITY READY?

Considering the following:

A very strong team, let’s say a team called B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana, wins its first regional, a tough regional, let’s say the Windy City Regional.

Then suppose that they then go on to its second regional, another tough regional, let’s say the Motor City Regional.

Suppose that B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana wins that regional as well!

But, unfortunately, in the process of winning the last match of the Motor City Regional, this great team breaks a part that requires significant machine time, plus welding, plus perhaps heat treating in order to perform its function (note to myself, re-read the rules to see if heat treating is legal this year!).

So… unless B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana has actually already made a spare part, this part will not be able to be made down in FL on the site of the competition as is required by the rules FIRST has recently propagated.

So… Suppose that B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana has not actually made that part.

Are we ready to have a two time regional winner sit by the sidelines with a severely disabled machine because they were not allowed to remake this part?

I would rather have them fix their machine and be 100% at the Nationals.

What do you think?

Joe J.

P.S. While many of you will no doubt think that winning multiple regionals is not very likely, it has happened on occasion :wink:

2

Posted by Scott Strickland.

Engineer on team #21, ComBBAT, from Astronaut & Titusville High School and Boeing/NASA.

Posted on 1/17/2000 7:44 PM MST

In Reply to: Consider the following… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST:

I understand FIRST’s commitment to fair play. Yes the veteran teams have a huge advantage with motors, parts and experience from previous years. With more time, almost any mechanism can be improved. Some of my best ideas have come after the robot is in the box.

BUT!

FIRST should allow the teams to do whatever it takes to have a working robot on the field. Some kind of allowance must be made to teams that have been damaged in previous events. We didn’t pay a $4k entrance fee and transport teams across country to watch our robot sit in a corner.

Well, actually we have done that before… last year in Detroit. Our drive shaft broke nearly every time in Detroit after working fine at KSC until the last match. After a lot of input from veteran teams, we slightly modified a drive axle between the Detroit regional and nationals. This is now against the rules. Had we not done this we would have watched our robot sit in a corner for another $4k. That minor modification allowed us to be selected as a finals partner. The modification did not change the function or design of our robot other than allowing it to WORK!

There is nothing more disheartening to a team then watching your robot sit helplessly in its starting box.

A ComBBAT Veteran.

3

Posted by Michael Martus.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Coach on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central H.S. and Delphi Automotives Systems.

Posted on 1/17/2000 7:58 PM MST

In Reply to: We’ve paid to play! posted by Scott Strickland on 1/17/2000 7:44 PM MST:

What happened to you last year will be VERY common this year with the rules as they stand.

The rule is not making the playing field even. It is giving a strong advantage to the experienced teams that have a better chance at making/designing the part right the first time.

Machine shop facilities will be overwhelmed! :frowning:

See my comment : Does it really matter?

4

Posted by Frank.

Coach on team #97, Psychedelics, from CRLS and MIT.

Posted on 1/17/2000 8:54 PM MST

In Reply to: Consider the following… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST:

I agree with you totally on this one. I can see that FIRST wants teams to stop designing after the robots ship, but simply making a spare of a part, or even more important, making a part that you broke at a competition seems like it is necessary to have a competitive game in FL.

We all know that over the years, teams have changed designs between competitions and other teams and FIRST sometimes saw that as unfair. But this is not about changing anything, it’s about getting your robot back into a working state. There are some parts on a robot that take many days to machine or assemble due to their complexity. Does FIRST really want to say to any team that breaks one of these parts in a regional that they cannot compete in FL because they cannot remake the part in the 3 hours before 5PM on Saturday or before the close of the pit and inspections on Thursday in FL?

So there are 380+ teams in the competition this year. How many will we see travel to FL with a broken robot? And how many of those won’t be able to compete because the lines at the machine shops were too long, or the part they need to make is too complex to create in a few hours?

Frank Bentley
Team 97 - MIT/CRLS/CHS/Teradyne

5

Posted by Tony K.

Student on team #292, PantherTech, from Western High School and DaimlerChrysler.

Posted on 1/18/2000 8:03 AM MST

In Reply to: Consider the following… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST:

Heck yeah! (best ‘Fargo’ voice)

I sure wouldn’t like to see my robot in this situation.

Remember, this rule doesn’t really prevent anything… you know there are going to be a few teams fabricating parts off site anyway. Call me a pessimist, but that’s my gut feeling.

What do you think?

: I am ready to live with the rule concerning no manufacture of replacement parts after the machine is in the box.

: But… …ARE WE AS A FIRST COMMUNITY READY?

: Considering the following:

: A very strong team, let’s say a team called B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana, wins its first regional, a tough regional, let’s say the Windy City Regional.

: Then suppose that they then go on to its second regional, another tough regional, let’s say the Motor City Regional.

: Suppose that B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana wins that regional as well!

: But, unfortunately, in the process of winning the last match of the Motor City Regional, this great team breaks a part that requires significant machine time, plus welding, plus perhaps heat treating in order to perform its function (note to myself, re-read the rules to see if heat treating is legal this year!).

: So… unless B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana has actually already made a spare part, this part will not be able to be made down in FL on the site of the competition as is required by the rules FIRST has recently propagated.

: So… Suppose that B’s Mfg. Co./Team Indiana has not actually made that part.

: Are we ready to have a two time regional winner sit by the sidelines with a severely disabled machine because they were not allowed to remake this part?

: I would rather have them fix their machine and be 100% at the Nationals.

: What do you think?

: Joe J.

: P.S. While many of you will no doubt think that winning multiple regionals is not very likely, it has happened on occasion :wink:

6

Posted by Elaine Anselm.

Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 1/18/2000 2:41 PM MST

In Reply to: Consider the following… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST:

We will abide by the rule as well but I think it is a really bad rule. One of the things we have tried to do over the years is to figure out ways to alleviate some of the stress on people during the six weeks, not add more. Adults and students are exhausted by the time we ship the robot and adding more work into that period stinks. The students are already pushing the limits to keep up with school work, so the creation of spares will rest with adults resulting in a lost opportunity to engage kids. In the past we have allowed students to make up lost time by helping ot make replacement spare parts for a few days to a week after we ship the robot when the pressure is off.

The competition has a enough chance to it, that the added advantage afforded teams who might re-design the entire time until the nationals is probably not that big a deal. They make the decision to put the added stress on themselves, knowing full well it is not in the spirit of the competition to update designs. So why should everyone need to suffer because of a few? Besides, if someone really wants to break the ‘rule’, they will get around it, and then who ends up suffering the most? The vast majority of teams who do things in the spirit of fairness in the first place.

Giving teams the flexibility to make spares outside the six weeks helps more than it hurts. Besides, how will it be policed. I am really against putting any rule in place that can not be enforced.

As a number of people mentioned, it will cause more headaches for teams and for FIRST at the competitons and from my point of view, FIRST doesn’t need want to give themselves any more headaches than they already have. More stress, more flared tempers, in my mind not an environment which will foster gracious professionalism.

7

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 1/18/2000 7:17 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: Consider the following… posted by Elaine Anselm on 1/18/2000 2:41 PM MST:

Okay, now that Zen Master Elaine has weighed in, I feel free to open up the floodgates.

If ZME is so boiled up as to openly state that a rule is ‘a really bad rule,’ then I think the burden of proof has shifted to FIRST to actually defend this rule if they intend to have it honored by gracious professionals everywhere.

With that as backdrop, I think we need to all start proposing an exit strategy for FIRST.

We know what they want.

  1. They want us to STOP designing & improving our robots when the beasties are in the box.
  2. They want us to be able to fix problems at the competition as they come up.
  3. They want us to be able to have our robots work if they break.

The question is how to allow #2 & #3 without opening up the Pandora’s box of disavowing #1.

They made a proposal, all is fair at the competition, and nothing is allowed, not even spare parts, from when the robot is in the box until the competition.

We have all basically said that this is all well and good for #1 & #2, but it shoots #3 right in the heart.

So…

I propose the following rule. If you have something better, do tell:

The rules are just as FIRST has proposed them with the following exception.

Teams may make identical parts (same material, same pivots, same geometry, etc.) while the robot is in the box and any location they see fit. These ‘identical parts’ must be identical to the parts on the robot that is in the box (this allows for instance a team to make a spare part that includes a design improvement made at a regional).

Just as FIRST has proposed, all improvements made to the robot must be made on site at the competition (improvements to the spare parts may be made as well, but they must be made on site at the competition as with all robot improvements).

Finally, at check in, all teams must submit a signed document swearing on their gracious professionalism that all robot building ceased after the ship date/time, that only identical robot parts were fabricated during the interim, and that all robot improvements, if any, must be made on site at the competition using only a) parts made before the shipping date/time, 2) identical parts made in the interim, 3) raw materials brought to the competition, and 4) parts from the robot.

Well… have at it. Tear it apart. Let’s get all the kinks out and make a sound proposal to FIRST that we all can live with.

Joe J.

8

Posted by Greg Mills.

Engineer on team #16, Baxter Bomb Squad, from Mountain Home and Baxter Healthcare.

Posted on 1/19/2000 10:29 AM MST

In Reply to: So sayeth Zen Master Elaine… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/18/2000 7:17 PM MST:

:
I agree completely! If the spirit of what FIRST wants is clearly stated then I don’t think anyone will go against it. When you have 30 students looking up to you as a role model - that will keep everyone straight. Please allow spares to be made at any time, at any location, state clearly that redesign is not allowed, and that is that. Enforceability should not be a part of the decision. I would gladly sign a document if that is needed but I don’t think we need to go that far. If someone would knowingly break a rule then they would not mind signing a false document. But that is not the kind of folks we are dealing with anyway (I would like to think)

Greg

9

Posted by Michael Betts.

Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 1/19/2000 11:43 AM MST

In Reply to: So sayeth Zen Master Elaine… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/18/2000 7:17 PM MST:

Once again, Doctor J has proved himself a true ‘Elder of the Ozone’. I wholeheartedly agree with his proposed rule change. However, I would like to suggest a ‘small’ tweak.

I would suggest changing the phrase ‘identical parts’ to ‘parts with identical form fit and function’.

My reasoning is as follows:

Doing any kind of substantial repairs on a robot using the on site facilities is extremely problematic. The temporary facilities will, in all likelihood, be overwhelmed. Our team waited over six hours at Disney a few years ago for a single (and simple) machining operation.

Also, the availability of raw materials and special tooling would be very different for a team located close to the competition. As an example, Both International Fuel Cells and South Windsor High School are located less than five miles from the Meadows where the UTC NE Regional is to be held. We would have access to raw materials not easily available to a visiting team and would be at a clear advantage compared to a team from, say, the Boston area.

‘Parts with identical form fit and function’ would allow these ‘spares’ to be made functionally equivalent alternate materials such as 1/16 6061 aluminum sheet versus the roll of roof flashing available from the local hardware store near the competition. Identical FFF would also allow alternate fastening such as a welded joint versus a jury-rigged ¼-20 bolt. However, identical FFF would NOT allow a redesigned elevator, a different drive gear ratio, an additional or repositioned roller, et cetera.

Once again, ‘Gracious Professionalism’ must apply. Veteran teams such as Pontiac Central, compared to a rookie team, are less likely to need extensive repairs or redesigns. Those same rookie teams will have less ‘luck’ in anticipating what will be valuable in ‘the pit’. We need to give them every chance we can to field working machines.

Those are my thoughts… Any others out there?

10

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

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

Posted on 1/19/2000 2:13 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: So sayeth Zen Master Elaine… posted by Michael Betts on 1/19/2000 11:43 AM MST:

As usual, Mr. Betts had made some valuable contributions. I particularly like the Form Fit and Function wording. (Mr. Betts & I ought to be careful or we may end up forming FIRST Fan clubs for eachother :wink:

I really beleive that we are close to finding a reasonable third way between FIRST last year and this year’s draconian rules.

Are there other thoughts out there?

Joe J.

11

Posted by Raul.

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

Posted on 1/19/2000 4:30 PM MST

In Reply to: I like the Form Fit & Function wording posted by Joe Johnson on 1/19/2000 2:13 PM MST:

I like the FFF wording also.

And, I still feel sorry for the teams which will not be able to make simple design changes at the event because the FFF rule would not be enough to overcome the limited resources. They will become very discouraged with their ability to compete.

Raul

12

Posted by Erin.

Student on team #1, The Juggernauts, from OTC-NE, Oxford High School and 3-D Services.

Posted on 1/19/2000 5:08 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I like the Form Fit & Function wording posted by Raul on 1/19/2000 4:30 PM MST:

I agree with all of you, and from a student’s point of view, I see this as a good idea to bring up to FIRST. As Elaine stated, not being able to make changes between regionals is a large minus and it makes our jobs at the regionals and nationals more stressful. And also it will be hard for rookie teams to forsee the kind of problems they will come across in the pit area. Since they are not able to work on their robot between competitions, they will also not have the advantage the veterans have of learning more about their robot and knowing how to prepare and what to prepare with. We the veterans already are accustomed to how a robot must be built, what kind of tool kit must be drug along to competitions, what extra parts we need, etc… etc…
My heart goes out to the rookies who will not have the chances we had last year. Here’s another thing to think about…
Most rookie teams don’t have much funding and they have only a small handful of engineers. This will put extra stress on students who are doing alot of it on their own. I think that being able to make double parts, or parts of form fit & function, will give the rookie teams an idea of what they will need to take with them to competition and what robot problems they will be dealing with. There are many reasons this would be nice to have in the next team update. I agree with the proposed rule that Joe + Betts brought up. ‘Props’ guys to a good idea.

-erin-

13

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Student on team #69, HYPER (Helping Youth Pursue Engineering & Robotics), from Quincy Public Schools and The Gillette Company.

Posted on 1/19/2000 8:07 PM MST

In Reply to: Re: I like the Form Fit & Function wording posted by Erin on 1/19/2000 5:08 PM MST:

Erin, I must say that you read my mind! :slight_smile: As a student in the competition for the past two years, I have seen my team and others struggle through their rookie season not knowing what was needed for spares. As Mr. Betts said earlier, his team would be close to home, while at the same regional, we would not have access to the raw materials at the school or Gillette’s plant in Boston. And waiting for a very simple machining job in Florida is not the most productive way to spend one’s time in the pits. I say that FIRST should seriously consider revamping this rule into something that will constrian the design process into the time allowed, without sacrificing playing ability in competiton. Any other thoughts?

Lora Knepper

14

Posted by Ken Patton.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]

Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 1/20/2000 10:02 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: So sayeth Zen Master Elaine… posted by Michael Betts on 1/19/2000 11:43 AM MST:

I agree with you. FFF covers changes made to improve durability, which is a good thing IMHO. This would allow upgrading of materials, but not changes to functionality.

Ken

15

Posted by Raul.

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

Posted on 1/19/2000 6:10 AM MST

In Reply to: Re: Consider the following… posted by Elaine Anselm on 1/18/2000 2:41 PM MST:

Was it made clear that we must ship all spare parts with the robot? Or can we bring them later as long as they we made prior to shipment? Either way the rule is distasteful to me.

We only get 4x4x6 as a shipping crate, which is not enough if you have to ship the spares. As I said in an early post, I agree that the unidentical optional parts should be shipped, but the shipping crate should still be made larger to allow for this.

If you do not have to ship the spares, then it will be impossible to enforce them being ‘identical’ or that they were made prior to shipping.

Raul

16

Posted by Bill Beatty.

Other on team #71, Team Hammond, from Team Hammond.

Posted on 1/19/2000 8:08 PM MST

In Reply to: Consider the following… posted by Joe Johnson on 1/17/2000 7:02 PM MST:

Your hypothetical scenario is very unlikely to occur, but I suppose it could happen. It is a good thing you didn’t mention any names. That team would have to be a complete klutz.

If your message includes ‘look out what you wish for…’ you could have a point.

When I brought this subject up last year, my point was not that there was a lot of cheating going on. On the contrary, I truly believe that almost everyone was acting within their interpretation of the rules.

I applaud the clarification of the rules. It was long overdue. The no identical spares rule is a bit of overkill. If someone is inclined to directly violate the rule, then no set of rules is going to correct much of the cheating problem. I feel that allowing identical spares at anytime is fine and let professional ethics take it from there.

Bill B

17