New robot rules at Peachtree

FIRST General Forum
#69

While I’m sure you have the best intentions when you attempt to run the event this way, I don’t think that’s a defensible interpretation of the rules and FIRST’s policies. The commitment to safety applies everywhere, but the robot rules (even if they are safety-related) do not. The regional is nevertheless empowered to enact and enforce site-wide policies, and can reasonably require safety interlocks without invoking R8 or threatening game-related penalties.

The LRI has absolute authority over the enforcement of the robot rules via the inspection process. As the manual clearly states, there is no higher authority or appeal process, even to FIRST headquarters. (If the LRI makes an unsatisfactory ruling, they can either be convinced to change their mind, or be removed and replaced by appropriate authorities, but not overruled directly.)

But the LRI’s absolute authority does not extend to policies and rules outside the robot section of the manual. (To read 5.5.2 as giving the LRI final authority over other sections of the manual would create a conflict with other officials and staff—clearly the LRI has no gameplay authority, no authority to direct the tournament, etc…) In those cases, like any other event official, the LRI is permitted and indeed expected to promote safety by mitigating immediate hazards and offering guidance, but is subordinate to the person in whom final authority is vested (likely the regional director, in matters concerning public safety). So for example, if an LRI says to a team that they are unsafely using a tool and must stop, since that is a matter of event operations and not robot rules, their decision is not necessarily final and may be referred to the regional director. (Only if the regional director has expressly delegated that decision to the LRI, would it necessarily proceed as you describe.)

If you doubt that a dichotomy exists between rules stemming from the game manual and rules and policies stemming from event considerations, please refer to the FIRST Regional Planning Guide (specifically the sections on volunteer roles and the decision authority matrix).

As for the contention that robot rules apply everywhere at all times, that will inevitably lead to perverse consequences. Many of the robot rules clearly cannot be intended to apply when the robot is off the field or undergoing major maintenance. Consider:

  • R3: the size limits would apply in the pits
  • R32: unsecuring the battery is illegal
  • R35: the APP SB50 connector shall always be connected
  • R41: the cRIO must always be connected to the 24 V terminals
  • R60: robot control signals must pass through the arena from the operator console

Obviously these do not apply at all times. If R8 is specifically intended to be different, then please prove it in a manner that necessarily follows from the competition manual—because that’s the standard an LRI ought to be employing.

Absent such proof, I’d contend that if a team is operating their robot unsafely off the field, the LRI can handle it as a general safety issue by mitigating the immediate hazard and offering guidance as above, and/or they can treat it as an inspection and invoke the rules (like R8) and penalties (like failing inspection). Even though both enforcement actions are potentially undertaken by the same person, the authorities for those actions are distinct and must not be confused.

Returning to the original question, since the safety interlock device is not necessarily a robot part, and is not intended to be used in gameplay, teams must not be given the impression that a game-related penalty (e.g. under T6 or T7 due to an R8 violation) will be imposed for failing to comply with the safety interlock directive. But given that the regional committee has obviously required the use of such a device, I recognize that other sanctions (like exclusion from the premises due to the hazard) could conceivably be justified. In that circumstance, final authority does not rest with the LRI, unless such authority has been delegated.

Basically, the integrity of the competition demands that event staff act only within their authority. If experienced FIRST participants disagree as to the extent of that authority in this case, I’d recommend that the question be publicly referred to FIRST for clarification.

#70

Tristan,
Your own last statement just negated your entire premise. FRC did delegate this safety issue to the LRI and inspection team (and all event staff) long ago. The Team Update was merely a reminder to teams (“As we approach competition season, we wanted to remind Teams”) that inspectors are there to help, not hinder, the competitors. Not because they merely chose to do so but because the issue was already covered under R8 (or equivalent in prior years) which the Inspectors have been managing for many years. You know this as a former division lead inspector. I have witnessed you making these same decisions many times. You know you (we) had the authority to make these rulings then as now. You know you were expected to enforce safety and the safe transport and operation of robots both on the field and in any other part of the competition(s). You also know the challenge we experience when we have to make the hard decisions when a team has a design they are hoping will win the competition but is too dangerous to be near.
Now, speaking for all the inspectors, we work hard to insure that everyone has a great event. We do that by working with teams and pointing out the things that they have failed to see in the heat of design and build. Inspectors work very hard at getting everyone compliant and functional and yes, safe. We take very seriously the belief that we are part of every team at a competition and when they fail, we fail, when they win, we win. When everyone walks away from the weekend with a smile and no injuries, we know we have done a great job.

#71

By all means, please direct your concerns to the Game Design Committee via Q & A. We all eagerly await their final say in this matter.

Dr. Bob
Chairman’s Award is not about building the robot. Every team builds a robot.

#72

Al,

My question, that no one seems to want to answer, is: Does a regional have the authority to add a requirement after bag & tag without the express approval from the GDC through the OFFICIAL channels of the Team updates or Q&A?

In this case the Peachtree regional is adding a requirement. The R8 requirement is that the robot “be safe” while the Peachtree requirement is an “interlock”. These requirements are not identical.

Allowing regionals to add (or worse remove) requirements erodes FIRSTs and the GDCs authority over their product. and is a slippery slope (how far can a regional go???).

Again, I do not disagree with the INTENT of the LRI for Peachtree, in fact I agree wholeheartedly. But my agreement does not negate the possible abuse that this policy could bring.

JMHO

#73

Daniel,
I don’t think the email from Peachtree has done anything beyond what is open in R8 and what was reiterated in the Team Update. They merely have outlined what steps will be taken as an extension of the Team Update as a courtesy to teams attending their event. i.e. If your robot requires to be transported with stored energy at anything other than zero potential, the inspectors will assist you in making an interlock that prevents it’s accidental release. As I have said before, a relatively few teams design their robot in this fashion and very few of those teams have no interlock in place at the present time. I think there were perhaps two teams or less at each of the events I have worked thus far that required this addition.

#74

Daniel - this is not an added requirement. It is a public announcement to the teams attending the event about how an existing robot rule will be interpreted at the event.

Lets pretend the announcement never happened. At the event, the LRI goes around and talks with all the teams with stored energy shooters individually about their shooters and tells them for safety he’s requiring them to add some sort of safety interlock if they don’t already have it. Would you assume this is a new rule implemented by the event, or would you assume it’s covered by R08?

Is it the specific wording of the communication that has everyone upset? Would it have made a difference if, instead of saying “Peachtree Inspectors will be requiring…” it said something like “Peachtree Inspectors will be paying very close attention to R08, and will likely ask teams to have…”?

#75

Al and Jon,

I think the confusion has arisen because of the inconsistency regarding safety locks. The Team Update strongly suggested them, Peachtree and other events have mandated them, while some events have completely ignored them. If there was a Team Update or Q&A that stated these devices were required at all events, I think this would dissipate almost all confusion. It seems puzzling that something as important as safety would be handled on an event by event basis.

#76

I don’t understand how this is worse than last year?

At Hub City, we competed just fine with the robot straight out of the bag

At Dallas, we were required to add a “sneeze guard” around our shooter wheel to contain a rapid unplanned disassembly.

Said guard was to be part of the robot and therefore was included in the 120lb robot weight.

A safety interlock is just about the same exact thing, considering, but it counts towards no weight.

#77

I don’t thin Peachtree is adding a requirement. To me it seems that the LRI is going out of his way to disclose to all teams how he plans on enforcing R8 at his event. He is giving all teams a heads up days in advance of what you should have in order to pass his interpretation of R8.

Personally I wish more LRI did this, if they publicized how they would be enforcing some of the grey areas in the rules it would prevent teams from getting caught last minute at the event where there is nothing reasonable they can do to fix it.

#78

Which why if a list of possible R8 issues was to be published it would have to been non exclusive since other issues will come up during the season. And this is exactly why R8 exists in such vagueness.

In answer to another post. Safety starts at the top by First, works its way down through the events, and ultimately gets to the robots in part by the inspection process.

#79

Our shooter is a Barrett cross bow. When pulled back 10 inches it’s quite taught, and although there’s a pneumatic break pin holding it back, we still made a pin as a failsafe.

I believe rules like this can be enforced under the “Safe” clause of the inspection. If your robot doesn’t have a particular safety device an inspector could rule it “unsafe”.

It falls under the same category as “dry fire” - while not explicitly stated your inspector may not pass you until you do. (Even though in our case dry firing is more dangerous than not…)

#80

Certainly I do recall making similar decisions, and I recall the statement in 5.5 that “[e]vent staff have the final decision authority for all safety-related issues within the venue”, but I think the issue of delegation is more nuanced than you suggest. First and foremost, such delegation is not licence to use the robot rules in a situation for which they were not designed, but rather to promote safety within the decision-making framework established for event operations issues.

If I’d been challenged on a matter of general event safety, once the immediate hazard was defused, I would not have invoked the LRI’s final authority over robot rules, and instead would have allowed the possibility of an appeal to the regional/event director. As an LRI, I was never given the instruction that the regional/event director had delegated all decision-making authority over pit and queue safety to me, and thus left open the possibility that other staff (pit administration, lead queuer, FTA, lead safety advisor, etc.) might have differing opinions that might have to be reconciled by the regional/event director.

As a practical matter, I’ve been challenged on robot rules issues many times, and rejected such challenges on the basis of the LRI’s final authority, but I don’t think I’ve ever been challenged on an event safety question not specifically enumerated in the administrative manual, and therefore never had occasion to refer it to the RD/ED.

This may be something of a fine distinction, but it’s important that teams understand that the scope and content of the game manual is constant. If an event wants to be more strict about matters of general safety, it has that right, but it should strenuously avoid implying that the authority to do so at all times comes from the robot rules. (That’s the core issue I wanted clarified.)

You might even say that making that distinction makes decision-making easier. Since inter-event consistency is a crucial characteristic of robot rules, but merely convenient in the case of event safety policies, there’s less need to worry about whether teams were treated differently at other events. Seen in that framework, it gives events more flexibility to be as safe as they desire, not less. (However, as Karthik notes, it would be even better if event safety were also handled consistently.)

#81

R08: ROBOT parts shall not be made from hazardous materials, be unsafe, cause an unsafe condition, or interfere with the operation of other ROBOTS.

This is not an “event safety” issue - it’s a robot safety issue. If a robot creates an unsafe condition at any point, it’s covered by R08. This doesn’t stop at the borders of the field, or when the power switch is thrown. It’s all the time. If a robot creates an unsafe condition by not being able to release all stored energy during transport and handling, that’s an unsafe condition created by the robot. Stop trying to lawyer-esk this into something its not, Tristan.

#82

Exactly what I thought of Steven for ours when I read the OP thread…Have you actually dry fired that though w/ that interlock in place? Seems to me mechanically speaking…While much less force will of course be applied by the pressure system during any possible (fully extended catapult), accidental firing, since it has to fill those full open cylinders below the plunger (there is still air volume already in those 2 cylinders at atmospheric pressure)… and our catapult has 3, but is very much like yours, though not compressed to 50-60 PSI of course…It won’t be fully possible to just vent out to atmosphere will it? Of course, it also won’t be able to extend beyond the cylinder max. rod length either, and will apply a whole lot less force to the mechanism I’m sure. (How much force is my question?)

I just personally (nor would I want anyone else to be), wouldn’t want to be anywhere around it during the very first dry fire excercise. We have dry fired our mechanism many times (from rested stroke bottom), just to make sure we could safely do so without damage to the bot or anyone, if asked to during inspection, and it is quite violent to say the very least, without the load of a ball in there. (It hops almost exactly like your “bunny bot” does!)

And (admittedly), we had to beef up to thicker material on the vertical support during or shall I say, after the first few (20-25 or so), loaded & dry fire shots/tests, due to slight upright support tube bending below the pivot point (our tube material was just too thin walled and bent slightly in the middle of the rise, but we found that out early on, and went much thicker walled w/ the final product. (changed the upright on both bots).

If you have actually dry fired w/ that safety device in place at full extension…**Does it just reasonably thud **and then vent to atmosphere? Or, does it forcefully still bang when the compressed air hits those plungers inside the cylinders that are already extende and at the top of the stroke?

Just trying to learn from you first…Then I’ll suggest 1-3 of them to the team as we already have a couple of sticks of 1/2" ID poly line here, I bought for another purpose and we never used, that they could easy cut there in Chandler in minutes tomorrow (or even here before leaving tonight since milling the slot would be easier on a mill), then paint red, add the remove before flight ribbons. (Not an engineer here, just a foolish mechanic).

The act of carrying at energy state onto the field always bothers me dearly, for them. (Especially this year, though the know how to safely carry it). After disable or the matches, release is always perfomed first as a ritual.

#83

Of course, removing that particular type lockout (and I think it is a fine example of a number of solutions possible), will still create a few seconds of dangerous time each match for “the remover,” once that bot is placed on the field fully charged. Something they are not used to from practice (our catapult is powder coated completely BRIGHT RED, and is also marked in big red letters “DO NOT TOUCH!” down both sides on the top side). They would have to now (touch that mechanism while system is charged w/ energy), hold it up for a second w/ a pc of like pvc pipe, I’d sure suggest, and then remove the lockout and release it, once before each match, and also carry it a little differently (due to a center of gravity difference), from the queing or pre-charging point, onto the field fully extended (makes that small compact bot package a bit taller is all).

We mitigated the safety issue by teaching proper handling (side carry only, never, ever, lean over that bot unless that dump valve is open, and the Master breaker is absolutely off)…They might just be required to change that is all.

Surely, we cannot ever think of adding a reasonable enabled precharging period of time onfield (say 2-3 minutes or so, to those choosing to use pneumatics in their designs), to each match, once those bots are on the field and all players are safely off…We have a schedule to keep, you know…“The show must go on!” (SRY, I’m just a sourpuss here this morning).

Good Luck to all the Teams competing this week and every week…Go Team 60! (And everyone, please try to be extremely safe in all your actions!)

As an aside (speaking of safety here), I watched that Team 92 video of the white plastic tank testing (pellet gun damage to a 120 PSI charged tank(s) for fracture damage mitigation purposes), last night, and if you have not watched it yet, and you use those white 2013 Clippard Tanks,…Then, I suggest you need to watch it, ASAP. Great Job there Team 92!)…That is my specific worry for all in attendance everywhere. The shrapnel radius and force is downright scary based on their simple testing.

Just installing the 2014 (KOP) black tanks into a brand new tight fitting set of mounting clips made me just cringe doing the act when they were brand new & empty. And those clips are designed for those specific tanks. Polypropolene may be much better than PVC or other types of plastics though on that particular issue of fracture and possible shrapnel (it has not been tested yet that I have seen, though 92 said they would conduct same testing if some were donated), and the built-in push connectors on both ends are certainly much better I think than added brass fittings and the required tightening sequence done by students.

You can slide em in, or snap them into the clips…But, either way it made me think about all the possibilities later during this game and others. The mounting clips do secure the tanks very well though…Have to give them that.

#84

We have dry fired with that interlock installed - the result is a reasonable thud as the pistons become rigid, but nothing alarming, and nothing I would see as dangerous. We’ve actually used the interlock to test the firing code with no ball, and it works quite well. There’s no way for the arm to build up kinetic energy when in this configuration.

As far as the exploding tanks go… I hope we never see one! I will certainly be traversing the pits with more caution this year than last.

#85

Thanks for that info Steven, glad to hear only the “reasonable Thud” part. They need to also do that same thing then I think. Ahh, and yes, it would work for the firing code test too, without creating the “wild energizer bunny effect” on the dry fire…Also very good to know. Much safer in certain areas than an actual dry or loaded fire, for all concerned.

Good luck this weekend to your team! And, I also hope none of us ever do hear that tank explosion sound either! Or feel it…ever.

Just thought I’d mention it after I saw the vid (and your white tanks, not that there is any proof that black ones or any other plastic tanks are any safer that I have seen yet)…Can’t tell what type or Mfg. though those actually are from the pic, but they do have the brass fittings.

#86

Let me propose a thought experiment. There’s a robot with a mechanism that includes a big metal spring. If that mechanism fails, the spring could be ejected unsafely. To mitigate this, the team has installed a guard that contains the spring in case of failure. This is consistent with the robot rules, including R8.

However, to troubleshoot an interference issue, the team needs to operate the mechanism without the guard, and intends to do so on the practice field. Recognizing the hazard this poses, they propose to place a large metal toolbox beside the mechanism as an effective substitute for the guard.

Obviously this toolbox, which is not a robot part, does not comply with R8 any more than a promise to park the robot up against the alliance station wall for the duration of a match. Would you rule the proposed test an R8 violation, and prohibit the team from conducting it?

#87

I fail to see what your “thought experiment” has to do with the LRI asking teams to specifically mitigate known safety risk concerns with their robot. Lets try to stay on topic.

#88

Jon this is not correct.

Without looking at a robot you cannot say there is a KNOWN safety risk.

In addition, R8 requires a shooter to be not unsafe. If a shooter at peachtree is “not unsafe” it will still require a interlock. This IS a rules change, so my question is still valid. How far can a regional go in changing rules (or interpreting them … if you so wish to argue that point)?

At what point does it degrade the authority of the GDC?

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the LRI and my team will comply with this very reasonable request, but I am concerned with the precedent it is setting.