<R07> says that one of the allowable weight classes is 72 inches tall with your robot (excluding battery & bumpers) weighing 100 pounds. I would imagine everyone by now has read or heard of this rule.
However, Section 4.3.1 states that your crate must “be no taller than 5’ 10’’ (70”) high. This maximum includes the 4" by 4" lumber mentioned above.
First of all, let me say that I am totally in favor of people reading the manual. However, I recognize that not every team (particularly rookies) will have someone who reads the entire rule book. How would a team that hadn’t read the aforementioned section know that they couldn’t actually build a 6’ tall robot? Why doesn’t <R07> include a note in big letters saying “Remember that your robot must fit into the crate which is only 5’ 10” tall"? Is FIRST simply not conscious of this discrepancy or am I missing something? I know they aren’t trying to punish teams who don’t read the rulebook completely, but that does seem to be a potential effect.
It is noted in the manual, in the two rules you specifically stated. It’s really not FIRST’s fault if you don’t read the manual, it’s yours.
Additionally the shipping rules were published before kick-off, and stating that a crate height is lower than a possible robot height would have given away part of the upcoming game rules.
First is not reading the manual. If you choose not to read the whole manual then its only your fault, not anyone else’s, especially FIRST’s fault. The manual can be compared to a textbook in school. If you choose not to use your textbook, you are asking to fail classes.
Second is the height differences. What do you mean “couldn’t actually build a 6 foot tall robot”? Just because the crate is limited to 5’10" does not mean your robot can not be 6’. This is part of the overall challenge of the FRC and you have to find a way to make it work, whether it is having your robot shipped in more than 1 part or making it collapsable. You will have to find a way to make it work.
I cannot imagine not reading and studying the rules - this is what defines what we can and cannot do! How can you come up with a design that ignores the specifications?
Engineers design stuff all the time -they don’t come up with the features (Marketing does that), instead they implement those features in hardware. If you want a slingshot that can propel a golf ball to 12 m/s and I deliver a roofing shingle, is it OK? It could be the best darned roofing shingle in the history of man, but it’s not meeting the specs.
Actually, neither of the rules cross-reference. <R07> does not make any mention of Section 4.3.1, and Section 4.3.1 does not make any mention of <R07>. No one here has said why <R07> doesn’t mention directly or indirectly Section 4.3.1, though you have mentioned a reason why 4.3.1 doesn’t mention <R07> (though I’m not sure really that this would give away the game).
Dez,
First to answer your second point: yes, I realize that it would be possible to have a robot that had a 6’ starting configuration yet also fit into a crate within a 5’ 6’’ space. I probably should have phrased my original post better; what I meant was that you would not be able to fit your robot into the crate without modifications; you might or might not easily be able to do this if you were rushed at the last minute.
Secondly, here’s an idea: let’s put this in the manual in the robot section:
: Teams must call this number: (123) 456 - 7890 and order a large pizza by January 14th or they will be disqualified from all FIRST events.
By your argument, if teams didn’t read this rule and they didn’t call and order a pizza, it seems that it would be their fault for not reading the entire manual. However, this is completely wrong. It would be FIRST’s fault for burying important information in an obscure place in the manual.
I agree that this situation is not that situation. However, in my view (unless I’m missing something) both the FIRST manual and teams who don’t read the manual are at fault. The teams because they didn’t read the manual when they should have, and the manual because it was written in such a way as to unintentionally trick people.
By the way, the first thing I said was that I am a proponent of reading the manual. However, we should also realize that there will be rookie teams who are poorly organized and don’t realize that they need to have at least one person read the entire manual. Should we just abandon rookie teams that are perhaps not as organized as they should be, or should we work to make the manual clear and understandable so that these teams don’t have last-minute shipping crises?
Ummm… FIRST is not dqing anyone with the height rule… I think it is kind of common sense that since the crate must be a specific size, and the robot another specific size that these numbers are easy to compare.
Besides, there are no obscure parts of the manual… All rules are supposed to be read because they are all relevant.
For the thousandth time, I support people reading the manual! However, am I the only one who realizes that in practice, not every team will have one person who reads the whole thing? Are we just saying, “Let’s abandon rookie teams who don’t do things exactly as we hope”? Is FIRST really practicing this kind of darwinism?
I have a couple of thoughts regarding the manual discussion.
First of all, this is a discussion and opinions are being expressed here in CD. Members of FIRST teams are participating in the discussion but this isn’t FIRST. That said, in my opinion, following each competition season, FIRST listens to and pays attention to constructive ways to improve the program. By presenting some of the rules pre-Kick Off, this helps teams be aware of areas they would want to look at such as the crate - before the crunch of build. I found this to be pro-active in helping all of the teams, including the rookies. No one wants to see rookie teams or any teams fail. Ever.
At the same time, I wouldn’t want to start thinking we have to save the rookies from themselves. That isn’t our job. Everyone is presented the 2007 manual. Rookie team leaders know or soon learn that the manual is very important to the success of the team’s participation in competition. If a rookie team or any team struggles with that and are aware as they struggle, that it is something they can improve on for next season, they will. Individuals within the team, the team leaders, and the team - make the decisions on how to follow the rules and to learn the rules and how to make use of the Q & A forums in the FIRST website. That can not be done for rookies or for any team.
For Veteran Teams most if not all know the general rules, the only rules they read are Building specifications of both their robot and their crate. For Rookies on the other hand it should be second nature to find away to get to the rules and start planning ahead.
Not a question to anyone but How do you build a robot & a crate without reading the manual? You Can’t it’s next to impossible. Heck even skimming the manual qualifies as almost partially reading it. The only rule that does not exsist is Rule #300 in the general rules section: If you do not Read these rules set forth you cannot compete. And for FIRST to actually put that in there it would only waste ink and time.
It’s the duty of every team to appoint one person or a group of people to keep on top of FIRSTs Website and the Q&A Forum for Rule/Team & Manual Updates one way or another. Whether or not they have to get in touch with another team to obtain any updates. Like many have said the first thing they publish is the Crate Specifictations and that info is not only published but also emailed to the main contact if I’m not mistaken.
I never said they did cross-reference. It’s the teams responsibility to make the link. Additionally, FIRST MENTIONED THIS POSSIBLE ISSUE DURING KICK-OFF!. So no information was “buried” anywhere. The teams are responsible for reading every rule, not just the ones they feel might be important.
I think someone ought to say “thank you” to you for pointing out this (sort of) hidden fact, hopefully any teams who are building a 6 foot robot have already taken the crate size limit into account, if not they might see this and still have 3 weeks to resolve the issue.
So, on behalf of those whom it may help, thanks for pointing out this issue!
First, Adam, the rules do come highlighted to a certain extent - but are you against the rulebook being legible?
Second, the so-called Kitbot has over the years increased in effectiveness to help rookie teams out. “Some assembly required” would be an understatement, and that’s a good thing. However, you do seem to be saying that you think we should just let rookie teams flounder around. Is this the case?
I have no problem with the fact the rules are not cross-referenced; there really is no reason to do so. In fact, I absolutely hate it when there are cross references, it makes me want to immediately jump to the place they’re pointing out. It also stops me from getting the important part of the rule, too.
I also cannot imagine any team making a robot that cannot be disassembled somewhat. Theres got to be somewhere where you can take off 2-4 inches… maybe take off the wheels, or tilt the robot a bit.
Last of all, FIRST is not out to trick anyone! Do you really think that they would go against the GP they’ve been advocating for so long? What an absurdity.
By definition, rookie teams have never participated in FIRST before. How can something you’ve never done before be second nature? This seems to be the exact opposite of second nature. I’m puzzled.
Efoote,
I understand that you don’t see a good reason to cross-reference here, and that’s a legitimate viewpoint. However, you shouldn’t let your own reading habits interfere with what might otherwise be a useful addition for others.
Furthermore, I realize that FIRST is not out to trick anyone (as I believe I have said). I think the way it is now poses an possible unintentional problem; the title I used was to provoke a response on the question.
YOU STILL FAIL TO REALIZE THAT NOT EVERYONE LIVES UP TO YOUR STANDARDS and that FIRST should do its best to make the manual understandable. Please name one disadvantage (other than efoote’s jumpiness) of putting a reminder under <R07>.
FIRST gave such a reminder during the kick-off broadcast. Hand-feeding FIRST teams every-thing would be counter-intuitive to the nature of FIRST. There is no easy way to make anyone read everything, but teams must do it. It would be additional work for FIRST to find every possible cross-reference and would make the manual cumbersome and hard to read.
Treat the FIRST manual like a dictionary. defines and only. For other rules, consult the definition of that rule. They shouldn’t have to spell out everything 10 times in order for teams to get it.
Yeah, not everyone reads the rules, but it’s their own fault they don’t. FIRST does publish a very understandable manual, and posts updates and clarifications (as well as a Q&A forum) for anything that poses questions. If FIRST doesn’t live up to your standards, perhaps you ought to find a different competition.
Instead of trying to improve the competition? That’s like saying, “If George Bush doesn’t live up to your standards, perhaps you ought to find a different country.” A much better solution is to have discussions like this one - or, following the metaphor, vote for someone you think will do a better job. While you might not feel that such an addition to the manual constitutes a useful change, I do. Neither my team nor I was inconvenienced by this, as we are not building a 6’ robot. I also (as others have pointed out) probably overestimated the difficulty of getting a 6’ robot into a 5’ 6’’ box (it is a problem, but certainly not insurmountable).
In case any further clarification is required, I don’t believe FIRST is trying to trick people. Overall, I think FIRST is a great organization with a few small faults. Nothing is perfect; last year, there were several issues that were not resolved in a very consistent manner (as I said, no one is perfect). However, saying that if you don’t like it you should leave is ignoring half the point of bringing these things up (as I believe Jane alluded to).