Withholding Allowance

[rich2202]

Per Q904, if a part is never used on a Robot, then it is never part of the Withholding Allowance.

Q904
Q: When you say "part of a BUMPER" do you mean an assembled Bumper Segment, or do you mean "Bumper parts", which would include individual fabricated parts, that when combined with other parts, could be assembled into a Bumper Segment. Since you only get to load-in once, it is important to know in advance what is included in the Withholding Allowance, and what is not. Retroactive determinations does not help. Parts dedicated to bumper use only are exempt?

A: There are no rules governing FABRICATED ITEMS that are never used on a ROBOT. If the FABRICATED ITEMS you bring with you are used in your BUMPERS at the time of inspection (and not in other ways, such as your drivetrain or similar) then the FABRICATED ITEMS are governed by R18-C and are exempt from the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE.
https://frc-qa.firstinspires.org/Question/904/when-you-say-part-of-a-bumper-do-you-mean-an-assembled-bumper-segment-or-do-you-mean-bumper-parts-which-would-include-individual-fabricated-parts-that-when-combined-with-other-parts-could-be-a


This makes sense. When our team brings a bag of giveaways into the pit, they are obviously fabricated, but they are never used on the Robot.

I have thought of the Withholding Allowance as: If the part is of the type of thing that goes on a robot, and is not COTS, then it is part of the Withholding Allowance.

Example: the Team brings along assembled gear boxes with motors. Those are fabricated, and count against the Withholding Allowance.

However, the ruling seems to permit the following:

The team brings along a 20# shooter to attach to the bagged competition robot, and a 120# completely assembled identical practice robot to cannibalize for spare parts. The shooter is attached to the bagged competition Robot, and weighed for inspection. As long as the team never uses more than 10# of spare parts from the practice robot then the Withholding Allowance rule is not violated.

[engunneer]

I don't take that answer to mean that you can have a large number of spare fabricated items, as long as you only use a limited subset on the actual robot.

The answer specifically states "(and not in other ways, such as your drivetrain or similar)". This answer only applies to bumper materials that are not used for non-bumper purposes.


If you bring spare bumper (fabricated) parts that you do not use, they are Exempt under R18-C
If you bring spare bumper (fabricated) parts that you use on your robot as a bumper, they are Exempt under R18-C
If you bring spare bumper (fabricated) parts that you use on your robot, but as something that is not a Bumper (like a spacer or frame repair, or whatever), they are NOT Exempt under R18-C, and are counted against your withholding allowance.

[MrBasse]

But you get 30 lbs, not 120lbs. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean you can bring all the parts you want. 30 lbs is 30 lbs.

I have seen teams pull parts from a practice bot in the parking lot before, I've even seen teams question each other on pulling parts from practice bots in the parking lot. The 30 lb limit is there to make you chose what you bring just in case something goes wrong or you plan to add a new component. Either way it's a choice you have to make. Bringing a full backup robot takes away a lot of the restrictions that make this competition challenging.

There have been threads on this every year I can remember. The rules aren't different this year.

[Alan Anderson]

However, the ruling seems to permit the following:

The team brings along a 20# shooter to attach to the bagged competition robot, and a 120# completely assembled identical practice robot to cannibalize for spare parts. The shooter is attached to the bagged competition Robot, and weighed for inspection. As long as the team never uses more than 10# of spare parts from the practice robot then the Withholding Allowance rule is not violated.

Are you trying to claim that those spare parts don't count toward the Withholding Allowance because they're "never used on a robot" even though they are actually on a robot when you bring them in?

I'd award that argument a red card.

[IronicDeadBird]

The team brings along a 20# shooter to attach to the bagged competition robot, and a 120# completely assembled identical practice robot to cannibalize for spare parts. The shooter is attached to the bagged competition Robot, and weighed for inspection. As long as the team never uses more than 10# of spare parts from the practice robot then the Withholding Allowance rule is not violated.

Wait am I reading this right.
A team brings 120 pounds of robot to a venue but for only 10 pounds of gear? Regardless of it being illegal that seems incredibly inefficient I guess.
Coupled with the withholding allowance is the COTS supply rules, and I mean unless nothing on your robot qualifies as COTS or nothing on the robot can be quickly made out of COTS parts at competition then you are just being reckless with your design especially in a year where the field is taking shots at your robot.
I dunno maybe you just like powder coating your bearings...

[rich2202]

Are you trying to claim that those spare parts don't count toward the Withholding Allowance because they're "never used on a robot" even though they are actually on a robot when you bring them in?


"There are no rules governing FABRICATED ITEMS that are never used on a ROBOT." - Is an unambiguous sentence.

If an Item never makes it on to the robot during the event, it doesn't count against your Withholding Allowance. I was using a Practice Bot as an extreme example. It is A robot, but not THE Robot. It doesn't matter if it is assembled as a practice bot, or a crate of modular parts that could be quickly assembled into a robot.

Another extreme example: I bring 2 20# assemblies to the competition.
Assembly A is an ok shooter that can go under the low goal.
Assembly B is a great Shooter, can easily block opposing alliance shots, climbs during the end game, but can't fit under the low goal.

During the practice rounds I watch what other bots are doing, and then decide which shooter to mount onto the robot.

For the sake of completeness, assume the robot passes inspection without a shooter attached. About 1 hour before qualification matches start is when I select a shooter, mount it, and get reinspected.

Since one assembly is never mounted on the robot, it does not count against the Withholding Allowance.

[Mark McLeod]

Not even close.


...
The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE is a static set of items that shall not exceed 30 lbs.
...
The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE may only be brought into the Venue when the Team initially loads in at the Event.
...

Blue Box
...
This means teams may not store FABRICATED ITEMS outside the pits to be brought to the event at a later time.
...

[Al Skierkiewicz]

The team brings along ...
and a 120# completely assembled identical practice robot to cannibalize for spare parts.

Don't even think about bringing a second robot. The robot rules are very specific about one robot and repeatedly uses words like "the ROBOT", and "their ROBOT". Everything is singular for a reason. You may disassemble the second robot at your build space and bring spares under the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. Please note that the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE is a one time only, bring in at load in.

R18 At an Event, Teams may have access to a WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE of FABRICATED ITEMS,not bagged per R15, to be used to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE is a static set of items that shall not exceed 30 lbs. With permission from another Team, Teams may also have access to FABRICATED ITEMS that are part of that other Team’s WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to repair and/or upgrade their ROBOT. The WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE may only be brought into the Venue when the Team initially loads in at the Event. Items made at an Event do not count towards this weight limit.

Emphasis mine. You may not have a second robot or a pile of FABRICATED PARTS out in the car that you constantly go out and bring into the venue throughout the competition.

[rich2202]

Al, I had no intention of bringing a second robot. I was just giving an extreme example.

When I posted the question on the Q&A, I was hoping to get clarification that Bumper Parts (vs assembled Bumpers) were exempt from the Withholding Allowance. What I got back shocked me. Thus this thread showing how the Q&A response creates a new interpretation of Withholding Allowance (WA).

My prior understanding of the WA is: If it is non-cots, and potentially a Robot Part (vs. buttons you had out), then it is part of the WA. A "look forward" analysis.

The Q&A response seems to be a "look back" analysis. "There are no rules governing FABRICATED ITEMS that are never used on a ROBOT." - If a part (fabricated or whatever) is never used on a ROBOT, then it is not part of the WA.

I can appreciate that certain bumper parts could be used either way. Plywood could be used on the robot, or part of the Bumper. It seems pretty clear to me that if the plywood is cut into 5" high lengths, that it is intended for Bumpers. A 24x32 piece that happens to be the size of the Robot is probably not intended for Bumpers. However, by the Q&A response, if that piece of wood is never used on the Robot, then it is not part of the WA.

I can appreciate the clear wording of the WA rules. One set of parts brought in during load-in, which is not more than 30#. What the Q&A response allows is: 60# of fabricated parts (Parent Set) of parts brought in during load-in. As parts are "used on the robot", they become part of the 30# subset that is counted against the WA.

Another possible interpretation is this: You get the 30# WA limit the way it has been typically understood. But, nothing prevents you from bringing in more Fabricated Parts that you never use on the Robot. Maybe this is what they were getting at. However, that creates an inspection nightmare: How do the RI's enforce the 30# limit when there can be 100+# of fabricated items in the Pit? In the past, they looked during load-in for fabricated items that could exceed 30#. Since teams can easily cheat (bring in a part from the parking lot after load it), it ultimately is an Honor system.

[FrankJ]

I imagine that Q&As like this is why Al has white hair. :)

Anyway I interpret the answer to mean no limit to fabricated parts that are not potentially part of the robot. IE bumbers, hand outs, parts of your pit, tools, etc. This doesn't apply to parts that might be part of your robot. They are still a static 30 lb set that you brought in at load in. Q&A does not change rules as written. If that is required, they do it as part of a team update.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Rich,
I read the response in relation to the original question which related to Bumper materials. Precut parts for bumpers, plywood, noodles, fabric, etc. are not part of Withholding because bumpers do not need to be built during the robot build period.
As far as plywood, almost anywhere near me, a person can walk in off the street and ask the lumber person to cut them a specific size of plywood and then put a price on it including 5" wide strips. Under the definition, that is not a fabricated part for either the withholding allowance or the CAW (BOM). If I see a piece of plywood cut to a shape and drilled for mounting for something other than bumpers, then I have to assume it is a robot part and will be evaluated for withholding. Bumpers, while mounted on a robot and covered under robot rules are not part of the robot for build period or withholding.
I cannot know that parts that are brought in during load in will never be used on a robot. If they are fabricated items (non-COTS) that are not bumpers, I will assume them to be spares or withheld robot parts. If you never intend them to be used on a robot why would you bring them in?
To be clear, this does not include motors that have the wires cut and terminated, it does not include batteries that have cable attached as described in R18 exclusions.

[Alan Anderson]

My prior understanding of the WA is: If it is non-cots, and potentially a Robot Part (vs. buttons you had out), then it is part of the WA. A "look forward" analysis.

The Q&A response seems to be a "look back" analysis. "There are no rules governing FABRICATED ITEMS that are never used on a ROBOT." - If a part (fabricated or whatever) is never used on a ROBOT, then it is not part of the WA.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Other than being stated in the opposite sense, how does "potentially a Robot Part -> part of WA" differ from "not a ROBOT part -> not part of WA"?

Are you perhaps trying to interpret the GDC's answer to refer to robot parts that have not been actually installed on a robot by the end of the event, even if they are parts like gearboxes and 3DOF arms that do get used on a robot? I think it's clear that it's intended to cover stuff like specialized tools and pit decorations and other non-robot parts (in addition to things that already don't get counted against the WA). You know, things that are never used on a robot.

[Sparky3D]

Rich,
...
To be clear, this does not include motors that have the wires cut and terminated, it does not include batteries that have cable attached as described in R18 exclusions.


So when the GDC and the CRI disagree, who wins? Q&A 823 seems to indicate that terminated motors must be included in your withholding allowance:


Q823 Q. R13 describes Fabricated Items that may be constructed prior to Kickoff. Exceptions A through C are also excluded from R18 Withholding Allowance. Is it the intent of the rules that the only allowable spare motors not part of R18 are COTS motors that have not been modified in any way? Can R13-D items be excluded from the Withholding Allowance?
FRC2202 on 2016-02-14
A. Yes, COTS items (motors, etc.) that have been modified from their original condition (e.g. connectors have been added) are FABRICATED ITEMS. Specific FABRICATED ITEMS are exceptions to R13, but not exceptions to R18.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Dustin,
I work for the GDC, so what they say goes. They do ask for my input and that is always a good thing. Please standby...

[Bob Steele]

I honestly think that the Answer was supposed to be:

There are no rules governing FABRICATED ITEMS that are never intended to be used on a ROBOT

IMO Any fabricated part that is intended to be used on the robot with the exceptions in R-18
A. the OPERATOR CONSOLE,
B. any ROBOT battery assemblies (as described in R5).
C. BUMPERS

are part of the 30 lb withholding limit. That is a static set of pieces.

[bluecube]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing

[EricH]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing
Unfortunately, that would be a violation of R1. ROBOT is ALWAYS singular. And almost always, it is referred to in with a definite article ("the" instead of "an" or "a").

That would be my opinion. I don't know who made that call, but I'd be interested to know their logic.

I would also be highly unsurprised to find the "only one robot" rule specifically returning; that's a rule that was around for quite a while.

[matthewdenny]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts



This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot



You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing


.... Teams are going to start building 3 robots...

[GeeTwo]

.... Teams are going to start building 3 robots...

Four, six, twelve - how many robots do figure you can fit in two robot bags?:ahh:

[gpetilli]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing

Rule # ???. Perhaps if they paid a second entrance fee as a second team? Makes no sense.

[FrankJ]

While you might work on the "second robot", you couldn't compete with it without going through reinspection. Even interchanging parts might require reinspection.

[Michael Corsetto]

.... Teams are going to start building 3 robots...

Start? We already did...

[z_beeblebrox]

Start? We already did...

Why?

[Michael Corsetto]

Why?

1. Increased student involvement/more robots for more students to work on.

2. Competition season is ten weeks. Build season is only six. It makes more sense to have more robots to develop/practice on during the ten weeks than the six weeks.

3. We only meet four days a week (typically). Having two robots to develop on during competition season means we can get a lot done on code/driver practice without having to share one robot. Not having to split time on one robot means we can more easily hold to a limited meeting schedule while still (hopefully) meeting our competitive goals.

Disclaimer: this is our first year trying this, but I like it so far. Results are TBD.

-Mike

[Rosiebotboss]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing

And you know this because ....???

[Bob Steele]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing

This needs some clarification... if this is true... it is a disconcerting turn of events for FIRST.

?????

[thatnameistaken]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing
While this seems odd, what rule, exactly, would prevent it? Only what's going out on the field has to be sub 120lbs, not everything in the bag...

[IronicDeadBird]

Welp looks like next year we will be bagging buildings.

[Bob Steele]

news flash.... this just in from FIRST..

Next year's bag limit will be changed to a limit based on volume.

The maximum volume of what you can bring in your bag will be 10' X 10' X 10' for most venues....

[marshall]

Interestingly, second robots are allowed so long as they are bagged at the same time as the first, and brought in at loading time and classed as spare parts

This is according to rulings that First made at the SC Palmetto regional, where a team did bring a second robot

You are also allowed to work on one of the robots in the pits while the other robot is on the practice field/competing

Oh boy... here I go again.

As the team with that second "robot"... I can tell you exactly what happened from my point of view (For everyone who has been wondering what 900 is up to this season, here ya go). Before I do, I want to say thank you to Jon and Frank from FIRST for working with us to clarify the rules and for being gracious professionals. Also, a massive thank you to all of the volunteers, staff, and especially the robot inspectors for the Palmetto regional. It has always been my personal favorite regional event to attend and you are the reason why.

We tagged two bags on Tuesday night before midnight (just like everyone else) and then we drove down to the event on Wednesday. It made no sense to us to leave our practice "robot" sitting in our lab when we could just bag it and use it as spare parts. We arrived at the venue for load-in and immediately explained the second bag to the inspector who checked us in (Hi Ben!).

The next morning (Thursday) we were the first team to weigh in for inspection and then we helped walk about 5 inspectors through the robot inspection process. Both the robot and spare parts were in our pit at this point and as we explained to everyone who asked about the well constructed set of spare parts, it would NEVER touch the real field without going through inspection (and it never did!!!!).

The only thing we were asked to do was to not take up space on or near the practice field with our spare parts if the ROBOT was on the real field or in the queue for the real field. Eventually someone (I don't know who) said something and the ban hammer came down hard and fast. We were told to cease operations on the spare parts and we did for about 2 hours on Thursday. At that point, Frank was on his way to the venue and we were waiting on him to arrive and give us a final ruling on our interpretation of the rules.

Frank arrived and I imagine a lively debate was had. We were eventually given the approval to go back to work with our spare parts and again the provision was that the spare parts should not be on or near the practice field if the ROBOT was on the real field.

We had a dynamics problem that was causing some pain for our driver while crossing defenses with the ROBOT. We ended up having to buy leg weights from the local Wal-Mart on Thursday night and adding them to the robot Friday morning. We went through an inspection after adding them to the ROBOT per the rules. It brought our weight up to ~117 and fixed(-ish) the dynamics problem.

Now is where it gets interesting... We had been modifying the spare parts to a lower height on Friday morning/afternoon to solve the dynamics problem more permanently. At the end of the day on Friday we made a choice to pull the shortened mechanism (shooter assembly and superstructure) from the spare parts and place it on the ROBOT after removing the full-height mechanism from the ROBOT. It was a frantic herd of Zebracorn momentum but we almost got it done completely on Friday night (Just ask 1114 how fast 900 can mobilize and they'll tell you!).

This of course ended up with us needing to be inspected again on Saturday morning. To make matters more interesting, due to the way the scheduling worked out, we happened to be in the 3rd match of the morning on Saturday so we sent our drive team to the QUEUE to wait for the ROBOT to arrive. We went through inspection again after opening ceremonies and the inspector found things that we needed to resolve and we all missed a loose wire on our radio (this impacted us in the match so we paid a real price for all of this frantic work). We were fortunate enough to just barely make the match and the inspector had to meet up with the robot near the field to apply the inspection sticker.

I'm proud of our students and mentors. Our team likes to do fun and interesting things and this regional was no different.

For one, it needs to/should be clarified about what makes a robot a ROBOT and I suspect there will be an update on it this week. If it is the control system then can a team replace their RoboRIO legally if it breaks? Can we swap them between rounds for code updates without being reinspected? If it is the drive base then can a team swap out drive bases if they dent their frame beyond repair?

For two, my proposed solution to the potential problem is simple. GET RID OF BAG AND TAG! Build season is not 6 weeks anymore and 30 pounds of parts that doesn't include COTS items is just silly.

[Jon Stratis]

First question... did you have a nice looking BOM for that second robot this time? Just kidding :)

For one, it needs to/should be clarified about what makes a robot a ROBOT and I suspect there will be an update on it this week. If it is the control system then can a team replace their RoboRIO legally if it breaks? Can we swap them between rounds for code updates without being reinspected? If it is the drive base then can a team swap out drive bases if they dent their frame beyond repair?

For two, my proposed solution to the potential problem is simple. GET RID OF BAG AND TAG! Build season is not 6 weeks anymore and 30 pounds of parts that doesn't include COTS items is just silly.

FIRST does define a ROBOT in the glossary (emphasis mine):
an electromechanical assembly built by an FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, BUMPERS and movement. The implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST STRONGHOLD (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD or a ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition)

So you need everything in order for it to classify as a robot. - parts, subassemblies, and spares are not, in and of themselves, a ROBOT.

And T15-C and -D covers your questions on RoboRio swapping, I think, as the RoboRio is a COTS item:
If a ROBOT is modified after it has passed its most recent Inspection, other than modifications
listed in A through F, that ROBOT must be re-Inspected before the ROBOT is eligible to participate in a MATCH. If any of the exceptions listed below result in a significant change to the ROBOT’S size, weight, legality, or safety, the ROBOT must be re-Inspected. When in doubt, the Team should ask to be re-Inspected.
A. Addition, relocation, or removal of fasteners (e.g. cable ties, tape, and rivets)
B. Addition, relocation, or removal of labeling or marking
C. Revision of ROBOT code
D. A replacement of a COTS component with an identical COTS component
E. A replacement of a MECHANISM with an identical MECHANISM (size, weight, material)
F. Additions, removals, or reconfiguration of ROBOT with a subset of MECHANISMS already Inspected per T14

[marshall]

First question... did you have a nice looking BOM for that second robot this time? Just kidding :)

We didn't have a BOM for the spare parts but we did have a CAW! :D

[Bob Steele]

Oh boy... here I go again.

As the team with that second "robot"... I can tell you exactly what happened from my point of view (For everyone who has been wondering what 900 is up to this season, here ya go). Before I do, I want to say thank you to Jon and Frank from FIRST for working with us to clarify the rules and for being gracious professionals. Also, a massive thank you to all of the volunteers, staff, and especially the robot inspectors for the Palmetto regional. It has always been my personal favorite regional event to attend and you are the reason why.

We tagged two bags on Tuesday night before midnight (just like everyone else) and then we drove down to the event on Wednesday. It made no sense to us to leave our practice "robot" sitting in our lab when we could just bag it and use it as spare parts. We arrived at the venue for load-in and immediately explained the second bag to the inspector who checked us in (Hi Ben!).

The next morning (Thursday) we were the first team to weigh in for inspection and then we helped walk about 5 inspectors through the robot inspection process. Both the robot and spare parts were in our pit at this point and as we explained to everyone who asked about the well constructed set of spare parts, it would NEVER touch the real field without going through inspection (and it never did!!!!).

The only thing we were asked to do was to not take up space on or near the practice field with our spare parts if the ROBOT was on the real field or in the queue for the real field. Eventually someone (I don't know who) said something and the ban hammer came down hard and fast. We were told to cease operations on the spare parts and we did for about 2 hours on Thursday. At that point, Frank was on his way to the venue and we were waiting on him to arrive and give us a final ruling on our interpretation of the rules.

Frank arrived and I imagine a lively debate was had. We were eventually given the approval to go back to work with our spare parts and again the provision was that the spare parts should not be on or near the practice field if the ROBOT was on the real field.

We had a dynamics problem that was causing some pain for our driver while crossing defenses with the ROBOT. We ended up having to buy leg weights from the local Wal-Mart on Thursday night and adding them to the robot Friday morning. We went through an inspection after adding them to the ROBOT per the rules. It brought our weight up to ~117 and fixed(-ish) the dynamics problem.

Now is where it gets interesting... We had been modifying the spare parts to a lower height on Friday morning/afternoon to solve the dynamics problem more permanently. At the end of the day on Friday we made a choice to pull the shortened mechanism (shooter assembly and superstructure) from the spare parts and place it on the ROBOT after removing the full-height mechanism from the ROBOT. It was a frantic herd of Zebracorn momentum but we almost got it done completely on Friday night (Just ask 1114 how fast 900 can mobilize and they'll tell you!).

This of course ended up with us needing to be inspected again on Saturday morning. To make matters more interesting, due to the way the scheduling worked out, we happened to be in the 3rd match of the morning on Saturday so we sent our drive team to the QUEUE to wait for the ROBOT to arrive. We went through inspection again after opening ceremonies and the inspector found things that we needed to resolve and we all missed a loose wire on our radio (this impacted us in the match so we paid a real price for all of this frantic work). We were fortunate enough to just barely make the match and the inspector had to meet up with the robot near the field to apply the inspection sticker.

I'm proud of our students and mentors. Our team likes to do fun and interesting things and this regional was no different.

For one, it needs to/should be clarified about what makes a robot a ROBOT and I suspect there will be an update on it this week. If it is the control system then can a team replace their RoboRIO legally if it breaks? Can we swap them between rounds for code updates without being reinspected? If it is the drive base then can a team swap out drive bases if they dent their frame beyond repair?

For two, my proposed solution to the potential problem is simple. GET RID OF BAG AND TAG! Build season is not 6 weeks anymore and 30 pounds of parts that doesn't include COTS items is just silly.

Thank you for giving us your perspective on the issues.

[FrankJ]

...
For one, it needs to/should be clarified about what makes a robot a ROBOT and I suspect there will be an update on it this week. If it is the control system then can a team replace their RoboRIO legally if it breaks? Can we swap them between rounds for code updates without being reinspected? If it is the drive base then can a team swap out drive bases if they dent their frame beyond repair?

For two, my proposed solution to the potential problem is simple. GET RID OF BAG AND TAG! Build season is not 6 weeks anymore and 30 pounds of parts that doesn't include COTS items is just silly.

Thanks for your perspective. For what it is worth that matches my interpretation of the rules as they are currently written. Rather or not they are what the GDC intended, I guess we will find out when the 2017 rules come out. :] This is a little bit of an unique case since week 0.5 events are rare & not much point of bagging your practice bot for longer periods of time.

An definition observation. Take off the roborio and your practice robot is no longer a "robot", but a collection of spare parts.

[meg]

An definition observation. Take off the roborio and your practice robot is no longer a "robot", but a collection of spare parts.

Technically, as per the definition posted above, the definition of the robot also included bumpers. Since the "spare parts" didn't have its own set of bumpers, it couldn't be a robot ;)

[MrBasse]

But did the practice bot weigh more than 30 lbs? If so, I don't see how this could ever be okay. Especially since parts were used from it on the competition robot.

I'm guessing every part on the practice robot was assembled, so none of it was COTS.

I don't even think it matters that you modified the part that was swapped over. If that works, why can't we all bring second robots, grab parts off and drill some holes to modify them, then slap them on the robot and say we "manufactured" them in the pits?

[meg]

But did the practice bot weigh more than 30 lbs? If so, I don't see how this could ever be okay. Especially since parts were used from it on the competition robot.

I'm guessing every part on the practice robot was assembled, so none of it was COTS.

I don't even think it matters that you modified the part that was swapped over. If that works, why can't we all bring second robots, grab parts off and drill some holes to modify them, then slap them on the robot and say we "manufactured" them in the pits?

Why does it need to weigh less than 30 lbs? It was bagged before midnight on Tuesday. The are no restrictions on how many spare manufactured parts or extra weight you have in the bags. Where is the difference between building and bagging a spare mechanism in case the first broke?

[MrBasse]

Why does it need to weigh less than 30 lbs? It was bagged before midnight on Tuesday. The are no restrictions on how many spare manufactured parts or extra weight you have in the bags. Where is the difference between building and bagging a spare mechanism in case the first broke?

I'll admit I missed that part. Then I pose the same issue unless everything in all bags not including bumpers and battery weighed less than 120lbs.

[meg]

I'll admit I missed that part. Then I pose the same issue unless everything in all bags not including bumpers and battery weighed less than 120lbs.

Where is there a rule that says that? The only restriction is there are only two bags allowed. Whatever you can fit in them, you can carry in. No where does it say what you may or may not bag.

[MrBasse]

Where is there a rule that says that? The only restriction is there are only two bags allowed. Whatever you can fit in them, you can carry in. No where does it say what you may or may not bag.

Section 5.3 in the administration manual refers to the robot, and as Al likes to remind us it isn't plural for a reason.

Couple that with r5, and that is where my question comes into play.

[Jon Stratis]

Section 5.3 in the administration manual refers to the robot, and as Al likes to remind us it isn't plural for a reason.

Couple that with r5, and that is where my question comes into play.

There is nothing in the manual that limits how much stuff you stick in your bag. You could have 500 lbs in there, if it fits, but I don't think that was really the point you were driving at... it's all about how many ROBOTs a team can have at an event.

The question does come down to the definition of a ROBOT, which i copied in here form the manual a few posts ago. So, if something is missing one of the requirements listed in the manual definition, is it still a robot?

What about a team that brings, in its bag, an extra electrical board with everything needed on it, an extra drive train, and extra manipulators? If they are all disconnected, you'd have a very hard time arguing they were a robot, yet it may be a matter of a half hour to get everything hooked up once it's unbagged. Is it a robot at that point? Technically, no, because it doesn't have bumpers attached to it... but I think most people would look at it and call it a robot. Backing off a little, at what point do you NOT call it a robot and say it's legal?

Then in another issue, how would you take modifications into account with the "one robot" philosophy? To use a simple analogy, If you have a broom and replace the handle, then later replace the bristles, is it then the same broom? Sure, that's a little excessive, but you can see how it applies to robots - you can make legal modifications to your robot until it looks completely and totally different, yet we still call it the same robot. A few years ago in Ultimate Ascent, there was a team here in MN that used their withholding to have a different shooter at almost every event they competed in. They went from being tall to being short to being tall again, using different wheels and different designs... a lay-person, looking at snapshots of their robot throughout the season would probably have called it 3-4 different robots. But from a legality and inspection standpoint it was only 1.

So, where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere, and it's not terribly clear where that somewhere is. And even then, you can limit what's brought in, but what happens when a team (cough 900 cough) builds a second robot from COTS parts while AT the competition?

[MrBasse]

There is nothing in the manual that limits how much stuff you stick in your bag. You could have 500 lbs in there, if it fits, but I don't think that was really the point you were driving at... it's all about how many ROBOTs a team can have at an event.

The question does come down to the definition of a ROBOT, which i copied in here form the manual a few posts ago. So, if something is missing one of the requirements listed in the manual definition, is it still a robot?

What about a team that brings, in its bag, an extra electrical board with everything needed on it, an extra drive train, and extra manipulators? If they are all disconnected, you'd have a very hard time arguing s were a robot, yet it may be a matter of a half hour to get everything hooked up once it's unbagged. Is it a robot at that point? Technically, no, because it doesn't have bumpers attached to it... but I think most people would look at it and call it a robot. Backing off a little, at what point do you NOT call it a robot and say it's legal?

Then in another issue, how would you take modifications into account with the "one robot" philosophy? To use a simple analogy, If you have a broom and replace the handle, then later replace the bristles, is it then the same broom? Sure, that's a little excessive, but you can see how it applies to robots - you can make legal modifications to your robot until it looks completely and totally different, yet we still call it the same robot. A few years ago in Ultimate Ascent, there was a team here in MN that used their withholding to have a different shooter at almost every event they competed in. They went from being tall to being short to being tall again, using different wheels and different designs... a lay-person, looking at snapshots of their robot throughout the season would probably have called it 3-4 different robots. But from a legality and inspection standpoint it was only 1.

So, where do you draw the line? You have to draw it somewhere, and it's not terribly clear where that somewhere is. And even then, you can limit what's brought in, but what happens when a team (cough 900 cough) builds a second robot from COTS parts while AT the competition?

Reading section 5.2 in the admin manual clearly calls out "the robot" and even says the two bag concept is specifically for disassembling the robot for ease
of transport. So the 120 lb limit is a part of what I'm getting at. The competition robot has a weight limit, and at stop build you bag the robot. Nothing in there says bag anything and everything you've built to that point.

Did they build the whole thing there from COTS components? The way I read it was they brought an assembled group of components.

I'm just looking for clarity on this, this has potential to be either a learning opportunity for a select few or a missed opportunity for a whole lot of teams.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Reading section 5.2 in the admin manual clearly calls out "the robot" and even says the two bag concept is specifically for disassembling the robot for ease
of transport. So the 120 lb limit is a part of what I'm getting at. The competition robot has a weight limit, and at stop build you bag the robot. Nothing in there says bag anything and everything you've built to that point.

Did they build the whole thing there from COTS components? The way I read it was they brought an assembled group of components.

I'm just looking for clarity on this, this has potential to be either a learning opportunity for a select few or a missed opportunity for a whole lot of teams.

There is no weight limit assumed for the bag based on the max robot weight. There are a countless number of teams every year who show up with an overweight robot. Implying a weight limit of 120lbs minus the bumper would disqualify every team who made an overweight robot. Really if the situation wants to be presented, it needs to be defined in the rules. Same goes for if you bagged enough spares for a second robot and gave the spares to another team. So far this seems legal according to the rules but should it be? It's up to FIRST to decide and so far they haven't specified any rule against it.

[Bob Steele]

I would expect to see something in the update or at the very least in Frank's blog about this.

[Electronica1]

Does this open up the possibility of bagging 2 or 3 robots, and then giving your extra robots to another team/eliminations partners and have them use it? You could essentially build your entire alliance. (since you can still let other teams use the parts you bring)

(Not saying I would do this, but saying that this could in theory happen now)

[FrankJ]

Q&A tends to very literal when interpreting rules like this so I don't expect any changes for this year. Also if you have not bagged your practice bots, you are too late. You needed to do it before last Tues. midnight.

[PayneTrain]

Maybe if withholding allowances are hard to regulate...
Maybe if the definition of a ROBOT is very fluid and difficult to interpret w/r/t what you put in the almighty bag...
Maybe if the way teams use the bag system in a good faith effort to construct and store spares for an obviously brutal game still gets called into question for their integrity and the like...
Maybe if there are concerns people could use the large gray area of the bag and tag system to a way that flies entirely out of the realm of reasonable behavior but still stay within the letter of the law...
Maybe if some teams choose to build 3 robots just to keep their students engaged while a functional robot sits wrapped in a plastic tarp in the same room...
Maybe if teams are still meeting as regularly at the beginning of the 16 week season as they are at the end...
Maybe if it is still hard to teach people new to FIRST how the whole bag system works and the pure absurdity of the scenario we are placed into by HQ is made very obvious from outside the bubble of FRC...
Maybe if we are all here to inspire and recognize science in technology in a robotics competition...

Make an up or down decision that says either teams can keep their hands on the competition robot for the entirety of 4 months or tell teams to sit on their hands until their competition day comes. All sides have been and will continue to (rightfully) lawyer the rules one way or the other.

[marshall]

Maybe if withholding allowances are hard to regulate...
Maybe if the definition of a ROBOT is very fluid and difficult to interpret w/r/t what you put in the almighty bag...
Maybe if the way teams use the bag system in a good faith effort to construct and store spares for an obviously brutal game still gets called into question for their integrity and the like...
Maybe if there are concerns people could use the large gray area of the bag and tag system to a way that flies entirely out of the realm of reasonable behavior but still stay within the letter of the law...
Maybe if some teams choose to build 3 robots just to keep their students engaged while a functional robot sits wrapped in a plastic tarp in the same room...
Maybe if teams are still meeting as regularly at the beginning of the 16 week season as they are at the end...
Maybe if it is still hard to teach people new to FIRST how the whole bag system works and the pure absurdity of the scenario we are placed into by HQ is made very obvious from outside the bubble of FRC...
Maybe if we are all here to inspire and recognize science in technology in a robotics competition...

Make an up or down decision that says either teams can keep their hands on the competition robot for the entirety of 4 months or tell teams to sit on their hands until their competition day comes. All sides have been and will continue to (rightfully) lawyer the rules one way or the other.

Preach it!

[IronicDeadBird]

Does this open up the possibility of bagging 2 or 3 robots, and then giving your extra robots to another team/eliminations partners and have them use it? You could essentially build your entire alliance. (since you can still let other teams use the parts you bring)

(Not saying I would do this, but saying that this could in theory happen now)

EVERYONE GETS A KIT BOT!

[Europa]

Another question my team had in relation to this conversation, could our team bring parts from our second robot as part of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to replace other parts on our bagged robot and then bring the parts from the bagged robot back to our workshop to install on our second robot?

[Mr V]

Another question my team had in relation to this conversation, could our team bring parts from our second robot as part of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to replace other parts on our bagged robot and then bring the parts from the bagged robot back to our workshop to install on our second robot?

As long as the assembly or if you remove and return in COTS items to their COTS state and the fabricated and remaining assembled portions are under 30lbs then that is fully legal. You can then bring another possibly completely different portion under the 30lb limit to your next event. Go to 3 events and you can have a grandpa's axe/hammer situation where none of the robot you initially put in the bag is used at your 3rd event.

[marshall]

Reading section 5.2 in the admin manual clearly calls out "the robot" and even says the two bag concept is specifically for disassembling the robot for ease
of transport. So the 120 lb limit is a part of what I'm getting at. The competition robot has a weight limit, and at stop build you bag the robot. Nothing in there says bag anything and everything you've built to that point.

Did they build the whole thing there from COTS components? The way I read it was they brought an assembled group of components.

I'm just looking for clarity on this, this has potential to be either a learning opportunity for a select few or a missed opportunity for a whole lot of teams.

If you actually want clarity then seek it from FIRST and not CD... I do agree with you though, the rules are about as clear as mud here... Though the people I spoke with (that have opinions I value) all agreed with our interpretation of the rules. We bagged one item that once inspected became a ROBOT and one really well constructed set of spare parts.

But you do bring up a good point! We did not bag our bumpers per R15:

All ROBOT elements (including items intended for use during the competition in alternative configurations of the ROBOT), with the exception of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE per R18, BUMPERS, and COTS items, must be bagged and sealed, by 11:59PM local time on Stop Build
Day, February 23, 2016 (refer to the Admin Manual Section 5 (5.3 Instructions for “Bag and Tag”).

But the ROBOT clearly includes BUMPERS:

The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game – power, communications, control, BUMPERS, and movement.

So we must have violated that rule too! ::rtm:: The admin manual says "robot" and not "ROBOT" and the two are different...

[FrankJ]

...But the ROBOT clearly includes BUMPERS:...

As pointed out in a different thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143561&highlight=unintended). The GDC has two definitions of robot. One with bumpers and one without bumpers. That avoids the parallax paradox of keeping the bumpers on the outside of the frame perimeter.

Actually I think the rules in this area (unlike pneumatic regulators) are fairly clear. The problems comes from people trying inject what they think the rules should mean rather what is actually written. We could always go back to the crate days when you had a fixed volume & payed a penalty if your crate was over weight.

On a parallel conundrum, I voted today in the primaries. You should to if you are able. And often.

[JamesCH95]

I was really peeved when I first read that a team had brought two robots (note the un-capitalized usage). But then I read through this thread and arrived at the conclusion that what the Zebracorns had done was perfectly legal by the letter of the rules.

(1) The withholding allowance does not apply because everything was bagged at the right time
(2) There is no rule precluding bagging an illegal ROBOT. This includes robots that have too many Athenas, too many radios, weigh roughly twice as much as they should, and violate the cost rule
(3) As long as the ROBOT that touched carpet was inspected as legal they violated no rules

It is a brilliant interpretation of the rules, and I applaud the Zebracorns for their critical thinking and confidence.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Was the practice robot, or "spare parts" as it was dubbed, re-bagged at the conclusion of the competition, or was left it out of a bag so that it could be used for practice and development leading up to the next competition?

[meg]

Was the practice robot, or "spare parts" as it was dubbed, re-bagged at the conclusion of the competition, or was left it out of a bag so that it could be used for practice and development leading up to the next competition?

Our spare parts were left unbagged and won't be returning to any other competitions excluding possibly some mechanisms weighing no more than 30 lbs.

[marshall]

Was the practice robot, or "spare parts" as it was dubbed, re-bagged at the conclusion of the competition, or was left it out of a bag so that it could be used for practice and development leading up to the next competition?

It was left unbagged. We have two district events we are still preparing for.

[Brandon Holley]

I would just like to point out - and @marshall please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your thought process...

But due to Palmetto being a week 0.5, there was absolutely no incentive to NOT bag the practice robot. They were not going to have any time to work on it as they were traveling and heading to the event anyway.

Had their first event been a week 1 or a week 2 - I'm wondering if you would have made the same decision?

-Brando

[marshall]

I would just like to point out - and @marshall please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your thought process...

But due to Palmetto being a week 0.5, there was absolutely no incentive to NOT bag the practice robot. They were not going to have any time to work on it as they were traveling and heading to the event anyway.

Had their first event been a week 1 or a week 2 - I'm wondering if you would have made the same decision?

-Brando

Absolutely correct.

[PayneTrain]

I would just like to point out - and @marshall please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your thought process...

But due to Palmetto being a week 0.5, there was absolutely no incentive to NOT bag the practice robot. They were not going to have any time to work on it as they were traveling and heading to the event anyway.

Had their first event been a week 1 or a week 2 - I'm wondering if you would have made the same decision?

-Brando

The way I see it, they paid $4000 with the minimum objective of extending their build season and get practice matches on an official field.

You can cry foul over all of the tangible (financial) reasons this sounds absurd but other than that it's pretty rational

[Dave McLaughlin]

It was left unbagged. We have two district events we are still preparing for.

I would just like to point out - and @marshall please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your thought process...

But due to Palmetto being a week 0.5, there was absolutely no incentive to NOT bag the practice robot. They were not going to have any time to work on it as they were traveling and heading to the event anyway.

Had their first event been a week 1 or a week 2 - I'm wondering if you would have made the same decision?

-Brando

This was my train of thought as well. It seems like 900 were able to gain a clear competitive advantage here by leveraging the fact that they were playing within a few days of bag day.

[PayneTrain]

This was my train of thought as well. It seems like 900 were able to gain a clear competitive advantage here by leveraging the fact that they were playing within a few days of bag day.

I'd say that as someone using it, the out of district system is the biggest cheat code sanctioned by FRC and pretty damning proof that the current system is farcical. If we qualify through to championships we can potentially field a machine over 100% from when we bagged it and have 24 hours of shop time to put it together if we were an IN/GA/NC team (we'll get 18)

[FrankJ]

This was my train of thought as well. It seems like 900 were able to gain a clear competitive advantage here by leveraging the fact that they were playing within a few days of bag day.

The other 63 teams they were competing against weren't playing within a few days of bag day? :]

[Dave McLaughlin]

The other 63 teams they were competing against weren't playing within a few days of bag day? :]

Did the other 63 teams bring two functional robots to the event and continue to develop and modify one while the other was competing?

[Nate Laverdure]

Did the other 63 teams bring two functional robots to the event and continue to develop and modify one while the other was competing?
Seems that they did not. Shame on them!

[BigRickT]

They found a loophole and exploited it... I will certainly not say that this was illegal. However, I certainly think this is against the spirit of what FIRST intended. Especially if parts were transitioned from the practice bot to the competition bot.

[FrankJ]

One of the things I like best about the FRC competition is watching the teams look around to see what works and trying to better their robots during the heat of competition. I think it is pretty common to see the better teams build complete mechanisms off the robot during the competition and add them as the rules allow. Maybe we need to eliminate bag & tag. Maybe we need to split FRC up into different divisions or classes. I would hate to see the rules get so restrictive that you only can run the one robot you brought in the bag without modification.

[Dave McLaughlin]

Seems that they did not. Shame on them!

Prior to bag day, there is little that FIRST does to mitigate the uneven playing field that is FRC. There are always teams that, at the current juncture, are more fortunate in terms of funding, resources, experience... etc. However, at competition, it is my opinion that this glaring disparity is mitigated to an acceptable extent. What you did before bag day (out of bag windows included for district teams) is what you get take out of the bag when you arrive at competition. That is the same for every team. For the teams that build 2 practice robots, to the teams that work until 11:59 on bag day to complete a single robot.

While legal, I think that what 900 has done has provided us a peak through the looking glass. In the arms race that to a large extent is FRC, the disparity between teams will only continue to grow if events like this are allowed to continue. Many teams in FRC build practice robots, and for good reason. But the vast majority, apparently 900 excluded, most likely operate on the understanding that the practice robot will remain a test-bed that stays at home while the competition robot goes away to play.

I commend 900 for identifying a way to gain a competitive advantage, however I am of the opinion that this one in particular pushes the bounds of being within the spirit of the rules.

[marshall]

But the vast majority, apparently 900 excluded, most likely operate on the understanding that the practice robot will remain a test-bed that stays at home while the competition robot goes away to play.

Not true! There were at least 3 that I saw sitting in trailers at load-in for Palmetto and I know the same is true for the Championship.

[Chris is me]

Prior to bag day, there is little that FIRST does to mitigate the uneven playing field that is FRC. There are always teams that, at the current juncture, are more fortunate in terms of funding, resources, experience... etc. However, at competition, it is my opinion that this glaring disparity is mitigated to an acceptable extent. What you did before bag day (out of bag windows included for district teams) is what you get take out of the bag when you arrive at competition. That is the same for every team. For the teams that build 2 practice robots, to the teams that work until 11:59 on bag day to complete a single robot.

While legal, I think that what 900 has done has provided us a peak through the looking glass. In the arms race that to a large extent is FRC, the disparity between teams will only continue to grow if events like this are allowed to continue. Many teams in FRC build practice robots, and for good reason. But the vast majority, apparently 900 excluded, most likely operate on the understanding that the practice robot will remain a test-bed that stays at home while the competition robot goes away to play.

I guess where I'm lost here is that I don't understand what contradiction of the spirit of the rule 900 did here? They finished everything before Bag Day, and put a robot plus a bunch of parts in bags. The parts were assembled to look like a robot - is that what the problem was? If it was just a huge garbage bag of spare assemblies, would it be better within the "spirit" of the rule?

If you build it within the six weeks, intend to use it at competition, and don't intend to use it before competition, you can put it in the bag. The only difference between this and a team bagging spare parts, is the number of parts involved and how they happen to be assembled. The spirit of the rule allows spare parts - does the spirit of the rule really outline what form the parts are in?

But really, bag day is ridiculous. Let's be done with this nonsense and just allow build up to and through competition already.

[Electronica1]

Not true! There were at least 3 that I saw sitting in trailers at load-in for Palmetto and I know the same is true for the Championship.

Yea, and a few year ago (2014 I think), FIRST put out a rule update making that illegal. I don't 100% remember, but I think there is an equivalent rule for this year.

Edit: never-mind, miss understood that update

[Chris is me]

Yea, and a few year ago (2014 I think), FIRST put out a rule update making that illegal. I don't 100% remember, but I think there is an equivalent rule for this year.

What is in your trailer isn't illegal at all - what FIRST did was make the withholding allowance defined at the beginning of the event. So you have to
"declare" what parts you'll be using and bring them in with you. Nothing against, for example, getting a completely COTS part off of a practice robot in the trailer and bringing just the COTS part into the arena after unload.

What the rule change ends up prohibiting is teams going "well I'm using 5 lbs of withholding right now, and 25 lbs when Major Mechanism A breaks on Saturday afternoon and I can just go get another one."

[Dave McLaughlin]

Not true! There were at least 3 that I saw sitting in trailers at load-in for Palmetto and I know the same is true for the Championship.

Thank you for clarifying, could you please elaborate as to if these robots were bagged or un-bagged? If they were un-bagged, and were brought to the event for what I assume would be the purpose of spare parts, when would the 30 lbs. for withholding come into play?

[PayneTrain]

What is in your trailer isn't illegal at all - what FIRST did was make the withholding allowance defined at the beginning of the event. So you have to
"declare" what parts you'll be using and bring them in with you. Nothing against, for example, getting a completely COTS part off of a practice robot in the trailer and bringing just the COTS part into the arena after unload.

What the rule change ends up prohibiting is teams going "well I'm using 5 lbs of withholding right now, and 25 lbs when Major Mechanism A breaks on Saturday afternoon and I can just go get another one."

I think the blue box that year was very specific about the trailer practice but if someone is going to bust your chops for grabbing a Talon off your pbot they probably need to be checked in somewhere.

[ASmith1675]

The question here, as I see it comes down to the following:

Is it more of advantage to bag your practice bot and have a bunch of spare parts at a competition, or is it a bigger advantage to be able to drive and test with your practice bot?

I think its pretty easy to make the argument that it is a bigger advantage to use a practice bot as a way to allow drivers to practice and programmers to tune in code after bag day. If this was not the case, we would've seen these a lot more of these robots bagged, and used exactly as they were in Palmetto, as assembled spare parts.

A week 0.5 event causes this assumption to be thrown out, as there is no time to either practice or code with the practice bot after bag day, so there is literally NO reason to not throw it in a bag to use as "spare parts". This advantage only comes up because of the inherent disadvantage of participating in a regional so close to bag day.

[marshall]

Thank you for clarifying, could you please elaborate as to if these robots were bagged or un-bagged? If they were un-bagged, and were brought to the event for what I assume would be the purpose of spare parts, when would the 30 lbs. for withholding come into play?

They were unbagged but make no mistake they were practice robots. I'm not sure when the 30 lbs would come into play to be honest. It seems to me like that happens at load-in. I never saw those robots or components being brought into the event so I am by no means accusing anyone of anything non-GP here... just pointing out that many teams do take their practice robots to competition.

[EricLeifermann]

Sounds like everyone who is complaining is jealous that they didn't get to do it/ didn't think of it as well.

It was 100% legal and incredibly smart, well done 900. I hope it helps you succeed this year.

[notmattlythgoe]

They were unbagged but make no mistake they were practice robots. I'm not sure when the 30 lbs would come into play to be honest. It seems to me like that happens at load-in. I never saw those robots or components being brought into the event so I am by no means accusing anyone of anything non-GP here... just pointing out that many teams do take their practice robots to competition.

Well, you don't want them to be all alone at home. They might feel abandoned.

[FrankJ]

What is in your trailer isn't illegal at all
I agree, but most of the LRIs I have talked wishes that it was so. The temptation to go grab the fabricated part to repair your broken robot can be pretty high in the heat of the moment. As Chris pointed out all your fabricated parts must be brought in at load in. Everything else stays in the trailer. Considering the creative interpretations of the bumper rules, i can where people will creatively interpret this rule as well.

[marshall]

Well, you don't want them to be all alone at home. They might feel abandoned.

Actually, leaving them unattended is how the robot uprising will begin.

[PayneTrain]

Well, you don't want them to be all alone at home. They might feel abandoned.

They're already pretty mad they didn't get picked to actually compete so...

[notmattlythgoe]

Actually, leaving them unattended is how the robot uprising will begin.

If you attempt to bring all of your past robots to the Rumble in the Roads this year I will be very disappointed. Impressed, but disappointed.

[notmattlythgoe]

They're already pretty mad they didn't get picked to actually compete so...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/27/a4/51/27a451e08a1bafae8e170a0ad03ef954.jpg

[marshall]

If you attempt to bring all of your past robots to the Rumble in the Roads this year I will be very disappointed. Impressed, but disappointed.

If we do then can we use the 2014 bot on this game? I feel like shooting a 2 foot exercise ball at a castle will be more entertaining.

[notmattlythgoe]

If we do then can we use the 2014 bot on this game? I feel like shooting a 2 foot exercise ball at a castle will be more entertaining.

If you do you have to yell BOOM every time you shoot it. This will simulate that you've invented cannons before everyone else.

[Michael Corsetto]

Depending on how this all shakes out, we may build four robots next year. Bag two and practice with two.

Robot breaks? No problem! Get the second robot inspected and keep playing!

I recommend FIRST sets a 150lb weight limit for all contents of the "bag".

-Mike

[notmattlythgoe]

Depending on how this all shakes out, we may build four robots next year. Bag two and practice with two.

Robot breaks? No problem! Get the second robot inspected and keep playing!

I recommend FIRST sets a 150lb weight limit for all contents of the "bag".

-Mike

Well, if 2 is better than 1. Obviously 4 is better than 2!

#4champs

[Dave McLaughlin]

Depending on how this all shakes out, we may build four robots next year. Bag two and practice with two.

Robot breaks? No problem! Get the second robot inspected and keep playing!

I recommend FIRST sets a 150lb weight limit for all contents of the "bag".

-Mike

I could not agree more, although we may have to settle for building 3.

[FrankJ]

Q. R18. "For Teams attending 2-Day Events, ... FABRICATED ITEMS constructed during the Robot Access Period and bagged with the ROBOT are exempt from this limit." Can the referenced "FABRICATED during Robot Access Period" items be direct replacement spare parts (not installed to the robot) as long as they are bagged with the robot? If yes, can they be bagged in a separate, tagged bag, for ease of transport?
2016-03-01 by FRC0234
A. Yes, any additional FABRICATED ITEMS built during the Robot Access Period may be bagged with the ROBOT, as per R18 of the Game Manual, or in additional bags, per Section 5.2 of the Admin Manual. Please be aware that Team Update 12 amended Section 5.2 of the Admin Manual to say that you may only use a maximum of two (2) bags.
Is the two bag limit going to be known as the Zebracorn amendment? Too bad they forgot to specify the bag size.:eek:

[EricLeifermann]

Depending on how this all shakes out, we may build four robots next year. Bag two and practice with two.

Robot breaks? No problem! Get the second robot inspected and keep playing!

I recommend FIRST sets a 150lb weight limit for all contents of the "bag".

-Mike

Better yet save your money and time and lets just get rid of Bag and Tag and call it even.

[engunneer]

They were unbagged but make no mistake they were practice robots. I'm not sure when the 30 lbs would come into play to be honest. It seems to me like that happens at load-in. I never saw those robots or components being brought into the event so I am by no means accusing anyone of anything non-GP here... just pointing out that many teams do take their practice robots to competition.

What is the purpose of bringing a unbagged practice bot to an event that can't be loaded in, and leaving it in the trailer? The only reason I can think of that isn't a big temptation to getting spare parts after load in: the trailer is the teams storage at the shop, and they don't have somewhere else to put them. I think that is unlikely to be the case for the majority of teams. I do hope they were not being used for spare parts at an event.

[PayneTrain]

What is the purpose of bringing a unbagged practice bot to an event that can't be loaded in, and leaving it in the trailer? The only reason I can think of that isn't a big temptation to getting spare parts after load in: the trailer is the teams storage at the shop, and they don't have somewhere else to put them. I think that is unlikely to be the case for the majority of teams. I do hope they were not being used for spare parts at an event.

If the spare parts are COTS parts, what is the issue?

[Michael Corsetto]

Better yet save your money and time and lets just get rid of Bag and Tag and call it even.

That would take us down from 4 robots to 2 robots in 2017, which would be a huge relief!

Now if only we could cut the number of 2017 FIRST Championships in half as well...

-Mike

[marshall]

That would take us down from 4 robots to 2 robots in 2017, which would be a huge relief!

Now if only we could cut the number of 2017 FIRST Championships in half as well...

-Mike

Well we might need 8 robots in that case...

[Libby K]

Another question my team had in relation to this conversation, could our team bring parts from our second robot as part of the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE to replace other parts on our bagged robot and then bring the parts from the bagged robot back to our workshop to install on our second robot?

From how I think I understand your question, yes - but remember if you don't bag it at the end of your first event, and it's fabricated - make sure it is in the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE for your next event's load-in if you want it back.

We bagged with 50lbs or so of ballast (machined for bolt holes & therefore not COTS steel), knowing we won't use it all... but can't bring it as WITHHOLDING. It'll all go back in the bag when we lock up again after unbag time & events, unless Frank surprises us all with a change to the bagging rules after this discussion. We want the ability to pop the individual plates in and out as we add/remove mechanisms, so in the bag they went.

[meg]

I could not agree more, although we may have to settle for building 3.

Honestly? With 3 you're better off not bagging the second and using one with programming and the other mechanical in the lab. The ONLY reason it made sense to bag the second robot was how close the competition + bag day was. 2 days at competition can't compete with weeks of time in the lab, imo

[marshall]

Is the two bag limit going to be known as the Zebracorn amendment? Too bad they forgot to specify the bag size.:eek:

I hope not. I want the end of bag day to be known as the Zebracorn amendment. We've proven how silly it is twice now... maybe it will take a third time though.

[meg]

Is the two bag limit going to be known as the Zebracorn amendment? Too bad they forgot to specify the bag size.:eek:

There was already a two bag limit actually. We had forgotten to put a few parts in those two bags, so shoved them in a trashbag. We were told that wasn't okay, so they ended up counting towards our withholding allowance. Had we not had enough weight in that, we would have had to leave it in the trailer.

[Keefe2471]

FRC is a tough challenge that causes wear and tear on robots over the course of the 3-4 competitions that some teams attend. I personally think that teams that have the resources to build a practice bot that is complete and finished enough to compete with their "real" robot also have the skills and know how to design a robot that doesn't break.

There are already rules that make sure the weight of all configurations sum to 120 pounds, so you can't bag different configurations without having issues. Also, any design that has enough fragility to warrant an entire robot worth of spares isn't going to do well. Even if you had unlimited weight to bring in, FRC is a game of attrition as much as anything else. The real competition in this game occurs during eliminations, and it's not likely you can replace entire mechanisms on your robot in a 5 min timeout.

Also, what about open bag time? Is there any limit on what goes on and comes off the robot during that time? If not, what prevents a team from bagging their spare robot in the open bag time before a district event? I could care less about how many spare parts each team brings in personally. I think that issues with upgrade parts are more of a challenge for FIRST to regulate and have the potential to exaggerate the differences between teams that have resources and those that do not, not spares of the same robot that was finished in the six weeks.

[meg]

Also, what about open bag time? Is there any limit on what goes on and comes off the robot during that time?

For open bag time for districts: If the parts are COTS, no limit. If they are not but were manufactured during the open bag time, then they can go on. If they were manufactured before the open bag time, they count towards the 30 lbs withholding allowance on an honors system to verify.

[Europa]

From how I think I understand your question, yes - but remember if you don't bag it at the end of your first event, and it's fabricated - make sure it is in the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE for your next event's load-in if you want it back.

We bagged with 50lbs or so of ballast (machined for bolt holes & therefore not COTS steel), knowing we won't use it all... but can't bring it as WITHHOLDING. It'll all go back in the bag when we lock up again after unbag time & events, unless Frank surprises us all with a change to the bagging rules after this discussion. We want the ability to pop the individual plates in and out as we add/remove mechanisms, so in the bag they went.

But for example, can we take a fabricated part off your bagged robot on a Thursday of a regional and take them back to your workshop on Thursday without the intent to re-bag them after the regional?

[Keefe2471]

For open bag time for districts: If the parts are COTS, no limit. If they are not but were manufactured during the open bag time, then they can go on. If they were manufactured before the open bag time, they count towards the 30 lbs withholding allowance on an honors system to verify.

Thanks

[EricDrost]

Well we might need 8 robots in that case...

Register a team in a north region and a team in a south region and win both half championships!

[Libby K]

But for example, can we take a fabricated part off your bagged robot on a Thursday of a regional and take them back to your workshop on Thursday without the intent to re-bag them after the regional?

Not if you intend to bring them back into the regional's venue that weekend.

[Europa]

Not if you intend to bring them back into the regional's venue that weekend.

It is not our intent to bring those parts back into the regional! Thank you for the help!

[z_beeblebrox]

Thanks for bringing back fond memories of this thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127552)...

[Nuttyman54]

What is the purpose of bringing a unbagged practice bot to an event that can't be loaded in, and leaving it in the trailer? The only reason I can think of that isn't a big temptation to getting spare parts after load in: the trailer is the teams storage at the shop, and they don't have somewhere else to put them. I think that is unlikely to be the case for the majority of teams. I do hope they were not being used for spare parts at an event.

I will give an example that I know of: In 2012, 971 brought their practice robot to the Sacramento regional and left it at the hotel. The intent was to allow them to continue refining code overnight with a working platform. It turns out that was a VERY good decision. The competition robot was unable to connect to the field on Thursday due to some software issues. 971 proceeded to set up some version of FMS in their hotel room, with the robot until the wee hours of Friday morning debugging. They downloaded new code to the comp bot at the venue on Friday and connected. In this scenario, the practice robot and none of its parts were ever close to entering the venue, but it was a very large part of 971 being able to compete (and win) the 2012 Sacramento Regional.

In more general terms, a team may not want to pull hard-to-get-to COTS parts off of their practice robot unless they need it, but having the practice robot at the event allows them the option should the comp bot break down. As long as it's COTS, it's legal. I'm not saying this is a good idea, it will certainly invite scrutiny, but it is still legal.

It's not actually THAT unrealistic that a team's trailer is the only storage space the team has. Apex Robotics 5803 currently has a closet at our school and our trailer as dedicated store space, but we almost didn't get the closet. Finding space that a school is willing to dedicate entirely to a robotics team (even just for storage) is non-trivial.

[meg]

What is the purpose of bringing a unbagged practice bot to an event that can't be loaded in, and leaving it in the trailer? The only reason I can think of that isn't a big temptation to getting spare parts after load in: the trailer is the teams storage at the shop, and they don't have somewhere else to put them. I think that is unlikely to be the case for the majority of teams. I do hope they were not being used for spare parts at an event.

I think the biggest reason would be for the COTS parts. You don't want to pull your practice bot apart unless you have to, but also want to make sure you have spares in case things break. Best of both worlds

[FrankJ]

...
There are already rules that make sure the weight of all configurations sum to 120 pounds, so you can't bag different configurations without having issues.

...
Also, what about open bag time? Is there any limit on what goes on and comes off the robot during that time? ...

As the rules currently are and how the Q&A have answered questions on this subject: The parts in excess of 120 lb can be taken off & put back on. You have to go through re-inspection though. If the total of the parts are less than 120 lb & inspected initially, they do not have to be reinspected.

Parts added in the district open bag time counts towards your fabricated parts weight allowance for that event. Parts fabricated during the open bag time don't. So if you are Zebracorn fast, you can fab up an extra robot (excuse me spare parts) during open bag and bag that.

[KJaget]

Register a team in a north region and a team in a south region and win both half championships!

I'll hold you personally responsible if Marshall tries to get the rest of us mentors on board with this idea [/angry old man fist shaking]

[marshall]

I'll hold you personally responsible if Marshall tries to get the rest of us mentors on board with this idea [/angry old man fist shaking]

Operation hydra-corn is go!

[Libby K]

Operation hydra-corn is go!

We'll use your address, you use ours?
#TeamUnither

[PayneTrain]

We'll use your address, you use ours?
#TeamUnither


#teamtether

[Libby K]

#teamtether

That's a REALLY long tether...

[dodar]

That's a REALLY long tether...

#TeamExtensionCords

[BigJ]

It's only about $114,500 of ethernet cable (by quick googling 'bulk ethernet cable' standards)

[marshall]

It's only about $114,500 of ethernet cable (by quick googling 'bulk ethernet cable' standards)

Sadly out of spec for a single cable but we can throw in some repeaters.

[GeeTwo]

It's only about $114,500 of ethernet cable (by quick googling 'bulk ethernet cable' standards)

No matter how you do the math, it makes more sense to outsource the tether to an ISP at each end. I wonder if we could get the ISP(s) to sponsor #teamvirtual ...